In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[Mungo]

A "Statement of Faith" generally is a statement of what the people that "hold the keys" of a forum/site/church, whatever, believe and is not a statement of what every person that participates believes. Usually these statements are made simply to give a little insight into what the place is all about so a person is able to make an educated decision as to whether or not they want to become involved or participate. Since it is a "personal conviction" of the people in charge it is not necessarily a "topic of discussion". It's more like "here...we're letting you know where WE are coming from".

I am always wary of any place that does not post their SOF. If they don't, I always wonder if they have something to hide.

The following is from the SOF. Note particularly the points I have emboldened.

Close-handed issues (or closed issues) are issues that are central to being a Christian; these issues are simply not up for debate because they are what defines Christianity. ..........

The below clearly outlines the core, closed-handed, and Christian orthodox issues that we expect members of Christianity Board to uphold. We accept that this declaration essentially defines Christianity for Christianity Board. Disagreement with the below, we believe, places one outside the realm of reasonable orthodox Christianity.

It is quite clear - Catholics and Orthodox are not considered to be Christians.

If Catholics and Orthodox are members they are expected to uphold these values. No disagreement is allowed with this illogical and unbiblical position.

 

[BjornFree]

The following is from the SOF. Note particularly the points I have emboldened.



It is quite clear - Catholics and Orthodox are not considered to be Christians.

If Catholics and Orthodox are members they are expected to uphold these values. No disagreement is allowed with this illogical and unbiblical position.

Why worry about it?
Just be true to your faith, say what you believe when you feel inclined, and leave the heartache of intervention to those who feel that they should.
There is not a man alive who will dictate what I believe which remains as per my profile explanation.
Whether it disqualifies me from membership won't lose me any sleep.
Each should work out their own salvation with awe and trembling.....sufficient to the day is the task thereof.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean neither unto your own, nor to any other man's, understanding.

 

[IanLC]

Im glad after the year almost two years I have been on this forum to see the Statement of Faith. it seems orthodox and nuetral.

 

[lesjude]

Salvation is by grace through FAITH. Righteousness is NEVER imputed to anyone apart from faith. Saving faith acts by finding out how the Bible says to live and then submits to the Holy Spirit training to walk in Bible faith, holiness and the death of the self life.
Any branch of Christianity that does not have the Biblical means of salvation correct cannot be considered Christian i.e. the Roman Catholic church.

 

[HammerStone]

Well that rules out Catholics and Orthodox as being Christians according to your SOF.

How do you reconcile that with:

It is quite clear - Catholics and Orthodox are not considered to be Christians.

If Catholics and Orthodox are members they are expected to uphold these values. No disagreement is allowed with this illogical and unbiblical position.

Simple; it acknowledges the ambiguity of the relationship of Catholics (and to a lesser extent Orthodox) to Protestant Christianity, yet retains the acknowledgement that there are certainly Catholic and Orthodox Christians. I'm thinking specifically about the Catholic view of works, as an example. The Catholic view and the Protestant view are not immediately reconcilable because they are so distinct - after all, there was that whole little issue of the Reformation. As I've said before, this forum is a Protestant forum at its core, but that does not mean we must not fellowship with our brothers and sisters from traditions where there may be some level of disagreement. Preference will be given to the Protestant position in the matter (I am simply stating the nature of having a forum run by Protestants) but Catholic viewpoints have never been restricted here and won't be unless they violate our rules. (IE: Excessive denominational postings of Catholic catechisms, etc, which has been an issue here from time to time.)

Unfortunately, you've decided to take it a step further and provide your own interpretation of the issues rather than at least first seeking clarification on the matter. I do believe you've posted here since this SoF was released, and you have some 300+ posts with us in total - this alone should be indicative of what you stated being entirely untrue.

In the quote you provided about the books of the Bible, for instance, you'll kindly notice that I did not provide commentary on the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha). Protestants do not collectively hold these books to be inspired at the same level, if you will, of the Old and New Testaments. The door remains open to accept these as lesser inspired works as some circles of Protestantism do.

Just checking..Is a person able to post things that do not 'quite' agree with the SoF?

