Do we have "doctrinal choice"?

Well said!

 

Opinions no, interpretations yes...

 

Well said but rarely heeded by most folks in these or any other "christian" forums I have participated in.:tear:

 

Tolerance has been re-defined by moderns, and I am sure that has spilled over into many churches. The Scripture knows nothing of that kind of tolerance. But to tolerate those who disagree with me without agreeing or giving any endorsement of their beliefs, this is good. I can even fellowship (outside my church membership) with evangelical Arminians.

Yet to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, that will I do.

 

Consider the possibility of an extreme contradiction in your position. You maintain that "anything" contrary to YOUR understanding of the Bible is WRONG and then go on to say you don't hold ALL THE KEYS.

How then is it possible for you to declare error in ANYTHING that disagrees with YOUR UNDERSTANDING while admitting quite clearly that YOU do not "hold all the keys"?

While you might validly declare error with some views that are contrary to your own, taking the posture in stating that "anything contrary to my understanding of the Bible" is wrong while admitting you do not hold all the keys is quite presumptuous and rather debilitating in your search to be taught or learn to recognize the keys YOU currently do not posses, don't you think?

 

I agree. Tolerance right now means "I dare not suggest that I am right and you are wrong." This is not Biblical.

Refute those who oppose sound doctrine. Don't pretend they may be right when you know better. If you don't know better, seek the truth.

 

I agree with Mr M, AND it seems moth sides of most differences use the same scriptures to make their case. And it we are all correct and there is no way to change a view then why do we have these discussions?

 

Because we're gluttons for punishment! :laugh:

 

My comment stands on its own and I don't believe it needs further qualifying. I did get your point, however there is still a very strong contradictory element in your two positions. Nevertheless, I am satisfied you got my point, thanks.

 

Exactly. If I believe A and you believe B, A and B can't both be right.

At the same time, among us believers, the way we disagree is important. If does not help the conversation for me to say, "you're just wrong, you dummy. And you're probably an infidel as well!" It is enough to simply say, "I disagree, and here's why." Although, I do confess that I'm often tempted to use the sharper response.

We must also recognize that there are some things which are tests of fellowship and some things which are not. Soteriology--a test of fellowship. Eschatology--not.

On the other hand, we should not shrink from labeling heresy for what it is.

In our cum-ba-ya theological age, too many churches are junking strong stands on theological matters for the sake of growth, attracting the unchurched. As gently as I can say it, they are wrong.

 

There is alot of diffirent views on the BB . But what I think is GOOD there is one thing that we all agree on is that we should serve the Lord. This is what it is about.

 

I only quoted the relevant parts dealing with what I identify as the contradictory issue.

If anything contrary to what you believe about the bible is NOT the truth and that everything contrary to your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, how can you simultaneously be able to recognize error when presented to you because in order to demonstrate where you err you must receive a contrary teaching to that which you currently hold or determine from "your" interpretation. In other words, you are unable to be corrected because at no point do you concede that your views or beliefs are subject to correction by virtue of the stated fact, by YOU, that "Anything contrary to what I believe about the Bible, I believe is not truth".

If you reject any other possible teaching other than that to which you hold then by default even the consideration of the weight or validity of another view is automatically rejected before you consider it because again you stated, "Anything contrary to what I believe about the Bible, I believe is not truth."

There is a clear dilemma of contradiction in these two postures you are claiming to take. One that you are acknowledging that you don't know the answers to a lot of things and that "there are most likely things where I am wrong that I am unaware of when I am made aware of those, I must change."

How can you be aware of any error if you begin with considering anything contrary to what you believe to be wrong? How can you accept another interpretation when it is YOUR interpretation you believe? How can you be as dogmatic about your beliefs and acknowledge you don't know many things and admit not even being aware of some of the things you either don't know or are wrong about? And if you are possibly wrong about them why do you start from the position of viewing anything contrary to your beliefs to be wrong when you clearly admit you are wrong about some things?

Do you not see any thing contradictory at all about any of this?

So you might decide to ask me, well then how does ANYONE defend their faith if all fallible men are bound to be less than perfect? Well of course there are answers to that which are far more fitting and wholly prescriptive but to offer them here and now would be to deny you the necessary process of consideration and deliberation that comes before illumination.

But enough of the personal and if I may, after your response, return to the topic in general. Thanks.

 

For me, some things are settled and I'm not likely to change.

For other things, the best I can say about them is, this is where I am right now.

Over the past ten years I have undergone a significant change of some of my views. It was traumatic to come to believe that things I believed and had taught others were wrong.

I used the Roman Road and the Sinner's prayer as tools for soul-winning. I have come to believe they have been corrupted into an easy-believism sales pitch and magic words to close the sale.

I have come to believe that the very language we use in presenting the gospel must change. I have come to believe that the modern altar call is vulnerable to becoming manipulative, and that "walking the aisle," "praying the prayer" and "making a decision" may produce a false assurance of salvation.

I believed that if you did not hold to a pre-tribulation rapture, you were a liberal and probably not saved. I no longer hold that view.

Yet, when I did hold those views, I was absolutely certain that they were true and Biblical, and contrary views were wrong and probably unbiblical.

I don't think I'm alone in this. I'll bet a lot of you have jettisoned formerly firmly-held views. It was not fun.

 

Okay, learned ones.

I believe that Jesus Christ is Savior and Redeemer.
I believe that when He cried "it is finished", He meant that everything He needed to do which was the Father's will was finished. He saved all who needed to be saved, He redeemed all who needed to be redeemed, not only before His time, during His time, but also after His time, which is why He now sits at the right hand of power, interceding for His people.

So I don't have to worry about souls going to hell, because Jesus Christ did all things well.

Tell me I am wrong, that Jesus Christ has not done everything He needed to do, really, and that not all who should benefit from His blood, death, and resurrection, have benefited already.

 

No one else thought the earth revolved around the sun at one time, so? But even odder is the conclusion that YOU must have taken a poll to determine that NNE ELSE thinks it is contradictory or some behind the gossip is going on, either way I find the claim "no one else thinks it is contradictory" baseless unless of course you can show men that NNE (That means NNE) thinks this. But I won't hold my breath and my point has been made so I am sure back to topic time is at hand, eh?