...in which i attempt to be deep...

Mar 11, 2011 23:22

well, i've never really discussed much in depth on here what i believe, for various reasons. i freely admit i'm no great theologian or scholar, but also believe such credentials are not necessary to understand enough to decide what you believe.
i consider myself to be a Baptist, or more accurately, a fundamentalist, but i'd prefer to say i believe the Bible. For those who'd like to get technical, i believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. God is the ultimate author of every word of the Bible, which He used regular people to write, incorporating their personal individual languages and vocabularies and writing styles to record His words. I believe the Bible is sufficient, exclusive, and the complete Word of God. There's nothing in it that God did not author, and there's no other article/book/doctrine which has the same authority.
I believe some aspects of Calvinist theology, and some of Armenianism...

Calvinism raises an interesting point, about Jesus’ substitutionary atonement on the cross; Calvinists say that if Christ took the penalty of sin for a sinner, then the sinner is automatically saved, regardless of themselves, since they could not be condemned again for the same sins. i.e., if Christ paid for your sins, you’re not accountable for them, and you must be saved automatically.

While this makes literal sense, I disagree that Christ’s death for our sins relieves us of all responsibility - I believe we are still responsible to choose to accept Him and the gift He gives us. Though He died for your sins, rejecting Him as Savior is itself a sin, a sign of a wicked nature, and sufficient to damn.

Which leads into another debate, a major issue between Armenians and Calvinists -whether man truly has “free will,” or whether God’s sovereignty overrules any aspect of true choice.

I believe very strongly in God’s sovereignty; I think some of the greatest examples in the Bible are Paul and Moses. Paul (then known as Saul) was a zealous Pharisee, who believed it was his duty to persecute the early Christians, who had seen the Jewish Law as insufficient, and were following the teachings of a Man that orthodox Judaism would not admit was the Messiah. As Saul travelled to Damascus to persecute the Christians there, God threw him from his horse, struck him blind, and asked why Saul was persecuting Him.

God sovereignly arranged many aspects of Moses’ life, from his surviving a time when all male Hebrew children were to die, to being pulled from the Nile and raised in Pharaoh’s own home, to being humbled and exiled to the desert where God appeared to him and told him he was meant to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt.

Even the disciples were called by Jesus; while other individuals did seek Him out (Nicodemus and Zacchaeus come to mind), He sought most of the disciples out and called them to follow Him.

I can’t deny that man must have some aspect of free will… while there’s no doubt that God could have arranged before the beginning of time that I would eat Mini Frosted Flakes this morning rather than Raisin Bran, I tend to lean toward the opinion that He lets us make many decisions on our own.

The Bible mentions that we should “quench not the Spirit,” implying that it is indeed possible to resist doing what the Spirit leads you to know that you should do. Everyone also has a conscience (separate from the Spirit, I believe), which often reminds us of what would be the best thing to do in a situation, and which to some extent is a basis for “common sense” secular laws - we all instinctively know it’s wrong to murder, and that if someone is helpless we should help them. It’s also possible to ignore and numb the conscience to a point where one no longer cares for others, or in cases is capable of extraordinary acts of cruelty. I think Jonah quenched the Spirit when he decided to flee in the opposite direction from the nation God wanted him to prophecy to. But God’s sovereignty shows up again in that He created a storm to halt Jonah and a great fish to swallow him until he repented.

So in case you can’t tell, I’m still on the fence as far as where man’s choice ends and God’s Sovereignty encompasses it and supersedes it.

Another major sticking point between Calvinism and Armenianism (and, for that matter, among other denominations as well), is whether it is possible to lose one’s salvation. (In case there is a difference in connotations, I use the term “salvation” here to mean one’s eternal security, place in heaven, position as God’s child, inheritance in eternal life, imputation of righteousness, etc.) Armenians (as well as Lutherans and Catholics, among others, I believe) believe that it is possible to lose one’s salvation, either by losing faith, failing to continue to strive for Godliness, failing to keep sacraments, or some other reason. Calvinists believe that since one is elect, they therefore cannot become “unelected,” for lack of a better term.

I believe that once someone is saved, they cannot lose their salvation. Otherwise, at least according to my connotations of salvation’s properties, it would not truly be “salvation.” More like “temporary deliverance” or a “divine opportunity.”

The doctrine of Mary having an Immaculate Conception and her resultant promotion as being exempted from original sin is one of my biggest disagreements with Catholicism and like denominations. I do not believe that it is necessary for her to be without sin in order for Jesus to be without sin. That strikes me as saying, “God had to make Mary sinless at conception because otherwise Jesus couldn’t be born without sin” as if Jesus relied on Mary for something He could not do on His own. I believe Jesus was born without Original Sin due to Who His (heavenly) Father was, not who His earthly mother was.

I also disagree with the reading in the Vulgate of Genesis 3:15 as referring to a “she” not a “He.” I believe it is a direct reference to Christ, not to whom Christ would be born of. I also disagree that Mary was a counterpoint to Eve, and disagree that Eve was also a virgin when deceived. In my opinion, Genesis 2:24, 25 indicate to me that “cleav(ing) to his wife” and becoming “one” necessarily involved the intimate act of sexual intercourse. I think Genesis 4:1 is merely stating the mechanics of how Cain was conceived, not noting a distinct first time that Adam “knew” Eve.

Romans 3:23 states that “all have sinned.” Since redemption is in Christ Jesus, it is unthinkable that Jesus would be included in the “all,” but why would Mary be excluded from an (otherwise) universal statement? Even the Original Catholic Encyclopedia admits there is no categorical proof of the doctrine in the Scripture (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception#II._THE_HOLY_SCRIPTURE). It is derived from how certain passages are read, interpreted, and applied, and was only officially pronounced in 1854. I can think of nothing in the rest of Scripture which would suggest that, aside from being born of a virgin, the Messiah must be born of a virgin excluded from original sin.

I believe in the principle of “sola scriptura” very strongly, even vehemently. To say that the Church selected the books of the Canon and therefore has the authority to interpret them, insults God’s divine ability to preserve, protect, and pass through time His accurate Word without human intervention. I do not deny that He could use historical Councils to this end, to make distinct what was inevitable, but He did not rely on them to preserve His Word.

Romans 10:17 says, “so then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The passage makes it clear that salvation through faith comes through hearing the preaching of the gospel. Jesus is the Word of God in bodily form, and the Word of God is Jesus: accurately, completely, and sufficiently revealed in the Bible.

wow. i really wasn't expecting to write that much... please, anyone reading this, feel free to ask anything you want about what i've said here; i welcome polite, civil discussion. i freely admit that what i individually believe has no impact on what "actually is," for lack of a better way of saying it, and i'm as prone to making errors of logic as much as i am errors of grammar. i'm only human. but this is what i believe, or at least part of it, as best as i can articulate it tonight. i don't even claim to live up to all i believe all of the time, as is probably glaringly evident to anyone who reads my journal regularly. but that's why an imperfect guy like me needs a perfect God.

christianity, faith

Previous post
Up
[]