'Quite' is a very subjective word of course, but yes, I do view that we can hold to minor disagreements on an issue - I would view this as more of a semantic issue or an issue where there may be enough ambivalence to warrant restraint. Ultimately, this provision was created to fight against single issue posters - one of the major areas is admittedly the concept of "Oneness" theology that leads to modalism. Additionally, this is a case-by-case issue; we're doing our best to define a reasonable base of Christianity for orthodox discussion. We're not doing it to exclude, but we feel it our responsibility to not provide an incubator for immature (as in newly converted or young-in-the-faith) Christians to be lead astray.

 

[Helen]

HammerStone. Thank you for your comments and clarifications in your post.
I thought your SoF was laid out very clearly.
I was just wanting to check ( in my other post) as I didn't want to 'break the rules' any time.

Many blessings...

 

[Mungo]

[/font][/color]

Simple; it acknowledges the ambiguity of the relationship of Catholics (and to a lesser extent Orthodox) to Protestant Christianity, yet retains the acknowledgement that there are certainly Catholic and Orthodox Christians. I'm thinking specifically about the Catholic view of works, as an example. The Catholic view and the Protestant view are not immediately reconcilable because they are so distinct - after all, there was that whole little issue of the Reformation. As I've said before, this forum is a Protestant forum at its core, but that does not mean we must not fellowship with our brothers and sisters from traditions where there may be some level of disagreement. Preference will be given to the Protestant position in the matter (I am simply stating the nature of having a forum run by Protestants) but Catholic viewpoints have never been restricted here and won't be unless they violate our rules. (IE: Excessive denominational postings of Catholic catechisms, etc, which has been an issue here from time to time.)

Unfortunately, you've decided to take it a step further and provide your own interpretation of the issues rather than at least first seeking clarification on the matter. I do believe you've posted here since this SoF was released, and you have some 300+ posts with us in total - this alone should be indicative of what you stated being entirely untrue.

In the quote you provided about the books of the Bible, for instance, you'll kindly notice that I did not provide commentary on the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha). Protestants do not collectively hold these books to be inspired at the same level, if you will, of the Old and New Testaments. The door remains open to accept these as lesser inspired works as some circles of Protestantism do.

My problem is not with the cut down Bible but this:

"We believe the Bible ....... is the primary source for Christians beliefs, practices, and doctrines. "

So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians. (Acts 11:25-26)

These people in Antioch who were Christians - was the primary source of their beliefs, practices and doctrines
1. The apostles
2. The Bible (hint not one word of the NT had been written at this point).

At what point did this “closed hand” belief come into Christianity?

Was it
1. In the 16[sup]th[/sup] century
2. From the beginning (before the NT was written).

 

[Axehead]

My problem is not with the cut down Bible but this:

"We believe the Bible ....... is the primary source for Christians beliefs, practices, and doctrines. "

So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians. (Acts 11:25-26)

These people in Antioch who were Christians - was the primary source of their beliefs, practices and doctrines
1. The apostles
2. The Bible (hint not one word of the NT had been written at this point).

At what point did this “closed hand” belief come into Christianity?

Was it
1. In the 16[sup]th[/sup] century
2. From the beginning (before the NT was written).

The "Closed Hand" belief refers to the fact that there is no such thing as extra-biblical revelation that is continually coming forth from men that is on the same level of authority as the Scriptures!!

Axehead

 

[Rex]

Ever since the chain was broken that tethered the bible to a single pulpit
some have railed against it

 

[Axehead]

I have already shown here that the Apostles wrote down what they spoke orally. If you look at the preponderance of evidence in all 66 books of the Bible, God instructed men to write down what He considered important enough not to pass down orally without writing it down.

I John 2:20-21 - The apostle assures Christians that they have from the apostles all the truth (what they "heard from the beginning" vs. 24). He then says: "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth."

• The "truth heard from the beginning" relates to the oral teaching of the apostle.
• What John now writes has 3 basic purposes:

1. To confirm truths already taught.
   
2. To warn about the "lies" of the Antichrist.
   
3. And to give a permanent record of the truth.

Rom_16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:And to give a permanent record of the truth.

The Written Word was Confirmed by Apostolic Signature and Internal Evidence (reference)
The churches of New Testament times recognized the apostolic origin of the books they received.. ​

We place emphasis on the Scriptures because Jesus Christ and the Apostles emphasized the Scriptures.
There is no precedent in the OT that the God of the NT (who is the same God of the OT) does not direct His revelation to be written down and thus to pass it on in written form.

