|
Post by Zorro on Aug 14, 2007 8:06:38 GMT -5
Some of the recent dialogue has been extremely painful to observe, especially because the discord is entirely unnecessary, IMHO. In an effort to help the facilitation of constructive dialogue, I'd like to offer an exercise we were shown at the very beginning of the theology program I've been going through....and then ask some of you to consider this framework regarding a few points of disagreement. OK?
Basically, it involves placing any doctrine you choose into one of the following categories:
1. Essential for salvation eg. Atonement through Christ
2. Essential for orthodoxy eg. Christ's deity
3. Important but not essential eg. Baptism
4. Not important eg. Musical accompaniment
5. Speculative eg. Who is the white horse in Revelations?
As an issue is placed further from the core position, the less polemic one should be regarding its defense. This seems obvious, but apparently easy to miss. So...let's cut to the chase.
We have 3 people that believe the same core doctrines of "Calvinism" - GiT, Jessi and Bryan. But as we clearly see they fight like cats and dogs, and my question is why? And is it necessary? Let's apply a recent argument to the framework above. The doctrine is "women preachers"....where do we put it? 1. Essential for salvation? No. 2. Essential for orthodoxy? No. 3. Important but not essential? Possibly, but IMO No. 4. Not important? IMO, yes.
The point? There is no need to destroy fellowship on issues that are, at best, "important but not essential". This is where thoughtful Christians should allow for diversity of opinion.
So what's the divisive issue? IMO, one of two things: either the placement of "form of worship and ministry" in the above framework OR good ol' fashioned pride. Maybe both.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Aug 14, 2007 8:14:13 GMT -5
I think people argue on here because they can. Also, some maybe cant argue with workers or question the doctrines and laws of the meetings. Some are clearly just incredibly frustrated.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 14, 2007 8:17:53 GMT -5
Howdy, A voice of reason is heard amongst the trumpeting of elephants as they flee from.... a mouse? I also have felt sadness at the recent dialog I have observed between those who actually agree with each other on ESSENTIAL issues. I feel that it is mostly a matter of pride and needing to be 'right' all of the time. I just shake my head sometimes at those who argue over whether the glass is half full or half empty. Good post.... again Zorro Scott
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 14, 2007 9:02:42 GMT -5
Excellent post Zorro! Thank you for posting it. Yes, the issue and primary point of disagreement is where should "form of worship and ministry" be placed in that framework. It seems when we try to unravel that ball of yarn we run into all these other interfering knots. Maybe we could have a discussion on just that topic....maybe have a moderator for the discussion (you would be great for that , and try to stay on that topic. Anyway, thanks again for your efforts here. Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Aug 14, 2007 9:09:22 GMT -5
Thanks, Zorro. Very nice post.
peace to all, freespirit
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Aug 14, 2007 10:43:47 GMT -5
but Zorro, the mindset among most Christians is that every word of the Bible must be revered and obeyed. Indeed, we are COMMANDED to do so. So, let me ask you: which words of Jesus do you consider core teaching and which do you consider speculative? Whenever there is a difference of interpretation, or a contradiction of "core Bible teachings", there are heated arguments.
Also, reason escapes us when beliefs are questioned. For example, you have said you are passionate about the diety of Christ. Yet, surely, this is not "essential for orthodoxy", but merely speculative. Christ nowhere contradicts the Bible writers who thought otherwise by stating "I am God", and moreover, both platforms (God or not-God) can find ample foundation in the Bible. So we argue. Passionately argue. Because we have made a core belief out of a topic that can legitimately support differing opinions.
Isn't religion (belief and segregation based on faith) destined to create friction?
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 14, 2007 10:59:13 GMT -5
Diet Coke,
Actually, the historical church would consider Christ's deity a central point of orthodoxy. Study the early church leader's defence against Arius for a clearer picture of this.
As far as picking and choosing, that's not really the point. The point is clearer and better (perhaps more honest) communication between Christians. For example, you just threw Christ's deity into the ring. I don't believe this is essential for salvation, but do believe it to be central to orthodoxy. You believe it to be speculative. Obviously we disagree, but at least we have a framework for discussion.
