Wolfeman wrote:
The Holy Spirit will help you understand and interpert scripture but we also need to show some discernment as well. Does what it's showing and teaching us point us back towards Christ and Biblical teaching or does it point us towards what we Want it to teach, what our flesh desires or does it contradict scripture somewhere else?
So to drill down further, how does one exercise such discernment? What specific things does one do in order to know that they have discerned the answer to this properly?
Wolfeman wrote:
It depends on your denomination and beliefs. The King James translators refused to use any manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt because they believed the Bible stated God's word would not come out of Egypt again. Every single new translation today uses those manuscripts.
Well, that's not the only surviving manuscripts that were used, but the history of Biblical canon is a topic beyond the scope of this discussion. I wouldn't mind opening up a new topic on it though as it is quite fascinating. It is interesting how well preserved the canon of Scripture really was and how much of it we take for granted that was not so easy to preserve in the early centuries.
As for other outside sources, well, that's another topic too, and one that I like to have cleared up for future talks too.
Wolfeman wrote:
Scripture itself is interpreted differently by different groups. Based upon the same verses, some people believe the Bible promotes Calvinism while others believe it promotes free will. Some people believe alcoholic wine should be used for the Lord's Supper/Communion while others believe it should be pure grape juice. Catholics believe Mary was a virgin till her death, everyone doesn't. Almost everyone will agree that core beliefs are of the utmost importance yet if we really pin them down and get detailed explanation of them, we almost all disagree.
Well yes, and there are a lot more of these things of course, but this alone should not preclude any attempts to define these things. I would go with the Nicene Creed for a start. It's a good summation of the faith and something that is common to all of us. Beyond that it is not quite so easy to do. It should not be a stumbling block to defining them though, given the importance.
I know I've been hammering on this point for a while now. In my life I have learned that there are many things we can agree to disagree on, but there are some that we cannot. Making everything out to be an agree to disagree situation regarding what is core doctrine and what is not ends up creating a relativistic faith. It undermines our ability to discern truth from falsehood cause anything can then be justified as pro-Christian or anti-Christian.
Wolfeman wrote:
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Salvation - The most core belief of Christianity. This verse and others are used by Baptist to teach that Salvation is given as a gift and not earned. There is nothing that can be done to earn. We don't believe AND get baptized. We don't believe AND persevere to the end. We don't believe AND confess our sins to a priest. We just exercise faith.
Well yeah, I don't think there's any fundamental disagreement, although I would say that salvation and all these other things aren't mutually exclusive. That would go better under a Scripture and Tradition/outside sources topic instead though.
The divinity of Christ is another to add on top of Salvation. If Christ was not fully God and fully Man, then basically the entirety of the New Testament is a lie. Everyone may as well have remained Jewish in that case, cause Christ was quite clear in the Gospels on who He claimed to be. If He was not who He claimed to be, then everything else is bunk.
His death and resurrection are also essentials, as they go hand in hand with what He came on this earth to do.
So here now we got three things, salvation by God's grace that we did not earn, Divinity of Christ, and Death and Resurrection. These three are certainly things we can build on. If we want we can begin another topic on this as well.
Wolfeman wrote:
Fight because essential is essential or agree to disagree? We must agree to disagree if we wish to continue a nondenominational cooperative existence.
Are these our only choices? I think there are more options than this.