Why Do you Visit here?

[Guest]

What is your motive for reading or posting at 123?

Is it to debate? Is it to learn? It is to prove you are right and others are wrong? Is it for fellowship with like-minded believers?

I am curious as to why you visit here.

 

[handy]

I chose to fellowship with like-minded believers, but I also come to learn and to share what I've learned, (or think I've learned!) And, I'm willing to take on a subject and debate it, if I feel strongly enough about it.

Internet forums like this are really great for stay-at-home moms like me, who live way out in the middle of nowhere, and really don't have a strong, vibrant community of believers to belong to. Not that my neighbors around here aren't Christians, for the most part they are. But, the few folks who do live around here are too busy with day to day life to have Bible studies or classes or things like that. While I am plugged into the community here, it's also nice to have a place that I can chat with other Christians and broaden my learning experience on a day-to-day basis. I find I dig more in my Bible as a result of these on-line chats than I do when I'm not visiting the site.

And, I like 123 specifically because there is a good cross-section of regular contributers that don't all think alike and hold to the same doctrines. It's a good mix, and the folks are friendly.

 

[Drew]

I think this is an imprortant question. However, I am not crazy about the way the options are formulated.

Let's suppose that a person "X" frequently provides sound Scriptural (and logical) arguments that undermine the positions held by other posters. And in order to do so, person X exercises great care in constructing her arguments. The result might be some pretty impressive arguments. Does this means that X's main motive is to prove how smart she is? No it does not. It is entirely plausible that X is doing her best to contribute to the communal search for truth and has no interest in showing off her intellectual skills. To assume otherwise is to judge inappropriately.

A telling piece of evidence that X is indeed motivated by these more noble purposes: if she is willing to change her position if presented with sound counterargument. Show me a poster who has significant interaction on this board and has not changed their mind about something. Then you have a person who is either interested in "showing off" or is simply not interested in getting at the truth.

And debate is deeply integral to the process of learning - the two are by no means mutually exclusive. If Fred comes to the board believing that the final destination of the redeemed dead is this remade Earth and Joe comes to this board with the belief that their final destination is "Heaven", then of course there is going to be debate. It would simply not be responsible for either party to defer to the other's mere claim to have the Bibical evidence on their side.

At the end of the day, it is deeply important for us to get our "theology" as correct as we can get it. And I submit that this basically involves presenting ideas and debating the merits of them. One of the most deeply mistaken positions in the church is the "scripture does not need to be interpreted" position. This, of course, does not mean that there is not an objective fact about what God wants to communicate to us through Scripture. But, of course, every perspective on what that is somebody's perspective. We claw forward to the truth, building on the ideas of others. There is no short-cut.

 

[Guest]

I specifically chose more "carnal" options for some, to help show how "carnal" are actions can be regardless of our "noblist" intentions.

I would submit that someone with the "noble" intentions that you claim, would be here "to learn".

Unfortunately, as I read posts - I see too much "pride" in posts. To much flaunting of "arguments", rather than honest searching for God's Truth.

There are those with great debate skills and can present an air-tight arguement or presentation - that does not necessarily mean that they are correct.

 

[Drew]

Unfortunately, as I read posts - I see too much "pride" in posts. To much flaunting of "arguments", rather than honest searching for God's Truth.

There are those with great debate skills and can present an air-tight arguement or presentation - that does not necessarily mean that they are correct.

Can you explain exactly how it is someone is to be convinced of the truthfulness of some important Scriptural doctrine without the necessity to have that doctrine grounded in some kind of clear Scripturally based argument that honors the general principles all good arguments - coherence, consistency, justification of conclusion etc. If you are going to claim that God "writes it directly on our hearts" bypassing our intellectual faculties, then why did he give us a Bible as the highest authority for discerning his truth? And why have this forum?

