Posts
1 Corinthians 1
10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I hereby declare my annoyance with named theology. I have been quite happy to call myself a Calvinist for a number of years, but I think I want to lose the name. My theology may not have changed, but I prefer to seek biblical theology, not theology associated with a name. Names are not only names of people but also names of systems. Systems are not necessarily bad, but sometimes I think we get so attached to a name, saying, "This is what I believe," that we cannot consider its weaknesses fairly and cannot consider where another system may have strengths or, perhaps better, create our own unique system from what we read (considering wise teachers, of course). This isn't "all systems go" or pointing fingers at anyone. I've been thinking about this for a few days and realized that my response to something was that I could not say what my mind was processing because those in my own "camp" would probably disagree with me. What was more important? What the Bible seems to be saying or what I have upheld in the past in the name of __________ theology? What those I generally agree with might think of my statement or dealing honestly with Scripture? I am a bit frustrated with myself over this.
I am also frustrated with debates that constantly invoke the same name over and over again, making that name representative of several people. No debate over a certain topic can happen without saying, "So-and-so said _________." Or, "________ holds to the same named system you do and said ________ so I assume you mean the same thing." What is that? Also, is disagreement with someone with whom we have agreed in the past cause to say that we are either misunderstanding or misunderstood? If someone disagrees with us they must not think logically. No one individual is primarily guilty of this (although I do admit that I have a particular situation in mind as I type, but it's not such a unique situation) and it comes from many people claiming various names. Let's step away from names and look to the Bible (I will also interject here that I think that Rose~ has done a very good job of doing this in her posts lately), as all names do is divide. Let no Christian say of another's theology, "You are either for me or against me." I want to have faith like a child, saying, "I am of Christ."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Yes, I suppose it is not helpful to identify oneself too closely with a system.
Personally, I am surpised by people being so bothered and irritated by 'isms'. They are convenient in terms of differentiating different theologies.
God Bless
Matthew
On the topic of Calvinism, someone pointed out this to me a couple of days ago. I think I may have run into it once before sometime around this discussion.
I find that the more I wrestle with God on a topic, the less inclined I am to want to stick a label on what I know about God because of that experience. It's so... inarticulate.
Let me begin by formally introducing you two. Matthew, meet Tim. Tim is a long time friend of mine. Our families were very close when we were growing up. The fellowship his family met with practiced (I assume they still do) headcoverings and had no "pastor." Tim, meet Matthew. Matthew is a friend from the blogosphere. We met essentially by arguing with each other on another blog. Matthew is working on a PhD thesis on J.N. Darby.
Okay, enough of the formalities.
Matthew, I think I am frustrated by the "isms" now because I find myself dissatisfied with the one I've held for a long time and haven't found another one to replace it. But I don't really want another "ism" to replace it right now. I want to seek out what the Bible says and if there is an "ism" that matches my conclusions I may be willing to claim it, but I don't want to jump from "ism" to "ism" right now. Do you see what I am saying?
I think Tim articulated it well when he said, "I find that the more I wrestle with God on a topic, the less inclined I am to want to stick a label on what I know about God because of that experience." I think that's one thing that I was trying to say. It is somewhat difficult to express exactly what is bothering me because I don't want to be explicit about who said what about whom. That's not my goal and no one comment is to blame.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the article Tim linked.
Tim, thanks for linking the article and your blog post. I think I had a conversation with you via AIM about Calvinism around that time. Do I remember correctly? This line from your chat is what is bothering me about Calvinism today (by which I literally mean today): the genuine offer of salvation that Christ makes to every human being. It is one of the issues that is making me rethink things. Where does the weight of Scripture fall? I am thinking right now that it falls on the side of God's boundless love for humanity. Six months ago I would have answered dogmatically differently, but recently some questions have been stirring in my mind that I cannot reconcile with the system but I can reconcile with the Bible, so something's got to be missing from the system.
I liked the following quotes from the article:
I am stunted, narrowed, one-sided; and I am in danger of getting into that hard, dry state of soul which results from being occupied with mere points of doctrine instead of with Christ.
Not one of them contains the full, entire truth of God.
But all who perish will have only themselves to blame. All who reach Heaven will have to thank God.
If passages of Scripture seem to clash, it is only because of our ignorance. Let us humbly own this, and wait on God for further light.
Interesting post, Angie. I am a Baptist, because I know "most" baptists preach eternal security. I do believe that name association help identify with your belief/theology.
