What's the point of debating with Christians?

[postroad]

They decide which texts are literal and which are allegory. They decide what a word really means.

I find it a bit depressing. I could even cope with it if they came to a consensus. I'm thinking of Paul's use of the Hebrew Scriptures. He simply had no respect for context or even the correct rendering?

Apologists will claim he had the authority under Holy Spirit to do so. Are believers claiming the same authority when they bend the texts to fit their beliefs?

Is that what is meant by Spiritual discernment?

I find it particularly disturbing when I'm accused of eisegesis when assuming the literal interpretation of a text. I'm required to defend the plain reading and accused of attempting to force the text into a preconceived interpretation simultaneously?

[PinSeeker]

But here again, this doesn't disqualify hyper-Calvinists as Christians, it just makes them... wrong... about that particular thing.

Wrong you say, how is this not an disagreement over salvific matters?

Hyper-Calvinists would still agree -- wholeheartedly -- that God saves because of the work of Jesus on the cross. As would all other Christians. This is the only true salvific issue there is and thus the only one that is really make or break as far as being a Christian. And there is no disagreement on it among Christians.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 50 by PinSeeker]

This is the only true salvific issue there is and thus the only one that is really make or break as far as being a Christian. And there is no disagreement on it among Christians.

And yet, if I talk to an Evangelical, they're likely to raise a stink over the fact Roman Catholics tend to baptise infants rather than adults, and sprinkling rather than immersion. What do you think is the reason behind such a disagreement?

[PinSeeker]

As for Catholics... a couple of things to say, here:

1. Many would argue that Catholicism not a Christian, uh, "sect," as you put it. This is not to say, however, that no Catholics are Christians. Many would regard Catholicism -- for different reasons -- along the same lines as Mormonism.

2. What Catholicism teaches regarding baptism, while wrong, is not the reason for #1 above.

Regarding baptism, all Christians would argue that baptism is necessary, but the disagreement is regarding what saving baptism is and by whom this effectual baptism is really administered. The baptism of men (people) is an outward sign -- a sacrament. Inward baptism -- effectual, saving baptism -- is an inward seal of the covenant and a thus work of the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14). It is well and good to be baptized outwardly, but baptism by and in the Holy Spirit only is salvific and occurs at the moment of salvation, where the Holy Spirit places a believer into permanent union with Christ and with other believers in the Body of Christ. The central passages in the Bible where we find this doctrine are as follows:

• "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." (1 Corinthians 12:13)
  
  "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:1-4)

[Bust Nak]

Hyper-Calvinists would still agree -- wholeheartedly -- that God saves because of the work of Jesus on the cross. As would all other Christians.

I can grant you that much.

This is the only true salvific issue there is...

But this I will not. Whether personal choice plays a part in salvation, is absolutely a salvific issue. I see you've inserted a "true" qualifier there, is that a no true Scotsman fallacy?

[PinSeeker]

...if I talk to an Evangelical, they're likely to raise a stink over the fact Roman Catholics tend to baptise infants rather than adults, and sprinkling rather than immersion. What do you think is the reason behind such a disagreement?

Misunderstanding, like most everything else (excluding just outright unbelief). But specific to this topic, just misunderstanding regarding Biblical baptism.

I'm protestant, but that has nothing to do with what I think proper Biblical baptism -- the outward sign -- should look like. We baptize infants also (although anyone beyond infancy can be baptized, if they've never been baptized before).

