Let's say you are a Calvinist and you are reading this post.
Why that would be the case, I'm not sure, but for, the sake of argument, let's say that it is.
What would it take to cause you to change your Calvinist views?
Let's say you are an Arminianist and you are reading this post.
Why that would be the case, I'm not sure, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that it it.
What would it take to cause you to change your Arminian views?
I dare say either or both of you would quickly change your views as soon as someone showed you one or more Scriptures that made the case for the other side...right?
Or not?
Fact is, neither a died-in-the-wool Calvinist or a died-in-the-wool Arminianist is likely to change, because the Scripture can be used to "prove" either point of view.
The same can be said for any theological stance to which one holds, because, after much consideration, each of us thinks he/she is correct.
If, on the other hand, you do not think you are correct in the stance you take, why do you take it?
Truth is, Scripture is not a dissertation on how or why God does what He does or saves whom He saves.
It is His revelation of His character, His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption.
As long as we are bound to concerning ourselves with the "how" and the "why," we will miss the "Who."
The "Who" is Jesus.
I have heard incessant arguments for both sides and even for some dozens of sides on the periphery.
Not a single one of them has been persuasive.
Most of them end with a sort of, "Surely a person as intelligent as you can see that I'm right," attitude.
To which I reply: No, I can't.
Which reply either calls into question my intelligence, or the motive(s) of the questioner.
On the very day that Christians decide to major on the major (who is only Jesus), we will cease our bickering and will begin to attract the world to the One who came to save them.
As proof of this stance I offer John 13:35: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
And: John 17: 20 & 21: (20) "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
Now that I have quoted some Scripture supporting my stance, have I convinced you to adopt the same stance?
Interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Excellent post, Joe! I'm convinced. ;-)
The infighting between the different brands of Christianity is surely one of the most detrimental things to evangelism.
Read this article its a great analogy along similar lines to this post.
MDM
thanks Joe.
Yep, you are right Joe.
"Fact is, neither a died-in-the-wool Calvinist or a died-in-the-wool Arminianist is likely to change, because the Scripture can be used to "prove" either point of view.
The same can be said for any theological stance to which one holds, because, after much consideration, each of us thinks he/she is correct."
Does this also go for Chalcedonian Christology vs. Arianism.
The Arians just what to love Jesus. Should we be good latitudinarians and not fight about doctrine.
It was the Arians who cried out for biblical language only. They were giving an interpretation. Is the right interpretation just up for grabs. If it all comes down to individual interpretation then Scripture has become subjective and relativistic.
The Jehovah's Witnesses began by reading the American Standard Version and arguing that Jesus was not truly God(Arianism). Surely they have their proof texts.
The major problem here is that American Christianity is individualistic and viewed as a democracy(Americans making Christianity after their own image). It is every man with his Bible alone. This results in no objective authority b/c everybody has their own interpretation. Just look at the 1800's in America and note how many cults split off from the church. Just people ahistorically reading their bibles.
The problem is the unbiblical notion of "no creed but the Bible." So, I come to you not with my own interpretation, but with the interpretation of the catholic church, summarized in the historic ecumenical creeds. Authority does not reside in my subjective interpretation. This was the view of the magisterial Reformers. Scripture, for the Reformers, was not to be interpreted afresh with no reference to tradition, but instead it was to be interpreted in the church within the context of the regula fidei. They believed, as Keith Mathison has written, in sola Scriptura, not solo Scriptura.
So is every individual his own authority. Calvin's view is "We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened, where the doctrine at issue may be examined."(Institutes 4,9,13)
Keith Mathison, in the latest issue of Modern Reformation, wrote on this topic, saying, "The revisionist doctrine of 'solo' Scriptura has been a source of great damage to the cause of Christ....The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of Tradition 2 or the sola ecclesia doctrine of Tradition 3), which places final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the revisionist doctrine of 'solo' Scriptura, which places final autonomous authority in the hands of each and every individual."(Latest issue of Mod Ref.)
chase vaughn: You have done a perfect job of proving my point exactly.
You have chosen which "system" you will believe and that's that.
Your private interpretation is that "private interpretation" means that no INDIVIDUAL can interpret Scripture for himor herself, but a group of persons can.
Blech!
CHASE VAUGN (ADDENDUM): Actually, there is something to be said for the non-sola scriptura approach. Trouble is, it has resulted in a corruption of even the most obvious interpretations of Scripture and has institutionalized them, resisting both truth and adjustment.
I have as little trust in the traditions of the church as I have in the individual interpritations of man.
Certainly it is an anamatha to me to follow some of the teachings of some of the rank scoundrels who have led "the church," Catholic and otherwise.
