If you're interested and willing to moderate and grow this community, please go to r/redditrequest, where you can submit a request to take over the community. Be sure to read through the faq for r/redditrequest before submitting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ut_Unum_Sint

Are y'all familiar with the 1997 "Formula of Agreement" amongst Reformed and Lutheran denominations?

I really vibe with the "Mutual Affirmation and Admonition" ideas there. It basically allowed traditional enmity among these denominations to be formally renounced without any of the denominations having to compromise on their core denominational beliefs

https://books.google.com/books?id=cKddgvgVFEsC&lpg=PA129&ots=IMx7vhmp7L&dq=admonition%20and%20affirmation&pg=PA129#v=onepage&q=admonition%20and%20affirmation&f=false

What do you think?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/february/3-ways-to-encourage-peace-between-generations-in-denominati.html

Here's my shot:

In desiring to share his glory, God created a good world and tasked mankind (who would uniquely resemble his nature) to be creative stewards and advancers of his glory. Mankind, however, discontent with this role, rebelled and brought cursing and death to enter God's good creation as well as stirring up his wrath which he would pour out on a day justice, of judgment for sin. As death reigned on earth, God eventually promised a man named Abraham that through his family a great nation would be made which would bless the dying earth and rightly serve God in his image. Abraham's family eventually formed the people of Israel, who were tasked with being Abraham's blessing for the world by following God's law for them - Torah - and being his righteous people. Israel, however, became obstinate to their calling and failed to bring about Abraham's blessing for the world. As such, God's wrath was stirred up as he sent them into exile. During this exile, God gave word to Israel's prophets that a messiah (i.e. Christ) would one day come to fulfill Israel's purpose, restore true worship, return the people from exile and reign as king forever.

Around the time the common era began, God took the form of a Nazarene Jew named Jesus who grew in wisdom and stature in Palestine, fulfilling Torah and setting himself up as the promised messiah. Preaching against Israel's temple rulers, he called all Jews to repentance as the time of God's final justice was near. God submitted this man Jesus to these rulers and to death as the one who would bear God's final justice and wrath on behalf of the people. Through his death and then confirmed by his resurrection, God brought his judgment into the present and enabled all to claim the benefits of his obedience to God's plan. Rather than by following Torah, anyone could be righteous by claiming Jesus as their lord and representative before God, eventually sharing in a resurrection like his. In Jesus, Abraham's blessing has come to the nation and Israel has fulfilled its task. Soon God will judge both the living and the dead at the second appearing of Jesus the messiah. Those who by faith claim Jesus as their Lord will be reckoned righteous and inherit an eternal kingdom with him, while those who have not will be damned to eternal separation from God's blessing and live in torment.

I've been exploring process theology a bit more here, and I have a few questions.

First, I'd like to get your reactions to the movement in general. How do you feel about it?

Second, does the idea that God is intricately connected with creation in a relational way predicate his dependence upon it, or can we say that God exists in a relational way within the Holy Trinity independent of Creation? Is this idea represented within process theology? The scope of this question is more to deal with how God "existed" before creation. If we say that He exists in relation to something else, what else did he exist in relation to?

Is process theology compatible with a more literal understanding of the devil and demons? While most process theologians seem to treat those as metaphorical, is process theology contingent upon this?

I recently learned about Pelagianism in seminary, but only on a surface level. I was interested in finding more resources that could give me a deeper understanding of this area of theology. I know there isn't much, but I'll take any and all suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

Essentials?

Been getting in to podcasts as of late. Currently I just listen to the Dave Dameshek program (NFL commentator), but was wanting to expand. Who's your favorite?

BTW, if you're into football, Dave is great. Check out his N-if-L series. It's great.

We all agree on the phrase "In Essentials Unity," but I find it interesting that the inessentials are what we typically discuss here.

Just something fun to think about.

I recently joined a sub http://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianCreationists/ which is showing scientfic study's showing evolutions shortcomings and advocating ID. So, is this real science? What are your views on evolution? Can science and religion go hand in hand? What about specified complexity and irreducible complexity?

