Theological Labels, Denominations, Confessions of Faith...are all good

[Iconoclast]

If used lawfully. There has been much complaining about these three things in the past few months.

There is nothing wrong with any of these teaching and identification tools.

There is nothing worse than all these lone ranger types who all claim to have unique interpretations as if only they have ever looked in a bible. The same people who complain the loudest often offer novelties that have been shot down in times past.
The same people do not like when they have to actually answer questions and offer scripture. Maybe they cannot.
All of these tools can be used to correct many errors before they pick up momentum.

Have you noticed the same thing?

 

[agedman]

It is true that various folks do not have "time" for the well plowed ground of the past.

They would find many such works tedious to read, and even more tiresome to comprehend.

Such a claim as "I rely upon the Scriptures," as if that some way refutes the past work(s) are dismissive at best. For, if in truth there was the reliance of the most literal view of Scriptures the problems discussed would become greatly diminished.

I do not read the works of the past without constantly bringing the Scriptures to mind, for I am not persuaded by human arguments, but by what is supported in the Scriptures.

Therefore, it is very important that one not merely accept what has been written as "proof" of a view, rather, as that view is supported in Scripture, the view is then proved.

 

[blessedwife318]

It is impossible to get away from having a profession of faith or a creed of some sort. Even saying "we just believe the Bible" is a creed. I have found in the past, groups that have that as their creed, lack depth and are prone to Scripture twisting. All of Christiandom claims to believe the Bible yet as anyone can see on this board there are very big gaps between how different groups understand and interpret the Bible.
I also find it to be theologically lazy to not be willing to state what you believe the Bible teaches, since to do so requires time spent in the word forming your beliefs. My senior project at my Bible College was writing out my own doctrinal statement, using only the Bible. That by far has been the most helpful project I have ever done. We had to cover the 10 major doctrines and define what we believe under each and give Scriptural support.

As far as debates go, having lables just saves time on defining terms. Anyone that has ever had a discussion with Mormons can understand the importance of knowing how they define terms, since they use the same words we do but have very different meanings. That's why it can get hard on this board when people will state they are in X camp and then object if you use X camps dictionary.

 

[JamesL]

Roman Catholic and Orthodox believers say that Puritan doctrines are novelties. And they'll point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for support.



Unfortunately, many people offer the musings of mere men as God-breathed truth.

of course creeds, catechisms, etc have scripture references. But if they approached scripture from a faulty paradigm, then others build upon that, it's a case of error built upon error.

Roman Catholics have been building error upon error for 1700 years or more.

Protestants have been building error upon error for almost 500 years.


The labels, names, etc are important because they immediately associate someone with a couple dozen key doctrines. One word (such as Nazarene, or Presbyterian) can save hours of discussion

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm glad the Roman Catholics have a catechism in they put their error in it
this way we can put them down same with the Mormons and Jehovah Witness Christian Science and all the other cults they put what they believe in writing and then its indisputable
if you claim to be a member of that group then we know what you believe and we can go after it
in the same way with a good Baptist catechism you take your stand

 

[JamesL]

I'm glad the Roman Catholics have a catechism in they put their error in it....
they put what they believe in writing and then its indisputable

That's precisely my point. You believe every catechism except yours is error, yet disparage anyone who holds disdain for catechisms, Confessions, etc.

in the same way with a good Baptist catechism you take your stand

That's why some have disdain for catechisms, because people learn from a catechism first, then expend all their energy trying to prove their catechism is right.

Nobody should be taking a stand with a Baptist catechism. Your stand should be with scripture.


What if one of these "Lone Ranger" types stands against the RCC catechism using only scripture? He's applauded

But let this same guy stand against your catechism using only scripture, and you'll trash him as a heretic, accuse him of having disdain for creeds and confessions, and you'll appeal to pet scriptures referenced in your catechism.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's precisely my point. You believe every catechism except yours is error, yet disparage anyone who holds disdain for catechisms, Confessions, etc.



That's why some have disdain for catechisms, because people learn from a catechism first, then expend all their energy trying to prove their catechism is right.

Nobody should be taking a stand with a Baptist catechism. Your stand should be with scripture.


What if one of these "Lone Ranger" types stands against the RCC catechism using only scripture? He's applauded

But let this same guy stand against your catechism using only scripture, and you'll trash him as a heretic, accuse him of having disdain for creeds and confessions, and you'll appeal to pet scriptures referenced in your catechism.

