Posted on 07/25/2015 7:45:32 AM PDT by Gamecock
Disapproval of polemics¹ in the Christian Church is a very serious matter. But that is the attitude of the age in which we live. The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the whole basis of ecumenicity. Unfortunately, that same attitude is creeping into evangelical circles also and many say that we must not be too precise about these things…. If you hold that view you are criticizing the Apostle Paul, you are saying that he was wrong, and at the same time you are criticizing the Scriptures. The Scriptures argue and debate and dispute; they are full of polemics. . .
. . .Let us be clear about what we mean. This is not argument for the sake of argument; this is not a manifestation of an argumentative spirit; this is not just indulging one’s prejudices. The Scriptures do not approve of that, and furthermore the Scriptures are very concerned about the spirit in which one engages in discussion. No man should like argument for the sake of argument. We should always regret the necessity; but though we regret and bemoan it, when we feel that a vital matter is at stake we must engage in argument. We must “earnestly contend for the truth,” and we are called upon to do that by the New Testament.
Cited in MacArthur, John. The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception. Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson Books, 2007. pp. 193-194.
¹Polemics — The practice of theological controversy to refute errors of doctrine.
If your church starts watering down the GOSPEL, it’s time to change churches.
Yes.
These should be edifying places where we can talk about our faith without getting all "bashy."
The qualities of agape love in I Cor 13 (ironically - because of one of the points of this article..."let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God") should be our guide as we dialogue in here.
I was a little hesitant because - honestly, we don't always agree - but unlike the differences we have seen (and continue to see) on the open RF threads, OUR differences should mostly be outside of orthodoxy. I hope. At least for me, I will not be dividing with Christians in these caucuses.
Again, Thank You for doing these. I have read your "devotion" series.
KR
You are right about not getting all “bashy”.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Lol.
“Thus these words of Jesus on intolerance toward those who speak His message, is not to His liking.”
Elephant in corner of room: Is it HIS message they are, in fact, speaking?
I do not disapprove of theological controversy in the Christian churches. There is a lot of it in the New Testament. I believe we should discuss various doctrines and dogmas, pro and con, but we should try to disagree without being disagreeable. No ad hominem attacks.
As a general rule, arguing at church convinces no one, embarrasses someone, and divides the brethren.
The New Testament Church appeared to prefer forums and hearings, Acts 15 being an example.
When doing what Jesus taught, yes. But now here is the rub over those who disagree doing nothing but attacking. Jesus is the ultimate “decider” as to those among us here on earth today are ‘true’ followers of His. I prefer not to say those who disagree with us are doing the work of the devil, when they are doing God’s work.
Another poster here had a good point about sins of omission, commission, and attributing works of God to the Devil. I wish I could remember it.
“I believe we should discuss various doctrines and dogmas, pro and con,but we should try to disagree without being disagreeable.”
Definitely.
The caucus label never stopped someone from READING the threads.
Revelation 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
This is the fall back position of the "know nothings". We ended up with homosexual marriage in this country in part because people did not want to engage in discussing why doctrine is important.
We see churches disregarding Scripture and embracing the pop culture today because they don't think doctrine matters.
I certainly hope so...
thank you
It depends on the clarity of the doctrine. Saved by grace? Pretty clear. Corporate vs individual predestination? Well, the Arminian Baptist in me thinks THAT is pretty clear, but a lot of Calvinists seem to think otherwise.
If someone wants to teach homosexuality is fine, or that Jesus loves abortion, or that we need to do good works to win salvation...then we’ve got a fight. If someone wants to teach the Prosperity Gospel...we’ve got a fight. If someone believe Calvin was right...well, God may or may not clarify things in the end. We might find ourselves agreeing with Job:
“In the past I knew only what others had told me,
but now I have seen you with my own eyes.
So I am ashamed of all I have said
and repent in dust and ashes.”
Systematic theology is not a good way to approach God. God is not an insect to dissect, and our human and sinful nature limits our understanding.
“At present we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me! In this life we have three great lasting qualities—faith, hope and love. But the greatest of them is love.”
Where scripture entertains ambiguity, love for others and faith in God should rule. Where scripture is clear, love and faith REQUIRE strong action.
But not Solo Scriptura.
Let me guess, a 5-point Calvinist? I'm a 5-point Calvinist as well but I try to avoid the argumentative attitude so common among Calvinists. It has never been my contention that a person has to be a Calvinist in order to be a Christian. If perfect theology is required to be a good Christian, we all fail. I have a good friend who is a 5-point Arminian with whom I discuss theology frequently. We joke that the other is saved, he just doesn't know why. While perhaps cluttered with theological errors, the Gospel is still contained in the teachings of MacArthur, Dispensationists, Federal Visionists. As Calvinists, we should realize as we contend with other Christians that we might be wrong.
I have always liked this analogy. If all Christians were asked to write out the word Christ, we would all cross of T's and dot our I's differently but we would recognized the word Christ. So it is with our theology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.