Featured Sovereign Grace as it should be!

Nah....the Church has been talking about the same 66 books for a couple thousand years.

 

No. I was speaking of the nature of theology in general being inclusive of human reasoning (and that Calvinists at Dort were influenced by Beza's double predestination).

(Again - Scripture is objective truth. The gospel is objective truth. But when we venture out and develop doctrines involving things not directly contained in Scripture - like double predestination - then those doctrines are relying heavily on human reasoning).

I do not believe that God is obligated to save anyone. But I also do not believe that those who perish are merely unintended consequences of divine election (they are not merely "passed over" as if God simply chose out of a sea of people a certain number...they are purposed and predestined as well). I believe in "double predestination" in that I believe God endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. We are all created for the purpose of magnifying God's own glory. Those who are not saved were still made for a purpose.

 

I said that our theology cannot become the cornerstone and the church remain the Body of Christ. You said:

No kidding Sherlock. How long did it take you to figure that one out?

But what I said was that our theology is not the cornerstone of the church. Our understanding...sorry...my understanding does not take the place of God in my faith. The cornerstone of the Church is Christ (I know..."how shallow of me"). It is not our theologies, or even our doctrines (which may vary from church to church). That doesn't mean that theology and doctrine are not important (I've already said they were vital).

I said that Christ will not be second to our understanding. You said:

I don’t mean it to “sound spiritual” but it is a bit odd that you can’t grasp the truth that Christ is not dependent on our understanding of Him. God is God regardless of what you think of Him. Your reasoning and interpretations have absolutely no effect on His being. It sounds as if you are trying to usurp God with you own intellect. E.g. – “God cannot have sent Christ to die in any sense for the lost because I don’t agree with that doctrine.” How foolish a method it would be to suppose that our own theologies determine Truth.

I have already stated that Christian theology (all Christian theology) has at its core the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is not what separates or creates various beliefs.

I said that the gospel is not dependent on our interpretations. You said:

As I have already stated that the gospel is central to all Christian theology, part of this is already covered. So….what is the gospel dependent on if it is not dependent on our interpretations? It is dependent on God. Our interpretations are important, but the gospel is not dependent on our interpretations.

And finally, I said that theology helps us understand and interpret our faith, but it does not define our faith. You said:

I understand it is shallow to you, but perhaps that is because your theology (your understanding, reasoning, and interpretation) does define your faith. We, apparently, differ there. The object of my faith is a bit more transcendent and much less subjective than either of our interpretations.

 

Yes. I never said not to interpret and reason. I said that we should not lean on our own understanding but should be aware that human reasoning can be flawed. You disagree?

No need to go further. The answer is "NO" to anything that would follow. Smile



I explained what I mean by "double predestination" in my last post. You can examine the definition there, if you'd like. If we disagree on definitions then you are more than welcome to simply interpret my statement to mean I don't believe in "double predestination" but believe what I said in that post. I don't care what term you use....I typically wouldn't use "double predestination" either.

And, like you pointed out, just believing that God decreed some to condemnation (as explained in the Canons of Dort) is not really "double predestination" anyway because that isn't a Calvinistic belief. Thumbsup

 

I never said that anyone did say “theology is the cornerstone”. I do not have to wait on someone to express a statement before I offer mine (I know…I know….”who ever said you had to wait…”). My point is that when we hold the gospel as dependent on our interpretation that is exactly what we are doing (and IT said that on post #127).

No smokescreen at all. I said that the gospel itself will never be dependent upon our interpretation. IT wondered what, then, if not our interpretation is the gospel itself dependent upon? Do you have the same objection (do you …. and I’m asking so you don’t need to ask when you said it….or I wouldn’t be asking….do you believe that the gospel itself is dependent on our interpretation?

You assume too much

Because I believe that he cannot grasp it.

I meant the “e.g.” to stand for exempli gratia. My hope was that people would understand that what followed was an example. Had I used i.e. (id est) then I could see your objection. But even if you missed that, I concluded that I was speaking of methods and not specific doctrinal claims….(towards the end of the sentence).

 

Sure, and good night. For summary -

My argument here is that our theologies are never completely objective as there is the human element in our understanding.

Christians who disagree with our theology are not necessarily confused or lack understanding. Believers can develop theologies and disagree while fully understanding other their own and other positions.

Christian theology has in common the gospel message. The Word of God is True and is objective truth. Our interpretations of that Truth have a potential of misunderstanding or error.

Scripture does not explain to our satisfaction every theological point that exists in our theologies. We fill in the blanks and need to know what is Scripture and what is interpretation.

My belief that I cannot rely on my own understanding does not represent an "internal struggle" as that realization is not a struggle at all simply because I don't rely on my own understanding but on the gospel of Christ. The gospel is clear. Christ is what I need to know, not whether or not God predestined those who perish to Hell or if the Church will be raptured before the tribulation.

And it is the same gospel....exactly the same gospel....in Spurgeon and Moody...in Whitfield and Wesley. Their theologies taught different things about that gospel, but the gospel itself remained Christ.

It is both disappointing and informative how much a minority position this seems to be on this forum.Frown

 

No, brother, you don't seem to "get it" at all. My last post is exactly what I have been saying on this thread. You are free, of course, to disagree and we could discuss those disagreements. But you have chosen not to engage what I've been saying, and instead to invent some "anti-Calvinistic agenda". Other than making a lot of noise and unsubstantiated claims, I cannot see where you've actually addressed my understanding of the role differing systematic theologies play with understanding Scripture.

My conclusion has been that no theology is objective truth. I stand by that claim.

 

Six Hour Warning

Sometime after 1am Pacific this thread will be closed.

 

Considering the closing time is 1am Pacific, you probably have until 9am Pacific/12 noon Eastern. The matter isn't of such gravity as to cause me to stay up 'til the wee hours of the morning.