Theological differences and unity in Christ

[agedman]

Again, tell me how any of that is doctrine!

Doctrine is the set of beliefs that are taught by a group, be it a church or some other institution or gathering.

Because there are churches that teach and even have in their statements of faith some view of what they hold in both soteriology and eschatology, then such is doctrine.

Individuals may also hold as "doctrine" a specific set of views of soteriology. Theologians give titles to these doctrinal views of men: Calvinist, Arminian.

In the broad realm of the "Doctrines of Eschatology" there is great divisions between believers over the times and understanding. Often, these are "deal breakers" when it comes to associations and memberships.

 

[agedman]

There has been insinuation that you are in fact 'Van' so let your be as Christ indicated.....a Yes or a No. Everything else (well you know the rest).

Really, I am also 'Van?'

Van would be insulted!

Though we may both be Texans, Van would be more likely TCassidy than me.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Really, I am also 'Van?'

Van would be insulted!

Though we may both be Texans, Van would be more likely TCassidy than me.

Note....Tom C also lives in Texas.....

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Doctrine is the set of beliefs that are taught by a group, be it a church or some other institution or gathering.

Because there are churches that teach and even have in their statements of faith some view of what they hold in both soteriology and eschatology, then such is doctrine.

Individuals may also hold as "doctrine" a specific set of views of soteriology. Theologians give titles to these doctrinal views of men: Calvinist, Arminian.

In the broad realm of the "Doctrines of Eschatology" there is great divisions between believers over the times and understanding. Often, these are "deal breakers" when it comes to associations and memberships.

Deal brakers....!?! And they call themselves Christian....LOL

 

[agedman]

Deal brakers....!?! And they call themselves Christian....LOL

Well, certainly. However, they don't particularly want to have to reexamine every problem with a prospective member so, they spell out their distinctives.

One of the distinctives would be in the area of eschatology.

Consider what the difference in the view of the Matthew 24 passages (the Olivet Discourse) as to how the Amil, the Preterist, the Pre-Mil, and the Dispensational groups align the Scriptures. Or those Scriptures found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, ... in which great discussions occur on the BB.

More often an institution and assembly of believers will determinedly set aside the cause for division or for one to question the unity by establishing fellowship based upon what they consider doctrinal essentials - including statements of the last days.

 

[TCassidy]

I think what Jon is saying is that there are doctrinal positions that rely on logic, inference, and deductive reasoning, in addition to scriptural support. The various eschatological positions come to mind.

And I have asked, several times, for an example which we can look at, discuss, and see if there is a definitive biblical text which proves such a position. So far that has not been forthcoming.

 

[TCassidy]

Van would be more likely TCassidy than me.

Van and I both consider that an insult!

 

[TCassidy]

Tom C also lives in Texas.

He sure does. And just a reminder, Don't Mess With Texas (or Texans).

 

[TCassidy]

I think what Jon is saying is that there are doctrinal positions that rely on logic, inference, and deductive reasoning, in addition to scriptural support.

Except he is not saying doctrine. He is saying Theology. There is a difference.

 

[JonC]

excuse me, but when has an eschatological stance (position) become a church doctrine?

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

 

[JonC]

Except he is not saying doctrine. He is saying Theology. There is a difference.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

I am not saying theology in its entirety is subjective.

Okay, so which of the primary points of Theology is subjective?

 

[JonC]

Okay, so which of the primary points of Theology is subjective?

" 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?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

Show me how it is then. I don't see it.

 

[JonC]

Show me how it is then. I don't see it.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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

Once again you dodge the question. Why? Could it be because you can't answer it because your thesis is indefensible?

 

[TCassidy]

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.

So are the scriptures ambiguous? Unenlightening? Not profitable for doctrine?

 

[JonC]

Once again you dodge the question. Why? Could it be because you can't answer it because your thesis is indefensible?

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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

Because you keep giving the no answer answer.

I have repeatedly stated that I am speaking of doctrines that are derived from scripture but rely on human deductive reasoning.

Fine. Which doctrines? Be specific.

You keep coming back, implying that there are none...not me.

If there are you should have no trouble listing a few.

 

[JonC]

So are the scriptures ambiguous? Unenlightening? Not profitable for doctrine?

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)?