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?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 39 by PinSeeker]



Their isn't disagreement? Haven't you been reading the threads? Could you indicate which principle of salvation that are agreed upon?

[1213]

[Replying to post 37 by 1213]


Ok. I suppose you could explain your position?

I simply don’t see in those that Paul had no respect for context or even the correct rendering.

[PinSeeker]

Their isn't disagreement?

Nope.

Haven't you been reading the threads?

Yep.

Could you indicate which principle of salvation that are agreed upon?

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. Among Christians (followers of and believers in Christ), that is. In everything else, though it is all important, is secondary to that. Disagreement concerning creation, baptism, even whether Jesus is fully God or not, falls short of disqualifying anyone as a Christian.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 42 by PinSeeker]

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.

Calvinist Protestants would disagree with you. They have a belief called predestination. Ever hear of it?

Unitarian Christians also reject the concept of original sin (mostly).

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 42 by PinSeeker]

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.

Calvinist Protestants would disagree with you. They have a belief called predestination. Ever hear of it?

Oh, quite the contrary. If you notice my UserGroups, you'll see that I am a Calvinist. A five-point (which is all of 'em) Calvinist, by the way. There are some who would call themselves "four-point Calvinists," with Limited Atonement (which comes directly from the Biblical doctrine of predestination) being the one point they disagree with. That doesn't disqualify them as Christians, it just makes them... wrong... about that particular thing.

Now. To your point, there are what would properly be called hyper-Calvinists out there. They, to their credit, believe in the sovereignty of God with regard to salvation. But, to their discredit, they believe in the sovereignty of God to the point and beyond of dismissing the idea of and thus excluding personal choice altogether, denying the universal duty of human beings to repent of their sin and believe in Christ for the salvation of their souls. As such, this would put hyper-Calvinists outside or beyond the scope of John Calvin's theology and thus not historical Calvinists, or adherents to John Calvin's understanding of Scripture according to predestination and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). But here again, this doesn't disqualify hyper-Calvinists as Christians, it just makes them... wrong... about that particular thing. Oh, I get it: it seems to some that predestination and personal responsibility/choice are mutually exclusive concepts, but they're most definitely not.

Unitarian Christians also reject the concept of original sin (mostly).

Yeah, that's too bad. But again, that doesn't disqualify them as Christians.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 42 by PinSeeker]

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.

Calvinist Protestants would disagree with you. They have a belief called predestination. Ever hear of it?

Unitarian Christians also reject the concept of original sin (mostly).

The Catholic Church, the largest of all the Christian sects, also disagrees. Catholics see baptism as necessary for salvation:

"VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1a1.htm

The argument over whether Baptism is required for salvation isn't new. It is a quite well known issue. It isn't the only issue, however:

The "lordship salvation" controversy (also "Lordship Controversy") is a theological dispute regarding key soteriological questions within Evangelical Christianity, involving some non-denominational and Evangelical churches in North America at least since the 1980s.[1] The dispute spawned several books, pamphlets, and conferences. According to one website advocating Lordship Salvation, "the doctrine of Lordship salvation teaches that submitting to Christ as Lord goes hand-in-hand with trusting in Christ as Savior. Lordship salvation is the opposite of what is sometimes called easy-believism or the teaching that salvation comes through an acknowledgement of a certain set of facts."[2]Another website critical of it, defines it similarly, however: "As defined by its own advocates, Lordship Salvation could more properly be called "Commitment Salvation," "Surrender Salvation," or "Submission Salvation" since in actuality the debate is not over the Lordship of Christ, but the response of a person to the gospel and the conditions which must be met for salvation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_ ... ontroversy

While the issue of "Lordship Salvation" is a lesser known issue, it is clear that there is quite serious disagreement amongst Christians over the requirements for salvation.


Given these disagreements and the ones you detailed, it is clear that PinSeeker's claim doesn't hold up under even casual scrutiny. I suspect a thorough examination would reveal even more disagreements.




