What are the proper boundaries of theological discussion?

[polemic_turtle]

I've wondered now for a while what the Biblical justification for anathamatizing people was, beyond what is already said in Scripture, such as the Galatian heresy. Perhaps I'm just hugely fuzzy in my thinking, but what verses of the Bible can you cite to support shutting down such a conversation? The closest I can think of is 1 John 2:22, which would have to be logically connected to what bookslover is saying for me, since I really can't see the connection myself.

I suppose I really would have preferred to have seen a presentation of both sides of the issue, rather than a quick take down which I don't understand. Why so touchy, outside of the creeds? Or am I too utilitarian toward the creeds in your opinion? Ought they be revered and treated on a par with Scripture, "since they're right", or should they always be open to criticism like any other human writing, though useful and correct as they are?

I hope I'm not being disrespectful in how I'm expressing myself, but I'd appreciate a response.

Also, would you then anathamatize Robert Reymond, based upon what you're saying?

 

[polemic_turtle]

Sure, no problem. I'm now reading the thread which was linked to above and am getting largely what I was looking for in the exchange between Bro Richard & Bro Matthew Winzer( always an interesting read ). If my previous questions aren't answered in this thread, that's fine. I'll probably run into the answers eventually, wherever they are to be found.

On second examination, I'm not particularly appreciative of the claim that unless you understand and affirm a point which I don't understand fully you cannot be saved. I'm sure there are millions who will never understand this fine point of patristic theology; will they be fallen from grace? In summary, a position isn't strengthened in the least if the advocates of it refuse to discuss the relevant texts and end the discussion with an appeal to human authority, unless perhaps the viewers already perfectly understand why a doctrine is so unquestionable. Are there any other threads which accomplished anything which could be linked to, even if locked? Forgive me if I sound uppitty; curious minds want to know and are easily frustrated without assistance.

 

[Herald]

Tyler - you're right. A Christian may live their entire life without ever having to deal with the issue of eternal generation. It is a minority of believers who frequent places like the PB or who engage in detailed theological discussions. Does that mean they are not saved because they have never wrestled with the topic? Of course not.

On the other hand, if a central component of the Christian faith is encountered...let's say the trinity...and an individual denies it, they are not lost because of an improper trinitarian belief. Their denial of the triune godhead is symptomatic of a more wholesale theological deficiency. It simply surfaced in the area of the trinity.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nobody has been anathematized. They've been suspended. There is spiritual danger in arguing with the Church over Scripture on the nature of God.

I do think your utilitarian view of Creeds and Confessions can be very dangerous. It's not necessarily but can be. Every heretic states that all they're doing is interpreting Scripture and letting it speak for itself as if nobody thought that one before.

Tyler, why do you trust your interpretation on the face of it? If the Church has confessed a doctrine that "...this is how we interpret the Scriptures for 1700 years..." then is that simply something "useful"?

I don't know why people take more confidence in their interpretation from a short lifespan with limited personal pastoral, biblical, and scholarly experience over a Confession formed by the collective wisdom of centuries of study. It's not, at that point, a matter of the Scriptures vs the Confession but an ignorant interpretation vs. a well informed interpretation.

This does not make the Scriptures subordinate to the Church as Rome avers but it does recognize that the Church has a role in testifying to the meaning of the Word and it is not "...every man interpreted as he saw right in his own eyes." How could Church discipline function in such a context?

I think there is a dangerous tendency to approach the Scriptures with an independent spirit. It is arrogant and prideful to assume that the whole Church has gone before me but I know some Greek and Hebrew now and "...look how they have misinterpreted this...."

This is not all to be levelled at Mr. Zuelch but is to point out the larger issue in brief. There is sufficient breadth of Confessions to choose from on the forum to remain a member here but this forum is not a "free for all" where Catholics, Pentecostals, Jehovas Witnesses, Mormons, and Christians can come together and each man say: "...my interpretation of the Scriptures is this and by my own authority, you are wrong!"

