Triclavianism

[Landlord]

You can define yourself however you wish but if a person does not meet the 3 criteria that JR posted, they are not a Christian no matter what they or you think. Those are 3 absolutes to being considered a Christian. I am a little confused as to what your post was supposed to convey.

 

 

To be defined as a Christian the only thing you need to know the answer to is whether or not you've been regenerated via the power of the Holy Spirit. If you're not born again, you're not in the club The rest of that stuff takes care of itself once the Holy Spirit starts working.

 

I'm pretty sure the only requirement of being Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Not a single other thing is required, near as I can tell, and even the whole "died for your sins" part doesn't seem binding, since the "thief" crucified next to Jesus was promised to be with him in Heaven that day because he believed Jesus was the son of God - Jesus had not yet died, and promised the man everlasting life.

 

I don't know if you can use the thief next to him as precedent for all human souls, since Jesus WAS alive and had not yet sent the Holy Spirit unto His followers. Before the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, people were still saved by faith but as Jesus prophecied and as Acts demonstrates, the seal of the new covenant is the promise of the Holy Spirit descending upon believers as the Counselor.

 

I guess I don't know what you mean by the title of Christian, and might not know what I mean either. More accurately I should have said;

 

 

To be included in the inheritance promised by God - that is, to obtain salvation from eternal damnation and punishment - you must be regenerate or "born again". The Holy Spirit must have taken up residence inside of you, redeeming and cleansing you of all past, present and future sin, as this is the promised gift of assurance from Jesus. If you're not born again, you're not in the club The rest of that stuff takes care of itself once the Holy Spirit starts working.

[knapplc]

I see a lot of "traditions of men" in that definition, though. The Christian Church spends too much time basing theology on the writings of Paul and needs to focus 99.9% of its doctrine on Jesus, and Jesus alone. Paul is no more worthy to be in the Bible than Constantine, yet so much of what the church professes comes from his mouth, or the mouths of the Apostles, rather than the teachings of Jesus.

 

This is no longer my argument, but this used to really bug me back in the day. I came from a very bible-centric background, and we spent as much time in bible study as in worship - moreso, actually. It's always bothered me how much Paul's writings influence the church. Paul was a man. Paul was not God.

[Landlord]

I see a lot of "traditions of men" in that definition, though. The Christian Church spends too much time basing theology on the writings of Paul and needs to focus 99.9% of its doctrine on Jesus, and Jesus alone. Paul is no more worthy to be in the Bible than Constantine, yet so much of what the church professes comes from his mouth, or the mouths of the Apostles, rather than the teachings of Jesus.

 

This is no longer my argument, but this used to really bug me back in the day. I came from a very bible-centric background, and we spent as much time in bible study as in worship - moreso, actually. It's always bothered me how much Paul's writings influence the church. Paul was a man. Paul was not God.

 

 

Paul is worthy according to his calling by God (hypothetically speaking, of course) to have such a role. I hear what you're saying, though. Even focusing solely on Jesus, his teachings and his life, the role of the Holy Spirit in our life is evidenced quite well as being, at the absolute very least, essential. Perhaps Jesus didn't go deep into the theological underpinnings because He was aware of the plan and knew that God would appoint others to cover these things in due time? Anyways:

 

“If you love me, keep my commands. ¹⁶ And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ¹⁷ the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be^[c] in you."

 

“All this I have spoken while still with you. ²⁶ But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

 

"“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

and recovery of sight for the blind,

to set the oppressed free,

¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”^[f]"

 

 

 

It's late and I can't form all of this all that coherently, but Jesus' entire ministry was enabled and preceded by the Holy Spirit's work. He preached and prophesied of it's role for his followers. He spoke of His (the Spirit's) role as being a helper, a teacher, an advocate, etc. He claimed that only His followers would know and accept the Spirit. It doesn't quite get to the level of monotonous detail of Paul's letters, but it lays the consistent groundwork that I would very confidently believe the Spirit himself built upon through inspiring Paul and the other apostles, along with other prominent followers henceforth.

[Excel]

You can define yourself however you wish but if a person does not meet the 3 criteria that JR posted, they are not a Christian no matter what they or you think. Those are 3 absolutes to being considered a Christian. I am a little confused as to what your post was supposed to convey.

 

 

To be defined as a Christian the only thing you need to know the answer to is whether or not you've been regenerated via the power of the Holy Spirit. If you're not born again, you're not in the club The rest of that stuff takes care of itself once the Holy Spirit starts working.

 

"If you're not born again, you're not in the club"....I think I just threw up a little.

[Landlord]

You can define yourself however you wish but if a person does not meet the 3 criteria that JR posted, they are not a Christian no matter what they or you think. Those are 3 absolutes to being considered a Christian. I am a little confused as to what your post was supposed to convey.

 

 

To be defined as a Christian the only thing you need to know the answer to is whether or not you've been regenerated via the power of the Holy Spirit. If you're not born again, you're not in the club The rest of that stuff takes care of itself once the Holy Spirit starts working.

 

"If you're not born again, you're not in the club"....I think I just threw up a little.

 

 

Care to expound?

[Excel]

On the face of it you seem to be saying that to be a Christian you have to be a born again. Given that there's a popular movement within Christianity by that name I have to assume you're referring to that

and that idea makes me ill

[knapplc]

I see a lot of "traditions of men" in that definition, though. The Christian Church spends too much time basing theology on the writings of Paul and needs to focus 99.9% of its doctrine on Jesus, and Jesus alone. Paul is no more worthy to be in the Bible than Constantine, yet so much of what the church professes comes from his mouth, or the mouths of the Apostles, rather than the teachings of Jesus.

