Featured Theological differences and unity in Christ

What I said was that 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. Is this something that you deny?

To put it another way: You and John Piper differ on doctrine (here's two as an example - he has affirmed double predestination and the continuation of tongues...you deny both). Is it because the two of you reason out and understand things differently or is it because God gifted you a special unveiling of truth that he has denied John Piper....or is Piper right and are you blind to that truth? Which of you are denying the truth of God's Word in your teaching?

My answer is that you both form a position based on scripture but differ in human reasoning. Neither of you deny scripture but there could be a possibility on both accounts that escape your reasoning. Scripture itself provides a definitive answer to neither issue. But theology addresses both.

Is your answer that God has opened your eyes and taught you that he did not decree some to condemnation (human reasoning not being a factor) while others like John Piper remained uninformed to this objective truth? Is Piper actually denying God's Word when he preaches that scripture is not definitive enough to prove tongues have ceased? Or are you guilty of adding to scripture when you say they have? Or, are these doctrines derived from and supported by scripture but also inclusive of human reasoning and therefore disagreements rather than different levels of enlightenment?

 

Wow...that's interesting brother IT.

Who are the "some" that believe men should not deduce things from the Scriptures?

Are they real people or strawmen?

If what you say is true ( I don't doubt your integrity) and there are people who teach that deducing things from the scriptures is wrong, I find it a bit interesting and ironic. I knew some CoC folk who rejected the idea of systematic theology but did it anyway (and that's a bit different).

It seems ignorance and irony sometimes go hand in hand, kinda like lying and stealing (a saying we had in my unit) BTW, when you give those examples of people who think it wrong to deduce things from scripture, will you please provide references as well. I'd be interested in reading of that "doctrine".

 

No. If you want to discuss various views of divine predestination or sign gifts then it would be best for you to start a thread of your own instead of hijacking this one. I was discussing the existence of differing positions based on scripture but also dependent on deduction, not individual doctrines. No offense, but I'm not interested in your opinion of predestination or of sign gifts. Those were examples.

I am, however, interested in the more general question I've been asking.

What I said was that 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. Is this something that you deny?

Do you and Piper differ because the two of you reason out and understand things differently or is it because God gifted you a special unveiling of truth that he has denied John Piper....or is Piper right and are you blind to that truth? Which of you are denying the truth of God's Word in your teaching?

My answer is that you both form a position based on scripture but differ in human reasoning. Neither of you deny scripture but there could be a possibility on both accounts that escape your reasoning. Scripture itself provides a definitive answer to neither issue. But theology addresses both.

Is your answer that God has opened your eyes and taught you that he did not decree some to condemnation (human reasoning not being a factor) while others like John Piper remained uninformed to this objective truth? Is Piper actually denying God's Word when he preaches that scripture is not definitive enough to prove tongues have ceased? Or are you guilty of adding to scripture when you say they have? Or, are these doctrines derived from and supported by scripture but also inclusive of human reasoning and therefore disagreements rather than different levels of enlightenment?

 

No one is denying John 3:18. But some are differing with your interpretation that this means God did not decree reprobation (Dort), that God decreed even before the fall those who would be damned (Beza), or that God decreed by passing over out of fallen man those who will not be saved (Piper).

No one is denying 1 Corinthians 13:13. Faith, hope, love...these three abide. Paul is emphasizing these three...not saying that the gift of teaching, grace, wisdom, knowledge, discernment, exhortation, giving, etc. no longer exist.

Your verses alone do not even start to denounce those positions. BUT that's another topic brother. I'd be interested in the first example, if you want to start a thread....but not really sign gifts. Please keep this one on topic (but that was a good example).

 

Yes, I know. And I absolutely agree with that Scripture TC. What I mean is that I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of those two teachingss. I think they would be an interesting topic to discuss, and I am confident you would bring much to the discuussion, but it is simply a different discussion.

 

I don’t want this to get lost in the shuffle, brother IT, as you have yet had the opportunity to respond. You’ve made an interesting observation, if it is indeed honest.

Who are the "some" that believe men should not deduce things from the Scriptures?

Are they real people or straw men?

If what you say is true ( I don't doubt your integrity) and there are people who teach that deducing things from the scriptures is wrong, I find it a bit interesting and ironic.

It seems ignorance and irony sometimes go hand in hand, kinda like lying and stealing (a saying we had in my unit) BTW, when you give those examples of people who think it wrong to deduce things from scripture, will you please provide references as well. I'd be interested in reading of that "doctrine".

Who are these people that believe it is wrong to deduce things from scripture, brother?

 

I agree. I don’t even think opinions are equally valid in terms of secular arguments, much less in terms of scripture. And just to be clear, I have not disagreed with what you have stated in this post. We can know what the Bible teaches. I never said otherwise.

I also have never suggested repudiating biblical ecclesiology, biblical separation, modifying the Gospel to address social, political and economic issues of today – but I do believe we are able to go to scripture and develop doctrines to address contemporary issues (to include social, political, and economic issues). I do not believe we need to infliterate the old mainline denominations in an attempt to recapture them. I also don’t consider the antiquity of men, the universality of the flood, nor God’s method of creation to be “problems.” Yes, Systematic Theology is pretty cut and dried. I do not think we need to alter categories of thought, or tweak anything. If you have read so much in my post, then I apologize for poorly expressing my intent.

