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]

[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?

Nope.

[Replying to post 52 by PinSeeker]

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.

Correct. We can make reasonable determinations regarding people, but we may be mistaken. Only God sees the heart.

Were you baptised by and in the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

Sure you can say so...but so could anyone else, even those whom you think would not have been.

Right. Is there an echo in here?

Besides, what about those Christians who don't believe in the Holy Spirit? There are non-trinitarian Christians, don't'cha'know?

Yes, I'm very well aware of that, thank you. But not having a Biblically correct understanding of the nature and Person of God is not a disqualifying factor in whether a person is a Christian or not, either.

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

Nope. All Christians -- by definition, actually -- are in agreement that Christ is our Savior and died on the cross for our sins. There is no disagreement on that.

[Tcg]

Nope. All Christians -- by definition, actually -- are in agreement that Christ is our Savior and died on the cross for our sins. There is no disagreement on that.

Of course there is disagreement on that. Here is one based on Christian Atheism:

"Although Jesus is still a central feature of Christian atheism, Hamilton said that to the Christian atheist, Jesus as an historical or supernatural figure is not the foundation of faith; instead, Jesus is a "place to be, a standpoint".[5] Christian atheists look to Jesus as an example of what a Christian should be, but they do not see him as God, nor as the Son of God; merely as an influential rabbi."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

Tcg

[PinSeeker]

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

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

I'm sure that's true.

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

Nah, that's just a misunderstanding of, well, among other things, 1 Timothy 2, where Paul says, "...God our Savior... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth..."

[PinSeeker]

Nope. All Christians -- by definition, actually -- are in agreement that Christ is our Savior and died on the cross for our sins. There is no disagreement on that.

Of course there is disagreement on that. Here is one based on Christian Atheism:

"Although Jesus is still a central feature of Christian atheism, Hamilton said that to the Christian atheist, Jesus as an historical or supernatural figure is not the foundation of faith; instead, Jesus is a "place to be, a standpoint".[5] Christian atheists look to Jesus as an example of what a Christian should be, but they do not see him as God, nor as the Son of God; merely as an influential rabbi."

Right, so they don't believe he was the Savior, and they don't believe that He died for their sins -- or at least that Jesus's dying had no effect on our salvation. Again, a "Christian" is by definition a believer in Christ -- that He is the Savior. If one does not believe in Christ, he/she is not of Christ, and therefore not a Christian. And that's not just me telling you that; any unbeliever in Christ would readily acknowledge that he/she is not a Christian.

"Christian atheist..." Wow. I know the term, but... well, the things people come up with to try to justify themselves or others. Wow.

[Tcg]

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

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

I'm sure that's true.

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

Nah, that's just a misunderstanding of, well, among other things, 1 Timothy 2, where Paul says, "...God our Savior... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth..."

Your disagreement with this doctrine proves my point.


Christians do not all agree on issues involving salvation.





Tcg

[PinSeeker]

Christians do not all agree on issues involving salvation.

But you're changing what I said, putting words in my mouth. I never said this. So in effect, indirectly, you're proving my point. I only said there is no disagreement among Christians regarding what the single salvific belief of Christians -- Jesus and Him crucified -- is. On that, there is no disunity among Christians. In other words, the reason for our salvation... Who and what made it possible. Rather than any specific aspect surrounding it, including who it was effective for. The latter is not unimportant, but it is not salvific, or essential to or required for salvation.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 62 by PinSeeker]

Nah, that's just a misunderstanding of, well, among other things, 1 Timothy 2, where Paul says, "...God our Savior... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth..."

Does it fall under the heading of "disagreement", yes or no? Again YOU say it's a mistake, a misreading, but the UU's of course don't see it as a mistake. Just because you view someone else's understanding of a particular Bible verse as a misunderstanding doesn't mean it actually IS a misunderstanding. For all you know, YOU'RE the one who's wrong and the UU's are right.

"Christian atheist..." Wow. I know the term, but... well, the things people come up with to try to justify themselves or others. Wow.

I know right! Sounds just as insane as saying that one has free will while also saying that God has complete authority and sovereignty.
(pretend the above was said by another Christian)

[PinSeeker]

nt

[Tcg]

Christians do not all agree on issues involving salvation.

But you're changing what I said, putting words in my mouth. I never said this. So in effect, indirectly, you're proving my point. I only said there is no disagreement among Christians regarding what the single salvific belief of Christians -- Jesus and Him crucified. And there is none.

In post 42 you stated this:

"That Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that in Him alone can we rest in as our Savior, and that repentance of sin is necessary. Repent and believe. Perhaps you missed the term "salvific," or it went over your head. There is no disagreement on that."

So is it "repent and belief" as you stated in post 42 which contains two components, or is it "Jesus and Him crucified" as you are now claiming is this "single salvific belief".


It appears that it is in fact you who are putting words in your mouth that you never said.





Tcg

[PinSeeker]

Sounds just as insane as saying that one has free will while also saying that God has complete authority and sovereignty.

To some, for sure.