 

This is no longer my argument, but this used to really bug me back in the day. I came from a very bible-centric background, and we spent as much time in bible study as in worship - moreso, actually. It's always bothered me how much Paul's writings influence the church. Paul was a man. Paul was not God.

 

 

Paul is worthy according to his calling by God (hypothetically speaking, of course) to have such a role. I hear what you're saying, though. Even focusing solely on Jesus, his teachings and his life, the role of the Holy Spirit in our life is evidenced quite well as being, at the absolute very least, essential. Perhaps Jesus didn't go deep into the theological underpinnings because He was aware of the plan and knew that God would appoint others to cover these things in due time? Anyways:

 

“If you love me, keep my commands. ¹⁶ And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ¹⁷ the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be^[c] in you."

 

“All this I have spoken while still with you. ²⁶ But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

 

"“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

and recovery of sight for the blind,

to set the oppressed free,

¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”^[f]"

 

 

 

It's late and I can't form all of this all that coherently, but Jesus' entire ministry was enabled and preceded by the Holy Spirit's work. He preached and prophesied of it's role for his followers. He spoke of His (the Spirit's) role as being a helper, a teacher, an advocate, etc. He claimed that only His followers would know and accept the Spirit. It doesn't quite get to the level of monotonous detail of Paul's letters, but it lays the consistent groundwork that I would very confidently believe the Spirit himself built upon through inspiring Paul and the other apostles, along with other prominent followers henceforth.

 

I am aware of Paul's resume. But what sets Paul apart from Joseph Smith, who was also called by God?

[Landlord]

On the face of it you seem to be saying that to be a Christian you have to be a born again. Given that there's a popular movement within Christianity by that name I have to assume you're referring to that

and that idea makes me ill

 

I was wondering what about the idea makes you ill?

 

 

I am aware of Paul's resume. But what sets Paul apart from Joseph Smith, who was also called by God?

 

Simply put, that he actually was. Obviously that can't be proven even if true, so as far as evidence, the first place I'd think to look would be others' accounts of each. Paul's writings and mission were considered to be divinely inspired by the other apostles, whereas Joseph Smith is branded a heretic by nearly all those outside of his religion or cult. Surely not definitive, of course, but the truth about God won't ever be arrived at deductively.

[Excel]

On the face of it you seem to be saying that to be a Christian you have to be a born again. Given that there's a popular movement within Christianity by that name I have to assume you're referring to that

and that idea makes me ill

 

I was wondering what about the idea makes you ill?

 

 

I am aware of Paul's resume. But what sets Paul apart from Joseph Smith, who was also called by God?

 

Simply put, that he actually was. Obviously that can't be proven even if true, so as far as evidence, the first place I'd think to look would be others' accounts of each. Paul's writings and mission were considered to be divinely inspired by the other apostles, whereas Joseph Smith is branded a heretic by nearly all those outside of his religion or cult. Surely not definitive, of course, but the truth about God won't ever be arrived at deductively.

The "Born Again" movement makes me ill because its almost always tied to the new evangelical movement that's overly political, preachy and full of just general dumbassadry.

[Landlord]

On the face of it you seem to be saying that to be a Christian you have to be a born again. Given that there's a popular movement within Christianity by that name I have to assume you're referring to that

and that idea makes me ill

 

I was wondering what about the idea makes you ill?

 

 

I am aware of Paul's resume. But what sets Paul apart from Joseph Smith, who was also called by God?

 

Simply put, that he actually was. Obviously that can't be proven even if true, so as far as evidence, the first place I'd think to look would be others' accounts of each. Paul's writings and mission were considered to be divinely inspired by the other apostles, whereas Joseph Smith is branded a heretic by nearly all those outside of his religion or cult. Surely not definitive, of course, but the truth about God won't ever be arrived at deductively.

The "Born Again" movement makes me ill because its almost always tied to the new evangelical movement that's overly political, preachy and full of just general dumbassadry.

 

So do you have anything against it theologically? I don't try to associate myself with movements, only with truth. I stay out of politics entirely, really.

[Excel]

On the face of it you seem to be saying that to be a Christian you have to be a born again. Given that there's a popular movement within Christianity by that name I have to assume you're referring to that

and that idea makes me ill

 

I was wondering what about the idea makes you ill?

 

 

I am aware of Paul's resume. But what sets Paul apart from Joseph Smith, who was also called by God?

 

Simply put, that he actually was. Obviously that can't be proven even if true, so as far as evidence, the first place I'd think to look would be others' accounts of each. Paul's writings and mission were considered to be divinely inspired by the other apostles, whereas Joseph Smith is branded a heretic by nearly all those outside of his religion or cult. Surely not definitive, of course, but the truth about God won't ever be arrived at deductively.

The "Born Again" movement makes me ill because its almost always tied to the new evangelical movement that's overly political, preachy and full of just general dumbassadry.

 

So do you have anything against it theologically? I don't try to associate myself with movements, only with truth. I stay out of politics entirely, really.

The term itself is fine and built upon a sound theological baseless...but just like flying the confederate flag, it will forever be tied to the controversial movement we see today so naturally I have to assume that's what you meant. If I were you I'd avoid using that term in talking to people who don't know where you're coming from, it will immediately drive your argument into a certain place you don't want to go...

[Landlord]

The term itself is fine and built upon a sound theological baseless...but just like flying the confederate flag, it will forever be tied to the controversial movement we see today so naturally I have to assume that's what you meant. If I were you I'd avoid using that term in talking to people who don't know where you're coming from, it will immediately drive your argument into a certain place you don't want to go...

 

 

My apologies. I appreciate the advice. I try to make an emphasis to speak exactly what I mean and let other people worry about whether or not they're going to assume I mean something more or less than that, but sometimes my ignorance and lack of wisdom hinders that quite a bit - I'll try to clarify that better.