As you can see in this next verse there is no "tradition" of handing anything down "orally". (Many more scriptures)
Act_15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Rom_16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

The emphasis is on reading the scriptures and keeping that which is written down.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Hab_2:2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.
Mat_24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

There is no such thing as extra-biblical revelation that is on the same level of authority as the Scriptures!!

There are also no Apostles today on the same level of Authority as the Apostles that God inspired to write down His words. (reference)
In order to change God's word by introducing NEW WORDS, there must of necessity be a redefining of what a modern day Apostle is. That redefinition, is that an Apostle today has the same authority as the original men that wrote the New Testament to write NEW revelation from God.

Look at the emphasis that Paul puts on reading his epistles. I have obviously not listed ALL the scriptures both in the OT and the NT that place such a strong emphasis on reading the Scriptures. Jesus Himself was always saying, "Have ye not read where it sayeth in the Scriptures?" Where did Jesus and the Apostles continually say, "remember what Isaiah told Jeremiah, who told Ezekiel, who told Daniel, who told Malachi that God said.....?" No! It is absolutely a ridiculous concept and God doesn't play the "Telephone Game". No matter how sincere and trusting you are, the words get changed when you play the Telephone Game and when the words are changed, the meaning is changed.

Eph_3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Col_4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

1Th_5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

And of course I don't need to really say this but will just in case anyone thinks we are engaging in Bibliolatry. The Letter by itself without the Spirit kills. Only the Spirit of God can give the "Letter", (Scriptures) life!

There is no life in extra-biblical revelation that is on the same level of authority as the God's Holy Scriptures.

Axehead

 

[Rex]

Life is full of choices sifting wheat from chaff is an every day chore.
We take it to market so that others my eat
Other merchants complain, my price is to low
So they go on and on about the fine quality bread that their wheat yields
Their field is like none other, that men have always bought here
They dump my basket over
Surly I tell you they have there reward

 

[Axehead]

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Mat_4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Oral tradition was not deemed important otherwise there would be as many scriptures referencing oral tradition as there are referencing the written word. Especially, since some say that Oral Tradition is on the same level of authority as the written word (scriptures). How come God did not emphasize this over and over again as He did concerning the Scriptures?

 

[HammerStone]

Well, this is not exactly the place to get into a discussion about the merits and understanding of sola scriptura. You are welcome to participate in an existing thread or start a new one, though. (I, for one, would be happy to participate in a focused discussion.) So I will be cutting off that part of the discussion only after I reply and address your concerns.

The New Testament did not exist at the time of the provided citation, so let us remove that typical Catholic-perspective red herring from the discussion - you know the one that somehow all silly Protestants believe the New Testament existed when the New Testament did not yet exist. However, Scripture did exist at the time, as our Savior read from it in fulfillment and numerous NT authors cited it, also in fulfillment. At this time, NT Scripture was being written, which would, of course, distinguish it from this [current] time when Scripture is no longer being written. The very authority of Jesus found testament in his fulfillment of what had been previously written.

As such, Protestantism looks to the Bible as the inspired source. We obviously allow for commentaries, traditions, and exposition on the Bible, but the entire point of the Reformation was to reorient a focus on Scripture as the great authority, with the other aspects (tradition, reason, experience, etc) being subservient to it. Jesus came into the world not in a vacuum, but instead in a role previously defined and predicted in Scripture that predated his advent, setting the typological pattern.

In contrast, the Catholic view is that a man, aided by a group of men, develop doctrine that is, at worst, on par with Scripture. Catholics would insist that this is done in light of Scripture and inspiration, but a number of others would submit that there are conflicting views between Papal declarations and Scripture. (Even in the oft-cited example, Philip expounded upon the existing Scripture to the confused but eager Eunuch.) As such, it is our stated position that yes, we absolutely reject many Catholic doctrines and positions, but we do not reject individual Catholics as nonChristian. This also extended to our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters in the faith who we disagree with from a slightly distinct perspective.

Unfortunately, the disconnect seems to stem from a caricatured version of sola scriptura. When someone brings up this line of attack, I simply like to point out that there were five solas, which means that there is clearly more to the story.

That is essentially the line of this forum, and thus Catholics and Orthodox are able to post here on issues that we do view as closed-handed.

 

[Brothertom]

I think it is wise to state where you stand, and it is this division that maintains purity of doctrine in the long run, which is paramount as to what Faith is. People fall away, or begin to fall away when they inwardly compromise, or believe the lie or compromise that others have led them into.

