Recent Theological Inventions

[RandR]

I'm thinking of two recent (in the grand scheme of things) inventions that many Baptists have adopted as gospel truth and many implicitly consider them tests of orthodoxy. Dispensationalism and Teetotalism.

It seems that many Baptists contend that "we" are right and that the Christians who came before us for 1500+ years simply had it wrong.

NOTE: THIS THREAD IS NOT TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF DISPENSATIONALISM OR THE MEANING OF "OINOS" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

What I'm interested in seeing is if others can add to the list of "recent" developments that many present-day Christians have adopted as essentials to orthodox faith.

ps. Just in case I wasn't clear...the first time the words "rapture" or "alcohol" are used in reply...I'll ask the mods to delete the thread! ;-)

 

[Hope of Glory]

"Professing and not possessing."

 

[Marcia]

Biased question

I think to use the pejorative term "invention" and then say we can't debate what you say, and that people will be reported if they use certain words is rather a double standard. It's clearly not an unbiased opening post, but no one can disagree or debate what you said.

 

[RandR]

Marcia,

If you don't believe those are recent "discoveries" (is that a nicer word than invention?), then just say so. What I said is that I would ask for the thread if/when it shifts into a discussion of interpretations. (There's another forum for that.) (Also, I think you missed the winky man!)

When we diverge from nearly 1800 years of Christian ancestry in our theology and/or practice, I'm intrigued. And I'm just wondering what some of the others instances are.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Is dispensationalism a new invention or simply a modern way of discussing something that's been around for a long time?

 

[James_Newman]

Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

 

[RandR]

Hope,

In the NT, there was much to say about enduring through tribulation and little about getting away from it before it begins. Also, not much in the NT to suggest that the church is a "parenthesis" in God's eternal plan.

Considering also that the Reformers typically held views that we would consider either amil or historic premil, I'd say that dispensationalism is "recent". (Admittedly, I'm not terribly familiar with midieval Catholic eschatology, but I don't believe they would embrace a system that considers them to be a harlot.)

Again, my concern is not whether they were all right or if "we" are. My interest lies in our diversion from historic positions.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia,

If you don't believe those are recent "discoveries" (is that a nicer word than invention?), then just say so. What I said is that I would ask for the thread if/when it shifts into a discussion of interpretations. (There's another forum for that.) (Also, I think you missed the winky man!)

When we diverge from nearly 1800 years of Christian ancestry in our theology and/or practice, I'm intrigued. And I'm just wondering what some of the others instances are.

I guess I missed the winky man. Why don't you use the smilies? They're easier to see. :tongue3:

Well, how about Calvinism? That's a modern invention.

Now I want to see if you keep people from debating Calvinism and non-Calvinism and dispensationalism. I don't think you'll be able to do it. :smilewinkgrin: The hardcore Calvies will be all over my statement like white on rice.

I would never start a thread saying that Calvinism is a modern invention and then ask for other modern "inventions" but forbid a discussion. This is a debate forum, you know.

 

[thjplgvp]

RE: New Inventions

How about this for a "new invention", Baptists are a denomination or are Protestant. How does that set with the historical context of Baptist's? :laugh: :laugh:

Now I can have the Calvanist's and the SBC'rs torch me. :smilewinkgrin:

thjplgvp
:type:

 

[Salamander]

I believe the OP author doesn't understand much between the differences of the Church and Israel.

The Church doesn't endure through the Great Tribulation. Israel does go through it in the very near future along with all those who are left behind and those who live during the Kingdom Gospel.

Considering the lack of study and the influence by authors of limited views, i won't bother much with this mindset.raying:

raise: :Fish: raise:

 

[Hope of Glory]

I would posit that both Calvinism and Arminianism are both new creations, seeing as how Paul was neither. But, even then, there were groups that followed the teachings of men instead of the teachings of Scripture.

BTW, I have seen writings in the past, dating from around 100 AD in which they were arguing the things surrounding pre-millinialism, etc., but it was not called "dispensationalism". They would argue the points without calling it particular names.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

One thing is NOT new. Christians have been speculating ever since Christ returned to be with the Father that His return was emminent, probably coming within a fe years or less.

