Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
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 | stjones | 81360 | ||
Hi, Ed; Since the Bible does not mention "dispensations", I assume you consider dispensationalism heretical as well. There are pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, and a-millenialists, all of them believing that they took the whole Word and rightly divided it. It seems that at least two groups must be heretical; maybe they all are. God did not give us a theological treatise. He gave us a story. Most doctrines (and most discussions on this forum) result from finite humans trying to understand the infinite mind behind the story. This isn't just an intellectual exercise. The Bible does not tell us how to behave in every situation. One of the reasons the Pharisees got into trouble was that instead of developing a theology - an organized set of principles that might guide people - they came up with rules. One problem with this approach is that every new situation requires a new rule. Grace makes it even harder - how am I to understand and apply the law of the new covenant that God has placed in my mind and written on my heart? (Jeremiah 31:33) Theology and doctrine simply try to organize the events and words of God's story into consistent principles. Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Knox, Wesley, all simply tried to find a way to organize the truth revealed in the Bible - organize it, not alter it. Calvin's TULIP doctrine is distasteful to many people but it is derived only from the Bible, not from any other source, and not from Calvin's imagination. Jesus told me to love my neighbor. That doesn't help me to choose between sacrificial love and tough love in a specific circumstance - Jesus exhibited both at various times. It's fine to disparage doctrine, but every time you offer a panhandler a meal instead of the dollar he asked for, you are applying doctrine of your own or someone else's making. If you tithe 10 percent because you believe that God commands it, you are applying doctrine. If you celebrate Easter or Christmas or sing a Fanny Crosby hymn in church, you are applying doctrine. With TULIP, Calvin did not change the gospel; he harmonized it with the rest of the Bible. I doubt he got it right, but it's not heresy. Much of what I see on Christian TV today comes a lot closer to heresy than Calvin did. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who got most of his doctrine from C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" |
||||||
2 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81385 | ||
Steve The point to my append was not whether Calvinism is right or wrong. My point was that since I oppose it I'm labeled as a Arminianist. Which is simply not the fact. I disagree with the Arminian position as much as I do the Calvin position. As to where Calvin got the Tulip I have no idea but it certainly not seen in the Bible I read. I have no problem with doctrine that can plainly be seen in the Bible. I object to doctrine that is formulated by modifing the general theme of the Bible. Because a word does not appear in the Bible does not make the concept that word represents valid or invalid. The word trinity is no where to be found in the Bible yet the concept of the Trinity can plainly be seen. I'm not sure why you brought this up since I never mentioned anything about a word not being in the Bible. EdB |
||||||
3 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 81406 | ||
Hi, Ed; Sorry; probably shouldn't have jumped in the middle since I agree that any label beyond "Christian" should be superfluous. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who identify themselves as "Christians", naming themselves after a Christ not found in the Bible. I find myself having to identify myself as an "evangelical Christian" to distinguish myself from the Modernists who mold God and Jesus into their own likenesses. My point was just that doctrine is not necessarily a bad thing for the reasons I gave. Given that, I don't think denominations are necessarily a bad thing either. Disunity in the Body of Christ arises when people think their doctrine is the only doctrine or when they think their denomination is the Body. Of course, disunity also arises when evangelicals and modernists find themselves in the same denomination (mine, for example) discussing doctrine. But that can happen in a local house church too, so it's no condemnation of denominations. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who is a Presbyterian but not necessarily a Calvinist |
||||||
4 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81410 | ||
Steve I agree doctrine in itself is not a bad thing. However there is a great distance between a Gnosticism and Orthodox Christianity. The point I was making Hank and CDBJ said they were tired of all the labeling that needed to be applied to Christians today to explain the various doctrines. In Hank’s whimsical way he was bemoaning the fact that there were very few just plain Christians, people without an agenda. There was a then a reply that said there was always labels. My original append was stating the fact that yes there have been aberrant teachings all though church history. Therefore but we need to be very cautious today that we don’t allow ourselves to be drawn into equally aberrant teachings because they were championed by some group declaring them orthodox, or have been repeated so often they become the accepted truth, or stand in opposition to something we do hold aberrant. I personally view need for labels distasteful when applied to theology. We either believe in the literal acceptance of the Bible or not. There can be no changing of words to fit a purpose, no changing of doctrine to fit a time, no manipulating scripture to violate the general theme seen throughout the Bible. I believe it is better to error on the side of caution than get so liberal we miss