This is a board for Christians with Reformed and Baptist Confessions. We bound the acceptable content pretty broadly but, rest assured, there is a boundary. Mr. Zuelch was not suspended for simply stating an opinion once. For his part, he has been very gracious in receiving the suspension, which is to be commended.

 

[MW]

On second examination, I'm not particularly appreciative of the claim that unless you understand and affirm a point which I don't understand fully you cannot be saved. I'm sure there are millions who will never understand this fine point of patristic theology; will they be fallen from grace? In summary, a position isn't strengthened in the least if the advocates of it refuse to discuss the relevant texts and end the discussion with an appeal to human authority, unless perhaps the viewers already perfectly understand why a doctrine is so unquestionable. Are there any other threads which accomplished anything which could be linked to, even if locked? Forgive me if I sound uppitty; curious minds want to know and are easily frustrated without assistance.

Hi Tyler. Isn't there a difference betwen inquiry and opposition? A person who doesn't understand has the opportunity to ask searching and difficult questions within the parameters of confessional orthodoxy. He might even come to a different conclusion and decide to keep that between God and himself for the sake of maintaining the peace of the confessional community. But so far as the church is concerned, the creeds and confessions express what the believing community understands Scripture to teach. To outrightly oppose the stance of the church is to follow a divisive course. To state that the church has erred in making a declaration which is regarded as catholic is very presumptuous, especially when it is built on a flimsy exegetical foundation and involves a misunderstanding of terms. If the matter is not so clear as you suggest, surely the wisest course is to refrain from such bold and confident pronouncements.

I doubt that anathema means eternally damned. It is a technical term which emphasises the person's extra-ecclesial position. When Moses and Paul wished they were accursed, the meaning is not that they might be eternally damned, but simply cut off from the visible church and its ordinances. To be in such a position because of ecclesiastical pronouncement is indeed a precarious situation, but the purpose of it is in the hope that repentance will be the issue and the person's soul saved on the day of the Lord.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hi Tyler. Isn't there a difference betwen inquiry and opposition? A person who doesn't understand has the opportunity to ask searching and difficult questions within the parameters of confessional orthodoxy. He might even come to a different conclusion and decide to keep that between God and himself for the sake of maintaining the peace of the confessional community. But so far as the church is concerned, the creeds and confessions express what the believing community understands Scripture to teach. To outrightly oppose the stance of the church is to follow a divisive course. To state that the church has erred in making a declaration which is regarded as catholic is very presumptuous, especially when it is built on a flimsy exegetical foundation and involves a misunderstanding of terms. If the matter is not so clear as you suggest, surely the wisest course is to refrain from such bold and confident pronouncements.

I doubt that anathema means eternally damned. It is a technical term which emphasises the person's extra-ecclesial position. When Moses and Paul wished they were accursed, the meaning is not that they might be eternally damned, but simply cut off from the visible church and its ordinances. To be in such a position because of ecclesiastical pronouncement is indeed a precarious situation, but the purpose of it is in the hope that repentance will be the issue and the person's soul saved on the day of the Lord.

Well said.

 

[polemic_turtle]

Well, far be it from me to actually claim to have done more study than any theologian both of us could mention by name. I agree in at least a general way that the consensus of the Church means a lot in the end, although it's very easy to say that the actual numbers of those who have affirmed this particular point in faith, rather than for any genuinely compelling line of reasoning is a majority of those who have affirmed it. I need to study.

On the other hand, if what Dr. McMahon was doing wasn't anathamatizing Dr. Reymond on condition of his not repenting of his belief, I don't know what it was. I could see such a statement being understandable as a conclusion of a larger statement, but short of that, I can make neither heads nor tails of it.

Would the reading of "Anathema Maranatha" I have received be just a theory among theories, then? "Accursed on the coming of our Lord?" Is this non-eternal temporal understanding that of the creeds?

