Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    That statement is absolutely true.
    
    The Bible tells us wonderful stories about Jesus, his life, his death,
    and his ressurrection.  Those stories are powerful.  Those stories are
    open and ambiguous.  Because of their ambiguity they do not tell us
    absolutely who Jesus is or how Jesus is important to people 2000 years
    after the event.  The stories by their simplicity and mystery can come
    alive for all times.  I believe that many more people would find
    inspiration in the Gospel if there was not so much rigid dogmatics
    invented from the outside.
    
                                 Patricia

    
    That statement is absolutely false.  Both the Old and New Testament
    teach us, and rather systematically, about God and how to know and
    please Him.
    
    The Bible is the Word of God.  We should expect that His intent is to
    teach us of Himself.  The Bible indeed testifies to this.
    
    jeff

    Emmet is all wet and his statements are a fallacy.  Paul was a church
    planter and was inspired under the Holy Spirit to pen the Word of God.
    The epistles of the Bible set the foundation for Systematic theology.
    
    -Jack

    Even Paul's writings do not contain a systematic theology.  They are
    letters to individual churches with suggestions regarding the issues
    that the church faces.
    
    THe best example of Dogma coming from individuals and not the church is
    all the literature and Dogma regarding the Trinity.
    
    There is a mystery recorded in the Bible regarding the nature of Jesus.
    Teacher, Lord, Physician, Unique Revelation from God, son of God, son
    of Man, Son of Mary, human, divine,  God, a God.  Jesus is all those
    things.  Interwoven into a number of different stories and
    interpretations.  Held as a diverse, mysterious, inspired stories into
    the nature of God, the nature of what is revealed to us about God by
    Jesus and by the Gospels they are compelling.
    
    Man has set the mystery in stone.  "God is three, persons of one
    substance, all equally God"  etc etc.   The doctrine attempts to make
    concrete that which cannot be made concrete.  You end up with something
    that can throw the whole religion into disrepute because the doctrine
    cannot be comprehended adequately by any human.  The doctrine cannot be
    comprehended at all by many humans.
    
    So rather than getting people stuck into trying to comprehend what it
    means to have three equal persons all being one God, why not just
    behold the mystery unfolded in the Biblical literature.  What purpose
    does it serve to insist on outmoded doctrine.  That is one example.
    
    
     

re Note 1123.4 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     Man has set the mystery in stone.  "God is three, persons of one
>     substance, all equally God"  etc etc.   The doctrine attempts to make
>     concrete that which cannot be made concrete.  You end up with something
>     that can throw the whole religion into disrepute because the doctrine
>     cannot be comprehended adequately by any human.  

        You are right, Patricia.

        In addition, attempts to re-formulate the Biblical teaching
        as infallible doctrine wind up weakening the Bible.  Instead
        of simply quoting the Bible, those who embrace systematic
        theology quote themselves, or their predecessors.  By their
        actions they make an implicit statement that the Bible is
        somewhat inadequate -- which is quite a damning indictment of
        a supposedly God-authored text!

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I never thought of it that way, but you are right.
    
    If the Bible was seen as adequate, then there would be no need to heap
    on top of it, systematic doctrine.
    
                                   Patricia.

    
    There is no contradiction in understanding the Bible's teaching that
    there are three Persons in the Godhead and saying at the same time," but
    I don't understand how that can be."
    
    There are other great mysteries which have been revealed to us in the
    Bible that also are beyond our comprehension but not beyond our
    acceptance.  This is necessarily so.
    
    jeff

    
    Bob,
    
    In all endeavors to ascertain formal knowledge it is completely
    appropriate to refer to sources more learned and intelligent than
    oneself.
    
    The Bible is a difficult book.  According to Ephesians, God has gifted
    men differently.  Included in the list are "pastors and teachers", one
    gift with two ministries.  It would be contradictory to acknowledge
    God's gifts to men but to reject the results of the exercise of those
    gifts, that is, superior understanding and communication of the
    Scriptures.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Can you please tell me where the bible says
    
    "There are three persons in the Godhead"  
    
    Or perchance is this the wisdom of those superior teachers!
    