God. I believe pouncing on words and inventing doctrines from them is just as dangerous as ignoring God commands. It was Jesus’ desire that we would remain in one accord as one body. I view the divide of Catholicism and Protestantism as the greatest tragedy in the Christian Church. The fact that there is Catholicism and Protestantism shows we would rather accept man’s determinations rather than accept God by allowing scripture to reveal the truth. The fact there are 1600 (by last count) Protestant denominations proves this even more. The Reformation was birthed in the period called the “intellectual enlightenment period” when man started to self rationalize and tried to become self determining. In other words if it sounds good to you, and you can rationalize it, then do it. Before anyone jumps in, I’m not saying the Catholic church was without error. It definitely needed reformed. However the answer was not what happened. What happened was man unwilling to submit to very things the church should stand for. EdB |
||||||
5 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 81782 | ||
Hi, Ed; I sometimes wonder if the unity that Christ referred to extends to unity of church organizations. God has been pretty consistent in organizing humans internally, not externally. The nation of Israel existed before and after there was a geopolitical entity by that name. Likewise the Kingdom of God is not now a physical entity. I don't think the body of Christ is an external organization either. Our identity as members of that body is internal. Every church has wolves in sheeps' clothing who on the outside appear to be members of the body but internally are not. I don't think God has a problem with denominations; I think God has a problem with denominations fighting among themselves. I think God has a problem with denominations that teach doctrines that contradict his Word, not with denominations that see differences in understanding what the Word says. I agree that it is wrong for denomination or doctrines to contradict the Word. But if there were just one possible way to understand the Bible, this forum wouldn't exist - or it would be very boring. Indeed, your assertion that "we believe in the literal acceptance of the Bible or not" is a statement of doctrine, one with which I disagree. I think we vary in the extent to which we interpret the Bible literally. Of course, you and I have disagreed on this in the past, so I don't suppose that we'll agree now. But here's something I know we agree on: the tomb is empty! As we'll sing in worship later this morning, "Christ the Lord is risen today. Allelujah!" Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
6 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81933 | ||
Steve I wonder did the church as a whole disagree on Biblical interpretation since the cannon was closed or until man reached a point where he insisted on his right to apply his intellectual understanding of it? In other words when did valid differences of interpretation of the Bible become evident? Now I know there are some that will proclaim there has always been disagreements but if we look at church history we see in such cases they were declared heresy and I think we would all agree with the judgement. However upon the birth of the age of enlightenment when man decided to accept or reject his own realities did we first see valid/acceptable differences in interpretation. The question then becomes are they in fact valid or have we reasoned our way into accepting them? Then the question arises who should choose what is right and the answer is the Church! Not the church of Methodist, not the church of the AoG, not the church of the Baptist, not the church of Calvin, but the church of Jesus Christ. I believe in fact I know there is remnant that remains that has not bought nto all the “isms”. They become the voice in the wilderness. Unfortunately if they agree with any aspect of one ism or another they are immediately labeled with that “ism”, which brings us back to where I started in this thread. EdB |
||||||
7 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81938 | ||
EdB: You write: "Then the question arises who should choose what is right and the answer is the Church! Not the church of Methodist, not the church of the AoG, not the church of the Baptist, not the church of Calvin, but the church of Jesus Christ." If I had the email address or phone number of "the church of Jesus Christ", I would contact them so that I, too, could know what was right. I know this sounds sarcastic and for that I apologize. My intent here is not to be sarcastic. Yet, if the above quote is the answer, then how can one gain access to what is right and true? I agree with you, Ed, that no denomination has the copyright on THE TRUTH. Yet, my question remains. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
8 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81951 | ||
Radioman2 Stick with me and I will teach you the truth. :-) I'm joking!! Don't anyone think I'm saying I have perfect theology. What I'm saying is there are those that have beliefs that don't fit any "ism". They may accept a part of this or a part of that but they don't buy the whole package. Therefore we shouldn't label them with an "ism" I personally think we are so far from where we should be it is a scandal. And if you read much of the paper you know in many cases it is just that. The early catechisms from the 2 –5 century church seemed to have it pretty much handled. Then men decided to adjust it here and there and we ended up with the need for the Reformation. Again I think in many cases what came out of the Reformation was a travesty to idea of Christian brotherhood and unity within the Body of Christ. EdB |
||||||
9 | 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 |
||||||
10 | 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. |
||||||
11 | 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! |
||||||