This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

The Last Battle

Please don't close the door behind you.

Postby Brackish Potato » 15 Mar 2007, 19:51

rusmeister wrote:The fundamental baptists I grew up among believed in that unconditional security. It's not limited to Calvinism.

Calvinism isn't exactly a denomination. It's more like a philosophy (I know that's not exact, but the best I can do right now). The doctrine of eternal security is very prevalent among Baptists. I am Protestant and I disagree with this doctrine. But I don't believe salvation occurs after death. I believe you can be saved and know for sure that you are going to Heaven when you die.
User avatar
Brackish Potato
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Nuevo Mejico

Postby UrendiMaleldil » 15 Mar 2007, 20:51

Dan65802 wrote:Most fundamental baptist groups are Calvinists.


I guess it helps to label & categorize. :smile:
If you were subjects of Maleldil, you would have peace.
User avatar
UrendiMaleldil
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Texas... yuck!

Postby Guest » 15 Mar 2007, 20:55

UrendiMaleldil wrote:I guess it helps to label & categorize.


It sure does when I'm picking a can of soup.
Guest
 

Postby rusmeister » 17 Mar 2007, 04:15

Brackish Potato wrote: I believe you can be saved and know for sure that you are going to Heaven when you die.


How is your belief different from OSAS? Sure sounds the same to me.

I found these figures on Wikipedia. They were derived principally from the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004.


I'll go with my common sense over those statistics, or as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." As I said, that would entail the equivalent of the combined populations of the US and Western Europe being Protestant. Since Protestants outside of these regions are a rarity, and even in the regions are not a majority of the population, that makes no sense (see my previous post).

Anyway, the most important point, and the one that brought this up, is that Lewis obviously did not adhere to OSAS, which makes the character of Emeth inexplicable. (and it should be granted that a number of Protestant groups don't accept it, either).
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby Guest » 17 Mar 2007, 17:13

rusmeister wrote:How is (the belief that you can be sure about your salvation) different from OSAS? Sure sounds the same to me.


The basic difference is my surity in my salvation is based on my relationship with Christ. I can, however foolish it would be, reject that relationship and thus no longer be saved (at least according to my more Arminian belief). The OSAS doctrine of Calvinism would say that once you're saved it is impossible to change your mind.

rusmeister wrote:I'll go with my common sense over those statistics, or as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."


I believe the context of Twain's comment was that statistics can be used to justify falsehood, not that we shouldn't believe the raw numbers of statistics. I think the main problem with your common sense solution could be your idea that Protestantism is "a rarity" outside of the U.S. and Western Europe. That conclusion may be based on faulty or antiquated information. There are high percentages of Protestants in South America, Africa (40% of Southern Africa is Protestant), Oceania (43%) and the Carribbean. Unless you've got something other than your opinion to go on, I'll go with governmental statistics over your common sense conclusion :-).

rusmeister wrote:...the most important point, and the one that brought this up, is that Lewis obviously did not adhere to OSAS, which makes the character of Emeth inexplicable"


Although Lewis probably did not believe in the OSAS doctrine of Calvinism, he may have been more amenable to the Calvinism doctrine of unconditional election. His views would certainly not have matched up with the doctrine as Calvinists would describe it, but it may give some insight into his Emeth story, along with his views of purgatory.

- Dan -
Guest
 

Postby rusmeister » 17 Mar 2007, 21:37

Dan65802 wrote:
rusmeister wrote:How is (the belief that you can be sure about your salvation) different from OSAS? Sure sounds the same to me.


The basic difference is my surity in my salvation is based on my relationship with Christ. I can, however foolish it would be, reject that relationship and thus no longer be saved (at least according to my more Arminian belief). The OSAS doctrine of Calvinism would say that once you're saved it is impossible to change your mind.

rusmeister wrote:I'll go with my common sense over those statistics, or as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."


I believe the context of Twain's comment was that statistics can be used to justify falsehood, not that we shouldn't believe the raw numbers of statistics. I think the main problem with your common sense solution could be your idea that Protestantism is "a rarity" outside of the U.S. and Western Europe. That conclusion may be based on faulty or antiquated information. There are high percentages of Protestants in South America, Africa (40% of Southern Africa is Protestant), Oceania (43%) and the Carribbean. Unless you've got something other than your opinion to go on, I'll go with governmental statistics over your common sense conclusion :-).

rusmeister wrote:...the most important point, and the one that brought this up, is that Lewis obviously did not adhere to OSAS, which makes the character of Emeth inexplicable"


Although Lewis probably did not believe in the OSAS doctrine of Calvinism, he may have been more amenable to the Calvinism doctrine of unconditional election. His views would certainly not have matched up with the doctrine as Calvinists would describe it, but it may give some insight into his Emeth story, along with his views of purgatory.

- Dan -


Hi Dan!
The first point is understandable, the third is arguable, and I could turn the second completely around but don't think it worth the effort. I'll bet you're the kind of guy I might be pretty good friends with if we knew each other 'live'.

