Cardinal Doctrines, and the next most important doctrines are...?

[Mr GLee]

And, for some of those who might read this, angels cannot "BECOME" God. If something can become god, they are not then, God, because they are still not self-existing (if for no other obvious reasons).

But God can (and did) become creature, the firstborn. @Mr GLee , this does not mean that Jesus had to later become born again. I hope, from this principle if not from a few others, that you can understand why I say that.

I would offer.

The Greek word Apostle has clearly seen destroyed by a oral tradition of dying mankind. adding a new meaning to the word messenger apostle . It should of been given the English translation "sent messenger" (apostle) the same with the old testament angels "malakh", sent ones not angel .

leaving it in the original understandings (foreign) can cause problems and open a dark door .

I would offer the apostles "sent messengers" UPS, Pony Express, Western Union, Amazon my wife old errand boy translated from the Greek word Angelos .

How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel (sola scritura) They are empowered to preach the gospel in a hope Christ will be formed in others .

Those that sought to change the meaning of the word "apostles" into "angel" a fake word sounds the same completely different meaning,

Angel not coined until. 1465 by Edward IV .

Changing the word messenger (apostle ) into highly venerable ones that lord it over the faith or undestanding of the non- venerable pew warmers .

Therefore creating a legion of disembodied spirit gods men and women as patron saints No such thing a a invisible creation called angels .

It is Christ in us working with us as two walking together not a legion of fathers dying mankind why give his glory to another unseen spirit .

We know the wiles of the evil one called the legion.

Changing the meaning of words That would seem like ones own imagination gone wild

 

[makesends]

For a sinner to be saved, he must believe...

1) That God exists

2) That he is a sinner against God

3) That Jesus is God and man

4) That Jesus shed his blood and died on the cross to bear his (the sinner's) sins and punishment

5) He must believe that Jesus rose from the dead

6) He must not only accept that the above are facts, but he must believe in Jesus with all his heart

There are other vital doctrines, but they are not needed for initial salvation.

Not that my statements, constructions, crutches or views are of any authority, but I like to compare anyone's statement/explanation of what is the "Gospel", to what I consider the absolute simplicity: That of what the human least able to reason would need, in order to be saved, according to what I understand to be the Gospel. This (hopefully) strips off the noise that human reason introduces into the mix. If the worst clinical idiot, unable to have concepts or fully formed thought, perhaps even lacking eternal sensation altogether, aware only of what God reveals, has some feeling of the horror of separation/difference/gulf between his self and the Source Of All Things, and so his absolute need, sees that the Source (God) has made a way/bridged that awful gulf, all by HIS own doing, thus he has been regenerated and gladly embraces the joy of his salvation.

Thus:

1) I don't see the concept of "God exists" as important to his (the clinical idiot's) understanding, but rather, it being simple fact believed, taken as basic to any concept or thought. The concept, "God", is basic, prerequisite, assumed, to validate any other thought. It is even more basic than "self", I think.

2) Completely agreed. The "gulf"/distance/separation

3) God himself "crossed" the gulf, or removed the separation, and I would add, at God's "own expense".

4) Same as 3.

5) His embraced joy is in his savior who is life itself

6) He already believes, upon God showing him. He has nothing else to believe.

The clinical idiot who cannot hear, and has never heard, the words we hear, see, read and think we understand, may well have a purer faith than we who make rules. But we are, unlike him, locked in our temporal thinking, and need concepts to agree with.

Thank God that saving faith is generated by the Spirit of God himself, who knows perfectly the facts, and is committed to them absolutely faithfully, and not by the presumptuous concepts that we idiots babble all day long.

 

[makesends]

I agree. BTW Arials post was well done.

To add...

This is what God the LORD says—He who created the heavens and stretched them out....
I am the LORD; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another or My praise to idols. Isaiah 42:8

As we know, God didn't yield His glory to Jesus....as Jesus already had the glory of God from before the world began.

The only time Jesus didn't have the glory was during his incarnation in which He appeared in the kenosis as a servant to God the Father. (Phil 2:7)
With the exception of the Mt. of Transfiguration event.

Yes, agreed! I think it is sort of a pun, but beautiful, or maybe I should say, a huge irony, that the deity of Christ (and so, part of his glory) is shown in that very fact of his incarnation, and purity in his temporal human life. Only God himself could be what Jesus was and do what he did —sinlessly, completely, utterly depending on his God. Not like Adam before he fell, or like animals, innocent and ignorant, but with full knowledge of the horrors and distractions and pleasures of this life.

 

[makesends]

I would offer.

The Greek word Apostle has clearly seen destroyed by a oral tradition of dying mankind. adding a new meaning to the word messenger apostle . It should of been given the English translation "sent messenger" (apostle) the same with the old testament angels "malakh", sent ones not angel .

leaving it in the original understandings (foreign) can cause problems and open a dark door .