    
    

    
    Patricia,
    
    Jesus, prior to His ascension, makes the following statement recorded
    in Matthew 28:18-20:
    
    ..."All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go
    therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the
    name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
    observe all that I commanded you..."
    
    I don't see how the language could be more clear.  However, the
    teaching of the Triune God is found throughout the Scriptures for those
    that are doubtful.
    
    jeff

    Also there is a verse in 1st John chapter 3 which states, 
    
    "For there are three that bear record in Heaven; The Father, the Word
    and the Holy Ghost and these three are one."
    
    -Jack

    Still, the canon does not say: "These three form the Godhead..."
    
    It simply says what it says.  Anything else is being foisted upon the
    canon from the outside, in this case literally by men.
    
    Richard
    

    
    So?!  What's your point, Richard?
    
    jeff

    So Richard:
    
    Are you a trinitarian or are you playing devils advocate here???!

1123.13

================================================================================
Note 581.6                    The Need for Dialogue                       6 of 7
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Luke 1.78-79"                     31 lines  30-AUG-1994 00:36
              -< A few thoughts about the nature of the question >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I'm very hesitant about responding to "What's your point?" type
questions.

Here's why:

	1.  If there is indeed a point to be gotten, I figure the reader
is intelligent enough to figure out what it is.

	2.  If there is indeed a point to be gotten, explaining it in public
is at best awkward and tedious, something like explaining a parable or a
humorous anecdote.  If you don't get it, you don't get it.  Maybe next time.

	3.  It's been my experience that if there is indeed a point to be
gotten, the one asking, "What's your point?" usually has a pretty good idea
what it is.  Confirmation is being sought, that's all.

	4.  I often say things to stimulate thinking, rather than having an
answer already formulated from which there can be no variance or from which
no new insights may be derived.

	Please understand, there's a great deal of margin for error built
into this way of looking at the question, "What's your point?" and I realize
that.  So if I'm totally off the wall (For our British readers: An American
expression roughly meaning outrageous, incoherent, non sequitur), I beg your
forgiveness.

Shalom,
Richard

PS  Doncha' just hate it when somebody assigns numerals in their answer?? ;-)

    .14
    
    I personally am a trinitarian.  However, I do see Fox's point quite
    clearly.
    
    Moreover, I don't make it habit of pointing out how unitarians
    (Unitarian Universalists and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example) are
    grievously in error by not being trinitarians.
    
    Richard
    

    
    I think you should update your list, Richard.  In it should be one that
    says, "I'm not communicating clearly, and I don't care" or something
    like that.
    
    jeff

    .17  Thanks for the advice, sarcasm and all.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    I'm not being sarcastic.
    
    jeff

    .19
    
    Right.
    
    Richard
    

   "The 'Plan of Salvation'...is as completely unknown in the Bible as
it is in the Koran.  There was never any such arrangement in the
universe, and the Bible does not teach it at all.  What has happened
is that certain obscure texts from Genesis, a few phrases taken here
and there from Paul's letters, and one or two isolated verses from other
parts of the Scriptures, have been taken out and pieced together by
divines, to produce the kind of teaching which seemed to them *ought*
to have been found in the Bible.  Jesus knows nothing of all this."

					-- Emmet Fox (1886-1951)

    
    Another false statement.  I would suggest that the author is rather
    ignorant of the Bible.
    
    jeff

    I would suggest that the author is less inclined to yield to doctrine
    than to the truth.  I would suggest others are oppositely inclined.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Sound doctrine is based on truth.  The two are completely harmonious
    and useful, actually indespensible to one another.
    
    jeff

    I don't think so.
    
    Richard
    

    Some scream that we must accept Jesus as our savoir.  Now that
    statement is fine until they go on and tell what it means to accept
    Jesus as our savoir.  Sometimes they go on to tell us we can ignore
    what Jesus tells us about love, ignore the wonderful parables he tells,
    ignore the facts of his human existence, and accept that God needed a
    human sacrifice who was perfectly unblemished in order to be able to
    forgive humans for the sins committed by Adam and Eve and passed along
    through the reproductive cycles to every man woman and child.
    
