Concerning the C/A heated debates.

The "helpful" fact in 1Cor 1 is that Paul and Apollos were teaching the same doctrine - the same "view of God". But C vs A are two opposing views of God AND the Gospel. So it is understandable that the contrast between them should be sharp.

However that does not mean that we need to be unchristian or unloving to those who are in error. And I think this is the problem here - being "right" does not accomplish much if in being right the sinful nature is going to be allowed to do all the posting anyway.

Having said that - when you view the way tradition and bias hold sway over even the most obvious points of scripture it leads you to wonder about those who rail against Sola Scriptura. They too "See" that tradition and bias are corrupting a pure sola scriptura model EVEN among Christians that claim to hold to it. They then choose to simply "give up" and blindly continue in their "tradition trumps scripture" spiral using disputes such as those seen here as one of their "excuses".

While I can not agree with their logic in "seeking excuses" to toss out the Sola Scriptura model - I certainly can see how they would view this debate area as somewhat duplicitous when engaged on both sides by those who claim to hold to sola scriptura but the posts clearlyl show rejection of scripture - the clear teaching of scripture and a need to "edit and redefine terms" when it is most plainly opposed to their view.

In Christ,

Bob

 

yes..or maybe no

this is the big new debate

Sola Scriptura at what level. there are 3 levels..0 ...1...and 2

in brief..0 is no authority only the bible. or 1..Sola Scriptura with a creed...or as the romans..Sola Scriptura, creed and the church

yep...this is coming to a debate near you soon.

what is driving this is the far branches of the church...like the KJVonly...and the "name it claim it" stuff.

so many are asking ...when is it going to far?...do we need a creed..for if not...where does it end? can we use the bible anyway we want? is anything out there a real church..just because it claims the bible?

anyway...just thought i would throw this out for your info
...so take your side now....its coming

In Christ...james

 

Sola Scriptura wasn'y exactly that each individual has the right to interpret the Bible however he or she sees fit. It had more to do with the Reformation's opposition to the church's position of its own canon law as inspired and authoritative. For the early reformers, Scripture alone was authoritative, not Rome.

The idea of a "personal interpretation" comes more from the so-called Radical Reformation and isn't really the same thing as Sola Scriptura as classically understood.

 

i agree. but some will debate you on this.

 

Jarthur,
You're probably right. I can just hear it. "That's not what Sola Scriptura means TO ME!"

 

Very true indeed.

 

Diane,

You are right. I was the one that pulled us off subject.

In debates such as this one, I feel what brings harm then good is one side telling the other side what they MOST believe.

This comes in many forms.

Sometimes it's done this way...

"well...if you say you believe this...then you must also believe this"

That is not always the case. If we would only let the other person share his thoughts and not jump and say...aw ha....then this is true...

2nd...if we think there is a point made...but it is unclear...we should ask...
"did i understand you right...?"
"is your meaning this..?"

before jumping in

last know this. we all have study the Bible...it would seem, do not say..
"read this verse...does God lie? If what you say is true...God is a lair"

we can all do this ...and this is silly.

i do not think one person on here is calling God a lair.

we reads things from dif views...that is it

ok..anyway...

i'll shutup now..

in christ...james

 

one more thing....

we should ALL take a stand and up hold Gods word as we see it, just as Bob said.

we can agree on somethings..and should when we can. but some walls will never move and like wise...should not. other wise...we should all just go back to the church of rome.


In Christ...James

 

The priesthood of all believers extends the sola scriptra argument such that each person is lead by the Holy Spirit to decide for himself. The idea is that this is done based on using the Word of God as a rule or standard.

Certainly it is easy to see that many if not all on this thread hold to a model very close to that if not that very model.

And those who argue (on other threads) that tradition and central government are needed to maintain doctrinal consistency -- even if it is to old institutions known to many for their doctrinal error -- would argue that division among the other churches -- shows why authorotarian systems are needed.

And they point at times to the C/A discussion as "proof".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree. But when objectivity is being sacrificed at the alter of a creed or a belief held "anyway" - those arguing against sola scriptura "see it" the same as we all do.

An example is the assurance thread. There the point is made that the various models have their own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to that subject.

But it is difficult for those tied to a particular model to be objective enough to deal with what everyone else can clearly see regarding that model and assurance.

Sinful nature being what it is.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree. But when objectivity is being sacrificed at the alter of a creed or a belief held "anyway" - those arguing against sola scriptura "see it" the same as we all do.

An example is the assurance thread. There the point is made that the various models have their own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to that subject.

