Protestantism

» landiss77 - Another reply to Shawn

In response to Another reply to Shawn posted by BrianTubbs:

Brian, I think you'll find your statement about history is incorrect, at least until the Council of Nicea. The historical evidence supports a diverse body of beliefs in Christianity, much like the New Age and Neo-Pagan movements of today. The theology did not get codified until after the Roman Catholic Church was founded.

Yes, Jesus is God in Mainstream Christianity and the Holy Ghost as well. Good, do you think anyone in this discussion did not know that, or is the theology of the Baptists the fire-and-brimstone lessons that the Landover Baptist people pretend it is?

See, this is one thing that the Mormons don't do. Hell isn't an easy thing to achieve and has very specific rules. Most people don't qualify. You would have to have seen God or Jesus and then deny that either one exists and not recant it before your death. (Yes, I know about blood atonement, but that did not last past Brigham Young's death.)

Now, I personally believe both viewpoints are wrong and that Hell is a mental state that we often create for ourselves. Where is the Liberal to Protestant thinking on that?

-- posted by landiss77

» pink101 - Beliefs have changed?

In response to Beliefs have changed? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Not in the same sense you believe it which is that you think the two of them are interchangeable. They believed it was a mystery they couldn't understand.
.
But, I see now that legalism has figured it out.
.
We were taught that God had removed himself from humanity--that our access to him was only possible due to what Jesus did and that our prayers were given to the Holy Spirit who transliterated them and then gave the truth of our prayers to our Heavenly Father, God; but, only if we made our prayers in the Name of Jesus. We were taught there were Three in One; separate but each representative of God in different forms. That God is God; Jesus is Jesus and that the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Only God is God.
.
Maybe I got it wrong? But, I'm sure that is what we were taught.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc.

In response to Another reply to Shawn posted by landiss77:

Brian, I think you'll find your statement about history is incorrect, at least until the Council of Nicea.

Shawn, I've studied church history...rather extensively. The Council of Nicea was not about establishing Jesus' deity. That was well established in the vast majority of the Christian congregations already. What was discussed at some length in Nicea was the NATURE of Jesus' deity - i.e., was Jesus eternally co-existent with the Father? They were working through some of the theological issues associated with the Trinity, and really fleshing that out. But to say that Jesus' deity itself was up for debate until and during Nicea is simply not true - despite what Dan Brown & Co. say.

The historical evidence supports a diverse body of beliefs in Christianity, much like the New Age and Neo-Pagan movements of today. The theology did not get codified until after the Roman Catholic Church was founded.

That's the Elaine Pagels / Dan Brown view of early church history, but it's over-stated. There was WIDE consensus among the vast majority of professing Christians (from the first century through Nicea) on the basic tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the majority of New Testament books.

Yes, Jesus is God in Mainstream Christianity and the Holy Ghost as well.

Mainstream Christianity - both now AND historically

Good, do you think anyone in this discussion did not know that...

Cheap shot

...or is the theology of the Baptists the fire-and-brimstone lessons that the Landover Baptist people pretend it is?

This is an awkwardly worded, but highly inflammatory attack.

Do you honestly believe that Fred Phelps and Landover Baptist is representative of Baptist churches in America today? Are you honestly suggesting that Fred Phelps is in the same category as most other Baptist preachers? You sure SEEM to be suggesting that Fred Phelps and I are in the same category.

And, btw, the Baptists didn't create "hellfire and brimstone" preaching. Jesus talked more about hell than heaven.

See, this is one thing that the Mormons don't do. Hell isn't an easy thing to achieve and has very specific rules. Most people don't qualify. You would have to have seen God or Jesus and then deny that either one exists and not recant it before your death.

Now, I personally believe both viewpoints are wrong and that Hell is a mental state that we often create for ourselves. Where is the Liberal to Protestant thinking on that?

The evangelical perspective on Hell is that it's a real place. Some believe it is a place of eternal fire and torment. Others believe it is a state of eternal separation from God and that the "fire" is figurative.

The liberal Protestant perspective varies from YOUR interpretation of hell (that it's a mental state in the here-and-now) to the "separation from God" condition in the here-after.

» landiss77 - Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc.

In response to Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:

Your grasp of Roman history is not as good as you believe it is.

-- posted by landiss77

» redback - Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc.

In response to Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:

Maybe John Wayne is in Hell...required to attend on command, every seance in which he is summonsed...and always interrupting something else he really wants to do. I only saw the teaser on TV...didn't watch the program.

But seriously, this has the potential for being an interesting topic to me.

mainly a lurker here.

-- posted by redback

» Brian Tubbs - Grasp of history

In response to Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc. posted by landiss77:

Now who is being judgmental?

I take it you are saying that, because my understanding of history doesn't match yours. Therefore, I'm (according to your view) uninformed and you command the intellectual high ground.

Be that as it may...I'll let you continue on with what Mormons believe. We'll save our disagreement over early church beliefs until later.

» Migisi - Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc.

In response to Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc. posted by landiss77:
.
Your grasp of Roman history is not as good as you believe it is.
.
Maybe this will help:
General Councils,
Section III "HISTORICAL SKETCH OF ECUMENICAL COUNCILS" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.h... (the Catholic Encyclopedia)
.
Click on the title of the specific Council (i.e. blue text "Council of Nicaea"), and it will link to the page detailing the personalities involved, controversies and issues raised, votes, final decisions, etc.
.
Brian wrote: But to say that Jesus' deity itself was up for debate until and during Nicea is simply not true - despite what Dan Brown & Co. say.
.
There was indeed controversy over the divinity of Jesus before, during, and it continued after Nicea. The Arian doctrine controversy was discussed at the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)
.
Arianism - A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.h...
(Quoting from above) ".... Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing." (end)
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc.

In response to Hell, Jesus, Nicea, etc. posted by Migisi:

Of course, there was some controversy. There's ALWAYS controversy about something - and (yes) there have always been some people associated in some degree with Christianity who have different conceptions of Jesus' divinity. But....

The overwhelming consensus of Christian congregations leading up to Nicaea was that Jesus was/is God. Those subscribing to Arianism were in the distinct minority.

» Brian Tubbs - Legalism, Fred Phelps, etc.

I want to make it clear to all the lurkers here that Phil and Shawn are dead wrong to associate me with Fred Phelps (in Shawn's case) or legalism (in Phil's case). I have preached against both from the pulpit at Sligo Baptist Church.

Legalism is the modern equivalent of Phariseeism. It's basically applying a structured code of conduct as somewhat of a litmus test to determine who is or who is not going to heaven. Jesus teaches repeatedly that we are not to do that. Jesus identifies HIMSELF as the Door. He says: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life - No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6) Jesus is the key to salvation and the key to a lasting, meaningful relationship with God.

As to Fred Phelps, that man is so full of vitriol, hate, and cruelty that he is a disgrace to the Christian community and to the Baptist name. Please, Shawn, do not ever associate me with the likes of him.

» Brian Tubbs - Shawn's articles

I don't think Shawn posted links to his articles. Here are some...

http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cf...

http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cf...

http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cf...