    Our sense of a heavenly father and our sense of love is shocked that a
    loving father could demand the sacrifice of his only son.
    
    But those few versus in Hebrews, Leviticus, and Paul, make it clear to
    the Doctrine Makers.  And unless we accept there wisdom,  we are
    heretics.
    
                          Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    I have seen you reject some of the parables here in this conference.
    Furthermore, I submit that rejecting Gods provision for sin is the
    ultimate act of contempt...even if it is done with a "thanks just the
    same" attitude.
    
    Another thing.  You tend to confuse love with tolerance.  Jesus had
    little patience with unrepented sin Patricia.  You may recall a little
    incident that happened in the temple...with the moneychangers.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1123.22 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     Another false statement.  I would suggest that the author is rather
>     ignorant of the Bible.
  
        Or it is merely another interpretation of the same evidence.

        Bob

re Note 1123.27 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Patricia:
>     
>     I have seen you reject some of the parables here in this conference.
>     Furthermore, I submit that rejecting Gods provision for sin is the
>     ultimate act of contempt...even if it is done with a "thanks just the
>     same" attitude.
  
        But what if it *isn't* done with a "thanks just the same"
        attitude, but is done out of a sincere search for the truth
        of the texts?  What if one rejects the notion of "Gods
        provision for sin" (as taught by traditional orthodoxy)
        because one really has studied the texts and believes that
        such doctrine really isn't there?

        This isn't contempt (except possibly for the earthly sources
        of earlier teaching) -- it is highest respect for the truth!
        (Regardless, I might add, whether the understanding is right
        or wrong.)

        Bob

    
    Romans is a very good example of a rather systematic treatment of the
    truths of the Bible, appropriately viewed as doctrine.
    
    jeff

    Jack,
    
    My point is that people like you and those you learn your theology from
    have added a whole lot to what Jesus actually says is the requirement
    and then insist that rejecting THEIR human requirements is rejecting
    God.
    
    Jesus never said, you have to believe in me.
    Jesus said you have to love God and neighbor.
    
    Christianity surpasses Gnosticism in that God's love is revealed for
    everyone.  There is no secret path one must follow for spiritual
    enlightenment.  What is required is plainly written in the Gospels. 
    Taken bits and pieces of the New Testament and linking it with bits and
    pieces of the old testament and proclaiming Dogma and Doctrine that
    must be accepted is Gnosticism all over again.
    
    The Scriptures as they are as sacred literature are adequate in
    themselves to inspire us.  The scriptures as they are, take on new
    meaning for each one of us depending on exactly where we are and what
    we need in our lives.  The depth and richness in the scriptures come
    from the mystery and ambiguity in them. Life is ambiguous.  Life is
    mysterious.  
    
    Let the scriptures themselves meet the emotional, spiritual,
    psychologigal needs we have as we read them.  Dogma and Doctrine is
    second order reflection.  It is important, but it is not timeless.  An
    atoning sacrifice is a dogma that onely makes sense within a mythical
    sacrificial system.  
    
    But God's love, that is expressed in every book of the Bible is
    timeless.
    
                            Patricia

    Jeff,
    
    The book of Romans is the book in the Bible that comes closest to a
    systematic theology, but it is not a systematic theology.
    
    The book of Romans is full of ambiguities and inconsistencies.
    
    The book of Romans is  one man's attempt at articulating what he
    wanted the Romans to hear from him at that particular moment in time
    for a particular purpose, probably to get the Romans to fund his
    journey into Spain and beyond.
    
                                          Patricia

>    Jesus never said, you have to believe in me.


      So who was John quoting in John 3:16?

     "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that
      whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life


    > Jesus said you have to love God and neighbor.
    

      He also said "ye must be born again", and "I am the way and the truth
     and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me".



 Jim

    ZZZ    Jesus never said, you have to believe in me.
    