And I am saying that we can know what the Bible teaches, otherwise why would it be taught? God did not give to us scripture so that we could not understand, but that through study we could understand – that is, understand what has been revealed. I am not even saying that we do not stand firm for what we believe in those areas that are not directly taught in the Bible. What I am saying is that God did not give us scripture to answer every question that we ask. Some of the doctrines we hold are not exactly what is taught in scripture, but rather what we have deduced from what is taught. There is room for disagreement on such issues, and disagreement does not equate to denying scripture.

I get the feeling that some have been trying to make an enemy of a friend, but I am not aging gracefully which is presupposed in "how I feel". It is ironic that in the last few days I've been accused of an inner struggle with the last vestiges of Arminianism, pushing an anti-Calvinistic agenda, and forwarding hyper-Calvinistic doctrine. That alone should have given pause to reconsider my comments, perhaps to conclude that my words poorly reflected what I was saying (and for that, I apologize).

 

No, brother, I did not call you a liar. I said that your comment was interesting, if indeed it was honest (not a straw man argument...if it were true). Perhaps I did not articulate well enough my position. It happens.

Throughout this thread I have repeatedly said that we deduce from scripture (even that this is necessary) doctrines to answer questions that are not necessarily given directly from scripture (e.g., positions of logical order, the mechanics of predestination, a full doctrine of pre/post/a-mil). We should hold to our beliefs (I said that as well), but we should recognize on such secondary matters not explicit in scripture our own reasoning. Otherwise it is impossible to evaluate our methods.

You are erroneously assuming that I am asking why theology is wrong (especially Sovereign Grace theology). That is not at all what I am speaking of. I don't think theology "is wrong" and certainly not Sovereign Grace theology. I believe, brother, that you have invented a characterization and have just chosen me to fill the bill. But I understand your mistake. You've failed to apprehend at all what I've apparently failed to articulate. Rest assured that you have severely misjudged my belief and intent here.

While I do find your false ideas about my intent and beliefs offensive (no one likes to be accused of holding beliefs that are in fact foreign to what they hold), I forgive you the false accusations and insults because I can see a bit of your confusion. You seem to me to take everything to be talking about you or your beliefs. To clarify and set your mind at ease, I am not talking about scripture being subjective, or some inability to understand what is taught in the Bible. I certainly am not saying that "theology is wrong" (I chose to study theology at the graduate level, which was not always fun but it was always interesting, it is something I think needs to be emphasized), and I am not saying that Sovereign Grace theology is wrong (my understanding is Sovereign Grace theology - but by pointing out the distinction we are also acknowledging other theologies). We can certainly know, through the Spirit, what the Bible teaches. I've never indicated otherwise.

You have for quite some time now falsely positioned me against a particular belief, based upon nothing that I have said of my beliefs but of minor disagreements with you. I think that perhaps you have come to believe the lie. I know you think this is "old", and it is. I've corrected your misunderstanding several times but you have yet to comprehend that my view and intent are in reality vastly different from your characterization of me. If you think that's old, try being on my side where a few who are willfully ignorant of my positions project on me whatever agenda they want to oppose.

 

I need to clarify something right now. Some people have come to severely misrepresent both my beliefs and my statements. When corrected (by me about my beliefs) they simply disagree and continue. This needs to stop today.

I have been accused by a few people of advancing an anti-Calvinistic agenda. This is false. I do not have an agenda against Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldism…or any of the reformed theologies. I do not have an agenda against free-will Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Southern Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, or Methodists and Presbyterians. I do not even have an anti-Catholic agenda.

I have been accused of claiming that Theology is wrong, and that we should not deduce things from scripture, both which are utterly nonsense. The teachings of the Bible are not only completely objective truth but those doctrines we deduce are beliefs we should stand on and advocate. When we reason out what is not taught in the Bible I believe we need to realize that reasoning is involved. After 3 years on college I changed my major to religion because I saw theology slipping in our churches. Afterwards I continued to seminary and studied theology. I do not believe theology is wrong, or that it is wrong to form biblical doctrine.

I have not called myself a Calvinist (not often and rarely directly) but I have said several times that I affirm the 5 points of Calvinism as expressed in the Canons of Dort. That does not mean I believe people who believe otherwise are confused in their belief or lack understanding. The Doctrines of Grace simply make sense to me.

Now that I have explained that they have been confused or ignorant of what I believe, and of my intent, any continued insults or accusations that I have some anti-Calvinist agenda, that I think Theology wrong, or deducing from Scripture wrong will be considered false witness against a brother and trolling another member of this forum.

Just so that there is no mistake, I will PM those few so that they are aware of where I stand on those issues. For my part, these things need to be moderated more strongly as I am not the only one belittled by the few. Disagreement, argument, and even hard feelings are one thing. Continually misrepresenting another's position for 6 months after numerous corrections is another.