Doctrines that divide evangelicals...

Status
Not open for further replies.
In your OP, you asked...

Please offer any suggestions, warnings, insights....

To which Howard replied...

Unfortunately many spend too much time on what divides us rather than what unites Christians.

But, then you want to argue with Howard, saying...

Oh if it were only that easy! What you cite as consensus doctrine is, I believe, doctrine over which evangelicals actually disagree.

You asked for warnings, and when warned, you disagree with exclamation points. Be careful what you ask for.
 
“you disagree with exclamation points”

I think there was only one exclamation point. And, I only used it because the interjection warranted that punctuation rather than a period. :)

My exclamation communicated my understanding of the brother’s “warning” as you put it. It also communicated my view that I could wish the advice was as easy to implement as he had suggested. But sadly, both the advice and the premise it rested on didn’t make sense to me. Taylor addressed the former and I the latter.

I asked two questions - one regarding the alleged evangelical agreement on grace alone... and another on how agreement on the three mentioned solas somehow flows into most other doctrines. You take that as arguing. I guess I could’ve ignored his post but what I (and Taylor) did was offer a brother a chance to make good on his assertions.

I’ll lurk from here on out.
 
My apologies on my tardiness for a response. Hospitals and surgery can make things get delayed. But God is merciful and prayers are answered!

My initial response was not to ignore the myriad differences within the evangelical community on the subjects of doctrine. If my answer was offensive let me offer my apologies. My point was that while a discussion of how to respond to theological differences is an important and valid, in my opinion, a Sunday School class that focuses on what makes us "special" or "different" than other Christians at least to me does not seem very edifying. A possible problem is how to handle another believer in this Sunday School Class who disagrees with the teacher. Do we then create division where it may have not existed before? Yes we are commanded to "give an account of our faith" and also to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I have found myself, and maybe this is why this is a tender spot for me, gaining an attitude of superiority in theological issues when focusing on why I am right and they are wrong. While most basic doctrines are settled within the Reformed Community there are still many divisions. I can name a few such as Baptism, Communion, etc. I am merely stating that, in my opinion, a class which focuses on "differences" have the potential to divide a Church. A Sunday School Class focused on what we believe and why is more important than why what other Christians believe is wrong.
This is my opinion and mine only. No offense is intended and I pray none is taken.
 
I am merely stating that, in my opinion, a class which focuses on "differences" have the potential to divide a Church. A Sunday School Class focused on what we believe and why is more important than why what other Christians believe is wrong.​

I think once we consider how to teach these things, we will soon see that we cannot achieve such proffered ideals. For example, how does one explain why we embrace Calvinism without explaining why we reject Arminianism? To do the former without the latter seems not just inadequate but impossible. To affirm limited atonement is to deny unlimited atonement. To affirm the person of Christ is to reject Nestorianism.
 
Beginning in June I’m planning to lead / facilitate a twelve week SS class on doctrines that divide evangelicals. Below are some seed thoughts. (1.5 hour classes.)

Baptism (mode and subjects); Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge; Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism; Israel and the Church; spiritual presence vs real absence; Regulative Principle; Charismata; Christian liberty (wine / strong drink); women in the church.

Please offer any suggestions, warnings, insights....

Thanks!

God "speaking to" you apart from Scripture or guiding you through some kind of semi-revelatory but nonverbal prompting. That overlaps with "charismata", but I find the mindset can even be found in otherwise non-charismatic circles. I used to be rather snared in that thinking, even though I was never a conventional charismatic.

You have plenty of people duly skeptical for what gets passed off as "speaking in tongues" and still think that God is speaking directly to them in some tangible way. Or, feel guilty about not following some Blackaby-style "prompting" to buy a different kind of toothpaste that, by not buying it you have potentially thwarted some providential evangelistic opportunity that God really wanted to make happen.

Or, relatedly, you can end up feeling like you shouldn't make some major momentous decision like which college or grad school to attend without listening for the "still small voice" or some inner prompting of which school "God wants" you to attend. (What I now like to jokingly call auto-haruspicy, divining divine intent by examining one's own entrails.)
 
My son is a student at a sizeable evangelical university. He would happily put up with a campus culture where fellow students disagreed with him on baptism, God's sovereignty in election, Reformed distinctives, etc. But he is frustrated because, instead, he mostly gets responses like, "Dude, you should get over that and come with us to XYZ church. The music is awesome there!"

At my Christian college (15+ years ago), I remember a dorm hall discussion involving a student who hadn't gotten around to being baptized. I was mercifully on the sidelines for that one. He was unsure whether to be baptized at this certain Oneness Pentacostal church he liked because they didn't teach the Trinity. He thought that was a problem and he maybe shouldn't be baptized there, but that people should also go there (and him keep going there) because of the exciting worship and how there were conversions at the altar call every week. While actually wrestling with being baptized there, he also kept asserting that the Trinity "was not a salvation issue" and he wasn't judging them on something that "was not a salvation issue."

The cringe over that one, great at the time, has only grown through the years.
 