To answer your question, I believe the essential issues regarding salvation are to believe there is God (specifically the God of the Bible), the belief we are sinful in God's presence, that we receive atonement through Christ, and that atonement comes through grace by faith alone.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Aug 14, 2007 12:37:46 GMT -5
To answer your question, I believe the essential issues regarding salvation are to believe there is God (specifically the God of the Bible), the belief we are sinful in God's presence, that we receive atonement through Christ, and that atonement comes through grace by faith alone. Are you then advocating heated argument about these topics, but not about whether we should wear our hair in buns? I may just misundestand your point. We should argue the hair-in-buns issue, but we should do so with the understanding that it is not about doctrine, but humanity. Of course, for some it IS doctrine. That is the essential problem. Whenever we see anything as doctrine (even your core beliefs), we have problems, because reason and acceptance get thrown out the window. -- p.s.: You state "This is where thoughtful Christians should allow for diversity of opinion." Amen. Now, let's go shoot all the unthoughtful ones.
|
|
|
Post by wonder ing on Aug 14, 2007 13:05:52 GMT -5
To answer your question, I believe the essential issues regarding salvation are to believe there is God (specifically the God of the Bible), the belief we are sinful in God's presence, that we receive atonement through Christ, and that atonement comes through grace by faith alone. Are you then advocating heated argument about these topics, but not about whether we should wear our hair in buns? I may just misundestand your point. We should argue the hair-in-buns issue, but we should do so with the understanding that it is not about doctrine, but humanity. for some it IS doctrine. That is the essential problem. Whenever we see anything as doctrine, reason and acceptance get thrown out the window. -- This is where thoughtful Christians should allow for diversity of opinion." Amen. Now, let's go shoot all the unthoughtful ones. As long as you can pat me on the back, then I will pat you on the back also. If deep down you do disagree with me, please keep your disagreement to yourself, that way if either one of us is really mistaken about it, then we have someone besides ourselves to blame, eh? NOW, do you think I am saved?PS: please be nice....
|
|
|
Post by yada ya on Aug 14, 2007 13:18:45 GMT -5
To answer your questione. Are you then advocating heated argument about these topics, but not about whether we should wear our hair in buns? . hmm, I like buns in my hair, but not any hair in my buns.. even if they aren't heated.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 14, 2007 13:45:25 GMT -5
Are you then advocating heated argument about these topics, but not about whether we should wear our hair in buns? I may just misundestand your point. We should argue the hair-in-buns issue, but we should do so with the understanding that it is not about doctrine, but humanity.
Good question. Hair in buns..... to me, squarely in the "not important" category. I wouldn't even debate the issue, other than to make the point that it's "not important". My next question would be - where do you place it in the above framework? Unless you place it in one of the "essential" categories, it's no more than a topic of conversation and not worthy of debate at all. If you felt it was "essential", I would simply ask you why?
Bottom line....we ALL have SOMETHING in our personal "essential" categories. The problems arise when we haven't thoughtfully searched out the reasons why we've put them there. The result is that we can't articulate and defend what we believe or why. Case in point is the issue I mentioned in the original post. Is the issue of "women preachers" an essential issue or not? If it is, why? If it's not, just respectfully state your position and move on.
Let's put this all in the big picture. What are the clear commands of Jesus? Can we agree that they are to love God with our all and to love our neighbor as ourselves? With this firmly in mind, should we not ask ourselves if these commands trump our personal arguments as they relate to issues that are "not important"? What we need to understand is that this isn't about theology, this is serious spiritual excercise.
|
|
|
Post by revelationornot on Aug 14, 2007 14:12:45 GMT -5
Are you then advocating heated argument about these topics, but not about whether we should wear our hair in buns?Good question. Hair in buns..... to me, squarely in the "not important" category. I wouldn't even debate the issue, What are the clear commands of Jesus? Can we agree that they are to love God with our all and to love our neighbor as ourselves? With this firmly in mind, should we not ask ourselves if these commands trump our personal arguments as they relate to issues that are "not important"? What we need to understand is that this isn't about theology, this is serious spiritual excercise. Jesus learned obedience to God, by the things that He suffered. Is this the example we should also follow?
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 14, 2007 14:18:18 GMT -5
Jesus learned obedience to God, by the things that He suffered. Is this the example we should also follow?
Sure, why not? What do you think and why do you ask? Actually, rereading your post I'm going to modify my response. Rather than using the phrase "the example", I will say that this is one example of many things Jesus demonstrated that is worthy of following.
|
|
|
Post by revornot on Aug 14, 2007 14:26:09 GMT -5
Jesus learned obedience to God, by the things that He suffered. Is this the example we should also follow? Sure, why not? What do you think and why do you ask? Hey, it sure is nice to see peaceful dialogue. And yes, I do happen to agree.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Aug 14, 2007 17:04:26 GMT -5
Good question. Hair in buns..... to me, squarely in the "not important" category. I wouldn't even debate the issue, other than to make the point that it's "not important". My next question would be - where do you place it in the above framework? Unless you place it in one of the "essential" categories, it's no more than a topic of conversation and not worthy of debate at all. If you felt it was "essential", I would simply ask you why? Ahh, but it is important, Zorro. My wife wears her hair in a bun and I hate it that way. Unfortunately, debate isn't likely to help; it's a case of tradition-become-doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 14, 2007 17:52:52 GMT -5
Ahh, but it is important, Zorro. My wife wears her hair in a bun and I hate it that way. Unfortunately, debate isn't likely to help; it's a case of tradition-become-doctrine.I said it isn't important to me. I understand how and why it's important to your wife. It was a big deal in our house, too......until we came to conclude that it was, as you say, a "tradition-become-doctrine". The reality for us is that it didn't hold up very well under even the slightest weight of critical thinking. The key point is being willing to challenge "tradition-become-doctrine" in the first place.....as you well know
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 14, 2007 18:44:02 GMT -5
[Zorro Wrote] Some of the recent dialogue has been extremely painful to observe, especially because the discord is entirely unnecessary, IMHO.
