Soteriology has lost its meaning

[DeaconDean]

I'm sorry folks, but this room has lost its meaning.

According to bible.org, the definition for "soteriology" is:

Soteriology: Salvation
By: Greg Herrick Th.M., Ph.D.

"The term “soteriology” comes from two Greek terms, namely, soter meaning “savior” or “deliverer” and logos meaning “word,” “matter,” or “thing.” In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical doctrine of salvation. It often includes such topics as the nature and extent of the atonement as well as the entire process of salvation, conceived as an eternal, divine plan designed to rescue lost and erring sinners and bring them back into eternal fellowship with God. Many regard it as the primary theme in Scripture with the glory of God as its goal."

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=730

I have seen that the shift has gone from what God has done for us, to, a focus on us.

The shift has gone from God's plan of salvation for mankind in Jesus Christ, to a debate on RT and God's sovereignty verses Arminian theology and mans free will and how he responds to it.

There is no soteriology here, I'm sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[jeffweeder]

Thats a very good point Dean, God bless your heart.
Till all are one indeed.
We dont have a leg to stand on, its all his love for us, and then we will become as one, with his head on our shoulders....

 

[Van]

Folks the study of the salvation doctrine presented in scripture is Soteriology. Several contradictory views of Soteriology exist, including RT, Arminianism, and other views such as General Baptist, Eastern Orthodox and Luthren.

 

[nobdysfool]

Folks the study of the salvation doctrine presented in scripture is Soteriology. Several contradictory views of Soteriology exist, including RT, Arminianism, and other views such as General Baptist, Eastern Orthodox and Luthren.

The primary focus should be on what God has done for us, not what we can do for God. We were not able to save ourselves, and any man who thinks he had some part to contribute to his own salvation is a fool. The different "-isms" reflect differing levels of understanding, and sometimes wrong interpretation of what is understood.

The main problem of late here has been the promotion of a particular view by denigrating and misrepresentation of other views, and most often one other view in particular. The correctness (perceived or actual) of a view is not established by tearing down another. Correctness is established by careful study of the Word of God, and a willingness to admit that one's view could be incomplete, or wrong. Correction can be done without insults, misrepresentations, and dismissiveness, and disagreements can be accepted rather than trying to shout down one's opponents.

DeaconDean, You bring up a valid point. If this forum is going to descend into a food fight, with one person trying to dominate all discussion to promote the glory of his own view, and call all others names, with no one doing anything about it, then I will shake the dust off of my feet, and leave not only this forum, but this entire site as well, as it has developed terminal rot from the behind-the-scenes political infighting and marginalization of Protestants, by those who wish to turn this site into something it was never intended to be. I truly fear that in the near future, "Ichabod" will be the proper name of this site.

 

[Van]

Ad homenim arguments to bolster the mistaken view of one view rob the forum of content. Why should our primary focus be on a primary tenet of one particular point of view, monergistic salvation? It shouldn't and such contentions attempt to picture others as not doing what is proper. So another ad homenim.

One group of advocates throw most of the food on this forum, their posts are laced with ad homenims against anybody and everybody that holds differing views.

Soteriology is one of the doctrines that divide the body of Christ, and our inability to work together to establish a common understanding does not advance the cause of Christ.

 

[nobdysfool]

Ad homenim arguments to bolster the mistaken view of one view rob the forum of content. Why should our primary focus be on a primary tenet of one particular point of view, monergistic salvation? It shouldn't and such contentions attempt to picture others as not doing what is proper. So another ad homenim.

Are you not doing precisely that same thing? Pot-kettle-black.

One group of advocates throw most of the food on this forum, their posts are laced with ad homenims against anybody and everybody that holds differing views.

Again, pot-kettle-black. Many posts on record of you doing just this very thing. If you're pointing fingers, remember they are pointing bacjk at you as well.

Soteriology is one of the doctrines that divide the body of Christ, and our inability to work together to establish a common understanding does not advance the cause of Christ.

One of the most dangerous things is the so-called "concensus". This comes from Diaprax, which if one does a little study, they will see that it is a diabolical system to water down truth, and to cripple morality.