 

[Archlute]

I do not have a dog in this particular theological fight, but -

I would like to point out that the attitude that Tyler perceives to be active here is a problem within modern confessional circles. I consider myself to be confessional, but I also believe that any believer has a right to ask "why?" regarding any point in the confession - even the Holy Trinity. Why is that? It is because of the reality that if you cannot convince them through intelligent biblical discussion, and if you do not have the knowledge of that doctrine to make intelligent discussion, then you are requiring them to sign on to the same sort of thinking as the church of Rome requires - that of implicit faith.

Remember, faith must be with understanding. If you cannot convince a man of the biblical validity of your theology, then he should not be required to believe it. Rome appeals to creeds, the writings of the early church, etc. So do we. Wherein lies the difference? It lies in the careful exegesis of the Scriptures.

Many modern reformed types, like to say "the church has always confessed...", but that rings hollow in the ears of those who are not already convinced.

First off, there is the problem of somebody raising the question, "Which church?" RC? EO? Reformed? Lutheran? Methodist? etc. All of these church bodies have confessions (yes, even the Methodists). For one who has just become a Christian, they do not have enough doctrinal background to discern the right confession, they only have the Scriptures. Again, saying "Our confession is the right one" requires the problematic engagement of an implicit faith.

Second, just because the church has "always confessed it" doesn't mean that they could not have gotten something wrong. To decide this, however, takes a willingness to allow frank and open discussion of a subject. This is why some people think that strict subscription creates a problem within confessional churches. If the confession is technically up for revision where it is in error, but the first man to question a position is cast out of the church as a heretic without discussion, well then, there really is no room for intelligent and frank discussion is there?

Protestant believers must discuss from the Scriptures first, and this must come before any confession, although it may be informed by one. And yes, some will not like the fact that there are those with a knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that others do not have. It does not mean that their conclusions are always right, but if you'd like to challenge them, you'd better get your language skills up to snuff. It is difficult to argue, with any credibility, the superiority of your own exegesis against something of which you have no knowledge.

Confessions are only as good as our understanding of the Scriptures. Where our understanding improves, we should be willing to accept change. Of course, even where the languages have been learned (or not), there is still the matter of discerning various philosophies that may be underlying one's conclusion. That is another issue altogether. Still, discussion of all doctrines must be allowed, and biblical exegesis must be foremost in that discussion, not historical theology. That has always been the Reformed position.

 

[sotzo]

Confessions are only as good as our understanding of the Scriptures. Where our understanding improves, we should be willing to accept change. Of course, even where the languages have been learned (or not), there is still the matter of discerning various philosophies that may be underlying one's conclusion. That is another issue altogether. Still, discussion of all doctrines must be allowed, and biblical exegesis must be foremost in that discussion, not historical theology. That has always been the Reformed position.

You make a sensible point. If historical theology had won the day the Reformation would not have happened. You can't have the primacy of confessions and semper reformada at the same time can you?

 

[MW]

Archlute, Men do not learn in a vacuum. They start from precommitments. The appeal to the confession is in order to ascertain the shared commitment to biblical propositions and how we approach the theological endeavour. If there is no shared commitment it doesn't matter how much Scripture one brings to support their position, it will not be received because it cannot meet the burden of proof without some proposition upon which to rest it. Unitarians appeal to Scripture. Trinitarians appeal to Scripture. What makes one appeal more compelling than the other? It is the consistency with which the Trinitarian position builds upon a prior commitment to the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. One is not at liberty to confess one thing, and then pursue theological endeavour on the assumption that they have not committed themselves to prior beliefs.

 

[MW]

You make a sensible point. If historical theology had won the day the Reformation would not have happened. You can't have the primacy of confessions and semper reformada at the same time can you?

The slogan is reformata, semper reformanda. "Reformed" first -- there is the confessional stance. "Always to be reformed" proceeds on the basis of the reformed confessional commitment. Scripture is the supreme standard, but a confessing community must of necessity maintain a commitment to uphold a shared set of beliefs which it regards as the teaching of Scripture.

 

[Barnpreacher]

I posted my thoughts on this subject which were in a great deal of agreement with Adam's post. I deleted this post because I can see both sides of the complex issue. I understand where Adam and Tyler are coming from and I also understand where Matthew and Rich are coming from. I've enjoyed the discussion as it has caused me to think about the issue of confessionalism even more.

