Arrogance or Contending for the Truth?

[Reformed]

There is a fine line sometimes between an arrogant or belligerent attitude and taking a strong stand in contending for the truth. Often times we can misinterpret the words of another as arrogance, when in reality they are nothing more than strong debate. I heard someone once say that theological debate is not for the thin-skinned or those easily offended. I will accept that as an axiom.

Webster's Dictionary defines arrogance as, "an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people". If we use Webster's as an accurate definition of arrogance, then we really need to examine whether a direct post fits that definition. For instance, if one poster states that another person is wrong, does it immediately follow that the reason he is stating that is because he things he is better, smarter, or more important? Could it be that he actually believes the other person is wrong based on the facts? Instead of focusing on the facts (and adequately refuting them if necessary) the person on the receiving end will often take it as a personal attack and respond in kind.

Now, if one party truly does believe they are better, smarter, or more important than the other person, arrogance is being displayed. But just because one party believes their position is right does not mean they believe they are personally better or superior to the other person, and that is the rub. We need to keep this in mind when we disagree; and oh, brother do we ever disagree! Baptists eat their young and shoot their wounded, so it is no secret that our theological debates can bring out emotions and reactions that belay our profession.

I am not going to point fingers at anybody in particular in this post because I am an offender in this area. I do pray it gives all of us something to consider.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't know whether you are pre-trib-dispensational or not but I live in the midst of them and debate them on this BB. I find that many have the attitude: "I know something you don't"!

Barnes and Noble peddle the original Scofield as follows:

This is the original Scofield Bible The unique and famous Scofield Study System helps the reader to gather the riches of the Bible while it is being read with a page-by-page framework of notes, cross references, subject chain references, definitions, and comprehensive outlines that thoroughly mine the depths of each passage. Used for generations by millions of evangelical Christians for serious Bible study, the Scofield Study Bible is a constant companion, a patient teacher, and a unique pathway to a deeper understanding of the Bible and a more informed faith.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/scofield-study-bible-c-i-scofield/1100157791?ean=9780195271614

**************************************************************************************************

 

[Reformed]

I don't know whether you are pre-trib-dispensational or not but I live in the midst of them and debate them on this BB. I find that many have the attitude: "I know something you don't"!

Barnes and Noble peddle the original Scofield as follows:



**************************************************************************************************

I am an amillennialist, covenant theologian. I left dispensationalism about 10 years ago. When I was a dispensationalist I was in that part of the fundamentalist crowd that thought non-dispensationalists were close to being unsaved.

 

[quantumfaith]

I don't know whether you are pre-trib-dispensational or not but I live in the midst of them and debate them on this BB. I find that many have the attitude: "I know something you don't"!


You describe well a condition that is rampant on BB.

 

[OldRegular]

I am an amillennialist, covenant theologian. I left dispensationalism about 10 years ago. When I was a dispensationalist I was in that part of the fundamentalist crowd that thought non-dispensationalists were close to being unsaved.

Some on this BB have come as close as they dared questioning my Salvation. It really doesn't bother me but the attitude behind it does.

 

[Reformed]

Some on this BB have come as close as they dared questioning my Salvation. It really doesn't bother me but the attitude behind it does.

BLOCK is one of my favorite chat room options. It is made for those sorts.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am an amillennialist, covenant theologian. I left dispensationalism about 10 years ago. When I was a dispensationalist I was in that part of the fundamentalist crowd that thought non-dispensationalists were close to being unsaved.

You are pulling your punches a bit aren't you???

 

[The American Dream]

IMO, essential doctrine is made clear by Scripture for all to know, the nature of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, the Trinity, salvation only by grace through faith, Inspiration of Scripture and many more. The issues of a lesser nature, well we all have the Holy Spirit to guide us. It is not worth the time or effort to argue over them, because most of them will not be settled this side of eternity. The Bible is the final word from the Lord.

 

[Reformed]

You are pulling your punches a bit aren't you???

Me? Since when do I mince words?

 

[evangelist6589]

I am an amillennialist, covenant theologian. I left dispensationalism about 10 years ago. When I was a dispensationalist I was in that part of the fundamentalist crowd that thought non-dispensationalists were close to being unsaved.

