Theological differences and unity in Christ

[JonC]

Because you keep giving the no answer answer.

Fine. Which doctrines? Be specific.

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

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?

 

[Internet Theologian]

It is interesting that deducing things from the Scriptures is a big 'no no' to some. Yet the Scriptures show this as a hollow and fallacy laden stance.

The Christ of God fully expected Nicodemus to do so, John 3:10.

And then there are the teachings of the apostle Paul who reconciled the OT Scriptures with the ministry of Christ and His Gospel, deducing the OT Scriptures to fully show that He is the Christ. Then there is also 2 Timothy 2:15, and many other passages that refer to sound doctrine derived from deducing truth from the Scriptures in rightly handling it. Deducing doctrine from Scripture is Biblical, some simply do not like the sound doctrines derived from Scriptures in this manner, this is quite clear. Therefore they attack the method and the teachings as well.

 

[JonC]

It is interesting that deducing things from the Scriptures is a big 'no no' to some.

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".

 

[TCassidy]

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

More no answer answer?

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).

So the person you want to use as an example is John Piper and the doctrines you want to use are double predestination and cessation? Okay, let's talk specifics.

My answer is that you both form a position based on scripture but differ in human reasoning.

Your list is only two "doctrines" long. Is that all you can list? If so this is going to be a short discussion.

 

[TCassidy]

double predestination

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[TCassidy]

continuation of tongues

1 Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they shall pass away; whether there are tongues, they shall cease; whether there is knowledge, it shall pass away.

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

[JonC]

More no answer answer?

So the person you want to use as an example is John Piper and the doctrines you want to use are double predestination and cessation? Okay, let's talk specifics.

Your list is only two "doctrines" long. Is that all you can list? If so this is going to be a short discussion.

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?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Thomas, if Scripture was so clear on all points of systematic theology that to deny the points was to deny the meaning of words and language, then good men, who love the Lord and Scripture and are seeking to serve Him and obey it, wouldn't be having discussions like this.

Man, that was a Pauline style sentence.

 

[JonC]

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

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).

1 Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they shall pass away; whether there are tongues, they shall cease; whether there is knowledge, it shall pass away.
1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

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).

 

[TCassidy]

No offense, but I'm not interested in your opinion of predestination or of sign gifts.

I didn't post an opinion. Just scripture.

Paul is emphasizing these three...not saying that the gift of teaching, grace, wisdom, knowledge, discernment, exhortation, giving, etc. no longer exist.

With the obvious exception of knowledge, those gifts are not mentioned in the immediate preceding context of chapter 13.

 

[TCassidy]

Thomas, if Scripture was so clear on all points of systematic theology that to deny the points was to deny the meaning of words and language, then good men, who love the Lord and Scripture and are seeking to serve Him and obey it, wouldn't be having discussions like this.

I understand, and agree. What I am saying is what Paul said in Romans 14:5. If we are not fully persuaded we will, eventually, abandon all trust in the scriptures and our ability to understand them, and resort to an "authoritative magisterium" to tell us what to believe.

It does not bother me at all that others disagree with my understanding of bible doctrine. I think they are wrong. I think God the Holy Spirit does lead us into all truth on subjects we are willing to study in depth. Scripture has one meaning. It is up to us to determine what that meaning is. And we do that through prayerful bible study as guided by the Holy Spirit.

This idea that "my opinion is just as good as yours" and "nobody can really know for sure" is the very basis of the breakdown in ecclesiastical separation characteristic of the New Evangelicalism of today. I was talking to a man who was in a church with very bad doctrine. When I pointed it out to him and showed him what the bible said on the subject his response was "Well only the big stuff is important. The rest doesn't matter." The issue was the deity of Christ. I consider that the "big stuff."

I don't believe we have to repudiate biblical ecclesiology and adopt a more politically correct position more in keeping with the "needs of the time."

I don't believe we have to repudiate biblical separation, nor engage in the theological debate of the day.

I don't believe we need to modify the Gospel to address the social, political, and economic issues of today.

I don't believe we need infiltrate the old mainline denominations in an attempt to recapture them.

Nor do I consider the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, nor God's method of creation to be "problems."

Systematic Theology is pretty cut and dried, and has stood the test time for over 1300 years, since John of Damascus's 8th-century Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. The great categories of Theology proper, Bibliology, Christology, Pneumatology, Soteriology, Anthropology, Hamartiology, Angelology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology are recognized by all orthodoxy. There are certainly minor differences of understanding in each of the categories but those differences are founded on dogmatically forcing a false hermeneutic on the text.

We can know what the bible teaches. All we have to do is be willing to allow the text to speak to us rather than insisting the text is subject to our dogma.

Man, that was a Pauline style sentence.

I'll say! By the time I got to the end of the sentence I had forgotten what you were talking about at the beginning!

 

[Iconoclast]

agedman,

Another example, that perhaps could be added to the list, is the fierce statements regarding the atonement.

really...lets see what you have got....

The hardest Calvinistic view is that God selected a few of the whole and Christ died ONLY for those few

Is this a strawmanfest?????
Show a Calvinist that says God saves a few.

and purposely condemning the rest who are without option

They can repent and believe the gospel ...that is an option isn't it.

.

Then there is the complete opposite expressed as Christ died for all, and therefore all have equal opportunity.

Then there is MINE.

So the whole church has missed what you see???? is that correct???

My view is that certainly, Christ is presented in Scriptures as having died for all.

certainly not....

Therefore, belief (which is the gift of God) is the determiner, and not sin (for all have certainly sinned, BUT the gift of God is eternal life...). "For we are HIS workmanship..."

