[Disciple_of_christ]

Originally Posted by godrulz

http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Spe.../dp/0310293162 Spectrum of Evangelicalism

I consider myself a Christian, Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal. I have often said that equally capable, godly believers can differ on any given subject. I object to being considered the spawn of Satan because I disagree with people here on peripheral subjects (that they are often unbiblical one, ironically).

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has an interesting concept that helps differentiate fundamentalism, evangelicalism, sect, cult. As a paramedic, I understand triage (French...'to sort'). For theology, we can sort priority, urgency, essentials, non-essentials, etc.

1) First- level doctrines: These are central to and essential for the Christian faith and include the existence of God (monotheism), the full Deity/humanity/resurrection of Christ, justification by grace through faith alone apart from works/law, the authority of Scripture as the Word of God, etc. Early heresies attacked these things and still do today. This is why JWs, Mormons, Muslims, etc. are not biblical, historical, orthodox Christians. Christianity stands or falls on these core truths. Denying these things puts one outside of grace.

2) Second- level doctrines: These create significant division and boundaries between believers leading to congregational/denominational entities. This includes things like the meaning and mode of baptism. Disagreement on these things (styles of church government, cessationism vs continuationism, OSAS, Calvinism vs Arminianism, etc.) does not constitute denial of the gospel, Christ, Bible.

3) Third-level doctrines: These are things that we may disagree on and yet remain in close fellowship, even within the same family or church (e.g. eschatology, sanctification theories, styles of worship, Open Theism, Bible translation preference, etc.). We can maintain love, acceptance, and unity without compromise when these issues are in question.

We need to avoid doctrinal collapse on first-order issues and doctrinal preoccupation/schism over third-order ones. We can and should debate second-order ones without negating salvation, etc. of our detractors.

Mature believers are able to dialogue, speak truth in love, etc. Immature, hyper-fundamentalist, sectarian, etc. types will attack the person (argumentum ad hominem), major on minors, confuse their subjective interpretations with objective truth/orthodoxy, elevate non-essentials to the level of essentials, etc.

If you can't say amen, say ouch.

I need to learn to engage people who are reasonable, biblical, balanced, responsive to truth, teachable, mature, etc. and quit wasting time on the lunatic fringe who are the opposite of these things (they merit ignoring, rebuke, censure, etc.).

Remember the Moravian Motto that summarizes the gist of this....

I totally agree with you, unfortunately, everytime i try to engage with fellow believers, we disagree on first and second level doctrines and they interpret it as an attack on the bible and their "biased" interpretations. It is very difficult for me to even discuss how to understand the bible in an unbiased manner with them.

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by godrulz

[John MacArthur] "...He should know better and have more intellectual honesty."

Strawman

Originally Posted by godrulz

"Jesus is sinless..."

SD: “ Could he [jesus] have sinned?
Godrulz: “I believe He could have, but did not…” link

Originally Posted by godrulz

"...You are railing against a straw man."

You're projecting again (Eph 4:14).

Originally Posted by godrulz

"The impeccability of Christ is a peripheral debate..."

Strawman

Jesus sinlessness is essential Christian doctrine. Your Jesus cannot save. Human beings born after Adam are sinners (Ro 3:23). Jesus would not have sinned because although he is a man, he is not a sinner (Heb 4:15). When you say Jesus could have sinned, you are saying he is not God (Jn 1:1). You also reveal that you do not know him. No one would accurse you of being blessed (Mt 16:17). The Jesus of scripture came to save sinners not to be made one (1 John 4:10). He is holy (Ps 16:10, Isa 11:4,5). He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:26–35) and born of a virgin (Matt. 1:19–25).

You are wrong (Heb 1:3). You are an antichrist (2 Pe 2:1).

[15 Words of Hope 2 Corinthians 5:21 Grace to You] "...[i]f there was to be reconciliation, the plan had to come from God, He had to initiate it. He had to design it. He had to execute it.

..."He made Him who knew no sin." That's the identification of the substitute. Who is it? Him who knew no sin...Him who knew no sin, who is that? It's not a human being for there is none of them who is righteous, no not one. They've all sinned and come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23. There's no human being who qualifies. Who is the one who knew no sin? Who is this one? Who is the one who can bear the full wrath of God against sin for somebody else because He doesn't have to bear it for Himself? See, no sinful person could be a substitute, no sinner could die for another sinner because he would have to pay the penalty for his own sin. There had to be a sinless offering. And it had to be a human being because it had to be man who dies for man, but he couldn't be a sinful human being or he would have to die for his own sin and couldn't provide atonement for somebody else's. So it had to be a sinless man.

Well the only way to have a sinless man was to have a man who was God because God alone is sinless. So if you're going to have a sinless man you have to have a man who is God. And that's exactly what God designed...that the second member of the trinity, sinless and perfect, equally holy with the other two members of the trinity would come into the world in the form of a man. He was not to have a human father, Joseph was not the father of Jesus and Joseph knew it. Joseph had never known his wife in a conjugal way. He found out that she was with child, he couldn't believe it. And then the angel said, "That which was conceived in her was of the Holy Spirit." So that Jesus had a human mother that He might be a human, but God was His Father so that He was the God/Man, the sinless human being.

The Old Testament pictured that because when the lamb was selected it had to be a lamb without...what?...spot and without blemish. It had to be a perfect animal without a mark, picturing the real substitute who would be perfect. A man to die for men. God to be sinless so that indeed He could be a substitute...

...Now the testimony of unbelieving men was of his sinlessness. The testimony of those who knew Him best was of His sinlessness. But there's another who gave testimony and that testimony is indeed powerful. It was none other than God the Father Himself. At His baptism recorded in Matthew 3:17 the Father said, "This is My beloved Son in whom I am completely pleased." And at His transfiguration in Matthew 17 verse 5, "This is My beloved Son in whom I am completely pleased." You see, the Father was totally satisfied with the Son. There was nothing in the Son that dissatisfied the Father, He was perfect, sinless.

And maybe the greatest testimony of His sinlessness was the unbroken fellowship He had with God. "I and the Father are one. I and the Father are one." He said that many times. He says that in John 10 verse 30. He says it in John 14 verses 30 and 31. He says it repeatedly in John 17, He says it in verse 11, He says it in verse 21, 22, 23, we're one, we're one, we're one, we're one, we're united, we're united. That was the greatest testimony of His sinlessness was that He had absolutely unbroken communion with God.

Now had He not been man He couldn't be the substitute. Had He not been sinless He couldn't be the substitute. So He had to be man and He had to be God.

Notice our text again, "God made Him who knew no sin," here is the remarkable statement, "to be sin." You see, He had to punish sin but if He punished the sinner the sinner would be destroyed in hell eternally. So He had to take the substitute and put Him in the place of the sinner and punish the substitute instead. He had to be sin. That phrase is very important and I want you to grasp it.

What does it mean that He was made sin? That's an astounding statement. What does it mean? Well, first of all, let me tell you what it doesn't mean and you need to understand this clearly. It does not mean that Christ became a sinner. It does not mean that He committed a sin. It does not mean that He broke God's law. He did not do that. The Scriptures I've just read to you indicate that He had no capacity to sin, that's what theologians call the impeccability of Christ. He had no possibility to sin. He could not sin. He was sinless God while fully man. And certainly it is unthinkable that God would turn Him into a sinner. The idea of God making anybody a sinner is unthinkable, to say nothing of making His holy Son into a sinner..." Full text: 15 Words of Hope 2 Corinthians 5:21 Grace to You

See:

Godrulz