The Modernist Christ versus The Christ

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Mark Osgatharp, Aug 5, 2003.

  1. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

    Just as the Corinthians were in danger of tolerating a different "Jesus" than the authentic Christ, some Baptists today have been duped into tolerating the modernist "Jesus." The following is a simple comparison between the real Jesus and the Modernist Jesus.

    Legitimate - Illegitimate

    Sinless - Sinful

    Creator - Created

    Authored the scriptures - Did not author the Scriptures

    Resurrected - Remained in the tomb

    The only way of righteousness - Only one way of righteousness among many

    Will save few - Will save many

    Inflicts eternal torment on lost - Inflicts no torment on anyone

    Providentially controls nature - Is subject to the laws of nature

    Judgmental - Not judgmental

    Intolerant of sin - Tolerant of sin

    Was the promised Messiah - No Messiah promised

    Started the church - Remained within Jewry

    These points of contrast are enough to show that the Christ of God and the "Jesus" of the modernists are not the same man. Therefore I maintain my assertion of a few days ago that a modernists "profession of faith" in Christ is no more valid than that of a Mormon or a Jehovah's witness; in fact, it is less valid (if something can be less valid).

    The modernist profession of "faith in Christ" is more a denial of Christ than a belief in Him.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Problem I've found on the BB, Mark, is that those who tend that way (don't think we have ANY true "modernist" on the Baptist-only segment) don't see themselves as a problem!

    How many deny the authority of Scripture or try to interpret it away as "not for today" or "cultural" or "error" or "not inspired" or such?

    They fail to see that this is exactly what Modernism does.

    And so on through a host of doctrines. Sadly. [​IMG]
     
  3. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the Virgin Birth is one of those that will be the difference between a person who is saved and who is not? If this is the only thing that he disagrees with you on, is this person damned to Hell?

    I don't know any Christian personally who says that Christ sinned. I also don't believe I know anyone from an evangelical church who denies the divinity of Christ.

    Scripture is God-breathed, but isn't this getting into Trinity issues here?

    I know no evangelical Christians who say that Christ was not risen again.

    So if this was the only difference between them and you, they'd be damned to Hell?

    There are many people on this board - even Calvinists - who believe that a majority of people will be in Heaven, including KenH, who is quite conservative. I'll have to tell him that you say he's damned to Hell because of that.

    So annihilationism is one of those doctrines that will damn a person to Hell?

    Are you thinking of Spong here?

    There were several cases in which Christ was not judgmental, so I wouldn't say that Jesus would fall completely under the category of "judgmental." Does this mean I am damned to Hell?

    Jesus was not intolerant of sin. He was forgiving.

    So which evangelical Christians are believing this?

    So Harao believes in all of these things? I've never picked that up from him. How many of these are necessary to invalidate a person's profession of faith? One? Two? Four? or all of them?

    I'd still like to ask how you came to the conclusion that the distinctions between the two are modern and not modern. From where do you get this information and distinction?
     
  4. Watchman

    Watchman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
    Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
    Legitimate - Illegitimate
    So the Virgin Birth is one of those that will be the difference between a person who is saved and who is not? If this is the only thing that he disagrees with you on, is this person damned to Hell?
    __________________________________________________

    This goes to he very heart of the Christian faith:
    "...if ye believe not that I am HE ye shall die in your sins." John 8:24
    I think Jesus said it best.
    If he was just the son of Joseph, there is a big problem there, because I am sure that by "HE" he meant His divinity; He is God the Son, and this He could not be as a son of Joseph. So, to answer your question-yes.
     
  5. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    It isn't a matter of disagreeing with me. It's a matter of disagreeing with the Scripturs and thus with the Lord. And while the Lord will allow people to be saved while disagreeing with Him on some issues, this is one He will not.

    "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

    We're not discussing "evangelical Christians" we are discussing modernists. There are definately modernists among Baptists. There are definately people who claim to be Christians who think Christ was not divine and who think He did sin.

    Modernists don't believe that Scriptures are inspired. They think Scriptures are just a human book that may or may not (and in their view less often than not) may be accurate.

    We are not talking about evangelical Christians, we are talking about modernists.

    So if this was the only difference between them and you, they'd be damned to Hell?</font>[/QUOTE]It isn't a matter of difference between them and me, it's between them and Christ who said He was the way, the truth, and thee life and that no man can come to the Father except through him. If a man allows there might be other ways he proves that he doesn't really believe Jesus is the way.

    I do not believe a man is unsaved if He simply believes that more people than not will end up being saved, though anyone who believs this is definately wrong and woefully ignorant of the Scriptures.