As I see the argument of this thread, oppositions and over worked discussions to what I consider correct would be the result of the affront that my thinking has toward BOTH the extreme sides who assume their particular thinking is the most Scriptural, yet my view is the most accurate to the greatest balance of and embracing of the largest selection of Scriptures. [/QUOTE]
.
I had no idea! maybe because I had not seen your view quoted anywhere.?

Of course you disagree, Icon.

sure...nothing to agree with here so far.

When someone takes a literal view of Scriptures, it is generally offensive to both extremes

.

Who does not take a "literal view"? Anyone who does not share your view is extreme???

 

[SovereignGrace]

I understand, and agree. What I am saying is what Paul said in Romans 14:5. If we are not fully persuaded we will, eventually, abandon all trust in the scriptures and our ability to understand them, and resort to an "authoritative magisterium" to tell us what to believe.

It does not bother me at all that others disagree with my understanding of bible doctrine. I think they are wrong. I think God the Holy Spirit does lead us into all truth on subjects we are willing to study in depth. Scripture has one meaning. It is up to us to determine what that meaning is. And we do that through prayerful bible study as guided by the Holy Spirit.

This idea that "my opinion is just as good as yours" and "nobody can really know for sure" is the very basis of the breakdown in ecclesiastical separation characteristic of the New Evangelicalism of today. I was talking to a man who was in a church with very bad doctrine. When I pointed it out to him and showed him what the bible said on the subject his response was "Well only the big stuff is important. The rest doesn't matter." The issue was the deity of Christ. I consider that the "big stuff."

I don't believe we have to repudiate biblical ecclesiology and adopt a more politically correct position more in keeping with the "needs of the time."

I don't believe we have to repudiate biblical separation, nor engage in the theological debate of the day.

I don't believe we need to modify the Gospel to address the social, political, and economic issues of today.

I don't believe we need infiltrate the old mainline denominations in an attempt to recapture them.

Nor do I consider the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, nor God's method of creation to be "problems."

Systematic Theology is pretty cut and dried, and has stood the test time for over 1300 years, since John of Damascus's 8th-century Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. The great categories of Theology proper, Bibliology, Christology, Pneumatology, Soteriology, Anthropology, Hamartiology, Angelology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology are recognized by all orthodoxy. There are certainly minor differences of understanding in each of the categories but those differences are founded on dogmatically forcing a false hermeneutic on the text.

We can know what the bible teaches. All we have to do is be willing to allow the text to speak to us rather than insisting the text is subject to our dogma.I'll say! By the time I got to the end of the sentence I had forgotten what you were talking about at the beginning!

 

[JonC]

I didn't post an opinion. Just scripture.

With the obvious exception of knowledge, those gifts are not mentioned in the immediate preceding context of chapter 13.

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.

 

[JonC]

It is interesting that deducing things from the Scriptures is a big 'no no' to some.

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?

 

[JonC]

I understand, and agree. What I am saying is what Paul said in Romans 14:5. If we are not fully persuaded we will, eventually, abandon all trust in the scriptures and our ability to understand them, and resort to an "authoritative magisterium" to tell us what to believe.

It does not bother me at all that others disagree with my understanding of bible doctrine. I think they are wrong. I think God the Holy Spirit does lead us into all truth on subjects we are willing to study in depth. Scripture has one meaning. It is up to us to determine what that meaning is. And we do that through prayerful bible study as guided by the Holy Spirit.

This idea that "my opinion is just as good as yours" and "nobody can really know for sure" is the very basis of the breakdown in ecclesiastical separation characteristic of the New Evangelicalism of today. I was talking to a man who was in a church with very bad doctrine. When I pointed it out to him and showed him what the bible said on the subject his response was "Well only the big stuff is important. The rest doesn't matter." The issue was the deity of Christ. I consider that the "big stuff."

I don't believe we have to repudiate biblical ecclesiology and adopt a more politically correct position more in keeping with the "needs of the time."

I don't believe we have to repudiate biblical separation, nor engage in the theological debate of the day.

I don't believe we need to modify the Gospel to address the social, political, and economic issues of today.

I don't believe we need infiltrate the old mainline denominations in an attempt to recapture them.

Nor do I consider the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, nor God's method of creation to be "problems."

Systematic Theology is pretty cut and dried, and has stood the test time for over 1300 years, since John of Damascus's 8th-century Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. The great categories of Theology proper, Bibliology, Christology, Pneumatology, Soteriology, Anthropology, Hamartiology, Angelology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology are recognized by all orthodoxy. There are certainly minor differences of understanding in each of the categories but those differences are founded on dogmatically forcing a false hermeneutic on the text.

We can know what the bible teaches. All we have to do is be willing to allow the text to speak to us rather than insisting the text is subject to our dogma.I'll say! By the time I got to the end of the sentence I had forgotten what you were talking about at the beginning!

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).

 

[Internet Theologian]

You’ve made an interesting observation, if it is indeed honest.

[edited] Then you start addressing them. It's old. It's callow. You've done this with me and others.

Now to the rest of your point. It is YOU have alluded to deducing things from Scripture as wrong throughout this thread. It's been one of your main points as to why theology is wrong (especially Sovereign Grace theology). [edited]

 

[JonC]

This is what you do, too often, that is imply someone is a liar. Then you start addressing them. It's old. It's callow. You've done this with me and others.

Now to the rest of your point. It is YOU have alluded to deducing things from Scripture as wrong throughout this thread. It's been one of your main points as to why theology is wrong (especially Sovereign Grace theology). But as others have found out it is actually not profitable engaging you in honest facts because you'll avoid it and have a 1000 word response that says, well, not much.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[Rob_BW]

Some people joined this board for fellowship, some joined for discussion.

Some are here on a crusade.