Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Morant61 | 81958 | ||
Greetings EdB! Maybe your just a halfism! ;-) Or, you could be one of those rarer critters, a hybridism! :-) On the serious side, I have refrained from this particular topic, but I would like to make one point. No one is totally defined by a label. Labels are simply descriptive terms which help others to understand from where someone is coming. So, I have no problem with labels per say. Having said that though, no one label can really describe anyone. If you have 100 people in a room, you don't just have C or A, you really have 100 'isms', because each will differ from the other at some point or another. I commend you for your desire for unity, but I don't really ever see doctrinal solidarity as being possible in this life. You mentioned the early catechisms and creeds. Each of them was an attempt to deal with false teachings which had begun to creep into the church. As each new error was dealt with, the unified church become more and more splintered. If we had a world of perfect people, with perfect understanding, we could probably all agree. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | winstonchurchill | 81963 | ||
I find this discussion fascinating. Some of the posters try to make light of the differences as 'much ado about nothing'. Others try to stress that the earlier church folk 'got it right' and only later types messed it up. Still others try the syncretistic approach: 'a plague on all your houses' or 'let's find the golden mean.' A couple of thoughts. The early (1st century) church never intended to set up an organization (too bad, RCC) because they didn't think they would be here long enough to worry about it. Moreover, 'doctrines' weren't important because those who were valued were (quite logically) those who personally knew Jesus and could relate first-hand knowledge. However, by the second century, fissures had sprung open. I think there were two reasons: Christ's return (or at least the physical kingdom most expected) hadn't happened and the number of those who remembered Christ's earthly preaching rapidly descended (by natural forces) to zero. Moreover, as the new 'church' waited (somewhat impatiently) for its returning Lord, it had to contend to various historical and philosophical fads and trends of the time. Much as in our time, the effective question was "what would Jesus say about [thus and so]?" This necessarily involved some enlightened speculation. The basic question, (again, as in our time) was how much of the then-current intellectual climate should the 'church' stand against and how much should it attempt to harmonize and 'co-opt' for the Gospel. Almost all of the 'distinctions' which we carry forward have their basis in the history of ideas and the interplay of the Gospel for and against those ideas. For example, Augustine (and later Calvin) took substantial steps (for good or ill depending on your view) to harmonize the Gospel with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. This gave (and to those who follow this view still gives) the 're-formed' Gospel a great deal of solid intellectual appeal. It created an almost air-tight intellectual jugernaut with -- by the way -- some wondrous 'side-effects' (i.e. the Protestant work ethic) for which all of us should be appreciative. However, some immediately saw (and others over time) that some of the 'bad' side effects were a descent to 'legalism' and coldness of spirit. So, Mr. Wesley (and others) reacted back toward an experiential emphasis and an emphasis on the uiversal and impartial application of grace which set up the debate which this thread continues. As some have mentioned here, there are almost as many variations as there are people to hold them. But the basic dilemma is an important one in the history of ideas -- and, more importantly, in the history of the Gospel. It is not meaningless and it is not merely an historical anecdote. One way or another -- often unknowingly -- every Christian has to resolve those issues for himself. I am thankful every day for the Calvinist reformers AND for the Arminian 'enthusiasts'. They have enriched our understanding of the Gospel of Christ. |
||||||
3 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81969 | ||
"A couple of thoughts. The early (1st century) church never intended to set up an organization (too bad, RCC) because they didn't think they would be here long enough to worry about it." Oh, I disagree. The admonition for church order in 1 Corinthians, the establishment of deacons in Acts, and the appointing of elders in the pastoral epistles all point to an organized movement rather than a free-for-all. The apostles were not establishing a corporation, to be sure, but they definitely were managing the large numbers of converts by incorporating them into an organized body. "Moreover, 'doctrines' weren't important because those who were valued were (quite logically) those who personally knew Jesus and could relate first-hand knowledge." Then why does the largest epistle in the New Testament (Romans) start off with eleven chapters of nothing but doctrine. In fact, every single one of the epistles in the New Testament contain healthy chunks of doctrine. Paul tells Timothy to watch his doctrine, to guard his doctrine. Clearly doctrine was an important issue for the church in all ages. "For example, Augustine (and later Calvin) took substantial steps (for good or ill depending on your view) to harmonize the Gospel with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle." Please illustrate how Augustinian theology is neo-Platonist. "However, some immediately saw (and others over time) that some of the 'bad' side effects were a descent to 'legalism' and coldness of spirit. So, Mr. Wesley (and others) reacted back toward an experiential emphasis and an emphasis on the uiversal and impartial application of grace which set up the debate which this thread continues." The picture of the "frozen chosen" is a highly inaccurate one, which one can discern from the fact that the modern missionary movement was undertaken not by Wesley and company, but by those who loved and embraced Reformation theology. While Wesley was a committed evangelist, he was not the first. And lest we forget, the other key players in the First Great Awakening were Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, both adherents of Reformed doctrine. I would encourage all Christians to investigate church history. It is a highly valuable exercise and keeps one from making false generalizations at the same time that it provides a very real connection to one's spiritual heritage. --Joe! |
||||||