What Others Believe

[Reformed]

No one likes to have words put in their mouth or accused of being something they are not. This presents problems when discussing theology. How do you articulate your disagreement with someone on a point of theology without labeling them? Is it even possible?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

I hope I am not sidetracking this but in the vein of the first sentence there is also the thing where this is said "since you claim to believe such and such what that means is you really believe this and that..." yet another way of misrepresenting what others believe.

I do not care what label people want. If they want none at all I am good with that. It is really best to just have conversations based on a single doctrine at a time not labeling whole groups.

 

[Reformed]

I hope I am not sidetracking this but in the vein of the first sentence there is also the thing where this is said "since you claim to believe such and such what that means is you really believe this and that..." yet another way of misrepresenting what others believe.

I do not care what label people want. If they want none at all I am good with that. It is really best to just have conversations based on a single doctrine at a time not labeling whole groups.

I am really not concerned with labeling someone, although I do believe our theological convictions lead us down certain roads. When someone says they believe man has only two parts (material and immaterial) that is consistent with the Dichotomist position. Likewise, a person who believes man has three parts (body, soul, and spirit) is being consistent with the Trichotomist position. I suppose we can say, "I am not calling you a Trichotomist but what you said you believe is consistent with Trichotomy." That seems a little disjointed but I am not sure how to avoid it.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

I am really not concerned with labeling someone, although I do believe our theological convictions lead us down certain roads. When someone says they believe man has only two parts (material and immaterial) that is consistent with the Dichotomist position. Likewise, a person who believes man has three parts (body, soul, and spirit) is being consistent with the Trichotomist position. I suppose we can say, "I am not calling you a Trichotomist but what you said you believe is consistent with Trichotomy." That seems a little disjointed but I am not sure how to avoid it.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

The problem is you (not you personally) do not get to tell me what I believe even if you think that what I believe means such and such. If I am not arguing that and deny it then no one gets to saddle me with it. We need to stick to what is actually being said and argued rather than trying to pin the worst case scenario on someone in order to win a debate. Especially since they deny the worst case scenario. Debate what they are actually saying and nothing more.

 

[canadyjd]

The problem is you (not you personally) do not get to tell me what I believe even if you think that what I believe means such and such. If I am not arguing that and deny it then no one gets to saddle me with it. We need to stick to what is actually being said and argued rather than trying to pin the worst case scenario on someone in order to win a debate. Especially since they deny the worst case scenario. Debate what they are actually saying and nothing more.

Great point. It is important to be able to accurately state what your opponent is saying without putting any spin on it.

If we could do that, I believe it would lead to more respect, better debates, and greater understanding of various positions that people have.

peace to you

 

[Iconoclast]

No one likes to have words put in their mouth or accused of being something they are not. This presents problems when discussing theology. How do you articulate your disagreement with someone on a point of theology without labeling them? Is it even possible?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Sometimes you ask clarifying questions to break down the response.
Often when someone starts feeling they are not able to defend their view, they avoid it by saying that that is not their position even though it is.

Such persons avoid any label saying it does not explain what they believe.
the problem is when they never articulate their belief, and twenty dentists could not extract the truth from them.

Sometimes these same people suggest that their view is so nuanced it is not possible to define it,

Do they really desire truth and honest discussion at that point?

 

[Revmitchell]

No one likes to have words put in their mouth or accused of being something they are not. This presents problems when discussing theology. How do you articulate your disagreement with someone on a point of theology without labeling them? Is it even possible?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Let me just add reading the minds and unspoken intentions of others and declaring them as known fact.

 

[Reformed]

Let me just add reading the minds and unspoken intentions of others and declaring them as known fact.

I do not disagree with you. However, if "Bob" tells me that he believes man has a body, soul and Spirit, am I reading his mind or putting words in his mouth to make a determination about his belief? Is it not self-evident at that point? That is different than if Bob says, "I am unsure about the nature of man. I have not made my mind up."

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not disagree with you. However, if "Bob" tells me that he believes man has a body, soul and Spirit, am I reading his mind or putting words in his mouth to make a determination about his belief? Is it not self-evident at that point? That is different than if Bob says, "I am unsure about the nature of man. I have not made my mind up."

More specifically:

"Often when someone starts feeling they are not able to defend their view, they avoid it by saying that that is not their position even though it is."

