Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Which would make arguments that systematic theologies originated doctrine absurd.
Yes or no?
Yes.
OP dismantled, then, if we are right.
And I think it is clear that any Doctrine that can be shown in the Bible as accurate, especially when it is specifically stated it is being revealed, makes the case.
I use the terminology of systematic theologies (as well as you yourself) as a kind of shorthand to address the differences concerning the interpretations of scripture relative to a focused study e.g. The second coming of Christ. If you read my past posts you will see that I say "generally" I am dispensational because it easily identifies some of my views on the Second Coming of Christ.
Labeling has become an almost necessary evil and that began in the infant church.
And Paul corrected it. It was sin then, it is sin now.
"Christian" is the only title we should be zealous for. And while I am glad I am a Baptist, if by no other reason than I have found no other group I see as close to Biblical Doctrine (
Independent Baptists, that is, lol), I am first and foremost a Christian because I follow Christ and His teachings.
So I can't really say it is a necessary evil, though it does at least keep some of the stranger characters out of the BB. Not all of them...
...I'm living proof of that.
I have said this as well as using these labels especially if men are identified as "originators" of these doctrines.
And it is error to say Darby is the originator of the Pre-Trib Rapture, even as it is error to say the catholic Church is the originator of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
If we have identified ourselves of Baptists that means we identify with the distinctives of the Baptist denomination . One cannot find "The Baptist Distinctives" per se in the scripture It is a tool to show our differences with other Christians and a shorthand systematic theology.
Not necessarily. I do not identify myself as embracing the typical Baptist teaching of tithing. That is just a staple in most Baptist fellowships I have been a part of. I do not view this as a New Covenant Doctrine. I do see Paul instructing the Corinthians in regards to the supply of those that minister the Gospel, telling them that if they have supplied unto them that which is spiritual, they should supply that which is carnal (physical).
But tithing is a Covenant of Law practice not imposed on believers under the New Covenant.
It's okay to disagree with a few things the group one associates with teaches as a general rule, lol.
e.g. Believers Baptism distinctive - Total immersion of a believer in water
Wile I think immersion is the way in view Scripturally, I think if we asked most Baptist Pastors they would concede that an emergency situation (dying in the desert with just a canteen) it might just be okay to observe sprinkling, lol.
with the Trinitarian formula as an ordinance that portrays our identity with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, said water baptism not necessary to salvation.
Not necessarily something exclusive to Baptists.
So being a Baptist has a systematic theology attached to it whether we accept it or not. But in fact we do accept it as a way of identifying ourselves and not as a way of developing a scripture but to differentiate our selves from our non-baptist reformed brethren who practice pado-baptism and/or sprinkling as a covenant ritual.
I wouldn't go that far, because there are so many types of Baptists who embrace different Systems that make them distinctive.
But where Baptists are in agreement with Scripture, this is not attributed to a System, but to the Word of God.
Each method you name above can be tested to the Word of God to see if it has a Biblical support. If it does not, then we see the true Systematic nature, rather than Biblical truth.
That is something that is especially true in the Forums.
And when we apply that to the Doctrine of the Rapture, we can say that if any formalized media originated the Doctrine, it is that which was formalized in the Canon.
As far as popularity arising, well...even the blind dog finds the water-bowl every now and then.
Do you see that you are doing this yourself (discrediting others Christians) by labeling them with the innuendo phrase of "blind dog"?
Why would you think people discovering and then popularizing sound doctrine would be discrediting them? lol
If I want to discredit someone, and I have no reservation about that, because we are to discredit false doctrine and false teachers...then I would point out specific groups like the Catholic Church and specific doctrines such as indulgences and Doctrine of the co-Redemptrixt.
The point above is the same one gone ignored in numerous threads. The Doctrine of the Pre-Trib Rapture is not a doctrine originated by Darby, as OR incessantly claims. It is a First Century Doctrine from A First Century Teacher and First Century texts, which Biblical Scholarship attests through the manuscript evidence. That this Doctrine, just like pre-millennialism itself, would end up obscured among the many vying factions...
...is no great wonder.
Years ago when I joined the BB I did use discrediting terms and phrases but saw (or was shown the error of my ways) and repented and publicly apologized to those whom I had offended. I still "slip" on occasion.
Hank, you have to yank a few chains now and then.
It is just an ancient teaching technique to get your student's attention by using...the facts. If we molly-coddle everyone, there are going to be some people you won't be able to help.
You seem reasonable enough to me that I would think you would know the difference between insulting someone and stating the facts.
And while a sense of humor may be a method some of us use, lol, like my inclination to call people like OR "popish," maybe that is not for all. But that term has a relevant meaning which makes the use of it in the case of someone like that not an insult, but truer than he would like to admit.
No, it is the Dispensational View in the hot-seat in this thread, unless I am mistaken. At least in the post I responded to.
You are mistaken, it is ORs OP in the hot seat.
It is false.
Calvinism fits the model as well, as does every System, Ism, sect, faith, group, or cult.
Complex doctrinal positions such as dipensationlism have intersecting sets with other doctrine. When that is true and it is helpful to speak about the similarities either in content or history, I use it.
Dispensationalism is not what I would call a "Complex doctrinal position." It is a System of theology that is made up of many doctrinal positions, and among those who call themselves dispensationalists there is, like any other group, a varying range of assorted positions.
It is like Baptists. How many different types of Baptists would we find on here. More importantly, how many of them would agree on every position the other takes.
Just because someone claims to be something, doesn't mean they embrace all of it, or for that matter...even properly understand what the system teaches.
You would likely be in great dispute with a Progressive Dispensationalist, I would guess. You would both be Dispensational, but very different in your theology.
The OP does not have an obsession with Calvinism, but Darbyism. And his theme is that the Pre-Trib Rapture originated with Darby. If that is true, then we may as well say that the Trinity originated with Catholicism. Because they are the group which made this a dogmatic doctrine and first imposed it into a formalized setting.
Actually Darrell, the doctrine of the Trinity developed over 3 centuries before what we now call the Roman Catholic Church in its ritualized form existed.
Actually, Hank, lol, the Doctrine of the Trinity was revealed by Christ to the First Century Jews.
And like I said...even the blind dog finds the water-bowl once in a while.
We can't say everything Catholics believe is in error, lol.
Continued...