DEFINING Christianity: The Bottom Line.

[coolbluehair]

How does the Christian respond when asked the following:

What is the BOTTOM LINE of Christianity, i.e. the non-negotiable, undebatable, absolute must "believe/do" that DEFINES Christianity as distinct among belief systems? What is it that an individual must BELIEVE or DO that establishes him/her as a Christian -- or identifies him/her as non-Christian if he/she has NOT believed or done this thing? What is it?

I'm trying to find someone on this site who will address this question.

[BeHereNow]

perplexed101

Here is a quote from your referenced Professor Gerhard Rempel.
It seems I was right after all.

"Luther's doubts about the extent of the Pope's power to indulge were, indeed, legitimate, for the question had never been definitively settled. Beyond that, however, he had implied an unorthodox way to salvation, and had begun the Reformation."

[MagusYanam]

Wow, I'm gone for just a day and already there are 20 new posts. While that's great, it does make it just a little harder for me to catch up. Okay, here goes.

What happened to divine revelation?
Doesn’t anyone believe in the revealed Word of God without historical background?
The OT’s message is that God will only side with one people/nationality. He is not accessible to the outsiders.
The NT message is that the Revelation of God is available to all persons. No exceptions. It does not matter when you were born, where you were born, the revelation of God is available to you. That is the Good News. Within that context, the life of Jesus is a great example of the Revealed Word of God.

The revealed Word of God has echoes throughout history. Why not believe in historical Word of God as well?

I won't disagree with you that the Revelation of God is available to all persons, but I will offer a caveat. There is scriptural justification for this in the Book of Jonah. Just yesterday Central Congregationalist had a guest sermon on the universalist message of Jonah - that God cares for all people, regardless of whether they are Jewish or Assyrian.

Jesus took that message and ran with it. Where previous generations had taught to love one's neighbours, Jesus taught to love one's enemies. Previous generations had taught to forgive once; Jesus taught to forgive seventy times seven times (in other words, as often as it takes). The Gospel is absolutely invaluable - without it, I doubt I would be able to believe at all in any kind of personal God.

I can also see why there was a counter-reformation. True, the catholic church certainly does not always honor its commitment to reason (fides et ratio), but at least there was always a place for reason. Martin Luther, on the other hand, defined philosophy as "the devil's whore"...

Judging by this quote and other similar quotes, it's hard for me to sympathize with the Reformation.

Understood - I'm not a big fan of Luther myself, much less one of Calvin. However (even though I attend a liberal Congregationalist church) I think of myself as an Episcopalian. The Church of England was the first to formulate reason as divine and a source of religious authority. I also admire the Catholic Church's capacity for reason and their ability to make much-needed change when necessary (Vatican II), though it seems they don't place as high a priority on a person's individual capacity to reason as the Anglicans and Episcopalians do - in place of reason as a source of religious authority, the Catholic Church has the Throne of Peter and the teaching magisterium thereof.

All the same, I highly prefer Catholicism to Protestant fundamentalism.

[Chancellor]

I recently came across a guy from the Church of Christ and he said that baptism is necessary for salvation.
They use this verse to prove that baptism is essential to salvation:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16 verse 16

According to Jesus' teachings Adultery is just as bad as looking at someone lustfully and murder is just the same as being angry for no justified reason. Therefore wouldn't it be correct to say that a believer is someone who believes, no matter to what extent he believes ? Therefore my question is this: "Is a believer(here I mean someone who has made Jesus Christ their Master/Lord by following his teachings and believing that He died and was resurrected to justify him before God) saved, or does he need baptism to finish the process?"

A better passage is Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

There is nothing inherent in repentance, believing, baptism, or anything else that God tells us to do to respond to the gospel call, that has any power to save us. Salvation is by God's grace through the faith that He gives us (see Ephesians 2:1-9). God's grace alone, as displayed in Jesus' propitiating death on the cross, is what does the actual saving. By propitiating I mean that Jesus' death not only atoned for the sins of God's elect but also appeased God's wrath on their behalf.

[BeHereNow]

MagusYanam: Christianity is dependent on the authority of the scriptures - without the Pentateuch, Isaiah and other books referenced by Jesus in his teachings, Christianity would have no contextual basis. Likewise, we require the Gospel for an account of Jesus' teachings.

And then:

The revealed Word of God has echoes throughout history. Why not believe in historical Word of God as well?

With the “as well”, I’m in agreement.
The true Word of God (Logos), as well the historical word of God (Bible).
There are some who can relate to the historical word of God as presented in the Bible.
Others can relate to the Word of God (Logos) without the Bible.
When you say Christianity has no contextual basis without the OT, that the message of Jesus is lost without the NT, I disagree. I believe there is an eternal truth in the life of Jesus that transcends the life of the Jews and the teachings of Paul. I believe that Jesus embodies the eternal Logos, and that the OT and NT are simply one expression of this. I believe that God has always favored all of his children, and that the view that the Jews were (are) his chosen people is, shall we say, self centered and incorrect.
I believe the message of Jesus is that each of us (all humans for all time) can connect with the eternal before death.

MagusYanam: The Gospel is absolutely invaluable - without it, I doubt I would be able to believe at all in any kind of personal God.

