Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

My struggles here

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

By Grace

Member
Personally, I have a struggle between displaying the love of Christ towards another and loving the truth that Jesus Christ taught us, aka "propositional truth". The nature of propositional truth is that it creates sharp lines between truth and error. And when those propositions are laid out as one proposition naturally begetting another proposition, we have something called "Systematic Theology"

The Bible is no more a system of theology, than nature is a system of chemistry or of mechanics. We find in nature the facts which the chemist or the mechanical philosopher has to examine, and from them to ascertain the laws by which they are determined. So the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other. This constitutes the difference between biblical and systematic theology. The office of the former is to ascertain and state the facts of Scripture. The office of the latter is to take those facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency. This is not an easy task, or one of slight importance.


Necessity for System in Theology

It may naturally be asked, why not take the truths as God has seen fit to reveal them, and thus save ourselves the trouble of showing their relation and harmony?

The answer to this question is, in the first place, that it cannot be done. Such is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot help endeavoring to systematize and reconcile the facts which it admits to be true. In no department of knowledge have men been satisfied with the possession of a mass of undigested facts. And the students of the Bible can as little be expected to be thus satisfied. There is a necessity, therefore, for the construction of systems of theology. Of this the history of the Church affords abundant proof. In all ages and among all denominations, such systems have been produced...

Neither does He [God] teach us systematic theology, but He gives us in the Bible the truths which, properly understood and arranged, constitute the science of theology. As the facts of nature are all related and determined by physical laws, so the facts of the Bible are all related and determined by the nature of God and of his creatures.... although the Scriptures do not contain a system of theology as a whole, we have in the Epistles of the New Testament, portions of that system wrought out to our hands. These are our authority and guide.
Hodge, C. (1997). Systematic theology (Vol. 1, p 1- 3). (excerpts)

Because Systematic Theology is a science, and not an art form, it must begin with similarities to the methodologies of science, called the "scientific method". For example, Sir Francis Bacon offered four steps for scientific work: Observe, hypotheses theory experiment.

Notice that both the scientific method and systematic theology begin with FACTS. Then other things progress from there. In the3 scientific world, facts are what is empirically observed, For the Christian, facts begin with the written words of the Bible, in their original languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Those who have been privileged to study those languages have an obligation to share the treasures given to them with others. It is a wonderful and fearsome responsibility,to be able to do that. It is not a matter of conceit, or lording over another, but a solemn obligation to pass on what we have been entrusted with.

If we love truth too much, we may become dogmatic and argumentative so that we can major on the minors, or else be antagonistic towards those who do not use sound principles of Bible study to determine their doctrine.

Sometimes though our love for truth can be seen as eclipsing our love for the people of God.. On the other hand, if we love people, not wanting to "hurt their feelings" too much without loving the truth, we can be seen as wishy-washy and therefore spineless when it comes to standing for the truth; and therein is the heart of my dilemma.

Some people who may be like me, trained in apologetics, etc. will see some weird statement by one well-meaning person, and automatically think "That is not a Biblical Doctrine!" while others will say, "No matter how weird his beliefs are, he has a right to be wrong; it is not my concern."

The rubber meets the road with this question, "Where does weirdness end, and heresy begin? Jude 3 tells us to "earnestly contend (that is agonize) for the truth." That is because since heretics ran rampant at the Galatians church, and in other places, such in the latter times mentioned in Revelation heresy will remain until the return of Jesus. Wherein is the balance?
 
Personally, I have a struggle between displaying the love of Christ towards another and loving the truth that Jesus Christ taught us, aka "propositional truth". The nature of propositional truth is that it creates sharp lines between truth and error.
Truth is always in sharp contrast with error. But Satan is clever enough to speak error in such a way that it sounds "right". And the Bible is clear that we are to love our enemies. That would include those believers who's views are in opposition to our own. We must remember that Jesus asked His Father to forgive those who were putting Him on that cross.

If we love truth too much, we may become dogmatic and argumentative so that we can major on the minors, or else be antagonistic towards those who do not use sound principles of Bible study to determine their doctrine.
We are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds, and strength. And Jesus said, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". I don't think it's possible to love truth "too much". The real danger is not to love truth enough. That said, we still need to love our "enemies", those who disagree with our view.