 

[Reformed]

More specifically:

"Often when someone starts feeling they are not able to defend their view, they avoid it by saying that that is not their position even though it is."

Yeah. Well. That does happen. At that point, it is better to say "I am unsure about what I believe" but that is hard to do. I was not raised in a Christian church. I was not taught Christian theological beliefs from childhood. I have Christian friends who were raised in the church. They were never exposed to anything other than what the pastor preached or what was taught in the home. When they ventured into the world they were hit with all these different teachings and sometimes they were not able to handle it well. My best friend told me that he almost had an existential crisis when faced with a different doctrinal position while at the same Bible college we attended. He finally had to admit to himself that he really did not know something if he was not able to defend it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yeah. Well. That does happen. At that point, it is better to say "I am unsure about what I believe" but that is hard to do.

Unless that person says that is what has happened no one knows that is what happened. It is mind reading as well as calling someone a liar.

 

[Reformed]

Unless that person says that is what has happened no one knows that is what happened. It is mind reading as well as calling someone a liar.

Listen, I am not trying to be difficult. Please believe me when I say that. But if someone says, "I believe man has a body, soul, and spirit but I am not a Trichotomist" well, that just strains credulity. At that point, it seems as though they just want to avoid being pinned down for some unknown reason. I think profitable debate includes owning up to what we believe and clearly stating when we are unsure. If a person cannot do that with a clear conscience then maybe debate is not something they should be doing? Again, this does not mean it is OK to misrepresent someone who does not believe as we do. We should extend charity towards the other person as often as we can.

 

[Iconoclast]

More specifically:

"Often when someone starts feeling they are not able to defend their view, they avoid it by saying that that is not their position even though it is."

Moving the goalpost is disingenuous.
If a person posts whatever he believes, he should be able to explain it, or not post it in the first place, or deny he believed any such thing when people dismantle those portions that are not biblical.
Error needs to be exposed and corrected if progress is going to happen.

 

[Revmitchell]

Listen, I am not trying to be difficult. Please believe me when I say that. But if someone says, "I believe man has a body, soul, and spirit but I am not a Trichotomist" well, that just strains credulity. At that point, it seems as though they just want to avoid being pinned down for some unknown reason. I think profitable debate includes owning up to what we believe and clearly stating when we are unsure. If a person cannot do that with a clear conscience then maybe debate is not something they should be doing? Again, this does not mean it is OK to misrepresent someone who does not believe as we do. We should extend charity towards the other person as often as we can.

Or maybe they just do not know what they are talking about. Either way we do not need to try and read their mind nor assume the worst about them. Maybe we should say something to the effect that "there very thing you say you do believe defines that word. Not sure how you deny believing in it". However, such an event is not what I am talking about.

 

[Revmitchell]

Moving the goalpost is disingenuous.
If a person posts whatever he believes, he should be able to explain it, or not post it in the first place, or deny he believed any such thing when people dismantle those portions that are not biblical.
Error needs to be exposed and corrected if progress is going to happen.

Error can be exposed, however charitable that may be, without mind reading their intentions. Which by the way we cannot do neither can we know so one runs the risk of being a false witness against a brother. Of which we need to be careful of.

 

[Reformed]

Or maybe they just do not know what they are talking about. Either way we do not need to try and read their mind nor assume the worst about them. Maybe we should say something to the effect that "there very thing you say you do believe defines that word. Not sure how you deny believing in it". However, such an eventb is not what I am talking about.

I hear you. I have no hidden agenda here; no codewords or veiled meaning. I started the thread to discuss a very real issue that occurs in almost all our debates on this board.

 

[Revmitchell]

I hear you. I have no hidden agenda here; no codewords or veiled meaning. I started the thread to discuss a very real issue that occurs in almost all our debates on this board.

I get it and I am with you. Shh don't tell anyone

 

[JonC]

No one likes to have words put in their mouth or accused of being something they are not. This presents problems when discussing theology. How do you articulate your disagreement with someone on a point of theology without labeling them? Is it even possible?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I think you stick to doctrine when possible, ask questions and restate the others view to ascertain if you understand correctly.

We all have different backgrounds and understandings. Labels are often sources of confusion.

For example, I once said I hold the "classic view". Those unfamiliar with the term mistook my comment to be a claim my view was superior and older than theirs (they were not familiar with the term or what it meant). Terms like "Reformed", "Arminian" and "Calvinism" sometimes has the same issue.