Outward baptism is a sign of the covenant, and should never be withheld from anyone, even an infant. In the case of the infant, baptism is really about the parent(s) and the dedication of their child to God and their trust in Him to do His saving work in their baby's heart (inward baptism, by the Spirit) at some point in his/her life, and their promise to raise him/her in the fear and admonition of the Lord. It is an outward display of their trust in God to do what He has promised, which is to be their God and the God of their child(ren). Proof texts include Acts 2, where Peter preaches that "...the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off...�

As for immersion versus sprinkling, I would argue that sprinkling is the more Biblically correct method. All through the Old Testament, we read about sprinkling, as opposed to immersion: sprinkling of blood on the altar (the Pentateuch), sprinkling of water by God for cleanliness (Ezekiel 36), for example. And in the New Testament, the writer of Hebrews and Peter speak of sprinkling. Beyond that, if one wants to look at the baptism of Jesus as the chief example of baptism, John could not have baptized Jesus by immersion because the Jordan is just a shallow stream in the area where it took place. Immersion would have been impossible, really. All that having been said, though, I don't have any problem with full immersion. What really matters is the outward, public sign. But either way, it's still just an outward sign and not necessary for true conversion to Christ to take place.

[Elijah John]

As for Catholics... a couple of things to say, here:

1. Many would argue that Catholicism not a Christian, uh, "sect," as you put it. This is not to say, however, that no Catholics are Christians. Many would regard Catholicism -- for different reasons -- along the same lines as Mormonism.

Moderator Warning


For the purposes of this site, anyone or any group which identifies as Christian, IS Christian. It is not permissible here to suggest or state that they are not. Both the RCC and the LDS identify as Christian. And hiding behind the disclaimer "many say" does not make it permissible. Let the "many" who "say" also take note. That's a bit like re-tweeting a slander, then when called on it pleading, "well I didn't say it".

And saying "some are" doesn't help either. It implies that the group is not intrinsically a Christian group.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 52 by PinSeeker]

1. Many would argue that Catholicism not a Christian, uh, "sect," as you put it. This is not to say, however, that no Catholics are Christians. Many would regard Catholicism -- for different reasons -- along the same lines as Mormonism.

Ohh...but then the things that they believe, wouldn't and shouldn't that count as a disagreement over salvific issues?

What Catholicism teaches regarding baptism, while wrong, is not the reason for #1 above.

It is well and good to be baptized outwardly, but baptism by and in the Holy Spirit only is salvific and occurs at the moment of salvation, where the Holy Spirit places a believer into permanent union with Christ and with other believers in the Body of Christ.

Of course such a thing can never be known to be true for any particular individual human. Were you baptised by and in the Holy Spirit? Sure you can say so...but so could anyone else, even those whom you think would not have been.
Besides, what about those Christians who don't believe in the Holy Spirit? There are non-trinitarian Christians, don't'cha'know?

It sure does look to me like there is disagreement...

[PinSeeker]

Hyper-Calvinists would still agree -- wholeheartedly -- that God saves because of the work of Jesus on the cross. As would all other Christians.

I can grant you that much.

Thank you.

This is the only true salvific issue there is...

But this I will not. Whether personal choice plays a part in salvation, is absolutely a salvific issue.

No, personal choice is a result of the inward act of salvation -- the inevitable result, but still absolutely necessary -- by God, via His Spirit.

• "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." (Romans 9:16)

I see you've inserted a "true" qualifier there, is that a no true Scotsman fallacy?

Nope. See above.

[PinSeeker]

Anybody can say anything, and believe it. While anyone else should respect that (in my humble and erstwhile opinion), and even possibly accept it as true, it is not necessarily true.

[Tcg]

It sure does look to me like there is disagreement...

I don't see how it could be taken any other way.


Here is another area of disagreement amongst Christians regarding salvation. This one involves Unitarian Universalism and describes the doctrine of Universalism:

"This core doctrine asserts that through Christ every single human soul shall be saved, leading to the "restitution of all things" (apocatastasis). In 1793, Universalism emerged as a particular denomination of Christianity in the United States, eventually called the Universalist Church of America.[22] Early American advocates of Universal Salvation such as Elhanan Winchester, Hosea Ballou and John Murray taught that all souls would achieve salvation, sometimes after a period resembling purgatory.[23] Christian universalism denies the doctrine of everlasting damnation, and proclaims belief in an entirely loving God who will ultimately redeem all human beings.[24][25]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian ... iversalism

Tcg