R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology

But what is the definition of a global consensus?Some would argue that a global consensus must involve answering the question that jesus asked peter: Who Do Men say tham I am? (...) Who do you say that I am?Others would argue that the only consensus that is important is being good for our own sake.Still others are always looking. Searching to solve the mystery.

Jesus asked Peter a question which could be said to be for all people everywhere.Who do Men say that I am?Peter is being asked to stand on his own and distance himself from the crowd. So ringo, who was Jesus? Is he more than another in a long line of teachers? Why or why not?Granted the majority of the world did not have the opportunity to walk and talk with Jesus as Peter did. Some say that today's Christians should be genuine enough to walk with people as Jesus once did, but far too few Christians even measure up to the character of Jesus.

so who do you say that the Jesus character was? And how does your answer compliment your understanding and belief in the Nicene Creed?Will you conclude that Jesus was a fallible human and nothing more? Does the Creed conclude the same?As you teach this as your informed opinion on the matter, do you feel good about what you are in fact teaching about Jesus?Aside from the statement that Jesus was made man, does the Creed emphasize His failures and human characteristics?Is there any particular reason that you have brought this up more than once?

It's things that you say like this that cause me to dismiss your so-called plain reading of the text while having no concept of belief in the character described in the book except when it furthers your arguments.As Faith says, the story plainly centered on Jesus asking Pilate what truth was and of Jesus asking Peter who Peter thought that He was. The story did not end with a failed Messiah...I don't even want to speculate on what demons inspire you to question the existence of Jesus, but hopefully, you inadvertently give Him spare change without knowing who you gave it to....you will pull out of this faux pax.

Some believe that Jesus was in the beginning with God...long before any books even existed. You are portraying Him simply as a character within a book. Lacking evidence, neither of us know for sure.I maintain, however, that I can very much believe in Jesus without the book...I just would have had to find out about Him some other way.

the same way the authors of the stories heard of Him.

See? This is the whole reason that you never became a believer. Your entire mental thought process requires hard evidence before you even entertain the idea of belief. Since you have yet to find satisfactory evidence for a God or for Jesus being a living Spirit today, you resort to the only evidence you have...the book which describes it all (except for later added dogma) and you limit any possibility of belief by the common error of "putting God in a box" or book, as it were.I have no counter argument to convince you otherwise, but I can see why your arguments are framed the way that they are.Socialism without woo is worse than the gulag, I swear. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

The same way that Saul encountered Jesus long after He died.

The only sense it would make to "throw God away" would be if you trusted that your destiny was based entirely on what you do. Which could in fact make you close to an atheist. Why is it you have never claimed to be one. This GOD you throw away....seems like the only thing that would keep you from being one.

Dr.Sproul has passed on to the next level. His teachings are useful to a degree---I am not convinced that he and MacArthur, Piper, and Geisler were "snake oil salesmen". I also am not convinced that jar is right when he declares that nobody knows God (since they cannot objectively prove or explain it) and that Jesus was simply a great teacher and not the sacrificial Son defended by Biblical Christianity. The clincher for me is jar telling us to throw God away. I m quite convinced that this edict is WRONG. I for one believe that I have "met" God in that I did get saved at one point in my life. the fact that I can't explain it objectively is not a concern that threatens my belief paradigm. Quite simply I conclude that many of you really don't want God (as we describe Him) to exist. It may be true that you insist that you would be thrilled and quite open were you to receive adequate evidence, but at this point in time (in our debates and discussions) I don't see it. Also, note that I understand how atheists think better than I used to. You likely would ignore any and all "still small voices" and focus on external empirical evidence ALONE. This is where you and I differ.So there we stand...separated by a chasm. You will use as your tools of persuasion basic logic, reason, and reality. You will attempt to frame the words of the modern Bible as something to be studied in light of the authors and not presupposing anything about whether or not GOD and Jesus are real--and whether or not Jesus can be known in this modern-day and age. Of course, none of you has experienced what I have experienced, just as I have never experienced what any of you have nor deciding on my beliefs through the lens of your studies as well (as experiences). I don't know much--and critics can indeed accuse (or at best suggest) that I am deceived through several psychological tricks common to us. I am not knowing to lie when I say that when I pray, I hear an inner unction. It is not always a confirmation of my wishes. It is not always "Yes". At its core, it is but a belief. For the sake of argument, we could label it as my subconscious. It means so much to me, however, that I will at a necessary point trust It. Even over sociological logic, reason, and consensus. That is my definition of a Believer, seen through the eyes of myself.I also watched another YouTube presentation by a Theologian where he counters the reformed Theology of Calvinism...or at least modifies it.Yes, I will still study those who profess to believe in God and in Jesus.In fact, if you keep challenging me to throw Him away, I will keep urging you to pick Him up.

So we are Christians because we claim to be Christians? Are you saying that God has no part in this process?

Oh I'm sure a few agree with him, Faith! He irritates me, but he helps me understand my own beliefs...even if only by causing me to firmly disagree with him! Atheist? OK how about evil? or noble and good? Essentially you have unmasked your belief, jar. That it is we and in no part "He"...Go ahead, ask me what the evidence shows! Because that jury is out. There is no solid evidence in support of your position.I am going to have to go here:
What Is A True Christian?
Im reading the entire thread. Some good quotes from current active members: which evolved into following the message rather than the messenger. And (to jar)
So you dont believe in demons apart from what humans create? I can go with that...but not so much that we also create God. That is a threat to my faith. And unlike the atheist secular humanists, I can't live without that inner assurance. Granted I admit that we make the world that we create....to a degree. I believe that we are responsible...to a degree. But I don't ...I wont....throw God away. I cant. Also...as to my personal belief regarding demons? I can throw them away, but I have had experiences that cause me to think and believe that scripture is more than a simple human creation. Religion might be, but Jesus is larger than the book and GOD? I will agree with you (jar) that He is undefinable except what scripture shows us...and people have been trying to describe Him for years. So on that one, I agree with GDR. We see God through the lens of Jesus. What do you think, Faith? Edited by Thugpreacha, : clarification

I can agree with that. What I don't agree with is that God is a human construct. Just because people don't agree on Who or What He is (and does) does not mean that we are collectively creating Him. Metaphorically, He confused our languages in Genesis 11 because He was aware that the people...as one...in unity...could achieve ANYTHING. And He knew that if we left GOD out, we would fail.

and another thing....we are again trying to become One without GOD. Its the next evolutionary step that y'all are waiting for....to throw Him away and remove the shackles of organized religion. I can agree that religion itself is unnecessary but again, I wont agree that Christianity is only about what one does and that one need not believe or have a relationship with God/Jesus.And yes, I can see it coming! jar will again ask me for the umpteenth time how such a relationship is even possible.Did it ever occur to you that you may have been taught incorrectly? Jesus talked often with His Father. Was He schizophrenic? Can all of the other religions and beliefs make it to heaven? Absolutely. Should we throw God away? Nowhere does Jesus even hint at this heresy.

How does your interpretation differ from what an apologist would say? Are you saying that " the God" was worried about Heaven becoming crowded? That's more silly than my explanation! God came down (to our level, maybe?) and declared: Note: The people imagined to do something all of their own accord in order to make a name for themselves.What would be so wrong about that? And why do you assert that this "God character" felt threatened? Seems as if you imply that we humans could actually reach Heaven. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.