tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post1739440986473124232..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: Essential DoctrineJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-77705756001359680512009-04-11T22:25:00.000-04:002009-04-11T22:25:00.000-04:00I was doing some editing work on this blog and I n...I was doing some editing work on this blog and I noticed that I made <A HREF="http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/2008/08/essential-doctrine.html" REL="nofollow">a post</A> on this exact subject 4 years ago. I thought you guys might be interested in comparing how the idea has changed over the years.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-48669319934295227462009-04-07T10:06:00.000-04:002009-04-07T10:06:00.000-04:00Mason,Those are my thoughts on the Trinity exactly...Mason,<BR/><BR/>Those are my thoughts on the Trinity exactly. In part, what I have concluded is that though it is possible that one may not believe in the Trinity, it is only in the ignorance of it, and not believing in something else. All of the alternatives to the Trinity are unsatisfactory for some reason or another, but it is possible for some to honestly not to think much on the subject.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-30417905539904975442009-04-07T09:28:00.000-04:002009-04-07T09:28:00.000-04:00JC I think you strike a good balance here, and I a...JC I think you strike a good balance here, and I appreciate the tenor you take, thoughtful and gracious while still sticking to the core that really matters.<BR/><BR/>The categories you use here are helpful, and I think you are right to keep the core Christocentic, that seems very fitting and in line with the New Testament witness. <BR/>Also the focus on Christ as the absolute center and on Scripture as a witness to Christ has a nice Barthian ring to it. <BR/><BR/>I too have a hard time with fitting the Trinity here, but if pressed I think I’d put it in the first of your categories. Not that I expect everyone to get it, or think it is a prerequisite to saving faith, but I do think it is so close to the core that it is hard to place it elsewhere. <BR/>The distinction I would make is this… if you don’t have any exposure to the concept through no fault of your own then yes, following Jesus as Lord in the sense you lay out is perfectly sufficient to place you within orthodox Christianity. <BR/>If however you get to the point of understanding what the doctrine of the Trinity states (with or without the terminology) and yet reject it, this would place you outside the bounds of the Church. In other words I think that while “Christ is Lord” is something that must be believed, Trinity is something that must not be rejected.Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12865044615971862266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-15935025173988106832009-04-07T09:25:00.000-04:002009-04-07T09:25:00.000-04:00Thanks for your reply.I missed that link. thanks f...Thanks for your reply.<BR/>I missed that link. thanks for pointing it out.<BR/>You're right about Origen. I'm sorry I obviously didn't explain myself properly. He did indeed hold that before-Christ all were on the path to destruction but post-christ (when he wrote) he held that eventually all of creation, including every human being, will be redeemed. So in this sense no-one has gone to destruction. I agree that something needs to be there. After all the Gospel needs to be bad news before it can be good. Perhaps a re-wording woul help, such as "All people are seperated from God and deserve death/destruction due to thier sin"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01522794031978733696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-82013538257512945342009-04-07T00:32:00.000-04:002009-04-07T00:32:00.000-04:00"You put "All of mankind is on a path to destructi..."You put "All of mankind is on a path to destruction" in your Soteriologically Essential Doctrine<BR/>section. I was just wondering if this should actually be here. "<BR/><BR/>Even the Origenists, such as Gregory, believed that idea. Where Origen deviated from orthodoxy wasn't that all of humanity is on a path towards distruction, but that all of humanity has been saved from that path. The reason why it fits in the category is that Christ cannot be saviour if He is not saving us from something. <BR/><BR/>"Also, I wonder if its worth adding explicitally somewhere that Doctrine is not everything i.e. to avoid the Gnostic danger. Ones behaviour, when saved, will change to be more christ-like."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it is worth it to say that more explicitly in this particular essay. I provide a link to a post at the beginning of the essay that makes this very point in detail. It is our orientation towards Christ which is accounted as righteousness, not what we do, or what we believe.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-38696894988853787592009-04-07T00:28:00.000-04:002009-04-07T00:28:00.000-04:00Bethyada,As for the concept of foundational doctri...Bethyada,<BR/><BR/>As for the concept of foundational doctrine, I would say that most of those things fall under ecclesatically essential or distinctives. For instance, something can be foundational, and still be a distictive in the sense of its effacious in various contexts. Though I don't necessarily disagree. Perhaps it's a label that fits outside of my organization. I'll think about it.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-49005510812661887622009-04-06T13:50:00.000-04:002009-04-06T13:50:00.000-04:00Very interesting and enjoyable post.Very interesting and enjoyable post.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-67754940909104786002009-04-06T05:53:00.001-04:002009-04-06T05:53:00.001-04:00Hi Jc-Freak,You put "All of mankind is on a path t...Hi Jc-Freak,<BR/><BR/>You put "All of mankind is on a path to destruction" in your Soteriologically Essential Doctrine<BR/>section. I was just wondering if this should actually be here. It's not that I disagree with the concept but just wonder if it should be in the Ecclesiastically Essential Doctrine. The reason that I question it is partially to do with the early father Gregory of Nyssa. He was most probably a universalist. He held that non-believers will go to a lteral hell until such time as they have atoned for thier sins, at which time they will be released to eternity with God. It's not that I agree with him but simply that I don't see anywhere in scripture where his belief is deemed at heretical. Any thoughts?<BR/><BR/>Also, I wonder if its worth adding explicitally somewhere that Doctrine is not everything i.e. to avoid the Gnostic danger. Ones behaviour, when saved, will change to be more christ-like.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for you though prevoking posts. In Christ,<BR/>PeterAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01522794031978733696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-61564954662327019502009-04-05T01:14:00.000-04:002009-04-05T01:14:00.000-04:00I also think that salvation is when we focus on Ch...I also think that salvation is when we focus on Christ and less related to a set of beliefs. A man may have many wrong beliefs and be saved, another may have many right ones and not be saved. It depends what direction you are going. <A HREF="http://bethyada.blogspot.com/2007/01/thoughts-on-salvation.html" REL="nofollow">As I wrote previously</A><BR/><BR/><I>There is a point in time when we turn from hiding our face from God to looking at him; from walking our own way to walking towards him. This "point of time" may be identified as "salvation" but the issue is that we persevere in the direction we have chosen.</I><BR/><BR/>Also, to have wrong belief is much more significant if you choose this from previous correct belief. Wrong belief in a neophyte that is yet to be corrected is less concerning.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-67636929917575617392009-04-05T01:05:00.000-04:002009-04-05T01:05:00.000-04:00I would add the category foundational doctrine. I ...I would add the category foundational doctrine. I place creation and Fall here. It is not that an individual must hold this to be saved, or a church must hold it; but it is foundational to the gospel, the death of Jesus does not make sense without it.<BR/><BR/>There are several doctrines that are foundational to belief, but Christians can disbelieve them and still be Christian, it is just that they are inconsistent.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.com