Theological differences and unity in Christ

[TCassidy]

Sure...your doctrinal objection to my understanding of double predestination.

The ball is not in my court. Your presupposition, your burden of proof.

But your response goes a long way in illustrating the problem. You are tilting at windmills. You are doing battle royal against a phantom army. You post long complicated posts to oppose something nobody on the forum has proposed or to support something we all already agree on.

So, you have no doctrines that you believe are not supportable from scripture that are held by anyone on the forum?

 

[JonC]

The ball is not in my court. Your presupposition, your burden of proof.

But your response goes a long way in illustrating the problem. You are tilting at windmills. You are doing battle royal against a phantom army. You post long complicated posts to oppose something nobody on the forum has proposed or to support something we all already agree on.

So, you have no doctrines that you believe are not supportable from scripture that are held by anyone on the forum?

I am sure that it was not intentional, but you have misrepresented my words.

I never said that these doctrines are not supportable from scripture. Indeed, they are. For example, I can support a couple different views of covenant theology and at least two forms of dispensationalism from scripture. I can support that sign gifts have ceased and that they will continue from scripture (and even my own position that we do not indeed know but are called to evaluate such claims). And...wait for it....this is a shocker....those who hold those different views do support their positions from the same scripture. Kinda makes one think that just maybe the Bible isn't the difference.

And I can support my view of "double predestination" with scripture (or I wouldn't hold it, and I wouldn't defend it) but I am also able to identify my reasoning in this theology (I don't believe your rejection of my view here to be a rejection of God's Word, or a lack of understanding, or confusion...I believe that you disagree with my reasoning and conclusions).

In other words, I respect you as a brother and a friend in Christ even if we understand some things about the Bible differently. I respect you as a brother even if we do not have the same political understandings. I love you as a brother in Christ even if you think that country music is superior to classic rock. I understand that we reason out things differently, and on issues that are not laid out as biblical doctrine but systematically derived and reasoned out by men I accept that there is a human element even to the views that I believe and defend. When it comes to rejecting biblical doctrine plainly laid out then we have heresy. Maybe we do not always discern this correctly, but we should at least try to see our own presuppositions at work.

 

[TCassidy]

I am sure that it was not intentional, but you have misrepresented my words.

Perhaps you didn't make yourself entirely clear? How, exactly, did I misrepresent your words?

 

[JonC]

Perhaps you didn't make yourself entirely clear? How, exactly, did I misrepresent your words?

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, and you have my apologies if I didn’t articulate my position well enough to be understood.

When I argued that those doctrines that are derived from scripture but reflect our own reasoning in order to answer questions not necessarily being addressed in the Bible as falling short of objective truth I did not mean that these understandings are not derived from scripture. I meant that they are derived from scripture....the opposite of not being derived from scripture. And in my last post when I said that these views are supported by scripture I did not mean that they are not supported by scripture. What I mean is that these positions are supported by scripture.

You have accused me of “tilting at windmills”, “doing battle royal against a phantom army”, posting “long complicated posts to oppose something nobody on this forum has proposed or to support something we all agree on”, because I don't offer doctrines that I "believe are not supportable from scripture" being held by anyone on this forum...which was never my argument to begin with.

I never denounced these doctrines as being unsupported by scripture. And we can see thread upon thread of such arguments on this forum. I listed at least three in this thread, and all of them have been discussed here.

 

[TCassidy]

Perhaps I didn’t, and you have my apologies if I didn’t articulate my position well enough to be understood.

When I argued that those doctrines that are derived from scripture but reflect our own reasoning in order to answer questions not necessarily being addressed in the Bible as falling short of objective truth I did not mean that these understandings are not derived from scripture. I meant that they are derived from scripture....the opposite of not being derived from scripture.

I apologize if my choice of the words “derived from scripture” led you to believe I meant not derived from scripture, or not supported by scripture. I also apologize for being so vague in my last post when I said that these views are supported by scripture so that you understood my meaning to be not supported by scripture.

You have accused me of “tilting at windmills”, “doing battle royal against a phantom army”, posting “long complicated posts to oppose something nobody on this forum has proposed or to support something we all agree on”, because I offer not doctrines that I believe are not supportable from scripture being held by anyone on this forum.

Such insult are understandable and acceptable as you misunderstood my words due to my own lack of clarity. But I never denounced these doctrines as being unsupported by scripture. Now perhaps you can see that several threads have actively been dedicated to exactly such teachings.

How does any of this show that my statement:

The ball is not in my court. Your presupposition, your burden of proof.

But your response goes a long way in illustrating the problem. You are tilting at windmills. You are doing battle royal against a phantom army. You post long complicated posts to oppose something nobody on the forum has proposed or to support something we all already agree on.

So, you have no doctrines that you believe are not supportable from scripture that are held by anyone on the forum?

indicate in any way that I have misrepresented your words?

 

[JonC]

How does any of this show that my statement:
indicate in any way that I have misrepresented your words?

Are you serious or are you missing with me?

So, you have no doctrines that you believe are not supportable from scripture that are held by anyone on the forum?

No, brother. I have no doctrines that I believe are not supportable form scripture. As I have never claimed such doctrines are being espoused on this board, why do you ask? Would not doctrines that cannot be supported by scripture be a unbiblical?