Maybe the one thing we can agree upon is that Emeth was a logical part of Lewis's faith.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby Guest » 18 Mar 2007, 01:14

rusmeister wrote:I'll bet you're the kind of guy I might be pretty good friends with if we knew each other 'live'.


Such a friendship would be an honor.

rusmeister wrote:Maybe the one thing we can agree upon is that Emeth was a logical part of Lewis's faith.


And that his faith didn't quite match up exactly to any particular church doctrine.

- Dan -
Guest
 

Postby Brackish Potato » 19 Mar 2007, 22:36

Dan65802 wrote:
rusmeister wrote:How is (the belief that you can be sure about your salvation) different from OSAS? Sure sounds the same to me.


The basic difference is my surity in my salvation is based on my relationship with Christ. I can, however foolish it would be, reject that relationship and thus no longer be saved (at least according to my more Arminian belief). The OSAS doctrine of Calvinism would say that once you're saved it is impossible to change your mind.

Yay, Dan! You say stuff so much better than I can.
User avatar
Brackish Potato
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Nuevo Mejico

Postby Pete » 29 Mar 2007, 02:35

rusmeister wrote:Under OSAS, you can't reject your own salvation later. This doctrine says, "You are already saved", as opposed to the Orthodox doctrine that we are 'being saved'.


Interesting you point this out, Rus. I was raised believing OSAS, until just recently it was pointed out to me, actually that's Biblically incorrect. It's almost true, but not quite, because in that list of things that cannot separate us from the Love of Christ it is of course important for us to notice that neither self nor sin are mentioned in that list.

It's a challenging concept, and it really should be preached. How many souls have been lost because they turned away from the things of God, thinking that OSAS, when if they had heard that self and sin aren't in that list would have come back to Him in desparate repentence.
Member of The 2456317 Club

Image
User avatar
Pete
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Aug 1996

Postby Pete » 29 Mar 2007, 02:43

rusmeister wrote:Catholics are still the most numerous (in terms of sheer numbers of people) confession in the world, and Orthodoxy is second. All Protestants put together, and including sects like Mormons, JWs and others can't outnumber Catholics plus Orthodox. I doubt they'd even outnumber Catholics.


We can't really list Mormons and JW's under the heading of Protestants, because most Protestant Churches do preach orthodox Christianity, where as Mormons and JWs don't...
Member of The 2456317 Club

Image
User avatar
Pete
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Aug 1996

Postby Pete » 29 Mar 2007, 02:57

I grew up in believing OSAS (as I stated in a previous post), I also was grew up in Baptist churches, so this would seem to support what Dan's been saying.

As for knowing you're saved if nothing can separate us from the love of Christ apart from self and sin, then it would appear to be very clear that we can know our salvation is secure if we're not choosing to rebel against God and live in sin.
Member of The 2456317 Club

Image
User avatar
Pete
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Aug 1996

Postby rusmeister » 29 Mar 2007, 03:25

Pete wrote: most Protestant Churches do preach orthodox Christianity, where as Mormons and JWs don't...


I think you need to define clearly what you mean by "orthodox". If you really take 'most' Protestant churches together as a group, you will find huge abysses of disagreement even while agreeing that Jesus is Lord (which is a good start, but not even enough to bring them together). That's hardly sufficient to be 'orthodox'(small 'o'). And certainly they are not Orthodox (big 'O').

That said, it looks like we've shared some of the same experiences.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby Guest » 29 Mar 2007, 13:17

rusmeister wrote:I think you need to define clearly what you mean by "orthodox". If you really take 'most' Protestant churches together as a group, you will find huge abysses of disagreement even while agreeing that Jesus is Lord (which is a good start, but not even enough to bring them together). That's hardly sufficient to be 'orthodox'(small 'o'). And certainly they are not Orthodox (big 'O').


If we define orthodoxy as basic Nicene Creed kind of stuff, I still think you're finding agreement in most foundational Protestant church doctrines. That, of course, is not to say that some churches haven't moved away from their foundational doctrines.

I understand the need for labels for churches. They serve the same purpose of labels on tin cans: they tell you what you can expect inside. However, I am confident that God does not consider labels when determining who His true followers are.

- Dan -
Guest
 

Postby rusmeister » 29 Mar 2007, 16:05

Dan65802 wrote:If we define orthodoxy as basic Nicene Creed kind of stuff,
- Dan -


We don't. :sad:

It has to be what was passed down without fail from the early Church to our days; ergo, there had to be some portion of the Church in no need of a Reformation.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby Guest » 29 Mar 2007, 16:21

rusmeister wrote:We don't. It has to be what was passed down without fail from the early Church to our days...


I'm sorry, I considered the Nicene Creed (4th century) to be fairly early Church. I did not mean to offend the Orthodox church. I had thought the Nicene Creed was accepted by the Orthodox church.

The point remains that Protestant churches consider the items in the Nicene Creed orthodoxy, and are pretty much unified in agreement on these doctrines in their foundational beliefs.

- Dan -
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to The Chronicles of Narnia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest

cron