I agree.
[Zorro Wrote] In an effort to help the facilitation of constructive dialogue, I'd like to offer an exercise we were shown at the very beginning of the theology program I've been going through....and then ask some of you to consider this framework regarding a few points of disagreement. OK?
I have got to say that I found this list fascinating. I admit to never having categorised or classified doctrine in this way before, and, it would appear that most of the things I debate hotly about are in fact not important to salvation - your example case was my discussion with Jessi regarding women ministers, which, as this list would suggest, is not at all important to salvation really. This realisation has come as something of a profound shock, this sunny wintry morning.
For a long time I have been in the habit of thinking the entire package of doctrine to which I subscribe is essential to salvation. All of it. In its entirety. And therefore to yield on one point is dangerous because it might lead to yielding on other points as well. This has been an interesting exercise indeed, and has given me much to think about in relation to my own beliefs.
2. Essential for orthodoxy
If orthodoxy is not necessarily salvation, then what is orthodoxy, one wonders? I ask this in the spirit of wanting to learn, not of challenging you Zorro. I see this as a bit of a revelation, because I have always associated orthodoxy with salvation and always worried myself sick about things that do not seem "orthodox" in the historical sense. You seem more knowledgable about these terms than I. Could you enlighten me?
[Zorro Wrote] We have 3 people that believe the same core doctrines of "Calvinism" - GiT, Jessi and Bryan. But as we clearly see they fight like cats and dogs,
A true, if unflattering description...
[Zorro Wrote] ...and my question is why?
I think personal issues come into the fray. I hate to admit it, but I do not think any of us three actually like each other. To bash each other to bits in the name of orthodox, Reformed doctrine is our greatest joy, apparently. Not a terribly nice realisation, is it?
[Zorro Wrote] This is where thoughtful Christians should allow for diversity of opinion.
Yes!
How much better to allow for a degree of opinion amongst us rather than expecting, and enforcing, a rigid uniformity! I think you are spot on here Zorro.
Thank the Lord we have the voice of Christian maturity on this forum here to point out these things from time-to-time.
[Zorro Wrote] ...OR good ol' fashioned pride.
This more than anything, brother. The desire to convince and persuade, and to see someone else's viewpoint crumble into the dust. I have become too dogmatic, even in my day-to-day life.
Thanks for pointing this out, Zorro. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: I have the greatest of respect and admiration for you, especially when you put out timely posts like this containing some much needed thoughtful reasoning.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Aug 14, 2007 21:11:24 GMT -5
Zorro good post
Not surprising to see some of my favorite poster all on the same thread.
GIT I have to admit you took it on the chin but responded well. A response worthy of mention. I too look at the small stuff and it has nothing to do with salvation. Thanks Zorro for the reminder nitro
|
|
elle
Junior Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by elle on Aug 14, 2007 21:35:59 GMT -5
thanks zorro
its so good to be reminded of the big picture.
I often think of the thief on the cross- all he could 'do' was ask, accept trust and believe that his salvation came through Jesus by grace. There was no baptism, no ministry, no clothing issues, etc etc for him.
|
|
|
Post by lacpastorunplugged on Aug 14, 2007 21:58:50 GMT -5
Sometimes we forget that Christianity isn't about being right- it's about Christ.
Karl
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 14, 2007 22:05:08 GMT -5
2. Essential for orthodoxy
If orthodoxy is not necessarily salvation, then what is orthodoxy, one wonders? I ask this in the spirit of wanting to learn, not of challenging you Zorro. I see this as a bit of a revelation, because I have always associated orthodoxy with salvation and always worried myself sick about things that do not seem "orthodox" in the historical sense. You seem more knowledgable about these terms than I. Could you enlighten me?