The rubber meets the road with this question, "Where does weirdness end, and heresy begin? Jude 3 tells us to "earnestly contend (that is agonize) for the truth." That is because since heretics ran rampant at the Galatians church, and in other places, such in the latter times mentioned in Revelation heresy will remain until the return of Jesus. Wherein is the balance?
For me, one's theology must be clearly stated in Scripture. If one's theology cannot be clearly found, then that theology is suspect for not being truth.

For example, Calvinists claim that Christ died only for the elect. The problem is that there are no verses nor passages that clearly and explicitly teach that idea. Instead, we find numerous passages that either clearly state or clearly indicate that He died for everyone.

OTOH, Arminians claim that one can lose their salvation. The problem is that there are no verses nor passages that clearly and explicitly teach that idea. Yes, there are many warning passages, and they are assumed, by Arminians, to be referring to salvation. But none explicitly state that salvation can be lost, while there are many passages that very clearly condition salvation upon faith in Christ, and even in the aorist tense, which is the tense that ignores duration of action. IOW, once a person has believed, they ARE saved and will NOT come into condemnation.

Having participated in numerous Christian forums over the years, I have come to understand why people hold onto views that I disagree with. Some simply misunderstand the Scriptures, while others simply stubbornly hold on to what they have been taught, reminding me of how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus. In spite of His miracles, which they couldn't deny, they still rejected Him.

But, to answer your final question about weirdness and heresy; the issue is whether one's views can be clearly found in Scripture. Sure, there are passages that are difficult to understand, but those aren't among the major doctrines held by evangelicals. All the major doctrines are clearly stated.
 
Personally, I have a struggle between displaying the love of Christ towards another and loving the truth that Jesus Christ taught us, aka "propositional truth". The nature of propositional truth is that it creates sharp lines between truth and error. And when those propositions are laid out as one proposition naturally begetting another proposition, we have something called "Systematic Theology"

Would you please clarify for me what this struggle involves? Are you struggling between loving people and showing them that their views of propositional truth are different from yours? What, in your understanding, is heresy that contravenes the propositional truth of Scripture? How do you define heresy?
  • What view of baptism do you support? Do you regard those of an opposing view to be not supporters of propositional truth?
  • What about Calvinism vs Arminianism? Which of these is heresy?
  • There are some who believe that Jesus would not punish unbelievers eternally in hell/hades/Gehenna. Is that view heresy?
  • Some believe in annihilation of unbelievers at death. Is that opposed to propositional truth?
I've given this list of views to try to uncover what you are driving at with your love of Christ and how to love those who oppose propositional truth.
 
Truth is always in sharp contrast with error. But Satan is clever enough to speak error in such a way that it sounds "right". And the Bible is clear that we are to love our enemies. That would include those believers who's views are in opposition to our own. We must remember that Jesus asked His Father to forgive those who were putting Him on that cross.

We are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds, and strength. And Jesus said, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". I don't think it's possible to love truth "too much". The real danger is not to love truth enough. That said, we still need to love our "enemies", those who disagree with our view.

I do not see any people as "my enemies" even the Mormons. Those sorts of people are wrong, for sure, and their theology is as blasphemous as it is abhorrent, but to create an enemy of another simply because they don't have the same theology as me is quite wrong, in my view.

For me, one's theology must be clearly stated in Scripture. If one's theology cannot be clearly found, then that theology is suspect for not being truth

EXACTLY! But unfortunately for some folks around here that does not matter because strong debate (but not snarky debate) is frowned upon because it upsets the "unity of believers". For example, I cited every usage of one Greek word in the NT, plus I used advanced lexicons such TDNT to specify that what my opponents said regarding that word was contrary to the usage everywhere in Scripture, contrary to its meaning in both secular and sacred works, and finally contrary to common sense. I even used a grammatical analysis.

For that, I was accused of being "proud and arrogant" so I began a 3 month self-imposed vacation from the forum. Goodness gracious! How can anyone "fight against" so heavy a case of PRIMARY evidence?