Tcg

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

The Catholic Church, the largest of all the Christian sects, also disagrees. Catholics see baptism as necessary for salvation:

Along with repentance for sins. That's why original sin is a thing with Catholicism.

Given these disagreements and the ones you detailed, it is clear that PinSeeker's claim doesn't hold up under even casual scrutiny. I suspect a thorough examination would reveal even more disagreements.

Exactly. I forget the name of the denomination, but I did hear that there is one such group that believes that as long as one was a Christian at least once in their life even if they are no longer are now (so a person like me then), then they'll still get salvation.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

The Catholic Church, the largest of all the Christian sects, also disagrees. Catholics see baptism as necessary for salvation:

Along with repentance for sins. That's why original sin is a thing with Catholicism.

That is correct. I should have been more careful to indicate that Catholics view Baptism as an additional requirement for salvation, not as the only one.

Given these disagreements and the ones you detailed, it is clear that PinSeeker's claim doesn't hold up under even casual scrutiny. I suspect a thorough examination would reveal even more disagreements.

Exactly. I forget the name of the denomination, but I did hear that there is one such group that believes that as long as one was a Christian at least once in their life even if they are no longer are now (so a person like me then), then they'll still get salvation.

If you are referring to "eternal security", a number of denominations hold that view:

"Eternal security is the belief that from the moment anyone becomes a Christian, they will be saved from hell. Eternal security is also known as "preservation of the saints" and should not be confused with the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Eternal security is often summarized by the phrase "once saved, always saved" and contrasts with the view that Christians can lose their salvation (see Conditional preservation of the saints)."

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

This is clearly another area where Christians disagree over issues of salvation. According to this view, I too would be bound for heaven even though I am not a Christian or even a theist any more.




Tcg

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 44 by PinSeeker]

Oh, quite the contrary. If you notice my UserGroups, you'll see that I am a Calvinist. A five-point (which is all of 'em) Calvinist, by the way.

I'll admit to feeling a bit embarrassed over missing that. Plenty of times I've chided others for failing to notice what I say about myself re: usergroups, and here I am doing the exact same thing!

But, to their discredit, they believe in the sovereignty of God to the point and beyond of dismissing the idea of and thus excluding personal choice altogether, denying the universal duty of human beings to repent of their sin and believe in Christ for the salvation of their souls.

Step outside yourself for a moment. Step outside the Pinseeker who's a five-point Calvinist and these others who are four-pointers.
How is what they believe a 'discredit'? They may ultimately be mistaken (as you no doubt think right now) but how would it be wrong, as in an incorrect application of logic or reasoning?

Yeah, that's too bad. But again, that doesn't disqualify them as Christians.

That isn't what Postroad asked. He asked "Could you indicate which principle of salvation that are agreed upon?" which he asked in response to the conversation we had had (meaning Pinseeker and rikuoamero) over what counts as literal and what counts as a metaphor from the Bible.
You said and I quote from you on this
" People disagree on things. But concerning Christianity, regarding salvific matters and the essentials of the Gospel, there is only belief and unbelief; there is no disagreement. "
Howeverr, as Tcg indicates in his latest response, there is plenty of disagreement. Heck, why don't you ask JehovahsWitness whether Jesus is part of a trinity or the archangel Michael? Or ask the current pope, Francis, whether atheists can get into heaven?
Let me ask you this: if as you say concerning Christianity, regarding salvific matters and the essentials of the Gospels...why would Christians ever kill one another? Shouldn't a person's death be purely in the hands of God? Shouldn't "Thou Shalt Not Kill" be right up there in amongst the other teachings as of being of especially high importance? If yes, shouldn't we expect to live in a world where Christians don't kill each other, even if they disagree on other matters? If the teaching is not that important...well, I'll let you figure out the rest of the logical conclusion.

[Bust Nak]

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?