It is possible to be a Calvinist Dispensationalist as so many are these days.

 

[Iconoclast]

Some on this BB have come as close as they dared questioning my Salvation. It really doesn't bother me but the attitude behind it does.

What is ironic with the premill system is that it is taught as the only viable option and those holding it are almost totally 'schooled' that any one not in the camp is on the edge of Apostasy.

If someone holds the system having studied the other systems they might temper their view of the other positions a bit more.
just to sort of learn the one system...pre mill...you are not even in position to make a correct judgement as we see here. These are the most caustic exchanges.

 

[Revmitchell]

What is ironic with the premill system is that it is taught as the only viable option and those holding it are almost totally 'schooled' that any one not in the camp is on the edge of Apostasy.

This is a lie either made out of pure ignorance or pure acrimony.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is possible to be a Calvinist Dispensationalist as so many are these days.

And for that you must be destroyed.

 

[robustheologian]

There is a fine line sometimes between an arrogant or belligerent attitude and taking a strong stand in contending for the truth. Often times we can misinterpret the words of another as arrogance, when in reality they are nothing more than strong debate. I heard someone once say that theological debate is not for the thin-skinned or those easily offended. I will accept that as an axiom.

Webster's Dictionary defines arrogance as, "an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people". If we use Webster's as an accurate definition of arrogance, then we really need to examine whether a direct post fits that definition. For instance, if one poster states that another person is wrong, does it immediately follow that the reason he is stating that is because he things he is better, smarter, or more important? Could it be that he actually believes the other person is wrong based on the facts? Instead of focusing on the facts (and adequately refuting them if necessary) the person on the receiving end will often take it as a personal attack and respond in kind.

Now, if one party truly does believe they are better, smarter, or more important than the other person, arrogance is being displayed. But just because one party believes their position is right does not mean they believe they are personally better or superior to the other person, and that is the rub. We need to keep this in mind when we disagree; and oh, brother do we ever disagree! Baptists eat their young and shoot their wounded, so it is no secret that our theological debates can bring out emotions and reactions that belay our profession.

I am not going to point fingers at anybody in particular in this post because I am an offender in this area. I do pray it gives all of us something to consider.

A lot of times, arrogance is shown by the fact that one thinks they are better than someone else because they think they are right or have been "divinely enabled".

A strong argument is shown by how you treat ideas. Arrogance is shown by how you treat people.

 

[Reformed]

It is possible to be a Calvinist Dispensationalist as so many are these days.

Sure. IMHO it is inconsistent with Reformed theology, but there are plenty of dispensational Calvinists.

 

[Reformed]

A strong argument is shown by how you treat ideas. Arrogance is shown by how you treat people.

Good point.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is a lie either made out of pure ignorance or pure acrimony.

It is no lie.If you want to see for yourself , fly into Pennsylvania to Baptist Bible College in Clarks Summit PA. In the bookstore they have tracts and booklets teaching this very thing. When I unpack some of my books , I will see if I still have a couple that I had bought and save you a bus ticket, or plane ticket...I will post the material online and you can see it and read it for yourself.
So before you speak about what you do not know ...maybe look into it first.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

If someone holds the system having studied the other systems they might temper their view of the other positions a bit more.
just to sort of learn the one system...pre mill...you are not even in position to make a correct judgement as we see here. These are the most caustic exchanges.

Dr. Charles Erdman was born in 1866 and became a professor at Princeton Theological University. He was also a pastor of the Overbrook Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. One of his essays is on "The Second Coming."
It is published in Feinberg's classic "The Fundamentals."
One can find at least part of that book and its table of contents here:

http://eaec.org/bookstore/the_fundamentals.htm
His work is found in chapter 85.
The Coming of Christ
by Prof. Charles R. Erdman, D.D.