 

[Van]

Post #6 is a case in point, Soterology is no where to be found, just fault finding concerning me. And who is throwing this food? An RT advocate! QED

Next lets consider the idea that we should work together to build each other up. Does this suggest we should accept falsehood and water down the truth? No, it suggests that by reasoning together, by each presenting their strongest arguments, the truth will emerge and we will forsake, not the truth, but our errant views.

This my way or the highway position does not reflect the idea of reasoning together with God, of groups prayerfully studying God's word, of seeking the counsel of mature Christians. God puts forth this idea in Isaiah 43:26.

Soteriology is one of the doctrines that divide the body of Christ, and our inability to work together to establish a common understanding does not advance the cause of Christ.

 

[Van]

One of the popular rebuttals offered in the Soteriology forum is "Pot Kettle Black" The idea is that the person making the observation is quilty of the observation. So while it is true, we should take the log out of our own eye before we try to take the speck out of another persons eye, that does not equate to "two wrongs make a right." At the end of the day, the argument is it is ok to make ad homenim arguements, because to point out that person is using ad homenim arguments is to engage in an ad homenim argument, thus justify the behavior on the basis of two wrongs make a right. We are not to compare ourselves to the standard of other sinners, but to the perfection of Christ.

 

[nobdysfool]

Did it ever occur to you, Van, even for a second, that you might be causing some of the so-called "ad hominems" leveled against you because you are so quick to insult, denigrate, and otherwise level scurilous charges against Reformed Brethren, and we in turn are simply trying to defend ourselves against these charges? You say you want honest discussion and presentation of the strongest arguments for each side, but then you engage in systematic poisoning of the discussion against all but your own view. It's a mantra with you, "RT is this, RT is that, RT is defended by (insert unchristian behavior here).

Somehow, you don't seem to see that your actions are a large part of the reason why you complain about how you're treated here. The very fact that you defend yourself when you perceive you're being attacked should be a clue that if you don't want to be attacked, don't attack others, and you have attacked all Reformed Brethren with truly insulting and egregious charges which are unfounded, and uncalled for. You do not add credibility to your views by tearing down the views of others. Such actions are rooted in pride, and in a higher view of yourself and your theological abilities than is warranted or than you ought to have.

I know that you will dismiss this with another charge of "ad hominem" attacks against you and declare that "this is how RT is defended". I am not defending RT at this point, I'm calling you on your behavior, and asking that you take some responsibility for the tone of these discussions, and realize that it's not all the fault of other people, but you share just as much guilt for how things have devolved as anyone else. Your attacks against Reformed Theology and Reformed Brethren are a serious bone of contention. You single out RT for attacks, and it seems that a large part of your "proof" of the correctness of your position is found in declaring that "RT is wrong, therefore, my position is right". Any reasonable person can see that such reasoning is faulty and flawed.

I can back off the accusations and name-calling. Can you?

Will you?

 

[Van]

I have made no charges against you recently other than to say your charges against me are false, and your posts are laced with ad homenins, logical fallacies. I have not caused your attacks on me. I have attacked RT because I believe it is false doctrine. And so I have been doing what the bible says I should do. Now I could be mistaken, but then someone would have to offer an alternate view from scipture that actually holds water.
I have not seen anything that indicates my view of James 2:5 is not correct, or my view of John 1:12-13, a view that was shared in part with HM80. Ditto for Matthew 13:1-23, Matthew 23:13, John 6:26, Romans 3, Romans 9, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 17:8, Romans 8:28:30, Ephesians 2:8-9, Ephesians 1:4-5 and on and on. I have presented detailed commentary on these passages, and I have been met with, "tain't so" and "it implies what RT says it implies" and on and on. But I have read many of the RT arguments, they are available on the web, and I have found that they misrepresent what scipture actually says.

NBF, you can call me on your false charges against me till the cows come home, I will continue to point out they are merely logically fallacies of no merit. I know you believe RT is valid and are unable to accept views that differ because that would mean you have made a mistake and followed false teachings. So Van must be the one that is following false teachings, that is your heart felt view. I know, and I feel your pain. But that does not mean I should not stand firm for what I believe is the pure gospel of Christ.