Ultimately, though, pure doctrine will not save you, but a pure faith will. It appears that the thief on the Cross was never born again, but had a pure enough faith to make it. Lot of grace there; eh?

 

[aspen]

I agree with the statement of faith - nice job. The small differences between Catholic and Protestant doctrine reflected in the statement do not exclude Catholics - IMO, a Catholic Statement of Faith would be much more exclusive. Not sure why you are so worried about it Mungo ??

My biggest problem with Catholic/Protestant disagreement is mostly do to misunderstandings and rhetoric concerning Catholic doctrine. I agree with the core issues...

 

[BjornFree]

I've enjoyed this little diversion and wondered when it would be brought back to topic.
I particularly empathise with the thought that Christianity is based on faith rather than doctrine.

Back to topic, my stance is to regard every man made Creed and Statement of Faith as having no more 'authority' than anything else that is 'man made'.
And that applies equally to the Nicene Creed and to the many different Forum SoF's.
It is good for the leaders of a forum to clarify what they believe, it is at their discretion to choose whether membership should be based on partial or complete acquiescence.

 

[Mungo]

I agree with the statement of faith - nice job. The small differences between Catholic and Protestant doctrine reflected in the statement do not exclude Catholics - IMO, a Catholic Statement of Faith would be much more exclusive. Not sure why you are so worried about it Mungo ??

Because it says if you do not sgree with this then you are not a Christian.
"We believe the Bible ....... is the primary source for Christians beliefs, practices, and doctrines. "

Now I know it also says that Catholics are Christians - but I guess that just one more contradiction in Protestantism.

 

[HammerStone]

So should I respond with the charge of just one more agenda-driven Catholic or can we actually get past that sort of thing here?

I'm sorry, but with all due respect it seems as though you are in search of persecution to highlight and/or a fight. Obviously there are issues amongst our churches that have not been reconciled, as our still-extant division illustrates, and I think the statement inclusively reflects the ambivalence. If we accept Catholic doctrine, well, we'd be Catholic. (The converse is true as well.) Yet we are not and we do not accept each others views on certain topics - some of them being in the realm of closed-handed issues. However, we do fundamentally agree on the status of Jesus. We fundamentally agree on a number of other things as well, so let's find that common ground. The SoF here allows for that.

Note even the phrase that you post; we explicitly chose "primary source" because, we believe, it enables those who believe tradition holds a truly prominent position (moreso than the average Protestant) can still fellowship at the table. Obviously Catholic doctrine holds the two as equal, but that is not a distinction that a Protestant is willing to make. Even on a personal level, I am willing to admit one of the problems within Protestantism today is that a contingent has cast out the baby with the bathwater and attempted to totally remove tradition. I believe, there is a happy medium, and I've been slowly discovering it - which is, I believe, true to the Reformers' intent.

 

[Rex]

Not only can you not see an open hand offering the presumption of grace threw faith, The open door
You have to open your mouth and remove all doubt, you'll have no part of it.

Mungo

 

[Mungo]

So should I respond with the charge of just one more agenda-driven Catholic or can we actually get past that sort of thing here?

I'm sorry, but with all due respect it seems as though you are in search of persecution to highlight and/or a fight. Obviously there are issues amongst our churches that have not been reconciled, as our still-extant division illustrates, and I think the statement inclusively reflects the ambivalence. If we accept Catholic doctrine, well, we'd be Catholic. (The converse is true as well.) Yet we are not and we do not accept each others views on certain topics - some of them being in the realm of closed-handed issues. However, we do fundamentally agree on the status of Jesus. We fundamentally agree on a number of other things as well, so let's find that common ground. The SoF here allows for that.

Note even the phrase that you post; we explicitly chose "primary source" because, we believe, it enables those who believe tradition holds a truly prominent position (moreso than the average Protestant) can still fellowship at the table. Obviously Catholic doctrine holds the two as equal, but that is not a distinction that a Protestant is willing to make. Even on a personal level, I am willing to admit one of the problems within Protestantism today is that a contingent has cast out the baby with the bathwater and attempted to totally remove tradition. I believe, there is a happy medium, and I've been slowly discovering it - which is, I believe, true to the Reformers' intent.

After your previous comment I was going to leave this and comment no further. However aspen2 asked me a question and I replied to him.