Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.My point being that some who make such a big deal about their closely following the written word of the Bible, in all actuality, follow it very little.
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?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.
That's pretty vague, could you elaborate on the type of behaviour exhibited by CF members you're referring to?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?
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.My point being that some who make such a big deal about their closely following the written word of the Bible, in all actuality, follow it very little.
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.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?
You might want to read my post 68.Over 50 years of Christianity. Including over 50 years of John MacArthur for what it's worth.
There's no such thing as a Christian that has not been predestined by God... Is the objection to the doctrine.
Even if I was a firm believer in this doctrine, I'd still acknowledge the problems others see in it, the way RC Sproul did in the first video you posted. Most of Christianity believes that anyone and everyone can come to Christ and become a Christian. That anyone and everyone who hears the Gospel is capable of making the choice to either accept it or reject it.
Predestination cancels out all of that. Predestination says you don't have a choice. Predestination says no one can be saved that wasn't already chosen to be saved ahead of time. Which makes evangelism pointless. It makes praying that a loved one will come to know Christ, become a Christian and be saved pointless. Because if they are predestined they will be saved no matter what, and if they're not predestined they are going to Hell no matter what.
I think if you're going to start a thread like this you should be aware of why so many are against reformed theology and deal with those objections head on yourself, instead of referring people to RC Sproul videos. I mean are you able to reason out this doctrine on your own, or are you dependant on what RC Sproul says about it?
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?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.
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.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 craw the line when Jesus tells us to cut off our hands? Or pick up snakes?
I think it would be better to focus on the marrow of the gospel and live it before arguing theology. Predestination is an excellent example.
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.You might want to read my post 68.
God could have predestined from the beginning of time to save all those who will accept His charity, so those who accept are predestined to be saved.
Also do you see God being outside of time or is God limited by time?
Why are you going on the presumption that those who discuss doctrine and theology are reprobates who aren't actually practicing Christianity?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 craw the line when Jesus tells us to cut off our hands? Or pick up snakes?
I think it would be better to focus on the marrow of the gospel and live it before arguing theology. Predestination is an excellent example.
I have been in this discussion many times.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.
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".Why are you going on the presumption that those who discuss doctrine and theology are reprobates who aren't actually practicing Christianity?
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?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".
The important issues are, "I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me."
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.As opposed to viewing it as writings from the perspective of men in their own times and understanding.
Viewing it less as God's dictated verbatim and more as theological reflection of a particular time, place and culture.
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.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.
BUT, it can also be quite problematic precisely because it is strongly influenced by the perspective of men in their own times, cultures and understanding. That must always be taken into account as best we can. Thus I value modern forms of scripture analysis commonly referred to as "criticism" which many cannot tolerate. But then then question: does it all become relative, personal smorgasbord? No, but it does require a deeper look and reflection, possibly even research and prayer to come away with reasonable "theology" that makes sense in our own time, with what we know of the universe now. It must correspond to our lived reality or it is in danger of becoming fantasy. I guess that is where we draw a line in the sand. Some will stick with flat earth and solid dome in the sky.
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.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 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.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.
The most pertinent I see would be ethical presuppositions and what is informing them. For soteriology, that has a lot to do with what we need saving from.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?