But when I am asked by usaved ones (for instance, while tract passing) what am I, I simply answer that I'm a Bible Believer, follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I will quite quickly and openly declare myself a Baptist because that's what kind of church I go to. Interestingly, however, Baptists are united by very little theology. It is by far the most dominant denominational designation for churches in the United States and covers the whole conservative to liberal scale theologically. While you may find unity within a particular Baptist denomination (among Conservative Baptists, as the church I was raised in is, or among Regular Baptists, as the church I go to now is), what makes Baptists Baptists is typically a belief in autonomy of the local church (usually coupled with congregational church polity) and in believer's baptism. My dad's grandmother was a Southern Baptist and she certainly did not believe in eternal security. American Baptists are extremely liberal and hold to some very unbiblical positions. Even a denominational designation becomes something somewhat nebulous.
I was referring to things more like Calvinism, Arminianism, progressive dispensationalism, covenant theology and so forth. I agree with Matthew that they are useful for differentiating theologies but I think the danger is that we put ourselves and other people into theological boxes when we use them too religiously. For instance I referred to myself as a Calvinist and someone said that I was therefore a believer in determinism, which is not true, but because I used the term I was assumed to believe according to someone's (what I consider limited) understanding of a theology they did not espouse. I then had to define exactly what I believed. Perhaps I should have started by defining what I believed and left out the "ism." It would have saved a lot of misunderstanding and I doubt I would have been accused of believing in a God just like the Muslim Allah.
Excellent post and commentary. We should all be known by the love we have for one another.
Chris, thanks for visiting.
I agree with you, Angie. It's just better to simply say "I believe what the Bible teaches to be true." I got frustrated with the label thing too, but if a fellow Christian asks me where I stand theologically I say I am of a Calvinistic leaning/persuasion -- just because most people understand labels better than me dragging out my Bible and giving them my creed for the next two hours.
I found myself quite misunderstood when I used the label. Perhaps the "Calvinist leaning" is they key, although right now I'm reconsidering and would prefer to avoid the label (or any label). I will likely avoid discussions directly about some of the issues related to soteriology while I am reconsidering, so perhaps by the time I'm ready to state my position I will know what to call myself again.
I am a Dispensational Fundamentalist, who holds a Non-Calvinist Free Grace view of Soteriology, a Darbyite Brethren view of ecclesiology and I am Post-Tribulational Premillennial in eschatology.
I rather like labels.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Tim, CH Mackintosh was an excellent writer, almost certainly the best writer in Brethren history, but in my view he conceded too much to Calvinistic views of election.
God Bless
Matthew
Yes, Matthew, I see that you do rather like labels. You also know what you believe and thus can feel comfortable with your labels. I'm just not there right now.
My husband really likes labels. I have mostly been a non-label Christian.
I was reading your post and was saying "yes!' "amen!" and then I saw you linked to me in the post. :~) What a neat post for me to read. I am very encouraged, Angie, by the things you have said.
I do claim one specific label. I am a dispensationalist. (I never knew how controversial it was before blogging). It just makes sense to me to try and see the different parts of Scripture in context - that is my simple definition of dispensationalism. :~)
Thanks for the post!!
Thanks, Rose. I do appreciate your attempts to seek the truth of Scripture. They encourage me.
I will claim the Fundamentalist label, I admit. That one has many negative connotations in modern society, but I'll wear it with pride anyway. :)
Ya know, I wear that label also. :~) I even have accepted the Baptist label, but with reluctance. I have obeserved the same as you have about its many ambiguities - therefore I wonder about its usefulness.
I am definitely not Baptist. I hold to believer's baptism, but I think it is fundamentally wrong to make believer's baptism an issue of fellowship and ecclesial identity.
I also reject Baptist views on church government and ecclesiology.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Hmmm. I have only attended three churches in my lifetime (attended regularly, not just visiting), and they were all Baptist, so I don't have a problem with the label, although, as I said before, I don't really find it all that useful, and typically would say that I go to a Baptist church rather than I am a Baptist. I use the label most often to make fun of myself. I don't dance because I'm a good Baptist, for example. ;)
I would imagine that you would not like the government of the church I am at now, Matthew. To be honest it even bothers me a bit. Too much responsibility given to the senior pastor, I think. What kind of church are you going to now?
Independant Evangelica; (Fellowship of Independant Evangelical Churches). Almost Baptist, but with plural elders. It has a very heavy structure.
I cannot say I like it, but the preaching is good and they do not have women preachers.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Post a Comment