For example, Scripture says that God is love. It also says that God cannot lie. So I ask, does God love because he wants to love, or because he has to love (that is, because his nature is love and thus he has to love and cannot act unlovingly)?

If God cannot lie, is this because of a choice he made to limit himself to the truth, or is it because God is inherently truthful?

It seems pretty evident from Scripture that God has some limits. So my question is whether those limits come from his nature or from his choice.

He was clearly able to forgive sins before he died and he was able to preach the kingdom of God without dying, so why the cross? If he can forgive sins, then we are reconciled, and there is no need for further justice, and his wrath subsides. He was able to teach the kingdom of God, and other things, without keeling over. Why the cross?

http://www.reddit.com/r/elint

That is, "Explain it like I'm not a theologian."

What type of relationship do faith and reason have?

Is faith inherently anti-reason, or does faith require reason?

Are there limits to either or both? Is there a place where one ends and the other begins?

Do we use faith and reason for the same things, or are they entirely separate?

What do you think?

Hey this may not be the best subreddit, but i'm curious the different response to this. This will also be sort of complicated to explain my question.

What i'm sort of wondering is what is supernatural NOW about Jesus? It seems there is no direct meddling in human affairs, ie stopping a bullet form hitting someone. Stopping all manors of heretics from hijack his own name. Heck he can't even speak in a voice when you pray to him alone. Instead were supposed to what interpret feelings and signs, or construct our own image of god through something like imaginative prayer?

What's the point of having faith in a God that speaks in mysteries we might as well be pagans hoping we have a good crop yield.

Are we supposed to have some sort of peace that at some far away time we will have peace (i don't mean it in the sense of war).

Am i just missing something? I once thought i understood it, i had a feeling i hard to describe, a clarity, maybe peace its been so long and at the time i thought it was God or the spirit, but it went away as quickly as it came.

So some pretty heavy stuff anyone got some answers and some verses?

Among many people, Greg Boyd is one of many of those who believes our thoughts on God have been corrupted by Greek philosophy. I want to ask you guys your thoughts on God in relation to time. I used to believe God existed eternally outside within and during all parts of time, however, if I were to believe that, then Jesus would still be hanging on the cross, which, quite frankly, made me very uncomfortable. I'm starting to believe time does not exist because it is all relational. Time is simply a means we are able to relate concepts to each other and God to us. Recent scientific studies seem to reflect this sentiment. What do you think? What are your thoughts on God and relation to time?

Let's do this.

Justification is a little baby of mine. If you'll note the "covenantal nomist" nod in my flair that should become apparent. Maybe it doesn't quite fit in with "inessentials" (or maybe it does, sorry Luther), but it's something we rarely discuss over at /r/Christianity and I always get yelled at for over on /r/Reformed. Maybe we can flesh it out here.

What do you think of the New Perspective's view of Justification? Specifically N.T. Wright. (I'm using Sanders' term 'Covenantal Nomism' as referring to the New Perspective understanding of Justification). Would the denial of the imputation of active obedience constitute a denial of the gospel? Should justification be seen as primarily eschatological rather than soteriological?

Any other thoughts? I'd love to hear them.

The Trinity is so confusing sometimes!

I acknowledge this can be debated based off the Genesis 1 story of creation, but it can't be regarding chapter two's depiction of it. Why? Too much good theology hangs on it.

I think the most obvious reasoning behind believing it is because the Bible treats the two as such. In Genesis two, God is interacting with two individual people. Jesus' lineage is traced to Adam. Paul speaks of Adam as a real person and not just a concept for mankind as a whole, but here is the real crucial part of it all:

If Adam was not the first and a literal person, then the concept on inherent sin goes away. From this we have a domino effect of Biblical theology falling apart.

If we lose inherent sin, we lose total depravity. If we lose total depravity, we lose necessary grace. If we lose necessary grace, we lose the need for Jesus. If we lose the need for Jesus, we lose everything.

It sounds harsh, but to say "Adam" was an allegory for mankind as a whole completely screws up a large basis of theology.