But it is difficult for those tied to a particular model to be objective enough to deal with what everyone else can clearly see regarding that model and assurance.

Sinful nature being what it is.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]awww... but in this lies the problem. There are a few on this site that i have concluded are only here to fight. If i would say white..they would say black. I think this is very easy to see in the post. This we will always have. But most of us stands for the truth as we see it.

The fact is we can never disband our thoughts fully. No one can say with complete certainty that they are fully non-bias. We will always bring to the table some of what we know and understand to be true. This is the problem in any debate.

Both side already KNOW the answers of the other side. They go on to tell the other side what it thinks...for they themself have study the other side in view of the light they have study.

So each of us feel as if we carry the truth...or we would not debate. If we did not feel this way we would say...ok whatever..and go on. This is coming from what we KNOW in out hearts...where God has lead us... to the very truth. The only way to get past this is to hear someone fully and not jump to add our views in the logic that we bring to the table.

In my case alone, I have been TOLD what i hold when it comes to atonement. Yet i have NEVER shared my views at ANY time about atonement. I point out misleading statements by others that are trying to prove a point. This is done to fairness of the debate. This may come across to the one i correct as being against their views. This maybe not the case at all, but rather just me seeing error in their point.

Many of us can relate to this I'm sure. It would serve each of us better to ask 1st before we jump, to make it clear what the other is saying

Last, we should never hold a given model as truth. The model helps us get started on a study to find the truth. This model at best can only serve as a outline of study. The points of each outline should always be backed with Gods Word. We should also consider other models in our search for the truth. We need to even agrue from the other side and see the points as they state them.

In the end it really goes back to Gods Word. I do not know how many times in my study way beyond this subject i have read others for understanding. Many times when study i undertake is very hard to understand, i will have out as many as 50 books on those that have study this subject and share their thoughts. I have books laying in the floor, table, desk, and chairs. Many of my books have the edge of the book with a bite in in. This comes from leaving my books out at night, and the dog sees them as great toys. EACH of these times after i read others, it always goes back to the Bible. There are many great men that have come before us and wrote books to share with us. yet..they are men.

It is from Gods word where we must hold firm.

If the "great man" writes in error he was wrong.

The word is the truth...not great men. In this we should place our trust.


IN Christ...James

 

I agree that our belief faith and loyalty should be to the Word of God instead of to creeds, culture, tradition or bias.

But the sad fact of human nature is that seldom ever are we "Free" from bias and tradition enough to freely accept the Word when it conflicts with bias.

This can be seen with the disciples even 3 years into the ministry of Christ in Matt 16 where Peter is telling Christ "He is wrong" to go ahead with His mission to be crucified.

In fact right to the end - no matter how many times Christ said it was not going down the way they had been told - they just did not understand the big picture.

That is human nature.

Defend bias/tradition/expectations to the last - EVEN when confronted with logical gaps/flaws and foibles in our views.

The thread on assurance shows this tendancy with a number of different models.

In Christ,

Bob

 

My feeling is the models as a group should be dropped.

I see very few people talking about 3,4,5,6,7 pointer groups.

we should look at one statement and ask...
do you agree with this?
if so...why?
if not..why?
now...back this up with the Bible.

If i make a statement....
WVU foorball is better then Ohio State Football

...and ask 100 people if this statement is right or am i wrong?


a) some will agree fully
b) some will agree only because they hate Ohio state. not that they love WVU.
c) others see no error in the statement but knows nothing about football, but will go with it because there is nothing wrong about saying this.
d) still others whould think i'm crazy and say Ohio State is by far the better team.
e) others will say both are bad teams...i like penn st


We could add 50 other reason why to pick one team over the other.

But no one should say it is true for JAMES said it.


Now i need to say WHY....the why that i claim may not be the same as the WHY of others claim. I may say..it is because WVU has the best passing game. But others may say...no it is because of the kicking game. For one person to agree with my statement does not mean they agree with my why.

then the facts....each of us should give as many facts to backup our side. again..the facts as to why...may not be the same in each case.

If later i said...hotdogs are great.

and Bob says...i like hotdogs too.

those that disagree with WVU/ OHIO STATE...should not say....well of no wonder bob likes hotdogs....bob is a JAMESITE

Calvins points should be done the same way.

do you believe man is DEAD or sick?

many will not answer this for if they do, they feel like they will be lead into the next point.

On the thread on assurance, this tread we are talking about assurance..or we should be...only one of 5 points. To say that someone that agrees with this point also agrees with number 4 point...may not be the case.
this does not mean anything like..you are then a 3 pointer. i means that he/she holds to that one point. maybe it is not because of the same "why" that calvin held.