I think you are hoping for a situation that simply cannot exist, given the fact that God communicates to us through His written word. Words on a page need to be interpreted. And they need to be interpreted properly. We need to extract doctrine from the Scriptures - it is not presented immediately to our minds via some kind of magical shortcut. And proper interpretation requires that we be consistent, that we not beg the question, that our conclusions are actually justifiable in a demonstrable way. I wish we did not have to do all this hard work, but we do.

If truth were not arrived at through constructing sound arguments, then people like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc should have simply told people to "listen to their hearts and the truth will appear".

And it is simply not true that presenting a good argument and defending it as such is "prideful". Are you suggesting that all interpretations of the Scripture are equally correct? It would seem that, on your view, a position that rests on an internally inconsistent or question-begging argument has equal merit to a position that is based on a more sound underpinning - an argument that does not assume the very thing it is trying to prove and which is internally inconsistent.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Unfortunately, as I read posts - I see too much "pride" in posts. To much flaunting of "arguments", rather than honest searching for God's Truth.

It's not an argument; it's a debate. :-D

 

[Vic C.]

Handy handled this rather nicely, so all I will add is; this could (and maybe should) be a multi option poll and there is a provision for that with our new version of PHPBB. 8-)

 

[Guest]

Unfortunately, as I read posts - I see too much "pride" in posts. To much flaunting of "arguments", rather than honest searching for God's Truth.

There are those with great debate skills and can present an air-tight arguement or presentation - that does not necessarily mean that they are correct.

Can you explain exactly how it is someone is to be convinced of the truthfulness of some important Scriptural doctrine without the necessity to have that doctrine grounded in some kind of clear Scripturally based argument that honors the general principles all good arguments - coherence, consistency, justification of conclusion etc. If you are going to claim that God "writes it directly on our hearts" bypassing our intellectual faculties, then why did he give us a Bible as the highest authority for discerning his truth? And why have this forum?

I think you are hoping for a situation that simply cannot exist, given the fact that God communicates to us through His written word. Words on a page need to be interpreted. And they need to be interpreted properly. We need to extract doctrine from the Scriptures - it is not presented immediately to our minds via some kind of magical shortcut. And proper interpretation requires that we be consistent, that we not beg the question, that our conclusions are actually justifiable in a demonstrable way. I wish we did not have to do all this hard work, but we do.

If truth were not arrived at through constructing sound arguments, then people like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc should have simply told people to "listen to their hearts and the truth will appear".

And it is simply not true that presenting a good argument and defending it as such is "prideful". Are you suggesting that all interpretations of the Scripture are equally correct? It would seem that, on your view, a position that rests on an internally inconsistent or question-begging argument has equal merit to a position that is based on a more sound underpinning - an argument that does not assume the very thing it is trying to prove and which is internally inconsistent.

Drew - since this seems to be a discussion between you and me, I am going to point it at you - but it is not meant necessarily to be negative towards you.

When you read a post, do you try to generally understand where they are coming from - or do you seek to merely argue or debate what that person said?

I believe we can understand what a person is saying, without it necessarily being presented in the best "debate formate" or based on the premise of "good sound logical principles of arguements."

Perhaps it is just me, but I have found that when I attempt to justify my actions as not being "prideful", in an honest assesment of those actions - I was in fact being "prideful". Again, perhaps it is just me.

 

[Drew]

[When you read a post, do you try to generally understand where they are coming from - or do you seek to merely argue or debate what that person said?

I do indeed try to understand where they are coming from. Since participating in this board, I have changed my views about a number of items of theology specifically because of Biblical arguments presented to me:

1. I used to believe in an eternal hell - I now believe the lost are annihilated.

2. I used to believe that man possessed a consciousness-bearing soul / spirit. I now believe that he does not.

3. I used to believe that the final destination of the redeemed was "Heaven", I now believe that it is a remade version of the earth.

4. I used to believe that the Luke 16 account of Lazarus and the rich man was a true story. I now believe it be a parable.

All these changes in position did not occur because God miraculously zapped me. They are the result of me reading sound Scriptural arguments, coming to believe that my previously held position was incorrect, and adopting a new position.