 

[nobdysfool]

I have made no charges against you recently other than to say your charges against me are false, and your posts are laced with ad homenins, logical fallacies. I have not caused your attacks on me. I have attacked RT because I believe it is false doctrine. And so I have been doing what the bible says I should do. Now I could be mistaken, but then someone would have to offer an alternate view from scipture that actually holds water.
I have not seen anything that indicates my view of James 2:5 is not correct, or my view of John 1:12-13, a view that was shared in part with HM80. Ditto for Matthew 13:1-23, Matthew 23:13, John 6:26, Romans 3, Romans 9, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 17:8, Romans 8:28:30, Ephesians 2:8-9, Ephesians 1:4-5 and on and on. I have presented detailed commentary on these passages, and I have been met with, "tain't so" and "it implies what RT says it implies" and on and on. But I have read many of the RT arguments, they are available on the web, and I have found that they misrepresent what scipture actually says.

NBF, you can call me on your false charges against me till the cows come home, I will continue to point out they are merely logically fallacies of no merit. I know you believe RT is valid and are unable to accept views that differ because that would mean you have made a mistake and followed false teachings. So Van must be the one that is following false teachings, that is your heart felt view. I know, and I feel your pain. But that does not mean I should not stand firm for what I believe is the pure gospel of Christ.

You can hold to and defend your views without calling into question the integrity of those who disagree and without wholesale slander of their beliefs. It is enough to say, "I disagree", and then explain why. Anything more than that results in insults and needless stirring up of strife.

It's one thing to say, "I believe RT does not take into account this or that", and quite another to say, "RT is a mistaken view, and defended by this or that (insert negative accusation here)". The former is dealing with specifics, the latter is just an ad hominem which avoids specifics and is just stated to try to gain advantage without dealing with content.

Even if you were correct, you do not persuade others by calling what they believe to be dishonest or deceitful, both of which you have done in reference to Reformed Theology. Even when you respond as you just have, there is still an arrogance and an unwillingness to acknowledge that you have acted in an uncharitable manner, and have needlessly insulted Reformed Believers and caused strife in order to gain an advantage. You refuse to believe that sharp words from you could cause others to respond in kind. No one likes to be insulted. I'm sure you agree with that. So, stop insulting the beliefs of those you disagree with, and just present your case, and allow us to present ours, without all the snide, rude, and insulting comments in place of actually dealing with what is said.

I don't use canned responses, and I don't repeat myself verbatim in multiple posts like you do. I have to deal with rheumatoid arthritis in my hands which can cause typing to be painful at times, and to spend time typing out an answer that deals with the scriptures, only to have you dismiss it as "more RT deception", without even addressing what I have said in depth or at all, is rude, and shows a huge lack of respect for any other view but your own. I post here because Soteriology is important to me. I do so despite the handicap I deal with. So when I'm disprespected as I have been by you, I tend to be very direct, and I choose my words carefully for maximum effect and clear articulation of my meaning and intent. I don't criticise you lightly, I believe I have legitmate grievance to do so, and your continued dismissal and defense of your own less than charitable actions angers me. If you want respect, you must first give it.

 

[Van]

Scripture says do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When a person posts falsehoods, such as Van believes He is alway right and is unwilling to consider other views, it is within forum rules to point out that the argument is an ad homenim.

God so loved the world, which refers to all of fallen mankind, that He gave His one of a kind Son, that whoever (and God has not predetermined who the whoever is) believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Soteriology has meaning, and it is Good News, full of opportunity and hope. RT robs Soteriology of its meaning, it is a mistaken view of scripture and is defended by the consistent use of ad homenims to disparage those that hold differing views.

 

[nobdysfool]

Scripture says do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When a person posts falsehoods, such as Van believes He is alway right and is unwilling to consider other views, it is within forum rules to point out that the argument is an ad homenim.

God so loved the world, which refers to all of fallen mankind, that He gave His one of a kind Son, that whoever (and God has not predetermined who the whoever is) believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Soteriology has meaning, and it is Good News, full of opportunity and hope. RT robs Soteriology of its meaning, it is a mistaken view of scripture and is defended by the consistent use of ad homenims to disparage those that hold differing views.

Cuts both ways, Van. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, not "as they do unto you".