As we move to another statement...we will all state our views. There is no need to place someone in a point game..unless that person wants to be viewed this way.

NOW..my point.

what we have now is something like this...

1) A debate is posted
2) We say WE agree or disagree. then we'll tell what the other side thinks..before they can speak on their own.
3) After reading a post..we place that person in a point group...and apply all that was said by calvin to this persons views
4) we then tell what the person thinks based on the point group we placed them.

I feel it should be more like this.

we all have our own thoughts..let each one share them

1) A debate is posted
2) We each should say why WE agree or disagree
3) Next let each person tell why they agree.
4) if we do not understand..ASK

Then we can go to the next debate.

This is what i hear all the time...
"You are a calvinist...so you think God does not call all to Him." That is so un-true. If you want to know what i think..ask me.


In Christ...James

 

I find the models helpful in "pointing out" the distinctives of each belief system rather than having to constantly "redefine" the same distinctives over and over.

The Perseverance distinctive of 3 and 5 pointers as opposed to the 4 pointers is clearly there and available for discussion.

The limited atonement ideas of the 4 and 5 pointers to anathema to scripture and the 3 pointers and the Arminians is also right out there.

Absolutely true!

I agree. But the "truth is" that we are all tied to tradition, bias and prejudice on a great many topics - Gospel-model not excepted. It is a part of our "efficiency" that we don't redefined at every step but rather we merely assume and move forward. This is also a great area of risk and weakness.

Imagine that you are a Jew in the time of Christ - the majority do NOT become Christian - they "assume" the correctness of their leadership and swallow the traditions of Mark 7:5-11.

Imagine that you are a Catholic in the dark ages -- the same thing applies to the "majority" of these Christians. Even though they may be born again and saved.

Tradition and bias drive us away from objective review and provide the greatest incentive to use eisegesis when beginning a Bible based study of any known subject (of the few that actually do that study).

Often the "real root WHY" is that a Christian figure that we honor and value - ALSO takes the particular POV that we now claim. This is human nature.

Both.

In the Romans 3 sense our sinful nature is totally depraved and we are dead as in "condemned" in our sinfulness and slavery to sin.

YET - God points out that EVEN the wicked can "harden their hearts" which implies MOVEMENT away from God and a new state of resistance to the World wide "Conviction" of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed the NT speaks of those who are SEARED in their conscience.

But this is in every case described as an "attained state". Movement toward evil EVEN though the depraved condition of Romans 3 is the starting point.

God DRAWS ALL mankind and CONVICTS the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment through His Holy Spirit. This is why the Romans 3 condition is not actually the traits that we SEE each day in real life. It is the resulting COMBINATION of that state AND the power of the Holy Spirit moving upon ALL - drawing ALL - convicting ALL -- enabling ALL to hear Christ stand and the door and knock - that we actually SEE.

This is a complex fact that Calvinism struggles to admit to. It insists that the DRAWING of God could not STOP at the delicately balanced point described above - but CAN ONLY force conversion if it exists and is applied to a Romans 3 conditioned soul.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

if you read context in my post..and the OP...the "is man dead or sick?" was not meant to open the debate in this tread.

If you would like to start this dedate..i would be gald ...if you want to start a new tread and we will talk about it.


In Christ...James

 

My argument is that if you just look at the subject of assurance - the guys with the best system/model/logic for assurance is the 4 point Calvinist system.

I am not arguing that ALL groups don't claim it "anyway" or in "some way".

Wouldn't you agree that the 4 point Calvinist that rejects Perseverance "logically" has the best most obvious solution for assurance?? (Regardless of what the Bible actually says on the subject of Perseverance).

Surely if I can see this - as an Arminian - a Calvinist should be able to see it.

If there is something to be gained (by way of efficient communication) then someone could say "My view is 5 Point Calvinism BUT I am not fully convinced about point 2 I just don't have a better solution yet".

But this still makes them a 5 pointer and it means that all of the 5 points are "of interest" to them. It also means that when exchanging with them - one should "assume" that they are at least in "Some level of agreement" with all 5 points.

A 3 Pointer can use the same rule-of-thumb.

This is much easier than walking through the numbers with each one posting.

AGreed. I think that those who start threads rely on the fact that a large group are known to be Arminian or 5 pointers and so will take a certain view.

However that does not mean that any given person has been hand-cuffed to take some view. They all "Seem" to feel free to post their own view when it comes down to it.

Don't you agree?

In Christ,

Bob