But it's still important to know what the Bible says and weigh that against doctrines. Sound doctrine is in harmony with scripture. Unsound doctrine doesn't really have scriptural backing, and a lot of eisegesis combined with lengthy mental acrobatics and quoting extrabiblical sources is used in an attempt to legitimize it.
And "sound doctrine" pales in comparison to sound praxis. People seem to love arguing about doctrine while not so concerned about their own behavior. We certainly see that on this forum. Don't we?
That's pretty vague, could you elaborate on the type of behaviour exhibited by CF members you're referring to?
I'm not sure that's a compelling argument for watering down the Bible and treating it as a purely human document. What it presents is an ideal, that we all fall short of. Cheapening the ideal to be attainable doesn't honor the document or its Author.
Without sound doctrine, what constitutes sound praxis is wide open and subject to being little more than whatever the dominant cultural values are dressed up in sacred clothing. One of the biggest issues with the reformed tradition, for example, is not so much the doctrines themselves but the divorce between a skeletal academic theology and practical living. But what you seem to be proposing is essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water.
That is not my intent. But I do think it would be better if we could be more humble with the doctrines we argue. And where do we draw the line when Jesus tells us to cut off our hands? Or pick up snakes?
I agree as far as arguing over trifles, but the problem isn't with a literal appoach to the Bible. The problem is the artificial division between theology and practical living, the false separation of the religious and the secular. Ultimately, everything boils down to theology so it must be a high priority, but as with anything human foibles get in the way more often than not. The heart of the problem is pride, especially for those with well-defined and formulated systematic theologies. Everything in the Bible is indispensable to the gospel in some way, otherwise God wouldn't have put it in there. Even knowing what the marrow of the gospel is requires being well grounded in theology, because the gospel is who God is.
There is the situation of God knowing from the beginning who would turn to him and who would turn away. That's inarguable considering the omniscience of God. However unlike predestination that doesn't cancel out free will.
Why are you going on the presumption that those who discuss doctrine and theology are reprobates who aren't actually practicing Christianity?
I have been in this discussion many times.
Not reprobates, exactly. When I see all these thread about interpretations, beliefs and doctrinal arguments I am hoping that people have experienced conversion and transformation which are very humbling. It is too easy to become argumentative and focused on "proving my point, my view the only right view".
It sounds like you're here to tell everyone how wrong it is for them to be here. Do you think CF should shut down the theology sections etc and only have a discussion forum about charity?
Maybe I should go back to this earlier statement. I agree we must start someplace, on some foundation and the Bible is an excellent source.
One of the biggest problems today is people know so much that isn't so. The modern paradigm for knowledge begins with a world without God, and so it is built on false foundations. Is there room for "criticism" of the Bible? Possibly, but not if the authority of the Bible is undermined by that criticism which doesn't provide much room for it. That doesn't mean we should treat the Bible like something it never has been as a dictated document with no impact from its human authors, but those types of considerations must always simply inform exegesis and not be put in the drivers seat. It's a balancing act, but believing in God is necessarily going to lead to opposition in knowledge between those who start with a world without God and those who trust God as their foundation.
I can agree with that. We all have a starting point. And hopefully our theology can move on as we grow spiritually and intellectually. Sometimes what we learn threatens our theology. And we have a choice. We must decide what we can reinterpret, what we can adapt, and what will remain unassailable. It seems this is where we all often part ways. But the most important thing is how it is reflected in our lived daily life.
I can see how that could be applied to a debate regarding creationism vs evolution, but don't see how it applies to discussions about soteriology and the nature of God.