Mod Posts

• "In Essentials" Posting Guide - 8/5/2012 - /u/LukeDeeZe
• Mod Post: Theological Flair - 8/5/2012 - /u/LukeDeeZe
• Mod Post: Community Update (8/7/2012) - 8/7/2012 - /u/LukeDeeZe

Providence

• Let's talk Molinism - 8/5/2012 - /u/unreal5811

• God in relation to time - 10/18/2012 - /u/LukeDeeZe

Scripture

• What's the difference between the Book of Life and the Lamb's Book of Life - 8/6/2012 - /u/LukeDeeZe

Christian Application

• How do you approach violence as a Christian? - 8/6/2012 - /u/Autsin

• Practical Vs. Academic Theology - 10/17/2012 - /u/WC_Cowpony

• What do you most respect about a major confession that differs with you theologically? - 11/1/2012 - /u/OrphanBach

The Trinity

• Since Jesus is fully God, how does the Father keep him from knowing about the timing of his second coming? - 8/29/2012 - /u/OurSovereignLord

Creation

• Why we must believe Adam and Eve were two real people: - 8/10/2012 - /u/LukeDeeZe

The Atonement

• New Perspective on Paul - 10/17/2012 - /u/cuck

Revelation

• What is Jesus supposed to give us? - 11/9/2012 - /u/nadfg

I'd like to thank all of you who have come aboard onto this idea. At the typing of this, we currently have 22 readers and so far the types of conversations I'm seeing are exactly the kinds I envisioned when starting this - honest perspectives at theology with a high regard for Biblical authority. I will apologize now and say you will probably see many mod posts as we seek to get the ball rolling on what the community sees fit as "essential" for fruitful discussion.

Regarding Flair

While we acknowledge the system has a potential for abuse, after the requests of many of you, we have made flair fully customizeable. We are hoping to figure out flair images too as the mods develop this subreddit.

What should I put in my flair?

Flair is useful in the sense it gives us a little peek at your perspective in scripture so other users know what baggage you're bringing to the table. Try including things such as your denominational ties, view on providence, etc. For example "Baptist | Calvinist | Dispensational" would be an excellent flair to give people an idea of what you believe.

Regarding Moderators

Part of the goal of this subreddit is to have a broad range of perspectives coming at Scripture with the same zeal. We would like to reflect this within moderation as well. As you can see /u/Autsin and I have differing views, but have the same respect for the Bible. We hope to generate a community of empathy for one another. We are still looking mods to help put this project together Message us if you would like to join in. If you're a code monkey that'd be great, but if not, we'd still like to see more views reflected within the moderators.

||| Redefining the Essentials |||

I will not lie, the "essentials" were chosen quite hastily to get this subreddit going quickly. Many of pointed out, as they stand now, the essentials are too restricting to other theologies. As of now they stand as follows:

• We hold to a Trinitarian view of God
• We believe Scripture to be the perfect and final authority in manners of faith and practice
• We hold to the Five Solas of the Reformation

It has been proposed to change the essentials to simply adherence to the Nicene creed and an approach to Scripture that reflects the following:

"This subreddit exists for discussing theological issues. The source for all theological exploration and discussion is Scripture, interpreted by reason, tradition, and experience. The 66 books of the Bible are the highest authority for faithful Christian theological discourse and should be considered the foundation for all discussion in this subreddit, even when Bible verses are not explicitly mentioned. However, we realize Scripture must be interpreted. Because of differences in personality, upbringing, denominational affiliations, social factors and personal experiences, two people may arrive at differing interpretations of the same passage of Scripture. We want to recognize and affirm that while not every interpretation of Scripture is inherently valid, it is possible for two people to faithfully interpret the same passage while arriving at different conclusions. This is not detrimental to our faith. On the contrary, perhaps we can arrive at an even deeper truth by holding these two different interpretations in tension."

We are interested to hear your feedback on this before making changes.

And lastly...

Post Archive

While this may become difficult as the subreddit grows in popularity, we would like to archive all of our discussions into one post containing links to the discussions where they will be categorized. I think this will be useful for people interested in learning theology from many perspectives. I will post a current archive shortly.

Thanks for joining. God bless and invite your friends!

EDIT

Just did a major overhaul on flair. If there's a flair you'd like to see represented that isn't there, let me know and I'll add it. Also note subscribers are listed as "Theologians" now. ;-) Have fun!