I have not seen this person stand against the confession. In fact no one on here stood up against it....only Van made a solid attempt about a year ago....
I do not believe a couple of items in the confession myself. I announced that to my home church and gave my biblical reasons for it.....that was fine with them as scripture is always primary.
I have not met anyone who studied a confession before the scriptures.
I think you might have just pulled that out of thin air.
Other than BB who do you know that does this

 

[Iconoclast]

blessedwife318,

I have found in the past, groups that have that as their creed, lack depth and are prone to Scripture twisting. All of Christiandom claims to believe the Bible yet as anyone can see on this board there are very big gaps between how different groups understand and interpret the Bible.
I also find it to be theologically lazy to not be willing to state what you believe the Bible teaches, since to do so requires time spent in the word forming your beliefs.

This is the case almost without exception. It is demonstrated over and over again.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's precisely my point. You believe every catechism except yours is error, yet disparage anyone who holds disdain for catechisms, Confessions, etc.

That's why some have disdain for catechisms, because people learn from a catechism first, then expend all their energy trying to prove their catechism is right.

again...I do not know of anyone who has done this

Nobody should be taking a stand with a Baptist catechism. Your stand should be with scripture.

this sounds wonderful but says nothing. Of course scripture is the rule...what does scripture teach is the question.

What if one of these "Lone Ranger" types stands against the RCC catechism using only scripture? He's applauded

the point of the tools is to get to know which scriptures to use.

But let this same guy stand against your catechism using only scripture

go ahead and try.....show how easily you can do this

, and you'll trash him as a heretic, accuse him of having disdain for creeds and confessions, and you'll appeal to pet scriptures referenced in your catechism

.

You say this as if the men who compiled the catechisms and confessions did not know scripture at all. Those "pet scriptures" will destroy anyone posting something different on here....again...if you can improve upon it go for it...I am certain you cannot

 

[Iconoclast]

"JamesL,

That's precisely my point. You believe every catechism except yours is error, yet disparage anyone who holds disdain for catechisms, Confessions, etc.

Why would I hold to something that I thought was totally wrong?
Which idea do you post that you believe is actually error?
You post things that are outside of the orthodox teaching and fancy that your unique take is biblical when it is not close to truth many , many times.....it is just unsubstantiated ideas.... yet you despise teachers God has given to gifts to the church.
Everyone on here who is critical , has failed over and over to defend their views.

That's why some have disdain for catechisms, because people learn from a catechism first, then expend all their energy trying to prove their catechism is right.

again...I do not know of anyone who has done this

Nobody should be taking a stand with a Baptist catechism. Your stand should be with scripture.

this sounds wonderful but says nothing. Of course scripture is the rule...what does scripture teach is the question.

What if one of these "Lone Ranger" types stands against the RCC catechism using only scripture? He's applauded

the point of the tools is to get to know which scriptures to use.

But let this same guy stand against your catechism using only scripture

go ahead and try.....show how easily you can do this

, and you'll trash him as a heretic, accuse him of having disdain for creeds and confessions, and you'll appeal to pet scriptures referenced in your catechism

.

You say this as if the men who compiled the catechisms and confessions did not know scripture at all. Those "pet scriptures" will destroy anyone posting something different on here....again...if you can improve upon it go for it...I am certain you cannot

 

[Revmitchell]

Arrogant people who do not have the ability to function doctrinally outside of labels use them as badges of honor and for others they disagree with they use them as pejoratives to beat people down with. These labels are not an honest attempt to clarify doctrine. They are nothing but a haughty tool to turn your nose up at others, talk down to others, and end debates.

Paul dealt with this "For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"


What we have on this board and elsewhere in the church is:

"I follow John Calvin but you, you miserable wretch you follow Pelagian. How disgusting! What a piece of trash. Anyone who follows anyone but John Calvin does not deserve to be on the same forum with me much less in the same room. And you silly Arminians....you are just as much garbage as the other. When you speak you are inferior and all your words are nothing but a joke. Do not speak to me about doctrine as God has not granted you the grace to actually understand scripture. You poor miserable wretch. Leave my presence until you can come back and admit that John Calvin has it all right."

 

[Iconoclast]

Arrogant people who do not have the ability to function doctrinally outside of labels use them as badges of honor and for others they disagree with they use them as pejoratives to beat people down with. These labels are not an honest attempt to clarify doctrine. They are nothing but a haughty tool to turn your nose up at others, talk down to others, and end debates.

Paul dealt with this "For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"


What we have on this board and elsewhere in the church is:

"I follow John Calvin but you, you miserable wretch you follow Pelagian. How disgusting! What a piece of trash. Anyone who follows anyone but John Calvin does not deserve to be on the same forum with me much less in the same room. And you silly Arminians....you are just as much garbage as the other. When you speak you are inferior and all your words are nothing but a joke. Do not speak to me about doctrine as God has not granted you the grace to actually understand scripture. You poor miserable wretch. Leave my presence until you can come back and admit that John Calvin has it all right."