Your're not going to even answer anything else are you? I have made some clear and respectful suggestions as to how debate can proceed here without the rancor and disrespect. Are you going to do so? Will you show some respect, and quit insulting those who don't share your beliefs? Can you step outside yourself long enough to accept that you share the blame for the way things are?

 

[Van]

Folks, ad homenims do not show respect for the person's position, they disparage the person to discredit the position. They are logical fallacies.

The pure Gospel of Christ proclaims the Good News, the Kingdom of God is at hand. That teaches opportunity, not entry into the kingdom of God is foreordained and no opportunity exists now to alter your fate.

Such a view renders Soteriology meaningless, it's a what ever will be will be view in which nothing really matters.

 

[nobdysfool]

You can hold to and defend your views without calling into question the integrity of those who disagree and without wholesale slander of their beliefs. It is enough to say, "I disagree", and then explain why. Anything more than that results in insults and needless stirring up of strife.

It's one thing to say, "I believe RT does not take into account this or that", and quite another to say, "RT is a mistaken view, and defended by this or that (insert negative accusation here)". The former is dealing with specifics, the latter is just an ad hominem which avoids specifics and is just stated to try to gain advantage without dealing with content.

Even if you were correct, you do not persuade others by calling what they believe to be dishonest or deceitful, both of which you have done in reference to Reformed Theology. Even when you respond as you just have, there is still an arrogance and an unwillingness to acknowledge that you have acted in an uncharitable manner, and have needlessly insulted Reformed Believers and caused strife in order to gain an advantage. You refuse to believe that sharp words from you could cause others to respond in kind. No one likes to be insulted. I'm sure you agree with that. So, stop insulting the beliefs of those you disagree with, and just present your case, and allow us to present ours, without all the snide, rude, and insulting comments in place of actually dealing with what is said.

I don't use canned responses, and I don't often repeat myself verbatim in multiple posts like you do. I have to deal with rheumatoid arthritis in my hands which can cause typing to be painful at times, and to spend time typing out an answer that deals with the scriptures, only to have you dismiss it as "more RT deception", without even addressing what I have said in depth or at all, is rude, and shows a huge lack of respect for any other view but your own. I post here because Soteriology is important to me. I do so despite the handicap I deal with. So when I'm disprespected as I have been by you, I tend to be very direct, and I choose my words carefully for maximum effect and clear articulation of my meaning and intent. I don't criticise you lightly, I believe I have legitmate grievance to do so, and your continued dismissal and defense of your own less than charitable actions angers me. If you want respect, you must first give it.

 

[Van]

I don't use canned responses, and I don't often repeat myself verbatim in multiple posts like you do.

Post 11 seems similar to post #13, but folks judge for yourselves. What is certain is that both contain many of the same ad homenim arguments, logical fallacies designed to disparage the person holding a position in order to discredit the position without actually providing a logical rebuttal.

Turning now to the topic of the thread, Soteriology has meaning only if we can effect salvation is some way. If whatever will be, will be, then Soteriology has no meaning. RT is a form of legalism that robs God of His compassion for the lost.

 

[nobdysfool]

RT is a form of legalism that robs God of His compassion for the lost.

I challenge you to prove that statement. It is nothing more than ill-considered opinion, which you're trying to pass off as fact without proof.

I have asked you, I have tried to reason with you, to change your manner of posting, to be less insulting, and less inflammatory, and you just keep on doing it. Is there some part of the concept that is beyond your ability to understand? Do you not see that you are insulting me as a Reformed Believer, and Reformed Theology as a whole, with groundless and unsupported statements like this? And then you express surprise that I, and other Reformed Believers, would take you to task for what you say and the condescending, insulting way you say it, and you whine and complain about how you're being attacked with ad hominems, etc. You've attacked us as well. This last post is proof of it.

Van, please stop the insulting and inflammatory remarks against Reformed Theology, and against Reformed Believers. This is not a made up or false charge, this is what you are actually doing. Your remarks to not encourage discussion, or debate, they encourage anger and rage against you. Is that what Jesus called us to do, to anger each other with insults, harsh words, and insensitivity? I am serious, that is exactly what you're doing.