 

[Guest]

[When you read a post, do you try to generally understand where they are coming from - or do you seek to merely argue or debate what that person said?

I do indeed try to understand where they are coming from. Since participating in this board, I have changed my views about a number of items of theology specifically because of Biblical arguments presented to me:

1. I used to believe in an eternal hell - I now believe the lost are annihilated.

2. I used to believe that man possessed a consciousness-bearing soul / spirit. I now believe that he does not.

3. I used to believe that the final destination of the redeemed was "Heaven", I now believe that it is a remade version of the earth.

4. I used to believe that the Luke 16 account of Lazarus and the rich man was a true story. I now believe it be a parable.

All these changes in position did not occur because God miraculously zapped me. They are the result of me reading sound Scriptural arguments, coming to believe that my previously held position was incorrect, and adopting a new position.

Thank you for proving my point Drew. One thing that you did not list was the Holy Spirit opening your eyes and revealing His truth. You merely relied on human understanding. Which I would suggest has failed you as to all those points are, IMHO - heretical - except for point number 4. Luke 16 IMHO is a parable, however it can still teach a literal hell and damnation, I just also believe that those doctrines can be found elsewhere.

 

[tim-from-pa]

[When you read a post, do you try to generally understand where they are coming from - or do you seek to merely argue or debate what that person said?

I do indeed try to understand where they are coming from. Since participating in this board, I have changed my views about a number of items of theology specifically because of Biblical arguments presented to me:

1. I used to believe in an eternal hell - I now believe the lost are annihilated.

2. I used to believe that man possessed a consciousness-bearing soul / spirit. I now believe that he does not.

3. I used to believe that the final destination of the redeemed was "Heaven", I now believe that it is a remade version of the earth.

4. I used to believe that the Luke 16 account of Lazarus and the rich man was a true story. I now believe it be a parable.

All these changes in position did not occur because God miraculously zapped me. They are the result of me reading sound Scriptural arguments, coming to believe that my previously held position was incorrect, and adopting a new position.

Drew:

My same shifting of doctrine as well: these same points you brought up are the same doctrines I changed. Although I debate, if I find that if I am wrong, I am willing to change. Actually, I debate or post on other Christian forums, so I cannot fully say that all these changes came from here.

However, most people know I am British-Israelite. I came from the conventional Christian perspective to believing in that (BI) in the same manner that I change my beliefs on the same points you mentioned.

I will not give that up, because I believe there are myriads of scriptural references that teach that position, and I must admit, maybe in a little pride, that people who willfully do not "get" that are being a tad stubborn (or maybe willfully ignorant).

 

[Drew]

Thank you for proving my point Drew. One thing that you did not list was the Holy Spirit opening your eyes and revealing His truth. You merely relied on human understanding. Which I would suggest has failed you as to all those points are, IMHO - heretical - except for point number 4. Luke 16 IMHO is a parable, however it can still teach a literal hell and damnation, I just also believe that those doctrines can be found elsewhere.

Your point is not really proven. All that is proven is that I did not express myself as well as I should have in that last post. I indeed do believe that my efforts to understand the Scriptures are subjected to the influence of the Holy Spirit. When I said that God did not zap me, my intent was to underscore that the knowledge of the truth was not directly inserted into my mind in a manner that bypassed my intellectual faculties. Please do not leverage that into a claim that I do not subject myself to the actions of the Holy Spirit. I never claimed such a thing.

We cannot control the action of the Spirit. We can take responsibility for rightly thinkng about the word of God. We disagree on some items of theology. Let the reader, in subjection to the Holy Spirit, determine what is and is not "heresy".

In fact, I would suggest that the very use of the word "heresy", with all it charged implications, is a word that is often used as a "thinking-defusing" bomb. The word itself carries the implication that the "heretical" view somehow cannot be right. I prefer a more humble approach and not claim that people I disagree with promote heresy since I would not deign to know the mind of God with such certainty as to make such a judgment.

 

[Vic C.]

