Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | Hank | 21868 | ||
Ed B, are you as curious as I am about what Christians ranted and raved about before Calvinism and Arminianism came along? Things must have been calm in those days of yore when someone could be merely a Christian without having to put on a second label to indentify what kind of Christian he was...... The way this forum has turned, if the C.vs.A issue were banned from it (pleasant thought!), some of the users might just as well log out and go fishing. There wouldn't be anything left that would likely interest them...... I speak for myself, but there may be others who are tuned in to my frequency, that I am fed up to the gills with this incessant debate about Calvinism and Arminianism and, as you truly say, Ed, it has gone on for centuries and solved nothing.....and I submit that this forum is not likely to settle the issue either. So what's the point of debating, day after dreary day, a subject that has been kicked around so much already that it thinks it's a football. It's time to call time out........ Now I'm keenly aware that debating points of High Theology may have its place somewhere and may have its purpose somehow. What I'm not aware of is any single instance wherein a debate on High Theology actually led anyone to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ or lent to any Christian much real help and encouragement in his daily challenge to walk in the path of righteousness. I've yet to find that the effectiveness of one's witness for Christ hinges on whether he embraces either Calvinism or Arminianism. Perhaps the real witness is too busy witnessing that he has little enough time to think very much about either of them. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | Reformer Joe | 21917 | ||
Hank: I must say that I am disappointed with what I read in your post. You are about the last person I would have suspected to imply that theology has no connection to encouragement and the path of righteousness. What were Christians debating about before Arminius? Pick up any worthwhile book on church history and you will learn that they were debating other important things. Things like the Trinity, justification by faith alone, etc. While I do not hold that the C/A debate is one of salvific importance, I do think that it is one of great importance as to how the Christian views God's operation and relationship to humanity, which does indeed have a huge impact on the conduct, assurance, and evangelism of believers. Again, if you want to talk about something else, please start a thread! Give us something else to talk about. I am more than happy to move on, but the only posts that merit/require a discussion these days relate to issues of God's sovereignty in the affairs of human beings. Incidentally, I do have a bigger agenda than the C/A debate. While I certainly disagree with Tim on a lot of his interpretation, I also recognize that he is not biblically ignorant. What distresses ME most is the amount of posting that goes on here from believers who state their unreasoned and unfounded opinions based on one or two pet verses taken out of context, while ignoring the rest of the Bible which interprets those verses. Biblical illiteracy in the church is inexcusable, considering those who have died for the sake of actually letting individual Christians have a Bible in their own language to read and study. Many "real witnesses," as you put it, are still on the spiritual milk decades after they should be meat-eaters. I was on a university campus listening to an open-air preacher the other day who couldn't rationally defend Christianity against the charge that Jews shouldn't be evangelized because the Bible says that they are "God's people" already. Last summer, I heard a VBS teacher inform the kids that Jesus would never tell anyone that they were going to Hell. It is the lack of edcucational, theological training that most non-confessional churches demonstrate which leads to such falsehood being propagated even in "evangelical" churches today. Debate may make us uncomfortable, and on a forum like this it may seem that with each newcomer the debate gets re-hashed. However, it is simply wrong to say that differences in theology are not important. And I can be the first instance you can cite as having been dramatically changed by embracing the view I now hold. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Huge Impact? | Romans | charis | 21992 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in Jesus' name! Guilty of some (but I hope not all! :-)) of the above! No theological training, non-confessional, and I can't read Aramaic. As an illiterate, I humbly ask you what the 'huge impact on the conduct, assurance, and evangelism of believers' is? Please use little words :-) Bless you, my brother, in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
4 | Huge Impact? | Romans | Reformer Joe | 22027 | ||
Charis: What I mean is simply this: what we think about when we think about God impacts the entire way our spritual life operates. A very good example is the World Trade Center incident. How does one respond to someone who says, "Where was God on the morning of September 11? How can a loving, holy, all-powerful God let something like this happen?" I have heard some very well-meaning Christians give some very unbiblical answers which deny God's omniscience and sovereignty and power to keep Satan in check. All of these errors are based on bad theology. Therefore, one's theology is what one reveals when talking about God. It also impacts our life. Our worship and service to God are completely different is we hold that God is primarily here for us, rather than the biblical truth that WE exist for HIS glory. The former leads to selfishness and Christian laziness; the latter tends to lend itself to God-centered worship and a yielding and (dare I say?) obedience toward Christ. All theology truly held will define our attitudes toward God and our actions as believers. That includes whether one has a Calvinist view or an Arminian one. Again the differeences aren't salvific, but they are important ones. Whenever we talk about sinful man's ability or inability to do good or follow Christ, or the extent and character of God's sovereignty, we are touching on issues over which we will (respectfully, I hope) disagree. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Huge Impact? | Romans | charis | 22046 | ||
Dear Joe! Blessings to you in Jesus' name! Thank you very much for a great answer. I do agree that all Christians should pursue theology and doctrine, and that there is a dearth of both these days. I was misunderstanding you to (possibly) mean that there was something special or 'closer-to-God' in the pursuit of 'formal' theological training or traditional doctrinal confession. (sometimes referred to as clergy/laity segregation) Also, it has been hinted in this thread that if you do not ascribe to either typical Calvinist or Arminian theology, you are walking in compromise (or denial! :-)), and that the only two possible Godly ways of thinking were with one of these. My contributon to this thread was to state that it is possible to be a thinking person, yet not walk exclusively in either of these paths. Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