 

[sotzo]

The slogan is reformata, semper reformanda. "Reformed" first -- there is the confessional stance. "Always to be reformed" proceeds on the basis of the reformed confessional commitment. Scripture is the supreme standard, but a confessing community must of necessity maintain a commitment to uphold a shared set of beliefs which it regards as the teaching of Scripture.

Thanks for that clarification and help...much appreciated.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Adam,

There is a fundamental difference between propagating an unconfessional position and saying: "Nicea was wrong." and asking about a doctrine by saying: "Please explain Nicea because I don't understand it."

Yes, there are many confessions just like there are many religions. I purposefully do not commit to all of them as if all of them represent the truth or all of them do or maybe some get some of it right.

Just because we affirm the necessity of Sola Scriptura against Solo Scriptura does not, on the same hand, mean that we believe that the Church is infallible and needs no reform.

I do think there is a boundary that a man's heart can cross where the need for explanation crosses into sinful speculation. It's easier to see it happen than to describe it. How can I put it more plainly than I believe the Reformed Confessions are a faithful interpretation and summary of the Scriptures and thatthey agree with centuries old fenceposts that men have crossed at their own peril. I can certainly talk to people about how different people have denied eternal generation but that doesn't mean I have allow those who deny eternal generation to start arguing their pont here. Why not justification by faith? Why not the Trinity? Why not a host of other doctrines?

I categorically deny that frank discussion has not been allowed except to the extent that certain dogmas are not allowed to be pressed as within the bounds of confessionalism here. We can discuss the teachings of the Federal Vision all day long here. I expect us to represent their view accurately so that we can set it against Confessional Reformed theology but somebody who is an apologist for it is not permitted to interact with Confessionally Reformed Christians here.

 

[Archlute]

Archlute, Men do not learn in a vacuum. They start from precommitments. The appeal to the confession is in order to ascertain the shared commitment to biblical propositions and how we approach the theological endeavour. If there is no shared commitment it doesn't matter how much Scripture one brings to support their position, it will not be received because it cannot meet the burden of proof without some proposition upon which to rest it. Unitarians appeal to Scripture. Trinitarians appeal to Scripture. What makes one appeal more compelling than the other? It is the consistency with which the Trinitarian position builds upon a prior commitment to the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. One is not at liberty to confess one thing, and then pursue theological endeavour on the assumption that they have not committed themselves to prior beliefs.

Yes, but even that confession comes from a study of Scripture. The Ethiopian eunuch had no precommitments regarding the Messiah, but he was shown from the OT Scriptures that Christ was He, and he believed (by the power of the Holy Spirit, also, not just argumentation).

Precommitments only have so much weight. Unitarians are wrong because so many of their "proofs" are partial and faulty. If the Unitarian argument had more internal biblical consistency than the Trinitarian position, then it would be right rather than wrong. It does not even come close in this regard, however.

 

[MW]

Precommitments only have so much weight. Unitarians are wrong because so many of their "proofs" are partial and faulty. If the Unitarian argument had more internal biblical consistency than the Trinitarian position, then it would be right rather than wrong. It does not even come close in this regard, however.

"Internal biblical consistency." That assumes infallibility. You have made an assumption there without exegetical support. What are you appealing to in making that assumption, if not to Scripture? I am just proving a point, not vexing you; I only hope to show you how silly it is to require a person to prove what should be accepted in an intramural discussion. The fact we do not always appeal to Scripture does not mean we lack exegetical support for our position.

 

[Archlute]

Adam,

There is a fundamental difference between propagating an unconfessional position and saying: "Nicea was wrong." and asking about a doctrine by saying: "Please explain Nicea because I don't understand it."

Yes, there are many confessions just like there are many religions. I purposefully do not commit to all of them as if all of them represent the truth or all of them do or maybe some get some of it right.