I would offer the apostles "sent messengers" UPS, Pony Express, Western Union, Amazon my wife old errand boy translated from the Greek word Angelos .

How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel (sola scritura) They are empowered to preach the gospel in a hope Christ will be formed in others .

Those that sought to change the meaning of the word "apostles" into "angel" a fake word sounds the same completely different meaning,

Angel not coined until. 1465 by Edward IV .

Changing the word messenger (apostle ) into highly venerable ones that lord it over the faith or undestanding of the non- venerable pew warmers .

Therefore creating a legion of disembodied spirit gods men and women as patron saints No such thing a a invisible creation called angels .

It is Christ in us working with us as two walking together not a legion of fathers dying mankind why give his glory to another unseen spirit .

We know the wiles of the evil one called the legion.

Changing the meaning of words That would seem like ones own imagination gone wild

I like that very much. Well written, too, as to understandability. But, I'm not sure I agree with your play on the word, "legion", there, because the fact the same word can be used does not logically translate from the one use to the other. But, as to your condemnation of the RCC use of 'Saints' as particularly venerated, I do agree with you there.

 

[makesends]

For a sinner to be saved, he must believe...

1) That God exists

2) That he is a sinner against God

3) That Jesus is God and man

4) That Jesus shed his blood and died on the cross to bear his (the sinner's) sins and punishment

5) He must believe that Jesus rose from the dead

6) He must not only accept that the above are facts, but he must believe in Jesus with all his heart

There are other vital doctrines, but they are not needed for initial salvation.

Your last statement, "There are other vital doctrines, but they are not needed for initial salvation", implies that there are actual doctrines that must be understood and accepted, as you alluded to also in your point #6. Yet, according to the Bible, it is not the doctrines as such, but the understanding, that is endemic to the meaning of the Gospel. It is WE (reasoning humanity) who find it necessary to put the truth into doctrinal form. We have no integrity of understanding in-and-of ourselves, no matter the words of the doctrines—the words that we put to the facts of the Gospel.

It might be worth mentioning also, that while belief (that is, salvific faith) is needed for initial salvation, the conscious accepting of the facts, submission, subsuming of our hearts to him, is a result, an agreement with, what God has already accomplished in us by his gracious gift of faith. We do indeed yield our will, and gladly —thrillingly, even— but that did not cause our salvation. God did.

 

[David1701]

Not that my statements, constructions, crutches or views are of any authority, but I like to compare anyone's statement/explanation of what is the "Gospel", to what I consider the absolute simplicity: That of what the human least able to reason would need, in order to be saved, according to what I understand to be the Gospel. This (hopefully) strips off the noise that human reason introduces into the mix. If the worst clinical idiot, unable to have concepts or fully formed thought, perhaps even lacking eternal sensation altogether, aware only of what God reveals, has some feeling of the horror of separation/difference/gulf between his self and the Source Of All Things, and so his absolute need, sees that the Source (God) has made a way/bridged that awful gulf, all by HIS own doing, thus he has been regenerated and gladly embraces the joy of his salvation.

Thus:

1) I don't see the concept of "God exists" as important to his (the clinical idiot's) understanding, but rather, it being simple fact believed, taken as basic to any concept or thought. The concept, "God", is basic, prerequisite, assumed, to validate any other thought. It is even more basic than "self", I think.

2) Completely agreed. The "gulf"/distance/separation

3) God himself "crossed" the gulf, or removed the separation, and I would add, at God's "own expense".

4) Same as 3.

5) His embraced joy is in his savior who is life itself

6) He already believes, upon God showing him. He has nothing else to believe.

The clinical idiot who cannot hear, and has never heard, the words we hear, see, read and think we understand, may well have a purer faith than we who make rules. But we are, unlike him, locked in our temporal thinking, and need concepts to agree with.

Thank God that saving faith is generated by the Spirit of God himself, who knows perfectly the facts, and is committed to them absolutely faithfully, and not by the presumptuous concepts that we idiots babble all day long.

I agree that it's about faith, not intellectual understanding; in fact, I more or less stated that; however, most people are capable of intellectual understanding and that goes along with the faith (at least in a basic form).

 

[David1701]

Your last statement, "There are other vital doctrines, but they are not needed for initial salvation", implies that there are actual doctrines that must be understood and accepted, as you alluded to also in your point #6. Yet, according to the Bible, it is not the doctrines as such, but the understanding, that is endemic to the meaning of the Gospel. It is WE (reasoning humanity) who find it necessary to put the truth into doctrinal form. We have no integrity of understanding in-and-of ourselves, no matter the words of the doctrines—the words that we put to the facts of the Gospel.