6 | Huge Impact? | Romans | Reformer Joe | 22091 | ||
Charis: Well, I do think that the pursuit of formal theological training is of great benefit to the believer (even though I have not had the pleasure of such seminary enrollment myself yet). However, I do not think that it should be something for the "elite," which is an idea too commonly held by the clergy and the laity. I am blessed to attend a church that is very concerned with making the congregation "theologically-literate." We currently have a free, weekly class in systematic theology going on taught by one of our elders, for example. Another mid-week course is going on which deals with the teachings of Islam, providing a Biblical response and tips for communicating the Christian faith to Muslims. In my not-humble-enough opinion, it is a core responsibility of the elders/deacons of a church to make sure that the congregation is well-educated in the faith, which means going beyond the practical "how can I have a more meaningful quiet time" types of sermons to giving them the "meat" of the Word (Hebrews 5:12). Of course, at times this may be rebuking, correcting, and convicting to its hearers. In my opinion, however, no one can ever have too much good theological training, along with an understanding is that the whole Christian life and practice is rooted in one's understanding of God and the Bible (i.e. theology is utterly PRACTICAL). I also am a big fan of confessional churches. No, confessions and creeds do not carry the same divine inspiration that Scripture does, and one may in fact disagree with points within those confessions (my denomination even allows for clergy to be ordained and minister while disagreeing with minor points of doctrine in the Westminster Confession of Faith). Here are what I see as the benefits of a well-thought out and comprehensive confession (whether it be Calvinist or Arminian in scope): 1. It usually involves a group effort of people who have dedicated their lives to studying and expounding the truth of God's Word. 2. It goes beyond addressing the basic issues of salvation, as it touches on on the church's understanding of worship, the sacraments, the Bible, prayer, the role of the believer in the whole scheme of things. One has no doubt in coming to a confessional congregation what that congregation holds to be truth. 3. These confessions are supported by a myriad of references to the only standard of faith and practice: the Bible. Contrary to popular belief, a confession does not take the place of the Bible, but rather stands as an explanation of Scripture's basic themes. This is extremely useful, for certain themes (such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the end-times) are not found in one passage of the Bible, but are addressed throughout Scripture. Thus, a confession serves not as a Bible in itself, but a compendium of Christian doctrine based on the Bible. 4. The early Christian church demonstrates the use of creeds and confessions, going back as far as the apostolic era (Hebrews 4:14, 10:23; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Timothy 2:11-13; Philippians 2:6-11). But the most compelling reason as far as I am concerned is the following: 5. It does an excellent job of preventing false doctrine from entering the church. What I find in many non-confessional churches (and I have belonged to several in my life) are congregations not thoroughly informed on the Christian faith, and more susceptible to being "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14) that comes down the pike. You may not see that as clearly from your Japanese vantage point, but one just needs to go down to the local Christian bookstore in the United States to find the results of such shallow teaching on the best-seller shelves. From "Bible Codes" to the latest eschatological interpretation of what happened on the news yesterday to ten thousand versions and spinoffs of a prayer manual based on an obscure couple of verses in 1 Chronicles, we see the results of Christians not knowing what they believe and grabbing whatever fluff a publisher is willing to spew out. I even saw a book the other day which is supposed to serve as a Bible study using the teachings of the Andy Griffith show as a jumping-off point for discussion! Well-written creeds and confessions and catechisms point to the truths of the Bible and serve as educational tools which prevent this kind of nonsense. Note that I am not saying that non-confessional churches are apostate or not as dedicated to God. I do think that confessional churches have an advantage when heresy or silly ideas visit the front door, and they do serve as useful instruments for educating believers in the essentials of the Christian faith. Hope that clears up my view! Can't wait for the invective response that is sure to follow from someone on this forum... :) --Joe! |
||||||
7 | Huge Impact? | Romans | charis | 22113 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in the name of Jesus! Surprise! No invective response from me, my friend. I, too, attend a church that is very concerned with making the congregation "theologically-literate." We also ( I hope that it is not considered impossible :-)) attempt to be very concerned with making the congregation a "theologically-balanced" and "theologically-neutral." Maybe this is possible in a nation that has a LOT less Christian tradition and bigotry to deal with, and a LOT more anti-Christian sentiment surrounding us. Another blessing is the lack of 'Christian Pulp Fiction.' :-) Though sometimes a 'popular' book is translated into Japanese, the translation process often 'neuters' the so-called 'revelation' contained therein. The ever-so-subtle nuances, and often irrelevant anecdotes and parables lose most of the spiritual and emotional 'potency' when 'reproduced' in another tongue. It is interesting to note that this is NOT true with the Bible, and also not true with truly Spirit-led devotional works or teachings. Unfortunately, we have few of those, too :-( I also agree with you that a church needs a confession or creed, but I guess I prefer the term foundational teaching. I also prefer that this teaching be non-exclusive. By this I mean that it should not be set up so that large portions of Christianity are 'left behind' in the 'final analysis.' Does this mean that I compromise and allow 'anybody that calls themselves a Christian?' May it never be! I am very careful to Scripturally denounce obvious cults and non-Biblical teachings. I am also 'conservative' enough to beware of 'fads and fashion.' At the same time I am 'liberal' enough to make allowances for 'artistic license' to some degree. I don't want to be 'locked-in' to one traditional bent or another, except the clear traditions and attitudes of the early church as written in the Bible. (i.e. not 300 or 600 or 1400 or even 2000 years later:-)) Now these are my not-so-humble opinions, but in practice, I would say that there is probably little real difference between my walk in Christ and yours. Now, to be absolutely honest, I will say that my own personal experience in the US might very well lead me to exactly where you stand on this issue if I were there! But not where I am, and possibly not in other countries. Joe, thanks for a great response! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||