Personally, I am an anarcho-pacifist. I believe that Jesus was a pacifist and that he calls his followers to be. It seems clear to me that we are to forego all desires for revenge and to never use violence in "self-defense." I do draw a line between violent and non-violent self-defense - if someone was attacking me, I may push them to the ground and hold them down or else somehow distract them so I can run away. I would not, however, shoot, stab, or otherwise massively injure another person, even if it meant that I would be killed.

As far as "defending others," I believe that "those who live by the sword die by the sword." If we defend others by depending on force, we are just perpetuating the worldly evil of using violence to get our way. I believe that we are to help others by teaching them the ways of the kingdom, which include nonviolence.

To me, violence is not just a physical force. It can be emotional, spiritual, financial, and so on. Therefore, in whatever we do, a pacifist ought to be humble. We should give away any form of power that we are given, using it to serve others rather than dominating over them with it. Like Jesus, in any way we are rich, we seek to become poor so that others might become rich. I believe that this is an inherently anti-violent stance. By being kind to others, giving/sharing generously, seeking to build up rather than tear down, and just serving in general, we undermine nearly every foundation of violence. If we can make disciples of those who were formerly our enemies or who were indifferent, even better!

The "other side of the coin" of pacifism is actively serving and doing good to those who wish to do harm. Pacifism is not passive-ism. If I am not going to shoot an intruder in my home, I want to make sure that nobody intrudes in the first place. Likewise, if I am not going to shoot someone who is attacking my neighbor, I want to make sure my neighbor doesn't get attacked in the first place. To accomplish this, I believe we are to serve the poor, our enemies, and the lost. We are to do good to those who would do us harm, to give good news to the hopeless, and to seek to improve the conditions of those who are in poverty. I believe that this is the greatest way to fight back against violence - with love.

All things considered, I believe that the call of Jesus is to pacifism, and pacifism entails a lifestyle of non-success, non-power, and non-violence. We don't strive for worldly success and recognition because it often at the expense of another and is maintained to the detriment of the one who is "successful." We should not seek or accept power, because any form of power tends toward corruption (money, political influence, etc.). We should not use violence, because Jesus taught us to love those who hate us and to turn the other cheek when we are struck. We should leave room for God's vengeance rather than fighting our own battles.

As a Christian, how do you deal with violence? Also, what do you think about my position? What strengths or weaknesses do you see in it? Is it biblical? Does it emulate Jesus?

How do they look at the end of time? Looking for general input here? When the Book of Life is talked about in books other than Revelation is it non-inclusive of the Lamb's Book of Life? What were the Old Testament thoughts surrounding the two (if there was any at all)?

First off, my exposure to Molinism has been through William Lane Craig and people responding to him. How about a few questions to get the ball rolling?

• Given that the 5 solas are promoted in the sidebar. Can anyone give a biblical exegesis that demonstrates the necessity of belief in Molinism? If not, why do you believe in Molinism?

• While attempting to avoid the genetic fallacy in asking this. Why, if you believe the 5 solas are biblical, do you believe in Molinism? Given that it was a line of thought, mainly developed in opposition of the Reformation?

• I have heard William Lane Craig say, "God just has to play the hand that he was dealt". If you agree with this, who dealt the hand?

• Finally, a different kind of question: Why do you think Molinism seems to be gaining a larger following of late?

Edited formatting.

Give us an idea of your perspective by assigning yourself some flair. If your theology isn't represented let us know.

You've probably noticed there isn't an option to submit links. Here on this subreddit, we aren't seeking to add to redundancy. Post on this subreddit should be conversation starters. Links are nice and do that as well but there are plenty over at /r/Christianity and we also don't like links because we don't want this to be about karma, rather community.

What do I post here then?

Here is a list of things you should post about:

• Theological concepts
• Prayer requests
• Testimonies
• Bible Interpretations
• Mission theory and gospel application

We try to keep the content fresh and exciting over here, so If you see a topic you are writing about is already covered...Don't post it now! We don't need the front page filled with debate over the same thing.

Whelps! Looks like you're ready to post. Have at it!!!