Featured Theological differences and unity in Christ

I believe eschatology would fall under systematic theology, and eschatological positions an excellent example of the differences I am highlighting.

 

I am trying not to view your replies as intentionally dishonest. As a brother I owe you that much and as I respect your opinions you have the benefit of the doubt. But it is a struggle. Looking through the posts in this thread it becomes an even greater struggle. That said, I also understand that misunderstandings can abound on these types of forums. Perhaps poor wording on my part has led to this confusion. To clarify, ITL has explained what I am saying very well.

I am speaking of doctrines, of positions, of teaching (as you acknowledged in post # 10 and as I indicated throughout this thread). Which is why I thanked TIL and said that was exactly what I am saying. I believe that our eschatological positions are a part of our systematic theology. I also believe that those doctrines we come to are not scripture itself.

 

" when we study scripture and form theologies to answer questions that are not actually addressed in scripture, and through this we reason out a doctrine that we can defend biblically we need to be aware of our own reasoning in the process."

What primary points of Theology does it appear, to you, I am saying are subjective?

 

Sure. Soteriology, Pneumatology, Christology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology….these are categories of systematic theology (the systematic approach to theology is used to develop these categories of doctrine).

The difference that I am highlighting is that when we look at the various eschatological doctrines taught within the Church it is not difficult to see that each are supported by scripture but not directly taught within scripture alone. Each of us believes that our position is correct (or we wouldn't hold it) and each of us believes (I hope) that our understanding has the most biblical support. But none of the positions deny the passages that support the other positions (the difference is not scripture but our reasoning out of scripture).

What I am talking about are teachings that are in fact based on scripture, supported by scripture, but are also dependent on deductive reasoning. I am saying that we need to at least be aware that there exists deductive reasoning in some of our doctrines.

 

No, but because for some reason you simply will not accept the answer I am giving.

I have repeatedly stated that I am speaking of doctrines that are derived from scripture but rely on human deductive reasoning. You keep coming back, implying that there are none...not me.

 

Not at all. Remember, I was speaking of doctrines that are not spelled out in scripture as they are held as teachings, but instead are reasoning out of passages and deducing an answer to specific questions.

Do you believe that God has "unveiled" to Christian scholars truths that are in reality absent from scripture? If so, how is this "unveiling" of what is not there different from continued special revelation? How can you evaluate these teachings for complete accuracy if they are only partially revealed (how do you evaluate the part that is not in the Bible but is reasoned out....like tongues ceasing at the completion of the canon...or "time, times, and a half time" being a literal timeline (as held by MacArthur) rather than a general period of time (as held by D.A. Carson)?