    On the contrary, Jesus made this quite clear in the gospels.  In fact,
    Jesus clearly states this to a member of the Sanhedrin in John chapter
    3 and the whole text of the chapter is an interview Jesus gave to
    Nicodemus.  
    
-    Verily verily I say unto you, you must be born again.  
    
-    He who believe is not condemned but he who does not believe is condemned 
     becasue he did not believe in the name of the only begotten son of God.
    
    There are of course many many other passages regarding this but this
    should suffice.    In fact, I believe the message of the New Testament
    is so rich with this teaching that anybody who faces God will plainly
    be without excuse.  
    
    There is more than one type of love Patricia.  I love my dog....I love
    popcorn...I love God....I love sex....I love my sister!  The first
    commandment was to love God with your heart, soul and mind.  The second 
    was to love your neighbor as yourself...it isn't the first commandment
    mind you but the second.  These two commands sum up the law and the
    prophets.  
    
    This is why I boldly stated that to deny Gods provision for sin is an
    act of contempt toward a holy sovereign God.  It is a violation of the
    first commandment of loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
    
    -Jack

    
    RE .31

    > Jesus never said, you have to believe in me.

    Jesus did say that you must believe in his message. Believing in him
    and believing his message are too tightly entwined to separate. How can
    one believe his message without believing in his identity and authority
    to convey the Word? Likewise, one cannot believe in the true Christ if
    they do not believe or follow his message of love of God and humanity.

    So I guess I disagree with your statement as it is. I just don't think
    that holding a literal, inerrant interpretation of the KJV Bible is the
    only way (or even *a* way) to know Jesus.

    Eric

    
    re .34

>     This is why I boldly stated that to deny Gods provision for sin is an
>     act of contempt toward a holy sovereign God.  It is a violation of the
>     first commandment of loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind.

    I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone is denying the provision for
    sin or mankind's propensity to sin. What has been questioned is the
    concept that we are born into a *state* of sin. That the condition of a
    baby at birth is sinful, and by definition impure and evil. This is
    what I deny, and I think Jesus did too.

    Eric

    Eric:
    
    ZZZZZ    Jesus never said, you have to believe in me.
    
    Now....what was that you were saying about somebody rejecting the
    provision??
    
    By the way, thanks for your kind words!
    
    -Jack

    .32
    
    Amen.  It sounds like you've done your homework, Patricia.
    
    Richard
    

    Yes, what a testimony of faith it would be for a chosen vessel of God
    and a prophet no less to attempt to lobby the Roman government for
    funding to Spain and beyond.  What an incredible way to save God the
    trouble of providing for Pauls needs...especially since it was God who
    sent Paul in the first place. 
    
    -Jack

    
    RE .37
    
    I don't understand what you're saying here.  
    
    Eric
    

    I thought it would be obvious to you that I was talking about the Roman
    Christian Church to whom the letter to the Romans was sent.
    
    Paul was asking the Roman Christian Church to support his missionary
    activities into Spain and beyond!.
    
    
                                    Patricia

    Okay, my misperception.
    
    

    This is in reply to the Rat Hole in the Non Fiction discussion.
    
    Patricia, why are you getting all huffy with me??  I thought my analogy
    was quite appropriate and worthy of at least a thought out reply.
    
    If you have any hopes of being a spiritual leader in a church, then you
    need to learn patience.  Lord knows I've been patient with you in the
    past! :-)
    
    -Jack

    .44
    
    I doubt that you'd be joining Patricia's flock, Jack.
    
    Richard
    

    ZZZ    I doubt that you'd be joining Patricia's flock, Jack.
    
    This would make sense since I don't subscribe to her theology!  I'm
    merely stating that she will lose members of her flock if she responds
    the way she did to me in the other note!
    
    -Jack

    .45
    
    Well, maybe.  But I don't think it's as much of a worry as you
    apparently do.
    