I consider Scripture to be an expression of God to us of His character, His love for creation and His plan for redemption.
I will post more about this and present my (private?) point of view.
Thanks for the dialog, though.
Great post, Joe.
Joe, this is a great post! I'll jump in and give you a bit of my testimony.
For me it was a process. And I can honestly say that I was not 'convinced' by anyone's personal arguments, or by playing Scripture ping-pong. I actually came to embrace God's sovereignty (and that's what I call it b/c before blogging I'd never heard of all this other 'stuff') in the fall of 2004. (didn't blog until 2/05)
We attended our former church for 10 years. Several years back a couple of my husband's friends introduced him to this pastor, Matt Chandler. Had him listening to his teachings on CD. Also, he listened to a lot of this guy named Dave Busby, now deceased. Also a guy in MN named Dave Johnson (pastor of evangelist Busby). Hubby then had me begin listening to some of their teachings, as well.
It was all quite different than what I'd been hearing from the pulpit. I discovered that much of the more 'difficult and very weighty' texts were not being taught at all - simply ignored. And some of what was being taught had no foundation in Scripture. (i.e. 'age of accountability,' making 'decisions' for Christ) We began visiting Matt's church in the spring/summer of 2004, and decided to join. We attended the new member's class that fall, where we went thru the church handbook thing (by-laws, what we believe, and why, etc). During that time I got introduced to texts and passages and doctrine that I'd never heard teaching on before - mainly having to do with the sovereignty of God. From there, I began do a lot of studying on my own. Etc, Etc
Anyway, God, and He alone, changed my core beliefs, opened my eyes and made His truth real in my life - not just in the area of 'theology' & 'doctrine,' but in personal areas, all kinds of things. The reality of His sovereignty as revealed in the Scriptures collided with my preconceived notions and 'made up' theology about God.
There is no doubt he changed my heart from a 'man-centered' theology to 'God-centered' one.
Anyway, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
:)
Oh - do I have it all together? 100%? No, I don't. And that's ok. I just pray I always have a teachable spirit, and not be so concerned about being right, but rather righteous.
gayla: "...I got introduced to texts and passages..."
We have two choices: 1) listen to and adopt what we are told by "professionally" trained clerics, or 2) read the Word IN ITS ENTIRETY and allow the Holy Spirit to teach us what it is about.
The first is fraught with danger, because clergy, historically, have been untrustworthy. They have introduces thousands of false doctrines into the church.
The second is fraught with danger as well, because individuals tend to think anything they think must come from the Holy Spirit.
That is why it is important to know from the get-go what Scripture is about: God revealing to us His character, His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption.
Fill every verse with that and you will get it right.
Every verse that you do not fill with that, you will get wrong.
Pour a liberal dose of John 3:16 over every verse and you will be OK.
What I meant by being introduced to texts and passages was simply that, previously in church, I hadn't done much reading of the Word for myself. I basically let my (very godly) pastor preach the 'truth' from the pulpit and trust that he could 'teach' me. In that new member's class, A lot of new (to me) texts were put forth and discussed, etc. That was basically a catalyst for me. Since that time, I now read the Word with a whole new set of eyes, as it were.
I agree with you that Scripture reveals God's character, etc... though I do tend to view it through the filter of God's sovereignty over His creation.
I do think the Holy Spirit's role is vital, though, in reading the Word. Of course, one of His jobs IS to lead us into truth, and I don't see how we can discount His supernatural role in illuminating that truth to us.
gayla: Here's the thing...I AM one of those "professionally" trained clerics...Stetson University, DeLand, Florida and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
Still, I wouldn't trust me to be 100% accurated 100% of the time. I sure wouldn't trust the other clerics to be.
But I trust the Lord and His Word to be right 100% of the time and I only get it right when I see it in the light of His finished work in Christ.
You are 100% on the right track.
You know bro. Joe, my main problem is that I am not going to be allowed to get old enough to get it right!! I say that tongue in cheek, but the truth is, the older I get, the more I genuinely see how utterly wrong I've been about so much! I am beginning to get a thing or 2 right, but at this rate, I'd need to live to about 544 years old to really start getting it right! And I'm pretty sure I won't make that, because I like pancakes too much!!
Seriously, I have been one that has embraced a certain "system" of theology, & continue to because I believe the Scriptures bear it out, but you know, I have had to concede that I have been sadly wrong to embrace it too tightly, because it is still a manmade system, though based on Scripture I believe. I am really trying to see Scripture as it is rather than through any manmade system, but I am so stuck in my ways that it is hard to change! Pray fer me!! God Bless you brother, & I appreciate you & your blog.
Post a Comment