Just because we affirm the necessity of Sola Scriptura against Solo Scriptura does not, on the same hand, mean that we believe that the Church is infallible and needs no reform.

I do think there is a boundary that a man's heart can cross where the need for explanation crosses into sinful speculation. It's easier to see it happen than to describe it. How can I put it more plainly than I believe the Reformed Confessions are a faithful interpretation and summary of the Scriptures and thatthey agree with centuries old fenceposts that men have crossed at their own peril. I can certainly talk to people about how different people have denied eternal generation but that doesn't mean I have allow those who deny eternal generation to start arguing their pont here. Why not justification by faith? Why not the Trinity? Why not a host of other doctrines?

I categorically deny that frank discussion has not been allowed except to the extent that certain dogmas are not allowed to be pressed as within the bounds of confessionalism here. We can discuss the teachings of the Federal Vision all day long here. I expect us to represent their view accurately so that we can set it against Confessional Reformed theology but somebody who is an apologist for it is not permitted to interact with Confessionally Reformed Christians here.

I don't believe that Warfield, Murray, Reymond, et al, were/are saying, "Please explain Nicea because we don't understand it." I believe that they were/are challenging its legitimacy. Would you suspend any of these fine theologians from this board? If so, then I applaud you for your honesty, but I think that it just goes to show again that it is easier to take one's security in a confessional statement, than to think it through and to argue it out from Scripture.

 

[Archlute]

"Internal biblical consistency." That assumes infallibility. You have made an assumption there without exegetical support. What are you appealing to in making that assumption, if not to Scripture? I am just proving a point, not vexing you; I only hope to show you how silly it is to require a person to prove what should be accepted in an intramural discussion. The fact we do not always appeal to Scripture does not mean we lack exegetical support for our position.

This is getting silly. You know what I am getting at.

 

[Archlute]

So as not to waste anymore of my time I will most likely cease at this point, and merely refer anyone who wants to see the thrust of what I was originally getting at back to my original post here - post #9.

 

[MW]

This is getting silly. You know what I am getting at.

It is silly, isn't it? And yet that is what I hear you calling me to account for.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't believe that Warfield, Murray, Reymond, et al, were/are saying, "Please explain Nicea because we don't understand it." I believe that they were/are challenging its legitimacy. Would you suspend any of these fine theologians from this board? If so, then I applaud you for your honesty, but I think that it just goes to show again that it is easier to take one's security in a confessional statement, than to think it through and to argue it out from Scripture.

I think you're being extremely uncharitable in your charecterization of not only what I have stated but also of my own Scriptural convictions. Perhaps when I gain your Scriptural acumen and be able to think things through then I won't need the Confessional "security blanket". Is this the intended argument?

The hypothetical "Would you ban Warfield, Murray, Reymond, et al..." is the true silly statement. It is an ad populum argument. If you really want to go for the jugular, why don't you claim that I might even ban Ron Paul from membership here. There would be virtual blood spilled everywhere!

Perhaps you have a list of the doctrines that can be propagated here without controversy? That way, then all can rest assured that it won't be based on some silly Confessional "security blanket".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So as not to waste anymore of my time I will most likely cease at this point, and merely refer anyone who wants to see the thrust of what I was originally getting at back to my original post here - post #9.

Yes, and post # 9 has not been demonstrated to reflect this board. It oversimplifies and pretends like we're just parroting the Confession like 9 year olds who can recite the Confession but can't give arguments for it. It denies the entire context of this thread as well as the thread referenced that led to the suspension.

For his part, Richard understood why he was suspended. His only surprise was that he thought he didn't think I had sufficiently warned him or he would not have continued to be a proponent of the un-Confessional position on this board. It was a reminder to myself to state things more plainly next time. Nevertheless, it's not as if I was capricious with the whole thing. Have you read the previous thread? It's not as if the ideas of Warfield and others were merely mentioned and my head exploded.

If you're going to criticize a position then criticize it on the merits of what it's arguing and not some imagined sensus fide.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I realized this discussion had jumped far afield from the OP and moved to a new thread.

