C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
I wanted to post this on the board about the board itself and its purpose. As of late, we have had a few people leave. I'm not afraid to tell you that because it has been blatantly posted on the board, and even if it was not posted, I would have still told you. Why? Because there is no reason for anyone to leave.
The purpose of the board is twofold: it is a means of influence, and it is a means of being influenced, all for the glory of God. We either influence one another, or we are influenced. Not everyone is at the same level of sanctification as everyone else. Sometimes the subjects that are discussed are far too heavy or weighty for newer Christians to be involved in. Other times some hot debate around theological issues causes zealous posts that may be fueled with some hearty theological pressure against ideas that may not be in accord with what you believe. That's OK. I did not start the Puritanboard with the intention that we would theological "baby" everyone. The purpose of the board is to exercise our theological minds so that we may become more like Christ - that we may help one another along to heaven.
The board has become a place where many who are dealing with critical theological issues debate one another. One issue is a the everlasting credo-paedo debate. Take this in perspective - there are many people who are thinking through this debate and trying to make a landing. Others have just crossed over. Other are more steadfast and firm in their position. Their posts reflect this because they are trying to figure things out. All that is well and good. Praise God we have a place where we can test our thoughts on other people, attempt to theologically overrule them by good argumentation, and enter into a thoughtful discussion. Pigeon holing someone is not a bad thing especially when the one trying to pigeon hole the other is working through their theology and trying to figure out if they are missing something. That helps them make a conscious decision which way they should go, and it also rubs others to consider that their position may not be as strong as they thought. All this comes down to debate. Luther posted the 95 Theses on the door of Wittenberg hoping to DEBATE. His Theses were less than "kind" in many ways. His objective was to set forth solid biblical material (in his mind) and debate other to see where he may be right and where he may be wrong.
On the board we debate. Debating is good. We live in a society of toleration where people don't want to talk about religion, and politics. Do we want to be politically correct or theologically accurate?
In terms of HOW we deal with one another, we should be charitable and helpful. That does not mean we should stop debating. I quote one of our moderators, "I'm tired of the "he doesn't like my theology" "Oh he makes fun of my position" "Oh, you're inconsistent" "no, you're inconsistent" "no, you are really inconsistent" back and forth." This is very tiring for both the moderators to continually step in and baby-sit, and for others who really want to think through positions. When someone gives a position, and then someone else says "That is inconsistent" without proving it, that is what we call "ad hominem" argumentation - its just poking at them without offering anything to state the "real" position you think you have.
We are called upon by the Lord to contend earnestly for the faith. (Jude 3) That does not necessarily involve being contentious; but it involves avoiding compromise, standing forth for what we believe, standing forth for the truth of God-without welching at any particular moment. Thus, we are bound to meet, at various points and various levels, people with whom we disagree.
As roger Nicole said, there are three thinks we should be thinking about when dealing with people with whom we theologically disagree:
(1) What do I owe the person who differs from me?
(2) What can I learn from the person who differs from me?
(3) How can I cope with the person who differs from me?
If you are debating, but overlooking these, then you are sinning against your brother.
There is, therefore, an obligation if we are going to voice differences to make a serious effort to know the person and position with whom we differ. We must attempt to understand what a person means.
Similarly, in dealing with those who differ, we ought not to quibble about language just in order to pounce on our opponent because he or she has not used accurate wording. It is more effective to seek to apprehend what is meant and then to relate ourselves to the person's meaning.
In charity we should be thinking that the first thing that I should be prepared to learn is that I am wrong and the other person is right. Yes, you could be wrong. You are a fallen, but redeemed, human being. They could be a right. Consider this.
Our reputation will be better served if we show ourselves ready to be corrected when in error, rather than if we keep obstinately to our viewpoint when the evidence shows it to be wrong. I should welcome the correction. It makes me wise to welcome it: Proverbs 9:8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.
We should remember:
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any way contrary to His Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship" (WCF 20:2).
We need here to be careful to make a reverent use of Scripture, quoting every reference in a way that is consistent with its context. This will protect our approach against the legitimate criticisms levied against "proof-texting," a method that lifts scriptural statements from their environment, and marshals them as if they were isolated pronouncements vested with divine authority without regard to the way in which they are introduced in Holy Writ.
We must therefore, be careful to use the Scripture in such a way that an examination of the context will strengthen, not weaken the argument.
Perhaps the most important consideration for the Christian is to remain aware at all times of the goal to be achieved. It is the consistent perception of this goal that will give a basic orientation to the whole discussion: Are we attempting to win an argument in order to manifest our own superior knowledge and debating ability? Or are we seeking to win another person whom we perceive as enmeshed in error or inadequacy by exposing him or her to the truth and light that God has given to us?
As Dr. Nicole rightly says, "A Christian in carrying on discussions with those who differ should not be subject to the psychology of the boxing ring where the contestants are bent upon demolishing one another. Rather "The Lord's servant must not quarrel: instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses..." (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
May we take this all to heart and be wise in the manner in which we deal with one another.
But we must never, ever forget that we are after TRUTH. TRUTH that transforms us into the body of Christ, and like Christ, is what this discussion board is all about.
