Featured Theological differences and unity in Christ

I am sure that it was not intentional, but you have misrepresented my words.

I never said that these doctrines are not supportable from scripture. Indeed, they are. For example, I can support a couple different views of covenant theology and at least two forms of dispensationalism from scripture. I can support that sign gifts have ceased and that they will continue from scripture (and even my own position that we do not indeed know but are called to evaluate such claims). And...wait for it....this is a shocker....those who hold those different views do support their positions from the same scripture. Kinda makes one think that just maybe the Bible isn't the difference.

And I can support my view of "double predestination" with scripture (or I wouldn't hold it, and I wouldn't defend it) but I am also able to identify my reasoning in this theology (I don't believe your rejection of my view here to be a rejection of God's Word, or a lack of understanding, or confusion...I believe that you disagree with my reasoning and conclusions).

In other words, I respect you as a brother and a friend in Christ even if we understand some things about the Bible differently. I respect you as a brother even if we do not have the same political understandings. I love you as a brother in Christ even if you think that country music is superior to classic rock. I understand that we reason out things differently, and on issues that are not laid out as biblical doctrine but systematically derived and reasoned out by men I accept that there is a human element even to the views that I believe and defend. When it comes to rejecting biblical doctrine plainly laid out then we have heresy. Maybe we do not always discern this correctly, but we should at least try to see our own presuppositions at work.

 

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, and you have my apologies if I didn’t articulate my position well enough to be understood.

When I argued that those doctrines that are derived from scripture but reflect our own reasoning in order to answer questions not necessarily being addressed in the Bible as falling short of objective truth I did not mean that these understandings are not derived from scripture. I meant that they are derived from scripture....the opposite of not being derived from scripture. And in my last post when I said that these views are supported by scripture I did not mean that they are not supported by scripture. What I mean is that these positions are supported by scripture.

You have accused me of “tilting at windmills”, “doing battle royal against a phantom army”, posting “long complicated posts to oppose something nobody on this forum has proposed or to support something we all agree on”, because I don't offer doctrines that I "believe are not supportable from scripture" being held by anyone on this forum...which was never my argument to begin with.

I never denounced these doctrines as being unsupported by scripture. And we can see thread upon thread of such arguments on this forum. I listed at least three in this thread, and all of them have been discussed here.

 

Are you serious or are you missing with me?

No, brother. I have no doctrines that I believe are not supportable form scripture. As I have never claimed such doctrines are being espoused on this board, why do you ask? Would not doctrines that cannot be supported by scripture be a unbiblical?

As I stated earlier, I am speaking of doctrines that are based on, derived out of, and supportable from scripture but that seek to answer questions that are not the issue being addressed within scripture itself. What was the logical order in which God worked out salvation? Was it (logically) an election out of fallen man....or was it an election of a people without such consideration? To what degree (if any) did God design the work of the Cross for those who will not be saved? We can come up with biblical answers for these types of things, and our answers can color our explanations of scripture. But we need to be aware that those answers are not directly provided by God's Word. We have reasoned them out.

 

In that case:

When I argued that those doctrines that are derived from scripture but reflect our own reasoning in order to answer questions not necessarily being addressed in the Bible as falling short of objective truth I did not mean that these understandings are not derived from scripture. I meant that they are derived from scripture....the opposite of not being derived from scripture. And in my last post when I said that these views are supported by scripture I did not mean that they are not supported by scripture. What I mean is that these positions are supported by scripture.

You have accused me of “tilting at windmills”, “doing battle royal against a phantom army”, posting “long complicated posts to oppose something nobody on this forum has proposed or to support something we all agree on”, because I don't offer doctrines that I "believe are not supportable from scripture" being held by anyone on this forum...which was never my argument to begin with.

I never denounced these doctrines as being unsupported by scripture. And we can see thread upon thread of such arguments on this forum. I listed at least three in this thread, and all of them have been discussed here.

Déjà vu all over again. Smile

 

I do not understand how else to say it, but I'll try.

You have insulted me and accused me of battling windmills, fighting phantom armies, and opposing things no one has purposed because I have not provided those doctrines that I am saying are not supportive of scripture. But I have said no such thing. You have attributed to me the opposite of what I have said in order to ridicule and insult. I can see it no other way, but am always open to explanation.

What I said was that when we study scripture and form theologies to answer questions that are not actually addressed in scripture, and through this we reason out a doctrine that we can defend biblically we need to be aware of our own reasoning in the process. Is this something that you deny?

To put it another way: You and John Piper differ on doctrine (to pick 2 - he has affirmed double predestination and the continuation of tongues). Is it because the two of you reason out and understand things differently or is it because God gifted you a special unveiling of truth that he has denied John Piper....or is Piper right and are you blinded to that truth? Which of you are denying God's Word?

My answer is that you both form a position based on scripture but differ in human reasoning. Neither of you deny scripture but there could be a possibility on both accounts that escape your reasoning. Scripture itself provides a definitive answer to neither issue. But theology addresses both.

Is your answer that God has opened your eyes and taught you that he did not decree some to condemnation (human reasoning not being a factor) while others like John Piper remained uninformed to this objective truth?

 

Yes, and thank you ITL. That is exactly what I am saying. Various eschatological positions are an excellent example.