    However, if a man believes that God will save every man in spite of himself, he proves that he does not believe that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and therefore proves he does not really believe the gospel way of salvation.

    If a man does not believe hell exists how could he possibly believe that Jesus saved him from hell?

    Are you thinking of Spong here?</font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm not talking about Spong. I'm talking about the fact that modernists see nature as a closed system operating on "natural laws" apart from the moving hand of deity. Actually, many modernists see "God" simply as a personification of nature and not a real personality.

    So which evangelical Christians are believing this?</font>[/QUOTE]We're not talking about evangelical Christians, we are talking about modernists.

    I don't know if Harou believes all of these things or not. Having had extensive discussions with him in the "Baptist Life" forums, I would tend to think he probably believes all of them. Why don't you ask him?

    "Modernist" is simply a term that was used throughout the 20th century to identify a certain theological system which denies the authority of the Scriptures and many of the central doctrines of Christianity. Though many of the heresies of modernism are themselves as old as the hills, what makes it modernism is that they justify themselves on the grounds that "modern science" has disproven the Scriptures and that the "modern mind" can no longer view the Scriptures as a book dropped from heaven.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Monogenes merely means "only one of its kind." It has NOTHING to do with the Virgin Birth. Paul did not mention the virgin birth once, nor did John or Mark. While I am in no way saying that Christ wasn't born of a virgin, if this were such a damnable doctrine, don't you think that Mark, John, Paul, or some of the other writers would have said something?

    Name those Baptists that you know. I think you're constructing a system that doesn't exist.

    You're talking about a slim (maybe 1-2%) of professing Christians. They (like Bishop Spong) will readily admit that Christianity to them is not a relationship. You're making a red herring here.

    But salvation isn't dependent upon believing Christ is the only way. That's what you have to prove, and that's what you have yet to do.


    So we can take this off your list - thanks.

    Because the reason we get saved is NOT to avoid Hell. We accept Christ to establish a relationship with Him.

    Again, you are talking about a group of people who make up a scant minority of people. Again, what Baptists (or evangelical Christians) do you know who believe this?

    So post us and fill us in on specifically what he has said. You bring forth such an accusation, accusing a man of not being saved, then surely you can provide some evidence of his denying Jesus Christ, especially since you think he fits ALL these categories as a modernist.

    Theological modernism has been around a whole lot longer than merely the 20th century. You should read some of the works of Schleiermacher and A. Ritschl. In literally everyone of your distinctions, you have posted different errors about Christ. However, not one of them states that a person who may believe in one or more of those is damned to Hell because he doesn't specifically believe a certain doctrine. In other words, you've said that if "a person doesn't believe like me, then he's going to Hell." That is an assertion that Scripture cannot support.


    Here is what I would consider the defintion of what modernists believe about Christ: Christ was merely a man whose life, being so extraordinary, has been invested with a theological meaning by the faith of the early Christian community. Since our Lord's life was such an anomaly in His own time and place, the faith of His early followers invested Him with divine attributes.
    I think this is extremely wrong, but God has not given me the power to say who is saved and who is not. I think thta if he had, I would spend more time examining the way a person acts and speaks than his or her doctrine, for THAT is how we will discern followers of Christ - by their fruits.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Am I a prophet? Amazing how this thread illustrates my original point. :eek:

     
  8. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you mean? I'm not doing any of that. However, the question is are one or two of these things enough to damn someone to Hell?
     
  9. Gunther

    Gunther
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quotes are from Scott Emerson:

    1. Monogenes merely means "only one of its kind." It has NOTHING to do with the Virgin Birth. Paul did not mention the virgin birth once, nor did John or Mark. While I am in no way saying that Christ wasn't born of a virgin, if this were such a damnable doctrine, don't you think that Mark, John, Paul, or some of the other writers would have said something?

    2. But salvation isn't dependent upon believing Christ is the only way. That's what you have to prove, and that's what you have yet to do.

    3. Because the reason we get saved is NOT to avoid Hell. We accept Christ to establish a relationship with Him.

    ___


    My response:

    1. Monogenes does in fact mean unique. However, the theological necessity of who Christ is demands the virgin birth. Matthew and Luke mentioned it specifically. How many times does it have to appear in Scripture?

    Btw, Paul taught on original sin in Romans 5:12-14. Christ had to have been conceived/born of a virgin. It had to fulfill the miraculous birth prophecy given to Israel as proof that God will not forsake the Davidic kingdom.

    Besides, you have chosen a false line of thinking, that being that if something is not explicitly mentioned again and again, it must not be important. Have you considered that maybe it was so obvious and understood by Christians that there was not a need to mention it more than twice and imply it once? Apparently not.

