Christians disagree on myriad of secondary doctrines.

[37818]

Christians disagree on myriad of secondary doctrines.
The question of free will. Arminianism and Calvinism to views which are neither.
The teachings on baptisms.
Versions of the doctrine of the Trinity. Over the gifts of the Spirit. Etc.

The odds are, one is most likely will be wrong something.

 

[Dave G]

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

God's word teaches no such things as "secondary doctrines", "essentials" and "non-essentials"
It speaks of true doctrine and false doctrine...there is nothing in between.

If those who profess Christ cannot agree on what the word of God says, it's because some are His people that still learning, some are not who they say they are ( He never knew them ) and will never come to a true understanding of the Scriptures in their entirety, and some are indeed His people who have studied, believe and understand His words.

All of them.

To be ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, and still have the Holy Spirit as Comforter, Teacher and "earnest of one's inheritance", is not only statistically impossible, but Scripturally impossible.
At some point in their lives, a professing Christian either grows in knowledge and grace, or they do not.
There are wheat, and there are tares, my friend.


This is what the Lord has told us in Matthew 13.

 

[37818]

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

God's word teaches no such things as "secondary doctrines", "essentials" and "non-essentials"
It speaks of true doctrine and false doctrine...there is nothing in between.

If those who profess Christ cannot agree on what the word of God says, it's because some are His people that still learning, some are not who they say they are ( He never knew them ) and will never come to a true understanding of the Scriptures in their entirety, and some are indeed His people who have studied, believe and understand His words.

All of them.

To be ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, and still have the Holy Spirit as Comforter, Teacher and "earnest of one's inheritance", is not only statistically impossible, but Scripturally impossible.
At some point in their lives, a professing Christian either grows in knowledge and grace, or they do not.
There are wheat, and there are tares, my friend.


This is what the Lord has told us in Matthew 13.

1 Corinthians 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

We each individually need to love the truth.

John 17:17, . . . thy word is truth.

And our Lord Jesus Christ, He is Truth personified, John 14:6, . . . , I am the way, the truth, and the life: . . .

 

[JonC]

Christians disagree on myriad of secondary doctrines.
The question of free will. Arminianism and Calvinism to views which are neither.
The teachings on baptisms.
Versions of the doctrine of the Trinity. Over the gifts of the Spirit. Etc.

The odds are, one is most likely will be wrong something.

Odds are all ate most likely wrong on something.

Often the problem (like the question of free will) is a disagreement of focus. Calvinists focus on some passages while Arminians focus on other passages. This, obviously, elevates one passage at the expense of others. There is no solution because it is a philosophical disagreement.

 

[37818]

There is no solution because it is a philosophical disagreement.

No one solution. Because disagreements are case by case. Both sides must at the very least agree on what is being disagreed on. There is also a how and a why of a disagreement.

 

[37818]

Both sides must at the very least agree on what is being disagreed on.

Finding a common ground. A question might be asked is there another common ground regarding the matter of said disagreement?

 

[DaveXR650]

Often the problem (like the question of free will) is a disagreement of focus.

Finding a common ground. A question might be asked is there another common ground regarding the matter of said disagreement?

In the case of free will, Calvinists believe that man always acts as a free agent, but according to his character. Arminians, including Wesleyans, a lot of Catholics and most general Baptists believe the same way. The advocates of free will tend to believe that men are in charge of their character and the seat of their wants and desires - not that men act freely based on those desires but that man is autonomous even in determining his character.

The common ground is that man is indeed acting as a "free agent". (That is straight from Hodge's Systematic Theology in case a Calvinist wants to argue that). But the basic question is "does a man have the ability, not to amend himself, but to simply realize his need and approach God seeking pardon by his innate power, or does the Holy Spirit have to help in some way even to do that. And even among those who agree that the Holy Spirit must be involved, does it mean arranging hearing of the gospel, outward circumstances, meetings, trials, seeing miracles and so on or is it direct enlightening, quickening, mere conviction, overwhelming conviction, or flat out regeneration before one comes by faith.

 

[37818]

In the case of free will, Calvinists believe that man always acts as a free agent, but according to his character. Arminians, including Wesleyans, a lot of Catholics and most general Baptists believe the same way. The advocates of free will tend to believe that men are in charge of their character and the seat of their wants and desires - not that men act freely based on those desires but that man is autonomous even in determining his character.

The common ground is that man is indeed acting as a "free agent". (That is straight from Hodge's Systematic Theology in case a Calvinist wants to argue that). But the basic question is "does a man have the ability, not to amend himself, but to simply realize his need and approach God seeking pardon by his innate power, or does the Holy Spirit have to help in some way even to do that. And even among those who agree that the Holy Spirit must be involved, does it mean arranging hearing of the gospel, outward circumstances, meetings, trials, seeing miracles and so on or is it direct enlightening, quickening, mere conviction, overwhelming conviction, or flat out regeneration before one comes by faith.

Man is clearly from Scripture self willed.

We are generally inclined to call this self will, free will.

ASV, Philemon 1:14, but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.

But according to Romans 6:16, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? so our will's which we do have cannot be free.

 

[37818]

<snip>And even among those who agree that the Holy Spirit must be involved, does it mean arranging hearing of the gospel, outward circumstances, meetings, trials, seeing miracles and so on or is it direct enlightening, quickening, mere conviction, overwhelming conviction, or flat out regeneration before one comes by faith.