Incidentally, I don't mind this discussion. I merely prefer all parties to accurately characterize what they are against and what they are for.

I also think that, if one is going to criticize a position they ought to positively put forth their own idea about how men are to attain to the unity of the faith prescribed in the Scriptures. How are elders to exercise Church discipline over men who are free to decide for themselves the interpretation of Scripture? How are matters of controversy and doctrine to be resolved? Don't just give me a list of great theologians to ask: "Would you ban him? What about him?" I want to know what your standard for unity is and how you would preserve it given your system of Confessionalism.

 

[reformedman]

my 2 pennies:

If this were a real church, all this explanation would surely be fit and necessary.

But this is the internet folks, If C.Matt pays $200+ per year for this forum board and asks that people refrain from certain talk, that's all there is to it.

He would even be justified, if he were for example say, no one is permitted to write the word "the". I think we need to back up a bit and see the immediate picture, it's the internet.

If this were a church setting, you set up an appointment with the elders and then discuss the above posts like gentlemen.

No offense intended on any of the above.

 

[Barnpreacher]

my 2 pennies:

If this were a real church, all this explanation would surely be fit and necessary.

But this is the internet folks, If C.Matt pays $200+ per year for this forum board and asks that people refrain from certain talk, that's all there is to it.

He would even be justified, if he were for example say, no one is permitted to write the word "the". I think we need to back up a bit and see the immediate picture, it's the internet.

If this were a church setting, you set up an appointment with the elders and then discuss the above posts like gentlemen.

No offense intended on any of the above.

With that said I believe there would be a lot of good, orthodox Christians that would fall more in line with Adam's post #9 than strict confessionalism. Perhaps they need to come to a better understanding of confessionalism, but I don't think that is for anyone in here to decide on outside of this board.

 

[VictorBravo]

If you really want to go for the jugular, why don't you claim that I might even ban Ron Paul from membership here. There would be virtual blood spilled everywhere!

Just a side note, Rich. As a strong supporter (politically) of Ron Paul I'd nevertheless completely and strongly defend a decision to ban him-- if he applied and did not commit to the confessional requirements. Politics should never be allowed to transcend the truth.

 

[RamistThomist]

If you really want to go for the jugular, why don't you claim that I might even ban Ron Paul from membership here. There would be virtual blood spilled everywhere!

*draws knife, smells blood*


Just kidding, I needed to laugh. That was a good one.

 

[polemic_turtle]

May I ask again whether Dr. McMahon's pronouncement of anathema against any who question the eternal generation aspect of historical Trinitarianism will be substantiated here? Can it be shown that eternal generation is really the crux of Biblical Trinitarianism and therefore unquestionable or is there room to refer to the pre-Incarnate Christ as the "Word" exclusively? I'm more than willing to be convinced of this doctrine biblically, but from where I stand, I would like to ask to be shown whether it really is so crucial that salvation depends on it, as Dr. McMahon has said. I know people who deny it; should I consider them as lost until they repent? Was Dr. Walter Martin lost because he denied the doctrine? I'm not very hard to satisfy here; I'm just wishing to have an explanation.

 

[Herald]

Tyler - let me ask a question:

Was Jesus the Son before His first advent? Did His being "begotten" confer to Him the title, "Son of God", or did He possess this position pre-incarnation and for all of eternity past? Isn't this the essence of the debate?

 

[polemic_turtle]

As was said before in another thread, a merely incarnational sonship would seem to confuse the matter, since it was the Spirit which conceived the human nature of the Son and not the Father. Whether this is satisfactorily answerable or not, I don't know, having not read the material from the other side; however, I imagine that the objection is answered in one way or another by those who reject the doctrine, since it so immediately suggests itself. Whether they do well or not, I don't know. I'd like to observe the reasoning out of the various points in this discussion, but can't be a part of that myself at this point. However, my question is really concerned with the absolute necessity of believing one way or the other on this issue. Is it necessary to salvation and if so, how do we know so? Athanasius apparently thought so; what chapters / verses did he cite in support of such a position?