Interesting that you did not seem to have any trouble using labels to express your point of view as well as call names at the same time.....interesting.
So you are above the fray....except if you need to use labels. That is special all by itself.

I guess we can all do this. ......

Someone somewhere did something bad that affected some other people.
Someone did something about it for some reason.
Some people should consider this somehow and do something....have faith or just believe something....or not.

 

[righteousdude2]

If used lawfully. There has been much complaining about these three things in the past few months.

There is nothing wrong with any of these teaching and identification tools.

There is nothing worse than all these lone ranger types who all claim to have unique interpretations as if only they have ever looked in a bible. The same people who complain the loudest often offer novelties that have been shot down in times past.
The same people do not like when they have to actually answer questions and offer scripture. Maybe they cannot.
All of these tools can be used to correct many errors before they pick up momentum.

Have you noticed the same thing?

This is a great post. And I wanted to give my opinion of the subject. In short, doctrines, religion and denominations are way too serious about themselves.

It has always been my opinion that theology is merely teachings of man, and most theology ends up as doctrinal talking points. One must have a relationship with Jesus, and the scripture lays out that process.

As for the church. Some have more merit than others, but when we get into discussing religion, denominations and doctrine affiliated with said denominations, arguments arise, and divisive debates and arguments are not fruits of the spirit.

I have to say that in truth, the original church that was given birth at Pentecost was sort of a 'lone ranger' thing. They had to develop their their doctrinal stances, and once they did that, we find the issues came out of who would follow Peter and who would follow Paul. Plus we had the agnostics, and they too developed doctrine from their understanding and personal interpretation of scripture.

So for me, I continue to take a stand that supports pan-theology. I honestly believe that while some groups may be more correct than others, the separation of wheat from tares will be done by God. Meaning everything will "pan" out in the end. Try not to lose sleep over which baptist doctrine is right, or should I say, more right than the other, ICON, so long as souls are being saved in accordance with what Jesus said is the way, why does it matter how and when communion should be served. Or how warm the baptism water must be. Or which hymnal should be used. Or even which version of the Bible we should use?

God will do the chastising at judgement and all of us will have some comeupance as well as questions to answer. But in truth, we will not enter the narrow gate based upon theology or doctrine, but whether we have been born again, washed in the blood and most importantly if our name is in the Lambs book of life.

Selah, and shalom!

 

[Rippon]

What we have on this board and elsewhere in the church is:

"I follow John Calvin but you, you miserable wretch you follow Pelagian. How disgusting! What a piece of trash. Anyone who follows anyone but John Calvin does not deserve to be on the same forum with me much less in the same room. And you silly Arminians....you are just as much garbage as the other. When you speak you are inferior and all your words are nothing but a joke. Do not speak to me about doctrine as God has not granted you the grace to actually understand scripture. You poor miserable wretch. Leave my presence until you can come back and admit that John Calvin has it all right."

You will not find any support from anyone on the for the "stuff" you just posted above. Why print out lies?
Just quote what people say --don't attribute nonsense to folks when no one has ever uttered the things you ascribe to them. Yeah, that's an idea! Just tell the truth. That's what Christians ought to do.

 

[righteousdude2]

This is not a fair statement. As a pastor certainly you have have studied church history. You know that naming beliefs and the groups that believe them is an accepted norm. You should also be able to separate describing what a thing is from criticism of the thing itself.



What is Paul really saying in the passage you quoted?



The reason some groups in Corinth were claiming to be of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or even Christ was because of jealousy. So, if a debate is motivated by jealousy, then in that particular situation you have a valid point. Does that happen on the BB? I am sure that jealousy and envy do occur since both are sinful and all of us are still a work in progress. But there is also honest debate and discussion.



And you do not see that when certain posters accuse Calvinists of being followers of John Calvin? I get it. Perhaps that bolsters your defense of eschewing labels. After all, neither side should misrepresent the other. But I am not offended by the Calvinist label. I know what the term means when discussing election and predestination. It is just a description. It only takes on a negative connotation in the mind of the individual who disagrees with its conclusions.

When I think of Amyraldianism, the first thing that enters into my mind is a belief system that denies definite atonement. That is what Amyraldianism is. It is not easier to use the term "Amyraldianism" than to say, "the theological position that denies definite atonement." The same with Calvinism. Which is easier say, "Calvinism" or "the theological position that espouses the Reformed and Augustinian view of election and predestination"? These terms are just shorthand to describe a set of beliefs. It is individuals that turn them into, as you call them, pejoratives. But even then, if I am in a debate on predestination, and I mention Arminianism, I am not using the term as a pejorative. I am using the term to describe the system of belief I disagree with.