But the Scripture solely teaches faith precedes regeneration.

 

[JonC]

No one solution. Because disagreements are case by case. Both sides must at the very least agree on what is being disagreed on. There is also a how and a why of a disagreement.

C.H. Spurgeon once observed on this issue is it is largely due to finding a truth in Scripture - whether God's sovereignty or man's will - and applying it to the expense of other truths.

I agree that both sides need to agree on the disagreement. Unfortunately this cannot be done as each depends on placing the other argument in a different context.

If you have taken a philosophy class you know what I mean here. The argument can go on with both sides being correct in their own context.

This is one instance I am grateful to be in neither camp.

 

[Van]

When one adopts a doctrine established in the past, that person cannot then admit that some part of that doctrine is false. But a person advocating his or her own understanding of a particular doctrine, can be convinced his or her view was off target.

We see this all the time on this Baptist Board. No Calvinist will ever admit that 2 Thessalonians 2:13 clearly teaches our election for salvation was conditional, based on our faith in the truth. Or that God's choice of individuals for salvation is made during their physical lifetime after they put their faith in Christ and the One who sent Him.

They can't, so all these efforts to persuade them their doctrines are unbiblical is a waste of time. And these doctrines that divide are not secondary, but primary.

 

[DaveXR650]

But the Scripture solely teaches faith precedes regeneration.

Well then you can rule out regeneration coming first. But what about the other? What if you are first enlightened, or convicted, or drawn by the Spirit in order to enable you to choose to believe? The idea that regeneration is clearly prior to faith is not a basis for Calvinistic thought, even if Sproul thinks it is. Owen doesn't put one before the other and most would give him some credit as a genuine Calvinist.

The real question that comes up on here is this. Has God provided a suitable sacrifice sufficient for sin and now it is up to men to use their common sense or their own virtue or whatever else they have on their own to choose whether they want to jump aboard and be saved or not. If they do then, and only then, will God save them. Until then they are on their own, God having made sufficient "Provision" for them to be saved. If that is what the overall narrative of scripture appears to show in your opinion then Flowers is right. And in the old days, Pelagius.

 

[37818]

Well then you can rule out regeneration coming first. But what about the other? What if you are first enlightened, or convicted, or drawn by the Spirit in order to enable you to choose to believe? The idea that regeneration is clearly prior to faith is not a basis for Calvinistic thought, even if Sproul thinks it is. Owen doesn't put one before the other and most would give him some credit as a genuine Calvinist.

The real question that comes up on here is this. Has God provided a suitable sacrifice sufficient for sin and now it is up to men to use their common sense or their own virtue or whatever else they have on their own to choose whether they want to jump aboard and be saved or not. If they do then, and only then, will God save them. Until then they are on their own, God having made sufficient "Provision" for them to be saved. If that is what the overall narrative of scripture appears to show in your opinion then Flowers is right. And in the old days, Pelagius.

MLV, Romans 9:11, for* the children were not yet born, nor had practiced anything good or evil, in-order-that the purpose of God according-to his choice might abide, not from works, but from the one who is calling.

John 20:31, But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[DaveXR650]

MLV, Romans 9:11, for* the children were not yet born, nor had practiced anything good or evil, in-order-that the purpose of God according-to his choice might abide, not from works, but from the one who is calling.

John 20:31, But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I'm not understanding what you are trying to say by putting up these verses.

 

[37818]

I'm not understanding what you are trying to say by putting up these verses.

MLV, Romans 9:11, not
pelagianism.
John 20:31, Regeneration is through faith, ". . . that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[DaveXR650]

MLV, Romans 9:11, not
pelagianism.
John 20:31, Regeneration is through faith, ". . . that believing ye might have life through his name.

Pelagianism tends to believe that men are not damaged by the fall and have no tendencies to consider the gospel message undesirable or foolish and thus are completely capable of willing themselves to come to Christ. Everyone else believes that in some way God must help man even to receive Christ.

John 20:31 just stated the necessity of believing for life. It says nothing about the order or even specifically about regeneration.

 

[37818]

John 20:31 just stated the necessity of believing for life. It says nothing about the order or even specifically about regeneration.

We.disagree.

 

[Dave G]

We each individually need to love the truth.

God's people ( those that are His ) are characterized by a love for the truth, while unbelievers are not ( 2 Thessalonians 2:10 ).

In addition, they have the Spirit of truth...
The very same Spirit that the Lord Jesus promised to His apostles would lead them into all truth ( John 16:13 ), does the same with all of God's elect ( 1 John 2:20-27 ).
Which means that all who are saved not only understand the truth, they are united by it.

But it seems to me that what you are putting forth is the idea that people can actually be saved, indwelt with that same Spirit, sealed unto the day of their bodily redemption, and yet differ in doctrines for most ( if not all ) of their entire lives...
And never come into the unity of the faith as Ephesians 4 tells us will someday happen.

Is this true?

 

[37818]

Is this true?

Romans 8:23, And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

 

[Deacon]

Christians disagree on myriad of secondary doctrines.
[snip]
The odds are, one is most likely will be wrong something.

Fortunately, the requirement for salvation is not a completely correct doctrinal theology, but simply trusting in a Savior that has the wisdom we lack.
Even the fool can come to him, lacking nothing.

Mankind is forever searching for that which is contained in our Sovereign God.

Rob