Thank you for proving my point Drew. One thing that you did not list was the Holy Spirit opening your eyes and revealing His truth. You merely relied on human understanding. Which I would suggest has failed you as to all those points are, IMHO - heretical - except for point number 4. Luke 16 IMHO is a parable, however it can still teach a literal hell and damnation, I just also believe that those doctrines can be found elsewhere.

OK, did this just turn into a "I'm right and others are wrong" augment? ;-) ... sorry Tim, er, debate. :-D I've experienced some of the same things as Tim and Drew and I can attest it was through prayerful consideration and the guidance of the HS. That was my prayer from the time I was saved; that God would lead me to His Truth, not to what was the most common or accepted. In every aspect of life, I question the judgment of the "majority".

Anyways... when Handy, I and others mentioned we don't believe Heaven to be our final resting place, no one called us heretics... not that I care, I've been called worse! :

 

[tim-from-pa]

In every aspect of life, I question the judgment of the "majority".

You are what I call a nice conspiracy theorist. I'm a little nastier. :-D

 

[katsa]

I visit primarily to fellowship with other believers (45%) and to learn (55%)

 

[Guest]

Thank you for proving my point Drew. One thing that you did not list was the Holy Spirit opening your eyes and revealing His truth. You merely relied on human understanding. Which I would suggest has failed you as to all those points are, IMHO - heretical - except for point number 4. Luke 16 IMHO is a parable, however it can still teach a literal hell and damnation, I just also believe that those doctrines can be found elsewhere.

OK, did this just turn into a "I'm right and others are wrong" augment? ;-) ... sorry Tim, er, debate. :-D I've experienced some of the same things as Tim and Drew and I can attest it was through prayerful consideration and the guidance of the HS. That was my prayer from the time I was saved; that God would lead me to His Truth, not to what was the most common or accepted. In every aspect of life, I question the judgment of the "majority".

Anyways... when Handy, I and others mentioned we don't believe Heaven to be our final resting place, no one called us heretics... not that I care, I've been called worse! :

Are we not supposed to be vilagant against those who teach false doctrine? If we are, then there must be some standard that we are supposed to use to judge the teachings of others.

 

[stovebolts]

I come to learn, teach, and laugh Primarily though, it’s to have some good fellowship with other Christians.

I choose “Other†and here’s why.

To Debate: Yeah, sometimes it’s fun to sharpen yer horns, but it turns one ugly if that’s all one does.

To Learn: Yeah, lots of smart people here. Never stop learning.

To Show how smart I am: Yeah, I’ve done that too, but as the Solomon said, “There’s a season for everything†lol

To learn about Christianity: Well. There’s a loaded statement LOL since there are so many views on what Christianity is supposed to look like. (that’s what I mean by laugh some times)

To be informed about Christian News: Nope…

Other: After it’s all said and done, I’d rather be an inspiration to other Christians where I can and I’ve found that it’s easier to tear somebody down, than to build them up… so I try to build up where I can, and though I don’t have the time anymore (which is probably a blessing considering option 1), I kinda miss the fellowship and the in-depth discussions I’ve found on this board.

 

[handy]

What a facinating argu...debate this is turning into! :

I voted in the poll, and added a bit of commentary thinking this was some kind of survey regarding 123 Christian forum. But, as is so often the case, it's turning a bit deeper.

Drew, I read through your list of things that you used to believe in then, changed because of 'sound Scriptural arguements. By the time I finished reading point 2, I was thinking, "What kind of new-fangled Bible is Drew reading anyway!?!"

Then I read points 3 & 4, and saw that I actually agree with you on those two points. (And, so far no one has called me heretical, although I have been told I'm not a Christian.)

Now, I know that I used to believe a few things myself, that I've come to question and even think differently, because of careful study of the Word, brought about usually by listening to what other's say regarding the subject on forums like these.

For instance: I used to believe that God created the universe and everything in it, in seven 24-hour days. Now, although I don't doubt that He certainly could have done it that way, I don't believe that Genesis tells us that He did so.