    Richard
    

    Yes, I think it is something everybody who believes in following Christ 
    should concern themselves with.  I am quite frankly sick and tired of 
    Pastors out there who are complacent in their own world of thinking
    without expanding their horizons.
    
    Pastorship is not a job, it is a ministry!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I am very tired of your telling me what you assume I believe and then
    preceeding to show how what you assume I believe is wrong.
    
    I am very tired of Jeff telling me how irrational and wrong I am.
    
    I have gone into great detail in explaining what I mean by "being born
    again".  Ultimately it rests that neither you nor Jeff agreeing with
    me.  So be it.  You don't have to agree with me.
    
    I do think it would be interesting if you and Jeff continued the
    discussion without me and came to the conclusion that the two of you
    didn't agree on what the term means either!
    
    Go for it.

    Okay...fine with me.
    
    Jeff:
    
    Do you believe as I do that Jesus said no man cometh unto the Father but 
    by me??? (John 14:6)
    
    Do you believe that no man cometh unto the Father except the Spirit of
    God draw him??
    
    Do you believe that being saved is a supernatural act on the part of
    Jesus Christ...and that we are the receivers of the gift of eternal
    life?
    
    Do you believe that we are saved by grace through faith, and that all
    our works of righteousness are as filthy garments in the eyes of a Holy
    God?
    
    Do you believe that apart from the Spirit of God, we can do nothing?
    
    Do you believe that in order to be born again, we must allow the Holy
    Spirit to dwell in us through the redemptive power of Jesus Christ?
    In other words, is receiving the Holy Spirit dependent upon weather or
    not we receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
    
    Do you believe that after being born again, we die to our old selves
    and take upon ourselves Jesus' righteousness?
    
    I believe these points are supported by scripture.  "Thy Word is a lamp
    unto my feet and a light unto my path!"
    
    -Jack

    Sorry Patricia, but I assume you believe the way you do because that is
    the way you're communicating your beliefs to me.  
    
    I find you continually focus on the flood waters overcoming the bank
    when all's you need to do is go a mile up stream and turn off the dam.
    
    -Jack

>    I find you continually focus on the flood waters overcoming the bank
>    when all's you need to do is go a mile up stream and turn off the dam.

I've heard of mixed metaphors and this is one of the better ones I've
ever heard.

'Turn off the dam'? Wouldn't that just aggrevate the flood waters
overcoming the bank?

Normally, I get a sense of what Jack is saying. I confess that this isn't
one of those times.

TTom

    Jack, 
    
    First of all, obviously your not sorry, so don't say you are.
    
    Second, you assume that I believe the way you assume, because you have 
    a bad habit of assuming.
    
    I love you as a brother, jack, but you can be damn irritating at times!

    
    Re.50
    
    Jack!  Haven't you stopped doing that *yet*?
    
    Before when you used to do that to me, I would just sit back at my
    terminal and be totally amazed at the difference between what I was
    intending, what you assumed I was intending, and then the conclusions
    you'd draw based completely on your own assumptions of what I was
    intending, which had absolutely nothing (in most cases) to do with 
    reality.
    
    Cindy  

    Patricia:
    
    Since my tone is pretty standard as it has been, I have to ASSUME you
    are simply having a bad day so we'll leave it at that.  Re: I'm
    sorry...well, saying I'm sorry at times is the equivalent of saying Good
    Morning.  Sometimes, you don't really mean good morning but it is a
    form of salutation.  Instead, I'll just say, "I empathize" or "I
    sympathize".
    
    I'm sorry you're having a bad day today!
    
    -Jack

    
    Yes, Jack, I agree that the Bible says what you stated!
    
    jeff

    Jack,
    
    There are a few standard ways that men sometime react to attempt to
    marginalize women.
    
    1.  Is to say, they must be having a bad day, they must be getting
    their period etc.
    
    2.  The other is to call them irrational.  i.e. then no one has to
    listen to them anyways.
    
    Between you and Jeff you have managed to do both.  It's irritating.
    
    
    Second, the issue of your fabricating what you assume I believe and
    then criticizing what you fabricate, is irritating.   
    