For example, Calvinists claim that Christ died only for the elect. The problem is that there are no verses nor passages that clearly and explicitly teach that idea.

Have you ever looked at Ephesians 1:4 ?

OTOH, Arminians claim that one can lose their salvation. The problem is that there are no verses nor passages that clearly and explicitly teach that idea.

I believe that this is quite another matter because the same God, Who placed the "Calvinist verses" in the Bible is also the same God, Who placed the "Arminian verses" in the Bible. Since that is the case, why should humans insist on making the verses that are "friends" into "enemies"?

The most important differences I see here, and those who hold doctrine that is not supported by Scripture is the fact both the C's and the A's believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Besides that, ALL who are saved are saved by grace and not by believing the same theology.

But, to answer your final question about weirdness and heresy; the issue is whether one's views can be clearly found in Scripture. Sure, there are passages that are difficult to understand, but those aren't among the major doctrines held by evangelicals. All the major doctrines are clearly stated.

In the unnamed case at hand, and the reason for taking a break, the difference in views is not that of "interpretation" or using something written in Scripture; rather it is the wholesale making something up that has no support in Scripture, nor is there anything in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts that give any support to that other doctrine. Because I correctly labeled something as a heresy, I ran afoul of the tos which officially takes a neutral stance in those things.

Therein I dug in my heels, and opposed the promulgation of those aberrant and heretical beliefs and in doing so, I "annoyed off" some important people here.

Hope this clarifies things.
 
EXACTLY! But unfortunately for some folks around here that does not matter because strong debate (but not snarky debate) is frowned upon because it upsets the "unity of believers". For example, I cited every usage of one Greek word in the NT, plus I used advanced lexicons such TDNT to specify that what my opponents said regarding that word was contrary to the usage everywhere in Scripture, contrary to its meaning in both secular and sacred works, and finally contrary to common sense. I even used a grammatical analysis.

For that, I was accused of being "proud and arrogant" so I began a 3 month self-imposed vacation from the forum. Goodness gracious! How can anyone "fight against" so heavy a case of PRIMARY evidence?
Who were you accused by? The mods, or just one of the posters? It would be hard to imagine that objective evidence would be problematic for the mods. But maybe so.
 
I'm not aware of or familiar with the issue you all are discussing here, By Grace, but let me just post a friendly warning to everyone involved in this thread not to violate ToS 2.14, which is pasted in it's entirety below. This thread seems to be quickly heading into a public dispute of something said or done either by another member or by staff regarding previous comments made by By Grace. This is a violation of ToS 2.14 and infraction points will be issued if it continues along this path after this warning. If you want to discuss or dispute (or even make a thinly veiled comment of dispute) of a moderator's actions that is to be done in the Talk With The Staff forum only. If your dispute is with another member over a rules violation, use the report function on the post that you are disputing so staff can deal with it appropriately. If you have a dispute with another member that is not a rules violation, do not dispute it in a thread that the member is not a part of. These are the rules that everyone here agreed to follow.

2.14: Please do not use the message board to air your grievances against other fellow members. If you have observed a violation of the Terms of Service please let a Moderator or Administrator know. (This includes violations or allegations of inappropriate actions by the moderators and administration.) If the grievance is with a staff member please contact them privately. If you deem it necessary to go beyond that, you are advised to start a new thread in the ‘Talk With the Staff’ forum area. If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public. (see 1.3)
 
I'm afraid I would have to experience a little more than someone "not agreeing with my view" before I could consider them being my enemy.
 
Taking a months long break because not everyone is convinced by your evidence seems indulgent. Lurkers learn from well presented arguments even if they don't post. Reasonable people can tell who is being obstinate in defending favored positions contrary to evidence. Please don't deny the rest of us your expertise just because some don't want to hear it.
 
Such is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot help endeavoring to systematize and reconcile the facts which it admits to be true. In no department of knowledge have men been satisfied with the possession of a mass of undigested facts. And the students of the Bible can as little be expected to be thus satisfied.