    2. Peter would disagree with you:

    Acts 4:12

    "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." ESV

    If you think salvation could be accomplished any other way, you are an idolator, and therefore lost.

    3. Annihilationism is a false gospel. It seeks to "save" people from God's wrath by offering another escape.

    Scott, it is a false gospel.
     
  10. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm just saying that Mark's scriptural proof of John 3:16 as logically leading to the virgin birth is grossly incorrect.

    Please note that it isn't me who believes this - I believe in a Virgin Birth. However, I am unwilling to say that if a person does not believe in the virgin birth then he cannot be saved - that is something the Bible does not support.

    A person who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior would qualify a person underneath the rules set in Acts 4. However, the verse does NOT say that - "And anyone who believes otherwise cannot be saved."

    How is this a false gospel? How does this negate a person's belief and trust in Jesus Christ? Chapter and verse, please. Are you saying that a person who believes in annihilationism cannot be saved?
     
  11. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    An annihilationist doesn't believe he is saved from hell. Who am I to tell a man he is saved from hell when he doesn't even believe he is saved from hell himself?

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  12. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    People didn't believe that the earth was round and they had no clue what gravity was. Gravity still existed and the earth was still round, in spite of their belief.

    Maybe he believes that he's saved from annihilation. But what he DOES know is that he has entered a covenant relationship with the God of creation - and that's the important part. Doctrines of Hell do not damn anyone, unless you can find the Scripture otherwise.
     
  13. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    People didn't believe that the earth was round and they had no clue what gravity was. Gravity still existed and the earth was still round, in spite of their belief.

    Maybe he believes that he's saved from annihilation. But what he DOES know is that he has entered a covenant relationship with the God of creation - and that's the important part. Doctrines of Hell do not damn anyone, unless you can find the Scripture otherwise.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Scott,

    A man who doesn't believe Christ saved Him from hell is not saved from hell, for the only way to get saved from hell is by trusting Christ to do it.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  14. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scripture?
     
  15. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

    1. You say "only begotten" means one of a kind. Well, it doesn't. But what if it did? How was Jesus begotten in a "one of a kind" way? This is a reference to the virgin birth.

    2. Do you know what "perish" means? Now don't go consult your International Bible Encyclopedia. They have the bad habit of making stuff up out of thin air - you know, like saying that "carnal" means fleshly depravity. Go find out what Jesus said happens to people who perish.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  16. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nowhere in the chapter (or the book of John for that matter) is the virgin birth even intimated. "Begotten" is part of the Greek monogenes, so, honestly, the passage is best read, "For God so love the world that he have his one and only Son..." and so on. There is nothing in this verse that requires the virgin birth.

    The definition from carnal came straight from a Greek dictionary that was created by people who are much more learned than you. That you ignore such helps shows how unwilling you are to believe anything differently than your misconceived notions.

    The verse says that anyone who believes in Christ will not perish. It doesn't say that a person needs to believe in Hell for Christ to do that. It doesn't say it at all. To insist that one must believe in Hell for Christ to save you makes you quite a post-modern, for you are insisting that perception is reality. Again, your verse lacks the proof that a person must believe in Hell to be saved. And to repeat a very pertinent illustration, a person may not believe in gravity, but that doesn't mean that he floats around.

    This example is more evidence that you rape the Scriptures to make it say what you want it to say, and in doing so make a travesty of the name of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
     
  17. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm getting married Sunday and have much too much (and much too much more appetizing) on my plate to get into this right now, but in a week or two, when I'm back from my first honeymoon, I'll try to do a point-by-point.

    Haruo (not Harou)
     
  18. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    My definition of carnal comes straight from the Bible. And whoever says that "carnal" necessarily indicates a depraved thing displays an amazing degree of ignorance and unlearnedness. Brother Vaugn quoted one or two verses that totally blow that idea out of the water.

    Apparently you didn't even read them or you wouldn't still be defending the ISBE's statement of the case. But then again, since I burned my set of ISBEs several years ago, I don't even have any way of knowing if you quoted them correctly. You have such a bad habit of misquoting the Bible and what other people say, you may have done the ISBE the same way.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  19. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which Pastor Larry answered - did you miss that?

    Why'd you burn 'em? Too much stuff ran counter to your presuppositions?
     
  20. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which Pastor Larry answered - did you miss that?</font>[/QUOTE]I read what Larry said and he did not conclude that "carnal" necessarily means something depraved.

    They were worthless at best and dangerous at worst. They made up too much stuff out of thin air and passed it off as scholarship. I had no use for them and didn't see any purpose in passing their corruption on to anyone else.

    Mark Osgatharp
     

Share This Page

Loading...