• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Confusing Terms used in theology

Ran the Man

Ran the Man

Active Member
Its a dammable heresy to teach it, not to believe it in ignorance.
"for whosoever shall change one commandment and teach others".
 
Squire Robertsson

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
Nope, the question as the personage of Christ was settled long ago by the Eastern Church you like to refer to. It's not the interact.
Ran the Man said:
The Bible says "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", not "whosoever understands its intricacies". That's western intellectualism talking, the intellect as all important. Take up your cross and BE a Christian. Live it.
Click to expand...
 
Ran the Man

Ran the Man

Active Member
JonC said:
The point is to clarify terms we use (provide clarity - not defend or debate a theory or tradition).

What other people "add" is not an addition to Scripture but their explanation. This is why Scripture tells us to consider the elder. This is why some are given as teachers. Not to replace or even supplement Scripture but to help people take up their cross and follow Christ.

Their views are to be tested against Scripture - not simply ignored (per Scripture). So it is necessary to explain words and terms other people may find difficult.

For example - you are here and explaining what you believe to be true. Do we just ignore your words because you are not the Bible? No. But do you focus on simply following Christ? Again, no. You have engaged conversations about various theologians and what they taught (like Calvin). You have started a thread about the undue influences of Western ideologies on Scripture (I agree, BTW). But on that 5hread itself questions arose that needed clarification (regarding Eastern influences).

That is my intent here - to clarify terms used. Too often one party remains unclear and the other assumes.

If you would like to debate the value of considering those who have gone before (old dead guys) then please feel free to start a thread. That may be an interesting topic.
Click to expand...
There are too many terms. Jesus taught simply. Even a child can grasp it.
Squire Robertsson said:
Nope, the question as the personage of Christ was settled long ago by the Eastern Church you like to refer to. It's not the interact.
Click to expand...
for nearly 1500 years, most christians didn't even have the bible. They couldn't know all the stuff calvinists claim to know, much less understand it. The gospel is simple.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Ran the Man said:
There are too many terms. Jesus taught simply. Even a child can grasp it.

for nearly 1500 years, most christians didn't even have the bible. They couldn't know all the stuff calvinists claim to know, much less understand it. The gospel is simple.
Click to expand...
The gospel is simple, I agree.

But we are also commanded to diligently study Scripture. Scripture itself is not simple.

There are two things here. The simple gospel which finds its depth in the life of the believer in Christ and Scripture which has a depth that is never completely grasped in this lifetime.

These terms are not a part of the former - the evangelism of the lost. They are a part of the latter - the discipleship of the believer.

We do not study Scripture to become "more saved". We study Scripture to learn more about the One who has saved us.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Ran the Man said:
They couldn't know all the stuff calvinists claim to know, much less understand it. The gospel is simple.
Click to expand...
On another note - I agree that Calvinism is error. I believe it is, however, more simplistic (not more complex) and humanistic than Scripture permits as it makes no true demand of the believer. It is more simple because it does not challenge the "world" in us. I believe it is an understanding of God in a worldly way (as is Arminianism). So we do agree here.

At the same time we have to consider the ways God has used Calvinists to reach a lost world. Many of the evangelicals who have been used in great ways have been Calvinists.

What motivated them....what moblized them...was not Calvinism but the gospel itself. It was Christ in them, not their theological understanding. They did not use Calvinism to reach the lost. They preached the gospel which is the power of God to salvation. Had they preached Calvinism (their understanding of the Gospel) I believe they would have failed.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Ran the Man said:
The bible says "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", not "whosoever understands its intricacies". That's western intellectualism talking, the intellect as all important. Take up your cross and BE a Christian. Live it.
Click to expand...
Yes. And who is the Lord being called upon? Shiva? What one does understand does matter. Prayer regeneration is as much an error as baptismal regeneration or confessional regerneration, trusting in what one does as opposed to the will the true God. (John 17:3; Matthew 7:21-23)

If you were to explain to someone how to know God and possess eternal life, what would you explain?
 
Ran the Man

Ran the Man

Active Member
37818 said:
Yes. And who is the Lord being called upon? Shiva? What one does understand does matter. Prayer regeneration is as much an error as baptismal regeneration or confessional regerneration, trusting in what one does as opposed to the will the true God. (John 17:3; Matthew 7:21-23)

If you were to explain to someone how to know God and possess eternal life, what would you explain?
Click to expand...
The name of the Lord is Jesus.
 
M

MartyF

Well-Known Member
Deuteronomy 29:29 NLT
"The LORD our God has secrets known to no one. We are not accountable for them, but we and our children are accountable forever for all that he has revealed to us, so that we may obey all the terms of these instructions.

Does anyone claim full knowledge of exactly how God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus interact, exist, or whatever the right word is? I doubt failure to have a proper knowledge of the Trinity is something to worry about. However, I wouldn't let an argument over the Trinity cause me to split a church. That would be heresy. If someone asks me if I believe in "the Trinity", I say yes even though I may have an undeveloped viewpoint which may or may not agree with it at some future point.

JonC said:
I should have taken the time to explain the terms I was using.
Click to expand...

I would say that it is best to avoid them to begin with. Calling it Anselm's, Aquinas's, or Calvin's view of atonement instead of the "Latin" view would be better. All three of these are different. Also by specifying the author of the belief, people have a reference to go back to and read.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
MartyF said:
Deuteronomy 29:29 NLT
"The LORD our God has secrets known to no one. We are not accountable for them, but we and our children are accountable forever for all that he has revealed to us, so that we may obey all the terms of these instructions.

Does anyone claim full knowledge of exactly how God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus interact, exist, or whatever the right word is? I doubt failure to have a proper knowledge of the Trinity is something to worry about. However, I wouldn't let an argument over the Trinity cause me to split a church. That would be heresy. If someone asks me if I believe in "the Trinity", I say yes even though I may have an undeveloped viewpoint which may or may not agree with it at some future point.



I would say that it is best to avoid them to begin with. Calling it Anselm's, Aquinas's, or Calvin's view of atonement instead of the "Latin" view would be better. All three of these are different. Also by specifying the author of the belief, people have a reference to go back to and read.
Click to expand...
The problem with calling the Classic view "Origen's view" or the Latin view "Anselm's view" (or Calvin's view) is that would not be true.

The Latin View is a tradition or category of thought. It is not Calvin's view (although his view is of that tradition). Same with the Classic view.

They are terms used to describe something broader than the individual theories.
 
Ran the Man

Ran the Man

Active Member
i beleive in the Trinity but i don't think being a christian is about having all your doctrinal ducks in order. I have met fine Pentacostals, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, etc. and even Baptists.
 
Ran the Man

Ran the Man

Active Member
You guys really live in your own world. You use words like Penal Substitution and your schools are called Seminaries. man, no wonder there are so many pervs in the church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top