I call on you to stop this insulting, demeaning, and abrasive behavior, before the witnesses on this thread, and before the moderators. It has gone on long enough, and it must stop.

 

[Van]

RT is a form of legalism that robs God of his compassion for the lost. Scripture says the Kingdom of God is at hand, indicating the opportunity for salvation is available. RT nullifies this, with the traditions of men making the statement to no effect (legalism) and since according to RT God has provided no avenue of mercy for the lost, the doctrines rob God of His compassion for the lost, rather it is a "what ever will be, will be" doctrine.

I have asked you, I have tried to reason with you, to change your manner of posting, to be less insulting, and less inflammatory, and you just keep on doing it. Is there some part of the concept that is beyond your ability to understand? Do you not see that you are insulting me as a Reformed Believer, and Reformed Theology as a whole, with groundless and unsupported statements like this? And then you express surprise that I, and other Reformed Believers, would take you to task for what you say and the condescending, insulting way you say it, and you whine and complain about how you're being attacked with ad hominems, etc. You've attacked us as well. This last post is proof of it.

Yet another ad homenim argument, Van is condescending, a whiner and on and on. Folks, ad homenims disparage the person offering a differing view of Soteriology in an effort to discredit his or her position. The argument is a logical fallacy.

At the end of the day, Reformed Theology is a mistaken view of scripture in my view. Many students of the Bible agree with this assessment, although very few, if any agree with all of my positions. Study the Bible, study the verses and passages that do not mesh with RT, such as 1 John 2:2 and the RT claim that Christ died only for the church. Or Matthew 13:20-22 and the RT claim the unregenerate are unable to seek God or understand the gospel, or receive it. And Matthew 23:13 and the RT claim that in order to be seeking God and entering the path that leads to life, a person must have been altered by irresistible grace. Note these folks were entering, yet they were turned away by false doctrines.
Or James 2:5, and the doctrine that God does not choose folks based on their characteristics.

I love my brothers and sisters who have accepted the doctrines of RT, but I humbly submit that the doctrines hinder the ministry of Christ. I understand the model of meekness, that I must be willing to take shots and not return fire, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and so I post the truth as God has given me the light to see the truth, with no malace or pettiness, just a heart-felt desire to build up my brothers and sisters in their knowledge of the truth so they can be effective Ambassadors of Christ.

May God bless you all.

 

[nobdysfool]

RT is a form of legalism that robs God of his compassion for the lost. Scripture says the Kingdom of God is at hand, indicating the opportunity for salvation is available. RT nullifies this, with the traditions of men making the statement to no effect (legalism) and since according to RT God has provided no avenue of mercy for the lost, the doctrines rob God of His compassion for the lost, rather it is a "what ever will be, will be" doctrine.

More insulting, demeaning statements about Reformed Theology, made with no thought of how it will be received. Then there is the fact that RT, as Van states it, bears little if any resemblance to the actual doctrines. He accuses RT of legalism, with no corroboration. He accuses RT of nullifying the Gospel, again with no corroboration. These are serious charges, and to make them with no proof, no support other than "Van says so" is irresponsible, and should be viewed as nothing more than trying to put Reformed Believers on the defensive, to sidetrack the discussion.

Yet another ad homenim argument, Van is condescending, a whiner and on and on. Folks, ad homenims disparage the person offering a differing view of Soteriology in an effort to discredit his or her position. The argument is a logical fallacy.

Van seems to be unwilling to examine his own methods, or his own delivery, and tries to justify himself by claiming that any rebuke of his sharp, insulting, and disparaging words are an ad hominem attack on him. Van apparently believes that the end justifies the means, so saying insulting things about RT, insulting RT believers and accusing them of dishonesty, deception, and the like are OK, because in his mind those things further his desire to shout down any mention of Reformed Theology.

Folks, do you notice that in the multiple times I have pleaded with him to tone down his rhetoric, stop the insults, stop the accusations, he has never once acknowledged that he has even considered that perhaps I might have a legitimate issue with these things, or offered an apology, even half-hearted, for offending anyone? Instead, he justifies his behavior as being "necessary", and believes that he is being "unfairly" criticised for defending Truth, as he sees it.

At the end of the day, Reformed Theology is a mistaken view of scripture in my view.

