Mustard Seed
New member
Fensanity said:
Do you believe such is a requirement? That one must physicaly view Christ?
Aimiel, can you elaborate on your title as "prophet"?
- Thread starter The Berean
- Start date
- Status
Do you believe such is a requirement? That one must physicaly view Christ?
Christianity has diversity within unity. Autocratic organizations like the Watchtower and the LDS church have uniformity. The divisions in Christianity are not usually over salvific, essential truths, but relate to cultural, style, or governmental issues (i.e. those that are true believers vs nominal, liberal churches).
Mustard Seed
New member
Fensanity said:
Living ones? Who?
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
You can't even agree on what is or isn't salvific, essential truths.
Mustard Seed said:
Example? All true Christians affirm the Deity of Christ, His resurrection, and grace/repentant faith to appropriate His finished work of redemption. We all reject works as necessary to earn salvation.
We differ about eschatology, modes of baptism, styles of worship, church government, spiritual gifts, etc.
There are some minor sects that have issues. Give an example of a significant doctrine and denomination and how it differs from most believers. Catholics are an exception since they are not Protestant, yet they affirm the Trinity, Deity of Christ, resurrection of Christ, virgin conception, etc.
Fensanity said:
There is a difference between the original apostles who saw Christ and the leadership gift for the Church Age in Ephesians 4 (cf. OT prophets who contributed to Scripture are not identical to the prophetic office in the local church in Acts and Eph. 4).
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
There's even a conflict above. Baptism for example. You say that all reject works as necessary for salvation yet in the same breath you admit that you don't agree on what constitutes baptism. Since baptism, depending on the mode of it, can be a work. You are inherently banning from Christianity all through the ages who felt they had to receive a physical baptism for salvation.
Catholics are one (though certainly not the only) who throw a kink in your proposed essential, salvific, items with regard to the mentioned conflict between modes of baptism and works. Are they Christian? If so why the exception?
Mustard Seed said:
Some Catholics trust the Church, ritual, baptism, good works, etc. for salvation. They are not saved. The Catholics who trust Jesus for salvation, whether they were infant baptized or not, can be saved through faith. Not all Catholics are good Catholics or practice what they are taught.
If someone trusts Christ alone for salvation (His finished work) and affirms His Deity and resurrection, they can be saved since*a wrong view of baptism would not negate their saving faith. There are legalistic groups in Christianity that go beyond the criteria God sets out. This does not necessarily mean that they do not have sufficient understanding, simple faith, or salvation. The trappings they add are not acceptable, but they do not negate the love and grace of God.
Trusting a counterfeit Christ or gospel is another matter. If someone trusts the Jesus of the Watchtower (Michael the Archangel), they are not saved because a counterfeit Christ cannot save them.
The majority of Christian groups do not see baptism as a salvific issue. The ones who do, usually have a root of saving faith but misunderstand the nature of baptism. God honors faith, not theological perfection.
The LDS view on God and Jesus puts them outside of Christianity. Being baptized as a Mormon is irrelevant if one has a false god.
Mustard Seed
New member
So a Catholic who really, at their core, deny Catholicism, are the only ones who are saved.
These legalistic groups have a convenient grey area. I always thought God promised to spew out the lukewarm. How do you view that statement of Christ? What is lukewarm?
I also still find it amusing that for one being against organization you seem to have this very clearly in your head as to who is and isn't saved.
Again you cannot even decide on what is and isn't salvific, one reason being, you cannot definatively define who is in and who is not in what you view to be Christianity.
What about Stephen? Was he outside of Christianity for reporting to have seen God in the same way that Joseph Smith did?
These legalistic groups have a convenient grey area. I always thought God promised to spew out the lukewarm. How do you view that statement of Christ? What is lukewarm?
I also still find it amusing that for one being against organization you seem to have this very clearly in your head as to who is and isn't saved.
Again you cannot even decide on what is and isn't salvific, one reason being, you cannot definatively define who is in and who is not in what you view to be Christianity.
What about Stephen? Was he outside of Christianity for reporting to have seen God in the same way that Joseph Smith did?
Mustard Seed said:
God alone knows the heart and who is saved. I am not against God's organization or church. I am against religious organizations that deceive people.
A Catholic could love Jesus (they affirm the Deity/resurrection of Christ and the Trinity) and have some areas of wrong teaching. We are saved by faith in Christ, not perfect knowledge. Many Catholics are nominal and merely religious. This is another story.
Many legalistic groups are zealous and passionate for God. They just go too far and add external things that God does not. The Bible warns about license and legalism. It does not say legalists are automatically unsaved. They need to grow in grace and love and differentiate God's law of love from man's trappings.
Stephen saw the Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith made up a story or saw an angel of light (demon) since He teaches the plurality of gods, another false Christ, another gospel, etc. A legitimate vision of God is not in the same category as a vision that is from the dark side.
Let's start here: monotheism, Deity of Christ, resurrection of Christ, faith in Christ alone apart from works for salvation are essential truths that evangelical Christians hold in common. Nominal denominations preach a social gospel of works and some liberal ones deny these biblical foundations. Some started off as biblical groups and have become nominal as they compromised over the years. There may be genuine believers and renewal movements within these denominations, but a return to a Bible and Christ-centered gospel is the only way to bring life to them again.
Baptism is not a salvific issue. Baptismal regeneration is a heresy. JWs and Mormons make too big an issue of denominational differences. A Billy Graham crusade unites the vast majority of churches. When I pastored in a small town, our ministerial had tremendous unity in reaching the community for Christ, despite our peripheral doctrinal differences. Just because I believe in speaking in tongues was not a reason to be divided from those who teach the gifts have ceased. We have tremendous unity, including essential doctrinal unity. You are used to uniformity and a centralized, autocratic organization (cf. JW) that does not tolerate any significant deviation. Mind control, reading the same literature at the same time, etc. is not the same as the supernatural love and unity between true believers.
Mustard Seed
New member
Fensanity said:
As having a right hand, and having the Son on his right hand.
This brings up a curious matter. Do you, Fensanity, believe that God the Father has "parts" that is anything that make up his substance?
Mustard Seed said:
The Father is not a man with body parts. He is the invisible God. "Right hand of God" is an expression referring to His power and authority. He saw the Son of Man, but it is not explicit what He saw as a manifestation of the Father (see John 1 that shows God's essential glory is not seen, but is manifest in the incarnation of the Word, God made visible). If the Father has a form, it is a theophany, not His essential, uncreated nature before creation. The LDS idea of the Father as a man is grievous (We won't get into Brigham's Adam-God nonsense).
Jn. 4:24 God is spirit, not a spirit in a body. Jesus is the God-Man. He alone has the nature of Deity and flesh.
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
God is love. I am spirit. Who are you to decide what the scriptures mean. Where's your authority? Ohh... wait. Your not with the Body paradigm of the church, rather the ambiguous mass of a single pathogene, every piece having the same authority of the other. How do you know what Stephen saw or didn't see? convenient that he was dead right after saying that so there's NO way that we could know what he really meant unless God, through personal revelation, revealed it to someone. Has God revealed such to you godrulz? Has God told you what Stephen meant?
Mustard Seed
New member
Fensanity said:
As much as I'm permited to. Certainly.
Mustard Seed
New member
Fensanity said:
Where's this going?
- Status