I will quote some excerpts for you from this article:

The return of Christ is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. It is embodied in hymns of hope; it forms the climax of the creeds; it is the sublime motive for evangelistic and missionary activity; and daily it is voiced in the inspired prayer: “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

1. His coming will be personal. By personal is meant visible, bodily, local; and may be contrasted with that which is spiritual, providential, figurative. Of course, the spiritual presence of Christ is a blessed reality. Christ, “this same Jesus” would come in like manner as he went (Acts 1:11; Rev.1:7), and every eye shall see him.

2. His Coming will be glorious. It will be glorious not only in attendant circumstances, but also in its effects upon the church and the world. The Lord predicted that He would return in “His own glory, and the glory of His Father, and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26). He will be revealed in his divine majesty. Nothing could be more natural than such a triumphant return of the risen, ascended Lord.
Then will Christ reign in glory over all the world. It is true that now “all power” has been given to him “in heaven and on earth,” but that power has not been fully manifest; “we see not yet all things put under him.” He has “sat down on the right hand of God,” but he is “henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet.” He is now reigning, seated on the Father’s throne; but this world is still in reality a revolted province, and Christ is yet to sit on his own throne. Then “before him every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord” (Heb.10:12,13; Phi.2:10,11).
These scriptures must be interpreted that at the very least Christ’s coming will be followed by the universal reign of Christ (Mat.25:31). He will then determine who may enter and who will be excluded from his kingdom. (Mat.7:21-23). He will be the Supreme Judge, but will also be manifest as the universal Ruler in his perfected kingdom.
In this glory of Christ his followers are to share. The resurrection of the dead will take place when he returns. The body of the believer is thus to be raised in glory. One generation of believers will be living when Christ returns, and they will be translated without the experience of death. What “is mortal will be swallowed up of life.” They will never be “unclothed,” but “clothed upon” with the glory of immortality (1Cor.15:51-52; 2Cor.5:4).
The real coronation day of the Christian is not at death but “at the appearing of Christ.”
The rule of Christ and of his people who reign with him must secure unparalleled blessedness for the world. Nature itself will become more beautiful and joyous (Rom.8:21; Isa.2:1-4).

3. His coming is imminent. It is an event which may occur in any lifetime. Believers are described as those “who love his appearing.” We are commanded to “wait and watch.” “Imminent” does not mean “immediate.” Paul believed that the Lord might return in his lifetime; he never asserted that he would. “Imminence” as related to our Lord’s return indicates uncertainty as to time, but possibility of nearness (Mark 13:33).
These scriptural exhortations to watch seem to contradict those who teach a “millennium,” a thousand years or a protracted period of righteousness, must intervene between the present time and the advent of Christ. Those who hold this last view are commonly called “Post-Millennialists” to distinguish them from “Pre-Millennialists,” who hold the return of Christ will precede and usher in such an age of universal blessedness.
There are several positive statements of Scripture which intimate that the millennium follows the coming of Christ. (Dan.7:13,14,27; Psa.96-98; 2Thes.1&2; Mat.19:28; Luke 22:28-30; 21:29-36; Acts 3:19-21, etc.).
The great body of believers are united in expecting both an age of glory and a personal return of Christ.

All the Scriptures are thoroughly explained but I don't have the space to do that. Suffice it to say, that in the mid-1800's premillennialism was not uncommon. And this man was Presbyterian in his theology.

 

[Sapper Woody]

What is ironic with the premill system is that it is taught as the only viable option and those holding it are almost totally 'schooled' that any one not in the camp is on the edge of Apostasy.

I have to soundly disagree with you there. You probably can find people teaching that, but I've attended pre-trib, pre-mil churches my entire life and never once heard a statement even close to this.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is no lie.If you want to see for yourself , fly into Pennsylvania to Baptist Bible College in Clarks Summit PA. In the bookstore they have tracts and booklets teaching this very thing. When I unpack some of my books , I will see if I still have a couple that I had bought and save you a bus ticket, or plane ticket...I will post the material online and you can see it and read it for yourself.
So before you speak about what you do not know ...maybe look into it first.:thumbs:

You should have said that instead of painting every premill in the light. Kind of like your cohort who paints everyone who is not a cal as believing God cannot save us unless. The caricatures of cals has reached epic levels of dishonesty on this board.