Looking down this list of famous Baptist, (see link, scroll down to those in list titled: literature) I come across Robert Heinlein, Ray Bradbury, Octavia Butler, and Gene Rodenberry, amongst others. Rodenberry considered himself an atheist at the end of his life, and Bradbury considers himself something akin to a Christian, "but not quite", he states.

If 'not quite', then what? So how did these science-fiction writers move away from being a Baptist, which is generally pretty scripturally based?

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_bap.html

quote:

Originally posted by Salamander:
dandelion: That doesn't answer my question. I was asking your understanding of scripture in terms of salvation. Is it by actions or belief?

One can consider Matthew 7:18-19 when answering this question:

"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." (ASV)

The fruits of faith, hope, and love spring forth from a follower of Christ; with God's Love and the Holy Spirit as an impetus.

Paul asserts in Corinthians 1:13 that Christ-like actions have no significance without Divine Love as the prime motivator; I happen to agree with him. It would thus appear that such actions are executed through the joy of salvation, rather than as the cause or requisite for salvation.

So, Christ-like actions spring forth through faith (and, of course, from Divine Love) but are inseparable from it. The microscope-aimed chicken-and-egg of it all is rather irrelevant.

My two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by Salamander:
dandelion: That doesn't answer my question. I was asking your understanding of scripture in terms of salvation. Is it by actions or belief?

What the church is against, specifically, is faith alone. Oh, salvation is a free gift from God, and I got it, therefore it doesn't matter what I do ever again, if anything, and I'm at least ahead of all those nonbelievers who are going to fry no matter what they believe or live.

What the church is for is charity and the life of use. Cut others a break and do good unto them.

dandelion: You say, " it doesn't matter what you do." Come on. Paul the apostle warns against such things, whereas one makes grace cheap. There is described a loss one suffers when a person thinks they can purposely sin after being saved.

You can check out the basic beliefs here: http://www.newchurch.org/beliefs/index.html

I believe the ones I believe without reservation and the ones I don't believe with reservation.

dandelion:
Scary! They seemed to have 'tweaked' every aspect of Christianity. Tweaking one's nose is okay, but not scripture I say. No wonder they call it New Church. They are tweaking scripture to make it, new? Not new, I'd say,but different. I guess they call different: New!

My definition would be reinterpreted rather than tweaked, but, you get the idea. It is not orthodox Christianity, therefore, new.

dandelion, I am surprised. Reinterpreted? There is no reinterpretation of scripture. You don't reinterpret 'The cow jumped over the moon' as 'the goat sprang under the crescent shaped planet'. You don't reinterpret Jingle Bells Jingle Bells as Jumble Belts Jumble Belts.

"dandelion: That doesn't answer my question. I was asking your understanding of scripture in terms of salvation. Is it by actions or belief?"

Good question, except that I think it's a false alternative. If you pull isolated verses out, you can come up with either answer, but you have to reconcile the entire word of God--not just pieces. Luther actually pulled James from his compilation of the Bible and put it in the appendix. He couldn't reconcile James' inclusion of the necessity of works into his salvation by grace alone doctrine, so easier to just remove James. Much as I admire Luther, that seems to be a rather one-sided approach. Christ endorsed the commandments in several places. Paul provided lists of evil actions and said, They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. James clearly demanded works. John, in his epistles says, he that keeps the commandments is the one that loves God. I think Paul's fruits of the spirit teaching is critical. While works may not save a person, aren't they a sign that a person is or is not "saved"? The question is a pretty complicated one, and must be answered by reconciling all the scriptures together--not just individual passages in isolation.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
I think Paul's fruits of the spirit teaching is critical. While works may not save a person, aren't they a sign that a person is or is not "saved"?

A very important point.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
dandelion, I am surprised. Reinterpreted? There is no reinterpretation of scripture. You don't reinterpret 'The cow jumped over the moon' as 'the goat sprang under the crescent shaped planet'. You don't reinterpret Jingle Bells Jingle Bells as Jumble Belts Jumble Belts.

Respectfully submit that perhaps you have missed the point. Certainly there is reinterpretation - that being simply that those who have been interpreting for a long time (even hundreds of years) may have gotten something wrong, which then slowly became the "orthodox" view, and a "new" interpretation (meaning a return to the original meaning) is in order. It is extremely important to understand this, and to do so, one truly must understand midrash.

Based on these ideas, your cow/goat/moon/bells observation above doesn't hold water.

Doug Spaulding: This "new interpretation" is nothing more than trying to bend scripture to fit a particular people's lifestyle or philosophy. They writers didn't get it wrong in the first place. Even the dead sea scrolls read exactly as to the renderings we have today. The major problem in scripture twisting nowadays is based 'almost' solely on sexual lifestyles. Not only sexual lifestyles, but the warning scripture gives when one is lax in adhering to the sexual commands in scripture. That warning is, you get deluded. You begin to water the meanings to fit your own passions. You don't necessarily see Christ as redeemer. You don't see God's hand as intended to be experienced in the personal conscience. You give in here; you give in there. Maybe Hell doesn't really exist. Maybe God doesn't really care about the intimate details of our conduct. You make compromises. Sexuality is the ultimate emotional and psychological force in the human body and psyche, earthly speaking. Have you forgotten that the soul is continually at war?

I can only say your deductions are the ones that don't hold water.

It would be a good idea to find and read the "sheep and goats" parable.

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
I can only say your deductions are the ones that don't hold water.

And I say that maybe we should read the scriptures though Jewish eyes.

DOUG SPAULDING::: WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU! The scriptures was written by Jews!! Jesus was a Jew. The apostles were Jews. How Jewish-eyes do you want?