It may be that for you, this is the path. Others have had a personal relationship with God without having heard of Jesus. At least we can say they believe this with conviction equal to yours.
And of course some of us find this relationship is artificial and not necessary.

[perplexed101]

MagusYanam: Christianity is dependent on the authority of the scriptures - without the Pentateuch, Isaiah and other books referenced by Jesus in his teachings, Christianity would have no contextual basis. Likewise, we require the Gospel for an account of Jesus' teachings.

And then:

The revealed Word of God has echoes throughout history. Why not believe in historical Word of God as well?

With the “as well”, I’m in agreement.
The true Word of God (Logos), as well the historical word of God (Bible).
There are some who can relate to the historical word of God as presented in the Bible.
Others can relate to the Word of God (Logos) without the Bible.
When you say Christianity has no contextual basis without the OT, that the message of Jesus is lost without the NT, I disagree. I believe there is an eternal truth in the life of Jesus that transcends the life of the Jews and the teachings of Paul. I believe that Jesus embodies the eternal Logos, and that the OT and NT are simply one expression of this. I believe that God has always favored all of his children, and that the view that the Jews were (are) his chosen people is, shall we say, self centered and incorrect.
I believe the message of Jesus is that each of us (all humans for all time) can connect with the eternal before death.

MagusYanam: The Gospel is absolutely invaluable - without it, I doubt I would be able to believe at all in any kind of personal God.

It may be that for you, this is the path. Others have had a personal relationship with God without having heard of Jesus. At least we can say they believe this with conviction equal to yours.
And of course some of us find this relationship is artificial and not necessary.

You bring up a good point that is seldom looked at, If Jesus Christ as the Son of Man was created to be the Word of God, then who is to say that the Word of God didnt come to muslim prophets for they came from the seed of Abraham as well. How can it be explained that their prophecy speaks of a great day of wrath as well?

1. the phrase 'word of the Lord' is listed 255 verses and 48 as word of God.

2. every prophet carries the word of the Lord or word of God so as to give commandments with authority.

the following is an example of who is the Word of God:

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

the old covenant aspect is clearly outlined and shown as well whether christian or muslim agree.

source used to assert that Jesus Christ and all of the variable names was created:

Proverbs 8:22-36 and Colossians 1:14-19

If you find that im incorrect then please identify and cite your source that mesh with my given sources but portray a different explanation.

[BeHereNow]

perplexed101: If you find that im incorrect then please identify and cite your source that mesh with my given sources but portray a different explanation.

You are logically incorrect.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

If, within a culture, a camel has 20 names, it might still be true that in another culture a camel has a different name, and a different purpose as well. Same camel, different name and different purpose.

[perplexed101]

perplexed101: If you find that im incorrect then please identify and cite your source that mesh with my given sources but portray a different explanation.

You are logically incorrect.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

If, within a culture, a camel has 20 names, it might still be true that in another culture a camel has a different name, and a different purpose as well. Same camel, different name and different purpose.

does the purpose and outcome reach the same conclusion?

I.E. lets use nimrod:

Nimrod the founder of the tower of Babel known also as the leader with a bow. Upon the death of Nimrod his wife Nemoramus swore that Nimrod would reincarnate and his spirit would spread throughout the world. Nimrod who at one time tried to shoot an arrow at God from the top of the tower.

1. First of all im not familiar with all of the names that depict nimrod and perhaps there are quite afew.

2. Nimrod does not equate to anyone else but as a ruler

3. his purpose was different than that of Jesus Christ

conclusion: the outcome is nowhere near the same

[BeHereNow]

First, what does the name Nimrod mean?
It comes from the Hebrew verb marad, meaning “rebel.” Adding an “n” before the “m” it becomes an infinitive construct, “Nimrod.” (see Kautzsch 1910: 137 2b, also BDB 1962: 597). The meaning then is “The Rebel.” Thus “Nimrod” may not be the character’s name at all. It is more likely a derisive term of a type, a representative, of a system that is epitomized in rebellion against the Creator, the one true God. . . . Gilgamesh is Nimrod . . .Gilgamesh was a man who took control by his own strength. In Genesis 10 Nimrod is presented as a type of him. Nimrod’s descendents were the ones who began building the tower in Babel where the tongues were changed.

[perplexed101]

First, what does the name Nimrod mean?
It comes from the Hebrew verb marad, meaning “rebel.” Adding an “n” before the “m” it becomes an infinitive construct, “Nimrod.” (see Kautzsch 1910: 137 2b, also BDB 1962: 597). The meaning then is “The Rebel.” Thus “Nimrod” may not be the character’s name at all. It is more likely a derisive term of a type, a representative, of a system that is epitomized in rebellion against the Creator, the one true God. . . . Gilgamesh is Nimrod . . .Gilgamesh was a man who took control by his own strength. In Genesis 10 Nimrod is presented as a type of him. Nimrod’s descendents were the ones who began building the tower in Babel where the tongues were changed.

and here is more mentioning of nimrod/gilgamesh then:

http://www.leaguelineup.com/miscinfo.as ... 1050084796

[hamilrob]

catholics also believe they are in charge of the proper discernment of scripture.


...and now you know why there was a reformation

You GO, perplexed!!!