RWD,

You stated:
"I think once we consider how to teach these things, we will soon see that we cannot achieve such proffered ideals. For example, how does one explain why we embrace Calvinism without explaining why we reject Arminianism? To do the former without the latter seems not just inadequate but impossible. To affirm limited atonement is to deny unlimited atonement. To affirm the person of Christ is to reject Nestorianism"


Thank you for your response. I agree with the idea of pointing out differences between what we believe and what others teach. My opinion was that a class that is focused on why we are right and they are wrong is fraught with potholes. In your example a Sunday School Class teaching the tenants of Calvinism will have to explain the tenants of Armenian beliefs. But the class is about Calvinism, not why the Armenian beliefs are wrong. The focus of the study is what is important.
My thoughts are from an experience where a new member of my church was attending Sunday School and the issue of Baptism came up. This person was for many years in a church that taught Credo-baptism. The subject became contentious with the teacher and this person and made many in the class uncomfortable. With this being on the Lord's Day I felt this was not the time or place this should have occurred. Fortunately the teacher suggested the discussion continue another day and it did.
In closing my thoughts on this subject the original post was asking for opinions about teaching a class for Sunday School. Brothers and Sisters I offered my opinion. I do not claim that my opinion was the only one nor the right one. It is and remains my opinion only. You are welcome to agree or not. I respect each and every one I am familiar with on this board and I pray that my opinion might be seen as something to be considered. Thank you for your time for reading this rather long post and may God Bless your zeal and efforts.
 
RWD,

You stated:
"I think once we consider how to teach these things, we will soon see that we cannot achieve such proffered ideals. For example, how does one explain why we embrace Calvinism without explaining why we reject Arminianism? To do the former without the latter seems not just inadequate but impossible. To affirm limited atonement is to deny unlimited atonement. To affirm the person of Christ is to reject Nestorianism"


Thank you for your response. I agree with the idea of pointing out differences between what we believe and what others teach. My opinion was that a class that is focused on why we are right and they are wrong is fraught with potholes. In your example a Sunday School Class teaching the tenants of Calvinism will have to explain the tenants of Armenian beliefs. But the class is about Calvinism, not why the Armenian beliefs are wrong. The focus of the study is what is important.
My thoughts are from an experience where a new member of my church was attending Sunday School and the issue of Baptism came up. This person was for many years in a church that taught Credo-baptism. The subject became contentious with the teacher and this person and made many in the class uncomfortable. With this being on the Lord's Day I felt this was not the time or place this should have occurred. Fortunately the teacher suggested the discussion continue another day and it did.
In closing my thoughts on this subject the original post was asking for opinions about teaching a class for Sunday School. Brothers and Sisters I offered my opinion. I do not claim that my opinion was the only one nor the right one. It is and remains my opinion only. You are welcome to agree or not. I respect each and every one I am familiar with on this board and I pray that my opinion might be seen as something to be considered. Thank you for your time for reading this rather long post and may God Bless your zeal and efforts.

I’m trying to reconcile these two statements of yours:

“My opinion was that a class that is focused on why we are right and they are wrong is fraught with potholes.”

“In your example a Sunday School Class teaching the tenants of Calvinism will have to explain the tenants of Armenian beliefs.”

You are proposing that I teach the tenets of Calvinism and Arminianism (i.e. explain them both). I agree.

The questions are:

1. May I defend Calvinism? (I think you’d say yes.)

2. Yet to defend Calvinism, mustn’t I defend it against Arminian claims? (Again, I think you’d have to say yes.)

3. Yet if I defend Calvinism against Arminianism, then aren’t I (by definition) putting forth a polemic for why Calvinism is right and Arminianism is wrong?

4. Yet isn’t that the very thing you’ve said I should not do?

How would you propose I do #1 without doing #s 2 & 3 and consequently violating your recommendation as summarized in #4?

“ It is and remains my opinion only.”

Perhaps therein lies the problem. The class isn’t interested in my opinion. My task is to explain the plain teaching of Scripture.

Thanks.
 
My opinion was that a class that is focused on why we are right and they are wrong is fraught with potholes. In your example a Sunday School Class teaching the tenants of Calvinism will have to explain the tenants of Armenian beliefs. But the class is about Calvinism, not why the Armenian beliefs are wrong. The focus of the study is what is important.
My thoughts are from an experience where a new member of my church was attending Sunday School and the issue of Baptism came up. This person was for many years in a church that taught Credo-baptism. The subject became contentious with the teacher and this person and made many in the class uncomfortable. With this being on the Lord's Day I felt this was not the time or place this should have occurred. Fortunately the teacher suggested the discussion continue another day and it did.
In closing my thoughts on this subject the original post was asking for opinions about teaching a class for Sunday School. Brothers and Sisters I offered my opinion. I do not claim that my opinion was the only one nor the right one. It is and remains my opinion only. You are welcome to agree or not. I respect each and every one I am familiar with on this board and I pray that my opinion might be seen as something to be considered. Thank you for your time for reading this rather long post and may God Bless your zeal and efforts.