I also used to think that 1 Timothy 2:12 was the clincher in every argument that women could never serve as a Pastor or teacher. Now, by allowing Scripture to intepret Scripture, I think differently, and view Paul's comments to Timothy to be more of a directive for the church at Ephesus, rather than a commandment from God to the church for all time.

It would be easy to assume that Drew and I are not really listening to the Holy Spirit, or reading our Bibles correctly because we've come to the WRONG conclusions. But, although I can't read Drew's heart, I'll testify to the fact that I genuinely, prayerfully search the Scriptures with the hope of finding God's truth revealed by the Spirit. And, again although I cannot read Drew's heart, I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he does so as well.

There are some things that Christians cannot under any circumstances 'agree to disagree' over. There are simply some non-negotiables of Christian doctrine. However, that list of absolutes probably isn't as long as some might think. And, although I really dislike the whole 'agree to disagree' (which to me is a form of spiritual laziness), I'm not going to question the sincerety of the heart on the part of those who disagree with me. I've learned far to much from folks I've disagreed with. Like the fact that God really doesn't condemn infants in the womb as sinners.

As I went to post, I was directed a newer post. I do agree that we do need to be on the alert regarding false doctrine. But, is every doctrine that the church haggles over to be a basis for judging others?

What are the false teachings that we need to judge as from the spirit of anti-christ, rather than the Spirit of God? What does Scripture teach us regarding what doctrines we need to go to the wall for? I think if we could answer this question, a lot of the non-essentials would take care of themselves.

 

[Drew]

Are we not supposed to be vilagant against those who teach false doctrine? If we are, then there must be some standard that we are supposed to use to judge the teachings of others.

Agreed and that standard is the Scriptures. It appears that your standard is a murky "well God revealed the truth to me directly and I do not need to stoop to squarely address Scriptural arguments that make a case different from what has been revealed to me".

This little chide of mine to you, and your chide that I teach false doctrine are not the central issue, however.

I would like to pose this question: Do you agree that the Scriptures are the ulitmate arbiter of God's truth and any claim to "special revelation" that contradicts Scripture is false teaching?

I am going to presume that you will answer "yes".

In that case, I do not see how you think that this plays out in practice if not through a communal acceptance of the principles of sound argumentation in respect to that very central task of determining what the Scriptures teach.

From your perspective, exactly how does a community of persons determine what the Scriptures mean if not through a commonly accepted set of principles of sound reasoning that act on the Scriptures as the raw material that drives the process?

I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but you almost seem to think that each person's 'special revelation' of truth that is not grounded in good old fashioned principles of sound reasoning - consistency, coherence, logic, etc - are all going to magically line up with one another.

I think the evidence is clear that it does not work this way.

 

[Vic C.]

What a facinating argu...debate this is turning into! :

Hahahaha. :-D

There are some things that Christians cannot under any circumstances 'agree to disagree' over. There are simply some non-negotiables of Christian doctrine.

This is a perfect time for me to jump in with this, our Statement of faith, which I believe is essential to a Christian's Faith. Some may want to add other doctrines to this list, but they can be argued as non-essential, which is the brunt of debates here anyway.

From Logan's SOF

This is the Statement of Faith of our forums, and of our leadership.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God.

Jesus Christ, God's only Son, was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born a virgin birth, lived a sinless life, died an atoning death upon a cross, raised from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father where He will one day return to the earth.

That man is in a lost and depraved condition by nature, and is in need of the new birth by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

In justification by faith apart from the works of the law.

That salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone, to whom we must respond with repentance, faith, and obedience. Through Christ we come into a right relationship with God, our sins are forgiven, and we receive eternal life.

What are the false teachings that we need to judge as from the spirit of anti-christ, rather than the Spirit of God? What does Scripture teach us regarding what doctrines we need to go to the wall for? I think if we could answer this question, a lot of the non-essentials would take care of themselves.

Again, I honest believe Logan's SoF covers almost all essential doctrine. If one notices, these are the ones I "go to the wall" for.

All in all, this is a very healthy discussion we are having here.