Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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. |
||||||
6 | 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! |
||||||