At least he adds the words "in my view". That's a start, although we already knew that. How could we not?

Many students of the Bible agree with this assessment, although very few, if any agree with all of my positions.

An empty statement, built on the logical fallacy of "ad populum", followed by an acknowledgement that he is pretty much alone in some of his views. Funny how he doesn't see that as a "Red Flag"

Study the Bible, study the verses and passages that do not mesh with RT, such as 1 John 2:2 and the RT claim that Christ died only for the church. Or Matthew 13:20-22 and the RT claim the unregenerate are unable to seek God or understand the gospel, or receive it. And Matthew 23:13 and the RT claim that in order to be seeking God and entering the path that leads to life, a person must have been altered by irresistible grace. Note these folks were entering, yet they were turned away by false doctrines.

Or James 2:5, and the doctrine that God does not choose folks based on their characteristics.

If you approach studying the scriptures with the bias that you're looking for scriptures which don't support RT, you're not studying the scriptures with a heart open to learn from God. Too many people spend their time looking for "proof texts" to support a position they've already decided is true, based upon faulty reasoning, and the doctrines of men.

I love my brothers and sisters who have accepted the doctrines of RT,

I'm sorry Van, but I don't believe it, based on the insulting and dismissive way you've treated Reformed Believers in these forums. Your words do not line up with your actions. I have asked you, pleaded with you, to show some respect for the beliefs of others, and to not insult them as you have Reformed Believers, and I see less respect shown to us than you have shown to KCDAD in another forum, who doesn't believe the Bible is reliable or trustworthy, and has accused us of holding the Bible to a higher standard than we hold God, which I'm sure you agree is a thoughtless charge.

So, at the end of the day, your actions speak far louder than your words.

but I humbly submit that the doctrines hinder the ministry of Christ.

This flies in the face of the documented fact that the most successful evangelisitic ministries are Reformed, and/or Calvinist. The Reformed churches are very focused on evangelism, in reaching the lost with the Gospel, which is the mandate that Christ gave His Church. To make the ridiculous charge that Reformed Theology hinders and discourages evangelism is not borne out by the facts.

I understand the model of meekness, that I must be willing to take shots and not return fire, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and so I post the truth as God has given me the light to see the truth, with no malace or pettiness, just a heart-felt desire to build up my brothers and sisters in their knowledge of the truth so they can be effective Ambassadors of Christ.

And you short-circuit any possibility of that by making false accusations of deception, dishonety, and insults against Reformed Believers and Reformed Theology, which is tantamount to trying to demand, to force people to accept your view.

Van, you must face the facts that you have insulted Reformed Believers in these forums, disparaged their beliefs rather than discussing the actual doctrines and debating in an honorable and respectful manner. You must face the fact that no matter your intentions, you have caused anger, strife, and needless argumentation, with the way you have tried to frame the argument by insulting, demeaning, accusing Reformed Believers of deception, dishonesty, and false witness, and making declarations with no support that RT is false doctrine, a mistaken view of scripture, etc. You say you love the brethren, but your actions do not support that claim. Your responses to me as I bring up these issues is ample proof of that.

I am a Reformed Believer, and you have insulted me, falsely accused me of dishonesty, deception, and bearing false witness. I am asking you to acknowledge that you have acted and spoken without thought as to how it would be received, and to apologize to the Reformed Brethren in these forums for the harsh and disrespectful words you have posted, and for the anger and frustration and strife you have caused, inadvertently or not. Acknowledge that you have not built up the Brethren, but rather have tried to tear them down, and tear their beliefs down. Acknowledge that you have not treated them as Christ would, and commit to not acting in that way any longer.

I will admit that I have lashed out in anger at you, frustrated by your attitude and your harsh words. I acknowledge that I was wrong to do so, and I am trying to refrain from doing so. I apologize for any harm that has caused. We can disagree respectfully, and deal with the actual disagreements rather than trying to gain advantage over the other with harsh words, false accusations, and the like.

The ball is in your court, Van.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

"The term “soteriology”... often includes such topics as the nature and extent of the atonement as well as the entire process of salvation

Cool. So legit topics in this forum would definitely include sanctification and the Christian walk...


LDG