So labels can sometimes create confusion. Labels can also mask clarity by the other forming a characterization of the view.

For example, I have seen Calvinism characterized as making God the Author of evil, or Arminianism as placing man as the determining factor of salvation rather than God. All of these are false characterizations of opposing views.

But I think the biggest barrier is those who cannot see past their own positions. These decontextualize and reconstruct opposing views within the framework of their own theory. And then they find fault that does not exist. Penal Substitution Theory becomes "cosmic child abuse", the "classic view" does not "satisfy divine justice". The meat of the difference is never approached because the other position is not understood within its context.

I have enjoyed some discussions because I once was a Calvinist, taught and preached the position. So I understand that view very well. Unfortunately most of the arguments against Calvinism are false arguments. There are some good ones, though (corporate election is a very good argument, for example). Same with Free-Will theology. Those who do not understand the position can never grasp anything but people saying they determine their own salvation.

I do not know that there is a solution for those who cannot see beyond their own theology. They will always see only one option and therefore are unable to defend their positions much less argue against other views.

Perhaps the best thing for these discussions is to listen and learn. Sometimes the things we will never believe are just as helpful in refining our own doctrine as the things we would accept. The Open Theist may be wrong, but that does not mean his observations about our theology should simply be dismissed (for example).

 

[agedman]

All the responses are wonderful to read.

I enjoyed the lack of rancor.

There is a small aspect I would like to add.

There are times when some don’t know a label. When a presentation is “named” it gives the respondent something in which to research and learn for themself the parameters and pitfalls.

There are times when some are testing the waters of a view to find either support or refutations.

At times labels just don’t hold all that much authority unless you are in to sciences and mathematics, perhaps grammar and theology.

I remember long, long ago, when a pastor candidate was ask to declare his eschatology view. He paused for a bit, far off look, and said, “Let’s see. I think you are asking about end times.”

There are some who sit on the cutting edge of discerning where things are made, how they are engineered, the strengths and weaknesses, ....

Yet, is it not true, that in the trenches, it is far better to know your own weapon of warfare, your own strengths, and the enemy you are confronting?

My career was surrounded by labeling and most of which I long ago purposed to set aside.

Labels may help after a diagnosis in which a patient can use to help them understand. Ultimately, unless there is treatment and hope, no labels really help.

 

[Son of Robert]

I think you stick to doctrine when possible, ask questions and restate the others view to ascertain if you understand correctly.

We all have different backgrounds and understandings. Labels are often sources of confusion.

For example, I once said I hold the "classic view". Those unfamiliar with the term mistook my comment to be a claim my view was superior and older than theirs (they were not familiar with the term or what it meant). Terms like "Reformed", "Arminian" and "Calvinism" sometimes has the same issue.

So labels can sometimes create confusion. Labels can also mask clarity by the other forming a characterization of the view.

For example, I have seen Calvinism characterized as making God the Author of evil, or Arminianism as placing man as the determining factor of salvation rather than God. All of these are false characterizations of opposing views.

But I think the biggest barrier is those who cannot see past their own positions. These decontextualize and reconstruct opposing views within the framework of their own theory. And then they find fault that does not exist. Penal Substitution Theory becomes "cosmic child abuse", the "classic view" does not "satisfy divine justice". The meat of the difference is never approached because the other position is not understood within its context.

I have enjoyed some discussions because I once was a Calvinist, taught and preached the position. So I understand that view very well. Unfortunately most of the arguments against Calvinism are false arguments. There are some good ones, though (corporate election is a very good argument, for example). Same with Free-Will theology. Those who do not understand the position can never grasp anything but people saying they determine their own salvation.

I do not know that there is a solution for those who cannot see beyond their own theology. They will always see only one option and therefore are unable to defend their positions much less argue against other views.

Perhaps the best thing for these discussions is to listen and learn. Sometimes the things we will never believe are just as helpful in refining our own doctrine as the things we would accept. The Open Theist may be wrong, but that does not mean his observations about our theology should simply be dismissed (for example).

jonc, are there consequences for certain beliefs? I mean if you believe what calvinists teach about election can you say the conclusion of that is fatalism? If you believe what arminians teach about free will then can you say that ultimately salvation rests on what the person does? I mean arent those consequences of the belief systems?