 

[Salamander]

One thing is NOT new. Christians have been speculating ever since Christ returned to be with the Father that His return was emminent, probably coming within a fe years or less.

It isn't speculation when you see the condition of the world and knowing our redemption draweth nigh, except for the agnostic.raying:

 

[Bro Tony]

We who are dispensational in our theology and those that are calvinistic in their theology certainly would not consider our theologies as new inventions. Every sincere believer in whatever camp or theological systems believes their understandings come from the Scripture themselves. Like I would say, "I am dispensational because I believe the Bible teaches that, while others may say they are partial preterist because they believe the Bible teaches that. None of us would say that our doctrinal beliefs are recent inventions but are from the Word itself.

Now if we really want to deal with recent inventions---how about...
Sunday School
denominations
Churches that look like shopping malls

Bro Tony

 

[James_Newman]

Women preachers?

 

[thjplgvp]

RE:Shopping malls

Churches that look like shopping malls? Tongue in cheek here:laugh: . Judas sold Christ. The Jews sold sacraficial livestock and the Catholics sold indulgences. We don't sell much today but we certainly seem to buy (into) many speculative new inventions. :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

:type:

 

[mcdirector]

Ack! some of y'all need to bite your tongues! Women preachers and shopping mall churches. What is the world coming to?

-----------------------------

I've always been surprised to hear someone lump Baptists in with protestants, but we aren't educating anyone on what a Baptist is anymore. I'm afraid in a couple of generations, no one will really know.

-----------------------------

Salamander, every generation has had sin running rampant. The condition of humans has always been dire. It's just a different set of stuff to sin over now. Of course some are the same old same old that Adam's children met up with. I do believe the time is closer than it once was, but God doesn't tell time like we do, so . . . :tongue3:

 

[genesis12]

If memory serves correctly, early Christians could spell. In Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, even. So a recent innovation/invention might be the spelling one finds on these boards in English. :tongue3:
_________________________

1. Dispensationalism isn't new.
2. OSAS isn't new.
3. Baptists aren't protestants.

The innovations/inventions, then, originate with those who post the opposite to 1, 2, and 3.

Perhaps we should refer to them as "innovationists" and their dialogue as "innovationism." Or "inventionists in support of inventionism" <shudder> :saint:

 

[Gold Dragon]

Relatively recent theologies include:

Scripture Alone (1500s)
Faith Alone (1500s)
Priesthood of all believers (1500s)
Total Depravity (1500s)
Unconditional Election (1500s)
Limited Atonement (1500s)
Irresistable Grace (1500s)
Perseverance of the Saints (1500s)
Autonomy of the Local Church (1700s)
Two Ordinances - Baptism & Lord's Supper (1700s)
Individual Soul Liberty (1700s)
Separation of Church and State (1700s)
Two Offices of the Church - Pastor & Deacon (1700s)
Inerrancy of the Scriptures (late 1800s)
Symbolic Communion (1800s)
non-Regenerate Baptism (1800s)
Once Saved Always Saved (1800s)
Pro-Life (1900s)


Granted, these theologies may have existed in some form before the above dates, but it wasn't until around the above dates that they were clearly articulated and considered standards of orthodoxy for a significant Christian group.

And under no circumstance do I imply that recent theologies should be dismissed simply because they are recent. I believe in many of the above theologies. I am a critic of dispensationalism and teetotalism, not because they are recent but because they do not stand up to biblical critique.

 

[genesis12]

How can anyone follow in the footsteps of Jesus, or have that as a goal, a yearning, a longing, a desire to be like Jesus, and drink booze? For what purpose does one drink hard liquor? Or smoke?

Unconscionable! The faster that bad habit is broken the better.

In what way does the dispensational viewpoint detract from Christianity, or confuse babes in Christ, or those seeking to understand and apply the Gospel?

:wavey: ~~ Hello?

OK, now you can close the thread, or delete my post. I've violated the terms of the OP. :smilewinkgrin: