Controversial Christian topics with practical differences based on belief

[keet]

I was thinking about different subjects or doctrines on which there are schools of thought, all of at least some of which are still considered "orthodox" or Christian.  For example, we have been discussing the nature of Hell.  While there are many views, no matter which view one believes (except maybe for some fringe beliefs), one is still considered a Christian, and all of the interpretations are still considered to be within acceptable bounds of interpreting scripture.  For example, while a literalist might think that someone who believes the metaphorical view is wrong, he will still accept that the other is not interpreting scripture in a manner that is outright wrong or heretical.

Likewise, with the end time views, a premillennialist will generally not consider an amillennialist to be unChristian merely for holding that view, and a preterist will not consider a futurist to be heretical or unChristian or to be completely outside the bounds of reason when interpreting scripture.

And since that is the case, with these controversies, it generally does not matter which view one holds, or whether one even has a view at all.  One is free even to decline to have a view on the end times, or on Hell, or Heaven, or predestination, or free will, and still be considered a Christian.

So I was wondering which of these disagreements might have a practical or significant difference depending on which view one holds.  For example, with baptism, I believe that one it must be done by/to someone who is capable of understanding and affirming belief in Jesus, which rules out infant baptism.  In this case, then, there is a practical difference depending on which view you hold -- you actually act or expect others to act differently depending on what you believe.

I would like to ask, then, which controversial Biblical doctrine (each of whose main views is still considered "Christian" and not heretical) is most significant in terms of actual practicality (but not salvation)?

I should amend that to say "which... doctrine... do you think is most significant...?"  since I don't expect agreement or consensus, but am just gathering ideas.

Edited November 14, 2020 by keet

[Alive]

Which ever one that we hold most dear.

[GandalfTheWise]

I distinguish two different realms of things.  The first are the very real changes and transformation that God is doing in us as we spiritually grow.  The second are the things we decide to do because of what we believe.

I've been observing a lot of Christians in a wide variety of ministries, churches, and denominations for about half a century.  The work God does in all Christians is remarkably similar as is the general pattern of growth I've seen though external appearances can make this seem very different.  The biggest difference I see is that Christians argue about what explanations are most correct to describe what God does.  In that,  most things Christians argue about don't matter though most Christians are convinced that they do.

I think the biggest practical difference comes from whether a Christian believes that our life is meant to be spent figuring out what God wants us to do versus who God wants us to become.   The first concern themselves with discerning God's will of what activities and things to do and believe.  The first tend to see themselves as defined by the gifts, talents, experiences, etc. in their lives and to be busy using those things and worrying about what to think and believe about things.  The second concern themselves with becoming the unique person God created them to be to show His glory to the world through them.  Their focus is on growing into the person God created them to be.  For them, gifts, talents, experience, etc. are merely tools to be used to show the world God's glory in a way unique to them.

 

[Dennis1209]

7 hours ago, keet said:

One is free even to decline to have a view on the end times, or on Hell, or Heaven, or predestination, or free will, and still be considered a Christian.

I don't ever recall talking to a "Christian" that didn't have a view on Heaven or Hades? Jesus talked more about Hell than He did Heaven. Therefore, I suspect everyone best not decline a view on that one.

[keet]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

I don't ever recall talking to a "Christian" that didn't have a view on Heaven or Hades? Jesus talked more about Hell than He did Heaven. Therefore, I suspect everyone best not decline a view on that one.

This is off-topic, but while Jesus mentions things that could be interpreted as Hell occasionally, they rarely count as talking "about" or describing it, at least in any level of detail apart from as something undesirable and to be avoided, and usually to make a point about the importance of some other subject.

Nowhere in the Bible is it specified that belief in Hell is a requisite for salvation.  Usually, the requirement for salvation is something along the lines of repenting of sin and being baptized, or believing in Jesus -- but I don't recall a single verse that says that one must believe in Hell to be saved.  Most Christians have at least a vague idea of what they think Hell is like, but I've never heard of anyone being accused of not being saved because of having (or not having) a particular view or any view at all on Hell.  It's not even in the Apostle's Creed.

[keet]

4 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

I distinguish two different realms of things.  The first are the very real changes and transformation that God is doing in us as we spiritually grow.  The second are the things we decide to do because of what we believe.

I've been observing a lot of Christians in a wide variety of ministries, churches, and denominations for about half a century.  The work God does in all Christians is remarkably similar as is the general pattern of growth I've seen though external appearances can make this seem very different.  The biggest difference I see is that Christians argue about what explanations are most correct to describe what God does.  In that,  most things Christians argue about don't matter though most Christians are convinced that they do.

I think the biggest practical difference comes from whether a Christian believes that our life is meant to be spent figuring out what God wants us to do versus who God wants us to become.   The first concern themselves with discerning God's will of what activities and things to do and believe.  The first tend to see themselves as defined by the gifts, talents, experiences, etc. in their lives and to be busy using those things and worrying about what to think and believe about things.  The second concern themselves with becoming the unique person God created them to be to show His glory to the world through them.  Their focus is on growing into the person God created them to be.  For them, gifts, talents, experience, etc. are merely tools to be used to show the world God's glory in a way unique to them.

 

Thanks for the post!  It sounds like you think that two main concerns that Christians have are what they should be or become, and what they should do or practice/acquire as skills to further God's kingdom.

Regarding the end of your second paragraph... Especially as Westerners, many Christians are a bit obsessed with finding systematic and detailed understandings of God's revelation and activity.  Being creatures of a rational God who acts and creates in an orderly, rational fashion, it makes sense that we would want to do this.  At the same time, it is possible to go overboard with trying to define a system or framework of God's revelation and activity, when we are really meant to experience and contribute to it (not that they are necessarily mutually exclusive, but we do have limited time and mental capacity on this earth).

So in a way, yes (if I'm understanding you at least partially correctly), some Christians might spend inordinate amounts of time trying to explain and rationally, systematically analyze God's activity instead of finding ways to actually improve themselves in practical ways and share the gospel.

Edited November 15, 2020 by keet

[GandalfTheWise]

33 minutes ago, keet said:

Thanks for the post!  It sounds like you think that two main concerns that Christians have are what they should be or become, and what they should do or practice/acquire as skills to further God's kingdom.

Regarding the end of your second paragraph... Especially as Westerners, many Christians are a bit obsessed with finding systematic and detailed understandings of God's revelation and activity.  Being creatures of a rational God who acts and creates in an orderly, rational fashion, it makes sense that we would want to do this.  At the same time, it is possible to go overboard with trying to define a system or framework of God's revelation and activity, when we are really meant to experience and contribute to it (not that they are necessarily mutually exclusive, but we do have limited time and mental capacity on this earth).

So in a way, yes (if I'm understanding you at least partially correctly), some Christians might spend inordinate amounts of time trying to explain and rationally, systematically analyze God's activity instead of finding ways to actually improve themselves in practical ways and share the gospel.

You caught my meaning with regard to the point of rational explanations being overemphasized in importance compared to that God is really doing something.  As a practical matter in my life, I spent the first few decades of my life as a Christian seeking out doctrinally correct (in my view) Christians  and churches to be part of.  The last few decades I've been more concerned with seeking out Christians and churches where the fruit of the Spirit is obvious and growing because it is clear those are people and places God is actually doing things and spiritual growth is occurring.   

My other point is more subtle.   It is a question of whether our value to God comes from who He created us to be or from what tasks we do for Him.    Do we see ourselves by our gifts or callings which are largely defined around church and denominational organization, functions, and offices?  Or do we see ourselves as a unique individual created to reflect God's glory in a unique way?    The difference is which of these questions ( "Who did God create you to be?" or "What does God want you to do?") we spend more time trying to answer.  In our western world, we tend to see ourselves and others as having value based on how much we can contribute and do rather than having value based on being a unique work of art by God to show His glory to the world.  I spent the first 30 or so years of my Christian walk basically burning myself out being busy serving God.  My identity had become so tied into my gifts, talents, and activities that I really didn't know who I was.  I saw my only value in what things I could do.  God put me out into a figurative desert for a year or so away from everything, put me in front of a figurative mirror, and kept me there until I started to see myself as the unique individual He created me to be.  As I emerged from that desert, I found that ministry and everything else in life just started to naturally flow.  

When I was much younger, there were things that God laid on my heart for my life.  I saw them as goals and directions for my life that I needed to work and aspire towards, and to potentially fall short of if I failed to follow God enough.  Over time, I gradually gave up on them, and started to settle, and forgot about them.  I recall sitting in church one day with a sermon about Moses' call in the desert.  I'd never much related to Moses but during that time, I was ignoring the sermon and reading that passage.  I finally felt like I knew why Moses told God to send someone else.  He was an old man who'd tried and failed and had given up on himself.  I'd always seen Moses' 40 years in the desert as punishment and consequences for his failures.  I now see it as something different.  God didn't want Moses to be another Pharaoh-like leader or Egyptian military leader which is what he was trained and raised for.  He wanted Moses to be a leader and prophet for a nation of shepherds who were more comfortable in the country than in wealthy cities.  That 40 years was necessary to change Moses from a wealthy elite leader more at home in the city into a simple shepherd who could feed himself and live in the wilderness.  The 40 years wasn't punishment but rather a necessary time of transformation into the person God meant for Moses to be.  During this time, God reminded me of those things He'd laid on my heart about 30 years previously.  I realized they were not goals to make myself worthy for but rather promises of what God planned to do as I was transformed into the person He created me to be.   

Anyway, a long response, but trying to illustrate my second point of the difference between "who am I?" versus "what should I be doing?"

 

[JohnR7]

11 hours ago, keet said:

I would like to ask, then, which controversial Biblical doctrine (each of whose main views is still considered "Christian" and not heretical) is most significant in terms of actual practicality (but not salvation)?

The Big debate has to do with Science and the Bible that often comes down to a discussion on Creationism.  Actually all the various beliefs are true in context: YEC - OEC - GAP - Theistic Evolution and so on. They do not cancel each other out at all.  I know the most about YEC and that is what I would prefer to explain if people were to ask. But I have a working knowledge of all the others. 

 

[JohnR7]

1 hour ago, keet said:

Nowhere in the Bible is it specified that belief in Hell is a requisite for salvation. 

God has impressed upon me many times that He is a God of absolute perfect Justice.  The issue with Hell is that people claim that Hell is not just. So our understanding of Hell has to coincide with our understanding of the Justice of God. 

[NotAllThere]

I do know a fervent creationist who considered that if you don't believe in creationism, then you're calling God a liar, and therefore you're not saved.

Fortunately most folk aren't quite so dogmatic!

David Pawson (British Bible teacher) in his book "The Road to Hell", pointed out that of the teaching of hell, most of it comes from accounts of Jesus talking to His disciples. He said this indicated that hell is a doctrine for believers, not non-believers. If you believe this, then it's obvious that belief in hell can't be a salvation issue. Unless you're like my creationist friend of course!

Edited November 15, 2020 by NotAllThere