I found your opinion lucid. If doctrines can be taught with a focus on either what we believe or on why other people are wrong, then it seems possible and more edifying to spend the majority of time focusing on what we believe, and only on why other people are wrong as it clarifies that focus.

(And if doctrine can only be taught by way of focusing on why other people are wrong -- why even have a class about doctrines *that divide*? Why not just plain 'doctrine'?)

I also appreciate that while teaching is rightly not about anyone's opinions, opinion was solicited on this thread and you gave it in good faith. Be sure that some of us value it! God bless.
 
“...to spend the majority of time focusing on what we believe, and only on why other people are wrong as it clarifies that focus.”

Again, I’d like to see how that cashes out in real life. The idea of “what we believe” needs to be looked at more closely. What does it really mean?

For one thing, a class is made up of many people. So, by the nature of the case, there is no one single belief on any doctrine. There is no, “what we believe.” Since “what we believe” is not monolithic, then it’s impossible to teach on “what we believe” (as individuals).

So, obviously I can’t teach “what we believe.” Maybe what is meant is that I not teach “what we believe” but instead proclaim what the Reformed elders are to confess. If so, then that can be accomplished merely by reading the Confession aloud. Yet reading the Confession aloud isn’t a defense of the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. It doesn’t explain why we ought to believe what frankly most Christians deny, the Reformed faith. So, once again...

1. May I defend Calvinism?

2. Yet to defend Calvinism, mustn’t I defend it against Arminian claims?

3. Yet if I defend Calvinism against Arminianism, then aren’t I (by definition) putting forth a polemic for why Calvinism is right and Arminianism is wrong?

4. Yet isn’t that the very thing some are saying I should not do?

How does one propose I do #1 without doing #s 2 & 3 and consequently violating the recommendation as summarized in #4?
 
I’m trying to reconcile these two statements of yours:

“My opinion was that a class that is focused on why we are right and they are wrong is fraught with potholes.”

“In your example a Sunday School Class teaching the tenants of Calvinism will have to explain the tenants of Armenian beliefs.”

You are proposing that I teach the tenets of Calvinism and Arminianism (i.e. explain them both). I agree.

The questions are:

1. May I defend Calvinism? (I think you’d say yes.)

2. Yet to defend Calvinism, mustn’t I defend it against Arminian claims? (Again, I think you’d have to say yes.)

3. Yet if I defend Calvinism against Arminianism, then aren’t I (by definition) putting forth a polemic for why Calvinism is right and Arminianism is wrong?

4. Yet isn’t that the very thing you’ve said I should not do?

How would you propose I do #1 without doing #s 2 & 3 and consequently violating your recommendation as summarized in #4?

“ It is and remains my opinion only.”

Perhaps therein lies the problem. The class isn’t interested in my opinion. My task is to explain the plain teaching of Scripture.

Thanks.

Thank you for your response.

I was in no way trying to make the case for not defending Reformed Theology. In our teaching (and I speak especially to those that teach and preach) we should be willing to defend our position and state why we differ from other standards. My point was to state that the focus should be in a positive light, i.e. a study of what we believe. In any study about beliefs there will be introduction of what the opposing view is and why we stand for what we believe from a Biblical standpoint. However we know that good and decent (humanly speaking) people do disagree on Biblical beliefs. I was merely suggesting the starting point not be negative but be positive. The example should be "This is what I believe and why I believe it."
There are many very well educated and knowledgeable people on this forum who disagree on issues within the church. I personally hope we can focus on what we share in common and agreed beliefs in the Reformed Faith and work to edify and build up each other. In areas we disagree, for example baptism, we allow for differences and yet be willing when the opportunity exists, to share our views. I am sure of one thing, that when we attain glory, all of our questions will be answered by the one sure truth that is in Christ our Lord. In the meantime be diligent and study the scriptures to make ourselves a tool to be used in our spiritual warfare.
Again, my position was in the focus of any study to be the building up of the saints, not to be in tearing down of others. There will be those that do not hold to Calvinistic beliefs on earth that will be in heaven. But while we are on earth I exhort all of us to be faithful and willing to defend what we believe, in love, that Christ may be glorified in all we do.

Thank you for your time and may God bless all who strive to be faithful.

David
 
What some are missing is false doctrine ultimately comes from the father of lies and, therefore, often has many twists and turns or contortions. To untangle the sophistry of, say, Molinism, with its philosophical appeals to metaphysical contingency and feasible vs. possible worlds distinctions is a lot more arduous than laying out the simplicity of Calvinism and how divine foreknowledge relates to soft-determinism. Therefore, I find it a bit naive to think that “focus” or “emphasis” can be easily placed on truth rather than falsehood when the latter must first be unpacked in order to be cogently refuted. Similarly, the basis for covenant baptism is few and basic; yet the assumptions and arguments that undergird credo-only baptism can be elaborate and many. Same thing goes for the pre-tribulation rapture theory and the eternal subordination of the Son. I’m sorry to disappoint, but pulling down strongholds can take much more time than explaining the simplicity of the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top