Somehow we have to separate bad motives and poor argumentation from the legitimate use of terms.

There are some things that I like about Calvin, with eternal security leading the way. But I also like things from the other side of the Baptist baptismal pond. Then again, I have a hunger for somethings coming out of the AOG. I think I am truly a member in good standing with the Church of the Heinz 57.

 

[heisrisen]

I think it's a problem wen it comes to the lost world. They already come up with excuses not to follow Chist. The fact that there are so many denominations makes it harder for them. They don't understand why there's so many differences. It makes them more lost than they already are.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I think it's a problem wen it comes to the lost world. They already come up with excuses not to follow Chist. The fact that there are so many denominations makes it harder for them. They don't understand why there's so many differences. It makes them more lost than they already are.

I don't believe one can be more lost or less lost. Lost is lost. Saved is saved. Or so say Bob Dylan .....

 

[Darrell C]

I don't believe one can be more lost or less lost. Lost is lost. Saved is saved. Or so say Bob Dylan .....

This is very true, however, we do see that there are degrees of punishment taught in Scripture, where we could say one lost person is in hotter water than another, so to speak.

Direct rejection of Christ and the ministry of the Comforter brings about higher accountability. We see this principle here...


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

dude2,

Hello Dude,
We have not interacted in awhile...hope all is well.

(This is a great post. And I wanted to give my opinion of the subject. In short, doctrines, religion and denominations are way too serious about themselves.)

(It has always been my opinion that theology is merely teachings of man, and most theology ends up as doctrinal talking points. )
Theology is more the study of God....as He has revealed Himself to man. Should we then be surprised if man who is the object of Redemption...obeys God in studying as much as they can about God?

(One must have a relationship with Jesus, and the scripture lays out that process.)
Yes
You perhaps speak for many when you relay these thoughts and I think I understand what you are expressing, but as the crow flies I can only offer what I think as I react to this as if we were interacting face to face.

(As for the church. Some have more merit than others, but when we get into discussing religion, denominations and doctrine affiliated with said denominations, arguments arise, and divisive debates and arguments are not fruits of the spirit.)
I think both kinds of fruit are possible.

(I have to say that in truth, the original church that was given birth at Pentecost was sort of a 'lone ranger' thing. They had to develop their their doctrinal stances, and once they did that, we find the issues came out of who would follow Peter and who would follow Paul. Plus we had the agnostics, and they too developed doctrine from their understanding and personal interpretation of scripture.)

The foundations of the church have happened as God . intended it to.

(So for me, I continue to take a stand that supports pan-theology. I honestly believe that while some groups may be more correct than others, the separation of wheat from tares will be done by God. Meaning everything will "pan" out in the end. Try not to lose sleep over which baptist doctrine is right, or should I say, more right than the other, ICON, so long as souls are being saved in accordance with what Jesus said is the way, why does it matter how and when communion should be served. Or how warm the baptism water must be. Or which hymnal should be used. Or even which version of the Bible we should use?)

Here I can agree that what is a priority to God should be the priority to us. When it comes down to a sinner hearing gospel truth....what we do in the study is behind the scenes as it were backing up what we communicate to the sinner.
That sinner is lost in a self life of sin and rebellion and needs to embrace saving truth.

(God will do the chastising at judgement and all of us will have some comeupance as well as questions to answer. But in truth, we will not enter the narrow gate based upon theology or doctrine, but whether we have been born again, washed in the blood and most importantly if our name is in the Lambs book of life.)

We can rejoice indeed if we are found in Him.

 

[Jerome]

John Bunyan, An Exhortation to Christians to Be Holy:

"'Tis strange to see at this day, how, notwithstanding all the threatnings of God, men are wedded to their own opinions, beyond what the law of grace and love will admit. Here's a Presbyter, heres an Independent, an Anabaptist, so joyned each man to his own opinion, that they cannot have that communion one with another, as by the testament of the Lord Jesus, they are commanded and injoyned. What is the cause? Is the Truth? No! God is the author of no confusion in the Church of God. It is then because every man makes too much of his own opinion, abounds too much in his own sence, and takes not care to separate his opinion from the iniquity that cleaveth thereto. That this confusion is in the Church of Christ, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas, & I of Christ, is too manifest. But what unbecoming language is this for the Children of the same Father, members of the same body, and heirs of the same glory to be accustomed to? whether it is Pride, or Hypocrisie, or Ignorance, or Self, or the Devil, or the Jesuite, or all these joyntly working with the Church, that makes and maintains these names of distinction. This distance, and want of love, this contempt of one another, these base and undervaluing thoughts of brethren, will be better seen, to the shame and confusion of some, in the Judgment."