It might be worth mentioning also, that while belief (that is, salvific faith) is needed for initial salvation, the conscious accepting of the facts, submission, subsuming of our hearts to him, is a result, an agreement with, what God has already accomplished in us by his gracious gift of faith. We do indeed yield our will, and gladly —thrillingly, even— but that did not cause our salvation. God did.

What I meant was that there are other vital doctrines, which, once we come across them, we will believe, if we have been saved; but, they are unnecessary for initial salvation.

 

[makesends]

I agree that it's about faith, not intellectual understanding; in fact, I more or less stated that; however, most people are capable of intellectual understanding and that goes along with the faith (at least in a basic form).

What I meant was that there are other vital doctrines, which, once we come across them, we will believe, if we have been saved; but, they are unnecessary for initial salvation.

Agreed, both. Thanks.

 

[Arial]

It is WE (reasoning humanity) who find it necessary to put the truth into doctrinal form. We have no integrity of understanding in-and-of ourselves, no matter the words of the doctrines—the words that we put to the facts of the Gospel.

I think I know what you mean. But I must also say this: There has to be doctrine in Christ's church. It is necessary otherwise it has no borders or boundaries. And Jesus gave us the apostles to establish that doctrine via the Holy Spirit, and give it to mankind, first their teaching and letters to the churches of the NT, and then to us. The NT is the compilation of the church's foundation, its doctrine, and nothing should be built on a different foundation.

It is the lack of sound, systematic, teaching of NT doctrine for generations that has made the church look like the porous southern border of the US. It is what Paul in 2 Tim was exhorting Timothy to do----teach and defend the doctrine of Christ's church---to teach the sound doctrine that Paul taught him, and train up those who would follow Timothy to do the same, and so on and so on. To keep out the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Indeed it was done by inspired humans, but it came from Christ.

 

[makesends]

I think I know what you mean. But I must also say this: There has to be doctrine in Christ's church. It is necessary otherwise it has no borders or boundaries. And Jesus gave us the apostles to establish that doctrine via the Holy Spirit, and give it to mankind, first their teaching and letters to the churches of the NT, and then to us. The NT is the compilation of the church's foundation, its doctrine, and nothing should be built on a different foundation.

It is the lack of sound, systematic, teaching of NT doctrine for generations that has made the church look like the porous southern border of the US. It is what Paul in 2 Tim was exhorting Timothy to do----teach and defend the doctrine of Christ's church---to teach the sound doctrine that Paul taught him, and train up those who would follow Timothy to do the same, and so on and so on. To keep out the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Indeed it was done by inspired humans, but it came from Christ.

Amen all that!

Particularly, doctrine directly from scripture, vs doctrine from our arrangements. For example, that "God will complete what he has begun" is directly from Scripture, but that "once I have accepted Christ into my heart I am eternally secure", is not. That "all those the Father gives the Son he will raise up the last day" is directly from scripture, but, "that I was led to Christ and submitted my will to his, is proof of my salvation" is not.

 

[Mr GLee]

I like that very much. Well written, too, as to understandability. But, I'm not sure I agree with your play on the word, "legion", there, because the fact the same word can be used does not logically translate from the one use to the other. But, as to your condemnation of the RCC use of 'Saints' as particularly venerated, I do agree with you there.

Thanks

Antichrist (singular) another teaching authority other than sola scriptura. Known as the oral traditons of dying mankind . false prophecy .

Satan the false prophet using false prohecy oral traditions of a legion of fathers antichrsits (plural)

Antichrists' plural the Legion false apostles.

Working in the same way as true prophecy, true prophets sent out as apostles by Christ with sola scriptura.

How beautiful are thier feet Today we can let our finger do the walking and the scripture living word do the teaching.

Go out unto the whole word .

1 John 1:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist (singular) shall come, even now are there many antichrists;(legion many ) whereby we know that it is the last time.

The same legion needed to put the face of the dead on

1 Samuel 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (legion) ascending out of the earth.

 

[donadams]

Is any doctrine reveled by Christ inconsequential?

Thks

 

[Arial]

Is any doctrine reveled by Christ inconsequential?

Thks

Please address your post to someone if they are responding to a post. If all you are going to do is promote RCC doctrine and tradition, and not engage with the thread topic, put it on the Catholic board. Posting like this is simply trolling.

 

[donadams]

Please address your post to someone if they are responding to a post. If all you are going to do is promote RCC doctrine and tradition, and not engage with the thread topic, put it on the Catholic board. Posting like this is simply trolling.

I was addressing the op and i thought they deleted the catholic forum?

 

[Arial]

I was addressing the op and i thought they deleted the catholic forum?

It is there. But Mary is the sign of our salvation is not addressing the OP because it is not a cardinal doctrine of Christianity.