As I stated earlier, I am speaking of doctrines that are based on, derived out of, and supportable from scripture but that seek to answer questions that are not the issue being addressed within scripture itself. What was the logical order in which God worked out salvation? Was it (logically) an election out of fallen man....or was it an election of a people without such consideration? To what degree (if any) did God design the work of the Cross for those who will not be saved? We can come up with biblical answers for these types of things, and our answers can color our explanations of scripture. But we need to be aware that those answers are not directly provided by God's Word. We have reasoned them out.

 

[TCassidy]

Are you serious

Yes.

 

[JonC]

Yes.

In that case:

When I argued that those doctrines that are derived from scripture but reflect our own reasoning in order to answer questions not necessarily being addressed in the Bible as falling short of objective truth I did not mean that these understandings are not derived from scripture. I meant that they are derived from scripture....the opposite of not being derived from scripture. And in my last post when I said that these views are supported by scripture I did not mean that they are not supported by scripture. What I mean is that these positions are supported by scripture.

You have accused me of “tilting at windmills”, “doing battle royal against a phantom army”, posting “long complicated posts to oppose something nobody on this forum has proposed or to support something we all agree on”, because I don't offer doctrines that I "believe are not supportable from scripture" being held by anyone on this forum...which was never my argument to begin with.

I never denounced these doctrines as being unsupported by scripture. And we can see thread upon thread of such arguments on this forum. I listed at least three in this thread, and all of them have been discussed here.

Déjà vu all over again. Smile

 

[TCassidy]

Still no answer. Just a convoluted spin that goes nowhere. I think we have exhausted this discussion.

 

[JonC]

Still no answer. Just a convoluted spin that goes nowhere. I think we have exhausted this discussion.

I do not understand how else to say it, but I'll try.

You have insulted me and accused me of battling windmills, fighting phantom armies, and opposing things no one has purposed because I have not provided those doctrines that I am saying are not supportive of scripture. But I have said no such thing. You have attributed to me the opposite of what I have said in order to ridicule and insult. I can see it no other way, but am always open to explanation.

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 (to pick 2 - he has affirmed double predestination and the continuation of tongues). 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 blinded to that truth? Which of you are denying God's Word?

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?

 

[TCassidy]

You have insulted

No I haven't. But it is obvious to me this discussion is going nowhere. Have a nice evening.

 

[InTheLight]

I think what Jon is saying is that there are doctrinal positions that rely on logic, inference, and deductive reasoning, in addition to scriptural support. The various eschatological positions come to mind.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

I think what Jon is saying is that there are doctrinal positions that rely on logic, inference, and deductive reasoning, in addition to scriptural support. The various eschatological positions come to mind.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Yes, and thank you ITL. That is exactly what I am saying. Various eschatological positions are an excellent example.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, and thank you ITL. That is exactly what I am saying. Various eschatological positions are an excellent example.

excuse me, but when has an eschatological stance (position) become a church doctrine?

 

[agedman]

Another example, that perhaps could be added to the list, is the fierce statements regarding the atonement. The hardest Calvinistic view is that God selected a few of the whole and Christ died ONLY for those few and purposely condemning the rest who are without option. Then there is the complete opposite expressed as Christ died for all, and therefore all have equal opportunity.

Then there is MINE.

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

 

[agedman]

excuse me, but when has an eschatological stance (position) become a church doctrine?

When Augustine decided to make any other view but Pre-mil the proper view.

 

[agedman]

Of course you disagree, Icon.

Most likely so would RevM.

That is the conundrum of the BB.

When someone takes a literal view of Scriptures, it is generally offensive to both extremes. Be it in the matters of eschatology or soteriology.

It generally comes down to one person's view is more aligned with Scriptures than some other person's view who doesn't either recognize, or understand, or discerning, ... the proper usage of Scriptures.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When Augustine decided to make any other view but Pre-mil the proper view.

Again, tell me how any of that is doctrine!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Another example, that perhaps could be added to the list, is the fierce statements regarding the atonement. The hardest Calvinistic view is that God selected a few of the whole and Christ died ONLY for those few and purposely condemning the rest who are without option. Then there is the complete opposite expressed as Christ died for all, and therefore all have equal opportunity.

Then there is MINE.



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

There has been insinuation that you are in fact 'Van' so let your be as Christ indicated.....a Yes or a No. Everything else (well you know the rest).

 

[Jerome]

In examining the differences between the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession of 1689, Kenneth Good notes that Baptists

deleted the idea of human deductions based upon the so-called "necessary consequences"[WCF] requiring [instead] that the "whole counsel of God" was to be seen as "either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the holy Scripture."[LBC]

The Baptists were wary of being at the mercy of "necessary" or "consequential" deductions based on Covenant theology in the place of specific texts of Scripture. The Reformed had already established the practice of concluding that their extra-Biblical doctrines and customs had the sanction of Scripture

Baptist differ from the Reformed in their view of the Word of God so much that, in the absence of some degree of brotherly love, or at least of some civil restraint, the Baptists have good reason to feel threatened. Colonial American Puritanism is a graphic example of the reality of such a possibility.

Kenneth H. Good, Are Baptists Reformed?, pp. 131, 133-134