[Edited on 6-27-2004 by webmaster]
The purpose of the board is twofold: it is a means of influence, and it is a means of being influenced, all for the glory of God. We either influence one another, or we are influenced. Not everyone is at the same level of sanctification as everyone else. Sometimes the subjects that are discussed are far too heavy or weighty for newer Christians to be involved in. Other times some hot debate around theological issues causes zealous posts that may be fueled with some hearty theological pressure against ideas that may not be in accord with what you believe. That's OK. I did not start the Puritanboard with the intention that we would theological "baby" everyone. The purpose of the board is to exercise our theological minds so that we may become more like Christ - that we may help one another along to heaven.
The board has become a place where many who are dealing with critical theological issues debate one another. One issue is a the everlasting credo-paedo debate. Take this in perspective - there are many people who are thinking through this debate and trying to make a landing. Others have just crossed over. Other are more steadfast and firm in their position. Their posts reflect this because they are trying to figure things out. All that is well and good. Praise God we have a place where we can test our thoughts on other people, attempt to theologically overrule them by good argumentation, and enter into a thoughtful discussion. Pigeon holing someone is not a bad thing especially when the one trying to pigeon hole the other is working through their theology and trying to figure out if they are missing something. That helps them make a conscious decision which way they should go, and it also rubs others to consider that their position may not be as strong as they thought. All this comes down to debate. Luther posted the 95 Theses on the door of Wittenberg hoping to DEBATE. His Theses were less than "kind" in many ways. His objective was to set forth solid biblical material (in his mind) and debate other to see where he may be right and where he may be wrong.
On the board we debate. Debating is good. We live in a society of toleration where people don't want to talk about religion, and politics. Do we want to be politically correct or theologically accurate?
In terms of HOW we deal with one another, we should be charitable and helpful. That does not mean we should stop debating. I quote one of our moderators, "I'm tired of the "he doesn't like my theology" "Oh he makes fun of my position" "Oh, you're inconsistent" "no, you're inconsistent" "no, you are really inconsistent" back and forth." This is very tiring for both the moderators to continually step in and baby-sit, and for others who really want to think through positions. When someone gives a position, and then someone else says "That is inconsistent" without proving it, that is what we call "ad hominem" argumentation - its just poking at them without offering anything to state the "real" position you think you have.
We are called upon by the Lord to contend earnestly for the faith. (Jude 3) That does not necessarily involve being contentious; but it involves avoiding compromise, standing forth for what we believe, standing forth for the truth of God-without welching at any particular moment. Thus, we are bound to meet, at various points and various levels, people with whom we disagree.
As roger Nicole said, there are three thinks we should be thinking about when dealing with people with whom we theologically disagree:
(1) What do I owe the person who differs from me?
(2) What can I learn from the person who differs from me?
(3) How can I cope with the person who differs from me?
If you are debating, but overlooking these, then you are sinning against your brother.
There is, therefore, an obligation if we are going to voice differences to make a serious effort to know the person and position with whom we differ. We must attempt to understand what a person means.
Similarly, in dealing with those who differ, we ought not to quibble about language just in order to pounce on our opponent because he or she has not used accurate wording. It is more effective to seek to apprehend what is meant and then to relate ourselves to the person's meaning.
In charity we should be thinking that the first thing that I should be prepared to learn is that I am wrong and the other person is right. Yes, you could be wrong. You are a fallen, but redeemed, human being. They could be a right. Consider this.
Our reputation will be better served if we show ourselves ready to be corrected when in error, rather than if we keep obstinately to our viewpoint when the evidence shows it to be wrong. I should welcome the correction. It makes me wise to welcome it: Proverbs 9:8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.
We should remember:
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any way contrary to His Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship" (WCF 20:2).
We need here to be careful to make a reverent use of Scripture, quoting every reference in a way that is consistent with its context. This will protect our approach against the legitimate criticisms levied against "proof-texting," a method that lifts scriptural statements from their environment, and marshals them as if they were isolated pronouncements vested with divine authority without regard to the way in which they are introduced in Holy Writ.
We must therefore, be careful to use the Scripture in such a way that an examination of the context will strengthen, not weaken the argument.
Perhaps the most important consideration for the Christian is to remain aware at all times of the goal to be achieved. It is the consistent perception of this goal that will give a basic orientation to the whole discussion: Are we attempting to win an argument in order to manifest our own superior knowledge and debating ability? Or are we seeking to win another person whom we perceive as enmeshed in error or inadequacy by exposing him or her to the truth and light that God has given to us?
As Dr. Nicole rightly says, "A Christian in carrying on discussions with those who differ should not be subject to the psychology of the boxing ring where the contestants are bent upon demolishing one another. Rather "The Lord's servant must not quarrel: instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses..." (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
May we take this all to heart and be wise in the manner in which we deal with one another.
But we must never, ever forget that we are after TRUTH. TRUTH that transforms us into the body of Christ, and like Christ, is what this discussion board is all about.
[Edited on 6-27-2004 by webmaster]
& 
. I had some stuff to say, but there's not much to add anymore, especially after the last post. I plan to stay in fellowship with you all on this board until one of the following three things happen: 1) The board ends; 2) I die; 3) Christ returns. Thanks for posting this thread, Matt; it needed to be said.