This is a good question. IMO, the best place to start, in way of explaining the way I view this, is to clearly define for ourselves what is essential to be saved. Since it's been a few posts ago I'll list my essentials again: 1. Belief in the God of the Bible 2. Understanding our sinful condition before God 3. Belief in atonement through Christ by 4. Grace through faith
Now....there are some that believe understanding Christ's deity to be necessary to be saved. I disagree. I would include myself among what I only imagine would be legions of people who didn't understand this doctrine at the time of salvation. However, it certainly is within the realm of orthodoxy, and I wholeheartedly believe it now. I suppose there are some who would define orthodoxy as the body of doctrine necessary to "stay" saved, or what a saved individual is lead to understand, or some such thing.....but personally, I don't embrace that perspective at all. "Orthodoxy" seems too nebulus a term to judge another's salvation by my personal understanding of it. IMO, understanding the body of orthodox teaching simply leads to better understanding of and fellowship with the body of Christ. Again, thinking of Christ's deity.....believing it brings one into closer fellowship with the body, denying it hinders it. There is even diversity of opinion regarding this disparity of beliefs - some feel this defines "heresy" (and fellowship is destroyed), while others refer to this as "error" (and keep the door to fellowship open). I hope it's clear where I stand because....
As I stated earlier, this point of view has helped me trememdously in regards to having hope that Jesus' commands can actually be realized: 1. Loving our neighbor as ourselves 2. Making disciples of men
Think of all this in this light and it's very enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Aug 14, 2007 22:30:32 GMT -5
If you take away all things that are not essential for salvation we would have to stop talking about the 2x2s.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 14, 2007 22:55:17 GMT -5
If you take away all things that are not essential for salvation we would have to stop talking about the 2x2s.Admittedly, my list used to be much longer. I think it's safe to say that many folks would say that my list is now too short. I'm just suggesting this is a good place to start dialogue, and I'm guessing there'd still be plenty to talk about as we "compare lists"
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Aug 14, 2007 23:04:48 GMT -5
Howdy, A voice of reason is heard amongst the trumpeting of elephants as they flee from.... a mouse? I also have felt sadness at the recent dialog I have observed between those who actually agree with each other on ESSENTIAL issues. I feel that it is mostly a matter of pride and needing to be 'right' all of the time. I just shake my head sometimes at those who argue over whether the glass is half full or half empty. Good post.... again Zorro Scott the glass is not half empty or half full.... its too big
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 15, 2007 20:17:31 GMT -5
Some of the recent dialogue has been extremely painful to observe, especially because the discord is entirely unnecessary, IMHO. In an effort to help the facilitation of constructive dialogue, I'd like to offer an exercise we were shown at the very beginning of the theology program I've been going through....and then ask some of you to consider this framework regarding a few points of disagreement. OK? Basically, it involves placing any doctrine you choose into one of the following categories: 1. Essential for salvation eg. Atonement through Christ 2. Essential for orthodoxy eg. Christ's deity 3. Important but not essential eg. Baptism 4. Not important eg. Musical accompaniment 5. Speculative eg. Who is the white horse in Revelations? As an issue is placed further from the core position, the less polemic one should be regarding its defense. This seems obvious, but apparently easy to miss. So...let's cut to the chase. We have 3 people that believe the same core doctrines of "Calvinism" - GiT, Jessi and Bryan. But as we clearly see they fight like cats and dogs, and my question is why? And is it necessary? Let's apply a recent argument to the framework above. The doctrine is "women preachers"....where do we put it? 1. Essential for salvation? No. 2. Essential for orthodoxy? No. 3. Important but not essential? Possibly, but IMO No. 4. Not important? IMO, yes. The point? There is no need to destroy fellowship on issues that are, at best, "important but not essential". This is where thoughtful Christians should allow for diversity of opinion. So what's the divisive issue? IMO, one of two things: either the placement of "form of worship and ministry" in the above framework OR good ol' fashioned pride. Maybe both. I agree with you in some respects, in some ways, no. I have friends who believe women preachers are OK. Our fellowship is not broken. But I would not go to a church and be taught by a woman preacher. If they don't follow what the Bible very clearly says, I will say their doctrine is weak. I would not draw my line at the essentials concerning what church my friends go to -- but concerning arguments, it's something to think about. Doctrine does divide Christians. But you sure are right. There are the essentials and then the non-essentials! John Piper on - The Purity Boys and the Unity Boys www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2006/1872_Watch_Out_for_Those_Who_Lead_You_Away_from_the_Truth/If you have a chance to listen to this message by John Piper . . . I got a lot out of it and it strengthened my resolve. I believe I am a purity boy, even though I'm a girl. Thanks, Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by following piper on Aug 17, 2007 12:03:52 GMT -5
If you have a chance to listen to this message by John Piper . . . I got a lot out of it and it strengthened my resolve. Thanks, Jessi Hmm, so now you leave the Truth , and follow the Piper. oh well.... What a shame.
|
|