    So both of you believe that all your acts of good works are dispised
    by God?

>    Jack,
>    
<    There are a few standard ways that men sometime react to attempt to
>    marginalize women.
    
>    1.  Is to say, they must be having a bad day, they must be getting
>    their period etc.
    
>   2.  The other is to call them irrational.  i.e. then no one has to
>    listen to them anyways.
    
>    Between you and Jeff you have managed to do both.  It's irritating.
 
       
    Marginalize women?  Me?  I love women and value their contributions. 
    Your constant attempts to blame men for your own shortcomings is silly,
    Patricia.  If you were a man your arguments would still be irrational!  
    
   jeff

    Patricia:
    
    Since we are in the mode of communication and getting to know each
    other better, let me start off by saying I don't consider it a victory
    that you are irritated.  If you go back a few notes, you will see I was
    trying to lighten our differences a little by saying I assume you are
    having a bad day, then stating I won't say I'm sorry anymore, then at
    the end saying I'm sorry you are having a bad day.  I said I was sorry
    and said you had a bad day...turning an assumption into a factual
    statement.  It was put in there to get out of serious mode for once....
    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
    
    
    
    It's a jolly holiday with Trisha....
    Trisha makes my life so right.....
    When the day is dark and ordinary....
    Patricia makes it all seem riiiight.....
    
    Wheenn Patricia holds your hand...ya feel so grand....
    Like a trumpet section in a big brass band....
    Ohh it's a jolly holiday with Trisha...
    Remember it is Trisha that we love!!!!
    
    
    Now back to our regularly scheduled program.  Patricia, why do you have
    to make everything a gender issue.  That's irritating too!  
    
    -Jack  

    
    No. Born again Christians are saved unto good works.  But we do good
    works to please God, not to claim merit or glory which belongs only to
    Him.  Furthermore, the only way our works can be identified as good is
    that they are the works defined in the Bible as being good.
    
    jeff

    
   > Do you believe that we are saved by grace through faith,< and that all
   > our works of righteousness are as filthy garments in the eyes of a Holy
   > God?>

    Patricia:
    
    Yet another possibly stupid parallel but I'll use it anyway.
    
    Assume for a minute you and your husband are happily married, then one
    day you find out the shocking news your husband has been having an
    affair with another woman for the last four months.  
    
    You ask him if this is the case, he sheepishly admits his guilt, you
    leave the house in despair.  About five minutes later your husband
    says, "Hey, Patricia has always been a very tidy individual. 
    Therefore, if I wash and wax her car, clean the kitchen tile with a
    toothbrush, vacuum the carpets, paint the walls of the bedroom......
    (add about fifteen things here), then SURELY our relationship will be
    reconciled and all will be forgiven.  Yes...this is what I must do."
    
    In scenario 2, your husband comes to you one day, admits to you on his
    own he has been cheating on you, with deep sorrow, crying before you,
    he asks for your forgiveness.  Now this may or may not merit your
    favor...and I can understand if you couldn't marry him.  But I ask
    you...
    
    Which one of these scenarios goes hand in hand with redemption and 
    justification?  The question calls for a rhetorical answer.
    
    Now, scenario three...you are happily married and your husband cleans
    the house for you...because he wants to show his affection and care for
    you and meet your needs.  This kind of work is pleasing to you as his
    wife.  The work in scenario 1 is most likely going to be meaningless
    to you...or as a filthy rag!
    
    -Jack

re Note 1123.49 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Do you believe as I do that Jesus said no man cometh unto the Father but 
>     by me??? (John 14:6)
>     
>     Do you believe that no man cometh unto the Father except the Spirit of
>     God draw him??
>     
>     Do you believe that being saved is a supernatural act on the part of
>     Jesus Christ...and that we are the receivers of the gift of eternal
>     life?
>     
>     Do you believe that we are saved by grace through faith, and that all
>     our works of righteousness are as filthy garments in the eyes of a Holy
>     God?
>     
>     Do you believe that apart from the Spirit of God, we can do nothing?
>     
>     Do you believe that in order to be born again, we must allow the Holy
>     Spirit to dwell in us through the redemptive power of Jesus Christ?
>     In other words, is receiving the Holy Spirit dependent upon weather or
>     not we receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
>     
>     Do you believe that after being born again, we die to our old selves
>     and take upon ourselves Jesus' righteousness?
  
        I certainly believe in all of the above myself, yet I reject
        the conclusion that one must accept orthodox Christian
        doctrine in order to place one's reliance in the salvation
        offered by God.

        I also reject the rejection of God's other sincere seekers by
        those who profess orthodox doctrine.

        Absolutely *none* of the above explicitly requires knowledge
        of and assent to doctrine beyond "I need God's help, I accept
        it."

        Bob

 ZZ   Do you believe that after being born again, we die to our old
 ZZ   selves and take upon ourselves Jesus' righteousness?
      
  CC          I certainly believe in all of the above myself, yet I reject
  CC          the conclusion that one must accept orthodox Christian
  CC          doctrine in order to place one's reliance in the salvation
  CC          offered by God.
    
    Bob, how do you explain Jesus' words, "Except a man be born again, he
    can not see the kingdom of God."  And what do you mean by orthodox
    Christian doctrine.  I ask because you stated you believe all of the
    above yourself.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1123.64 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Bob, how do you explain Jesus' words, "Except a man be born again, he
>     can not see the kingdom of God."  And what do you mean by orthodox
>     Christian doctrine.  I ask because you stated you believe all of the
>     above yourself.
  
        I don't presume to offer authoritative explanations of Jesus'
        words. 

        How would I explain?  Easy. "Born again" is synonymous with
        "saved" is synonymous with "accepting God's help".

        Since you don't know what "orthodox Christian doctrine" might
        mean, I would suggest reading the Apostles' or Nicean Creed.

        Bob

    ZZ        I don't presume to offer authoritative explanations of Jesus'
    ZZ        words. 
    
    Since we are called to fulfill the great commission in Matthew 28, it
    would make sense that one who is making disciples would do so under the
    guise and authority of the Holy Spirit.
    
    You appear to treat eternal life as if it were a total mystery, i.e.
    nobody can ever know until they die.  I believe the scripture reveals
    enough to us in order to know that there is an eternal life or eternal
    judgement, that eternal life must come under God's terms and not our
    own, and that eternal life is available to all who choose eternal life.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    the whole thing about faith, about letting go and relying on God, is
    that there is no certainty.  If we trust God, we trust God even if we
    cannot know how things will work out.
    
    Even the Bible says that Faith is in believing that which cannot be
    known.  The Bible says a whole lot of different things about what
    eternal life is and means.  It says enough different things to wrap
    the whole subject in  mystery. 
    
    For instance, Romans 6 say that when we are Baptised, we are baptised
    into a death like Jesus' so that we may
    
    Be resurrected like Jesus?  No!
    
    So that we may walk in newness of life.
    
    A human need for certainty is exactly what needs to be given up in
    order to live by Faith.  True faith is to trust in God and be ready to
    walk forward with God, even as we do not know what God has in store for
    us.  The Bible does not provide us with certain answers.  The Bible
    provides us inspiration through a metaphorical language.  It is the
    language of Faith,  i.e. believing in that which cannot be seen.
    
    Anything else perverts the very thing that the seeker is seeking.  
    i.e. Faith in a wholly other, unseen God.

re Note 1123.66 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     ZZ        I don't presume to offer authoritative explanations of Jesus'
>     ZZ        words. 
>     
>     Since we are called to fulfill the great commission in Matthew 28, it
>     would make sense that one who is making disciples would do so under the
>     guise and authority of the Holy Spirit.

        I do offer Jesus' words, but to offer my own "explanations"
        as authoritative would be to make disciples of me, not Jesus.


>     You appear to treat eternal life as if it were a total mystery, i.e.
>     nobody can ever know until they die.  

        Hardly -- but I may not be offering what you insist on
        receiving.

        Bob