You sound, much, like a Prof. I once debated that finally shut down on me. To many words and to ittle belief was his issue. I have a very simple theological construct, "If god had it recorded in the scriptures, I believe it." Life as a Christ Follower ks just like my life in the military. S3 would send a runner to my bunk to arouse me at three in the am, I got up, threw my boots on, slept in my uniform, and got my ship ready to fly. I never asked why nor where, my Pilot and Peter-Pilot were being briefed as I and our gunner prepared the craft and then we flew because we needed to. Faith is exactly like duty in this respect, Jesus/God told me to so I do.
 
Taking a months long break because not everyone is convinced by your evidence seems indulgent. Lurkers learn from well presented arguments even if they don't post. Reasonable people can tell who is being obstinate in defending favored positions contrary to evidence. Please don't deny the rest of us your expertise just because some don't want to hear it.

Keeping yourself from a situation where you know that you have lost perspective is not being self indulgent, nor is it anything negative; rather it is an act of strength. Every one's energy gets sapped when there are irrational responses so when we back off to regroup amd focus priorities we return stronger.
 
You sound, much, like a Prof. I once debated that finally shut down on me. To many words and to ittle belief was his issue. I have a very simple theological construct, "If god had it recorded in the scriptures, I believe it." Life as a Christ Follower ks just like my life in the military. S3 would send a runner to my bunk to arouse me at three in the am, I got up, threw my boots on, slept in my uniform, and got my ship ready to fly. I never asked why nor where, my Pilot and Peter-Pilot were being briefed as I and our gunner prepared the craft and then we flew because we needed to. Faith is exactly like duty in this respect, Jesus/God told me to so I do.

That was a quote from Charles Hodge, Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary until 1878-(when it was evangelical). I set it off in indentation hoping it would not be confused with my words.
 
That was a quote from Charles Hodge, Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary until 1878-(when it was evangelical). I set it off in indentation hoping it would not be confused with my words.
That's cool but you quoted it to reflect you view, no?
 
That's cool but you quoted it to reflect your view, no?
An excellent point. Why do people try that?
"Hey! It wasn't ME who said that... It was the guy whose article I quoted to prove my point."
 
An excellent point. Why do people try that?
"Hey! It wasn't ME who said that... It was the guy whose article I quoted to prove my point."
It is like the keyboard and monitor. When i felt the call, I volunteered to go to Vietnam and that can be and often is written off as the act of a foolish youth or just like becoming aggressive on line. But I believed enough in freedom for everyone that I volunteered three times, three tours. I don't recall the numbers but today there are three times the actual numbers of Vietnam Veterans. they are doing the same thing as this vain quoting business. It is known as a serious lack of intestinal fortitude.

They, every one of them fail to understand that logic can not be escaped. In the case of a phony Huey crew chief or Gunner, I can listen to the answers to two or three questions and spot the wannabees. it id infinitely less stressful to root out Internet Wannabees because posting on the web is more permanent than publishing a book.

This youngster wants to impress folks, just like the phony Veterans and both of them cut their own les out from under themselves with their lips, so as to speak.
 
I can understand putting a kid on the spot by asking something like what TOT is...... But why would someone post a statement they don't agree with?
 
They would not without a clear disclaimer and then I would question why.
Agreed. I am currently reading a book, the content of which, I do find myself in alignment with 90% of what he says.... But if I were to recommend the book to someone else, I would have to point out that I see the author as possibly wrong in some areas.
 
That's cool but you quoted it to reflect you view, no?

Of course it reflects my view.

HOWEVER you stated
th1b.taylor said:
You sound, much, like a Prof. I once debated that finally shut down on me.

Professor Hodge and I are two different people, so how could I "sound like him" when it was his words that I quoted? No. I am not offended by such an honor to be compared to him.

:topic
 
Of course it reflects my view.

HOWEVER you stated


Professor Hodge and I are two different people, so how could I "sound like him" when it was his words that I quoted? No. I am not offended by such an honor to be compared to him.

:topic
You have, with inverted logic, answered your own question. You are now being illogical and attempting to befuddle me, why?
 
Back
Top