Probably but this is not the thread for that.
That is absolutely correct. Well said.
We learn correct theology as we grow in grace (and knowledge, understanding, and wisdom). There is a lot of bad theology abounding.
Amen.
Good starting point. And I agree it takes a study in itself to outline a curriculum for such a class, especially within a church. I have good organizational skills and if I set my mind to it, could probably manage, but even thinking about the task abstractly is mind boggling to me. There is just so much!! And it is all interconnected. Not only that but a lot comes from rabbit trails that can naturally occur but are important in their own right.
People could start the class as an eighteen year old and still be learning when they were eighty.
To back everything that comes from the pulpit up through exposition of scripture. To teach first the meaning of a scripture as the main body of the preaching and them a smaller portion to its application(s). That too has been lost. It is scriptures isolated and applied however one want to apply them, with no regard whatsoever as to what they mean or how they fit within the whole counsel of God or even if they do.
It sounds like you're ready to start Sunday Seminary at your Church; even if you're not the teacherGood starting point. And I agree it takes a study in itself to outline a curriculum for such a class, especially within a church. I have good organizational skills and if I set my mind to it, could probably manage, but even thinking about the task abstractly is mind boggling to me. There is just so much!! And it is all interconnected. Not only that but a lot comes from rabbit trails that can naturally occur but are important in their own right.
Someone who is really good at this Sproul---once a seminary teacher. I get so much historic and language education even from his teachings. (I have started watching some of his videos on youtube that go back as far as when he was quite a young man all the way up to the most recent before his passing.)
People could start the class as an eighteen year old and still be learning when they were eighty.
I think comparisons of the theologies such as Arminianism and Calvinism and tracking them forward through theology to see the conclusions concerning God and who He is as self revealed, would arrive at if followed through to a conclusion, would be excellent. I think follow through is what is deeply missing in many of the things Christians profess to believe.
For example in Arminianism in its free will aspect, I see in its conclusion a God completely inconsistent with how God reveals HImself from beginning to end. Of stepping back from His plan of redemption at its most crucial point, it's being applied to people through the suffering and death of Christ, and leaving the effectiveness of the cross in the hands of man who consider Him their enemy and who are enemies of God.
On the Calvinist side, those who hate this theology start with a conclusion without ever bothering to arrive at it theologically. They say it makes Him evil and unfair to choose some and not choose others. They bring in scripture saying that would make Him partial when look here in acts it says He is not partial. Even though that passage in acts has nothing to do with election but is in the midst of the evidence of God bringing salvation not only to Jews but to Gentiles also. This astonished the Jews.
So the conclusion is that the God of Calvinism is not a God they like, therefore He must be the one they like. The one who lets them choose their own destiny and be responsible for their own applying of the work of Christ to themselves.
Which one is theologically sound?
Or instead of seminary we could just start at age five and continue, teaching classes in critical thinking.
You can franchise iit.s .
If I can I don't know how. But posts #10 and #20 in this thread are examples. Not all of your posts are that way but I have seen others in different threads. It isn't a problem, I was just curious how that happens.
Well....It sounds like you're ready to start Sunday Seminary at your Church; even if you're not the teacher
I'm a 5-Point Calvinist; but you've probably noticed that they think of me as an Arminian...
Eat the two A+C fish, and pick the bones from each of them. As @Josheb said; he doesn't like everything Calvin believed, and he thinks Arminius was okay...
. Perversely so, perhaps, but fun nonetheless .
It is a given that no one is right about everything or all the time. Though one would be hard pressed to think anyone knows that once an argument starts.It sounds like you're ready to start Sunday Seminary at your Church; even if you're not the teacher
I'm a 5-Point Calvinist; but you've probably noticed that they think of me as an Arminian...
Eat the two A+C fish, and pick the bones from each of them. As @Josheb said; he doesn't like everything Calvin believed, and he thinks Arminius was okay...
You make good points above.Well....
I don't think Arminius was okay, but I do think he was Reformed, not merely reformed, and I want us all to have a correct understanding of the primary historical influences in our debate. Arminians can fall within the pale of orthodoxy, along with Calvinists, but Pelagians cannot. As you probably already know, A LOT of self-styled Arminians aren't actually Arminian but they don't know it. They same is true of Wesleyans. I'd much rather discuss soteriology with an Arminian who correctly knows Arminianism and a Traditionalists who knows Traditionalism (even though I reject both views) than a Pelagian arguing under his or her auspices as a self-styled Arminian. that latter conversation can't rightly becalled a conversation because unless and until they recognize the inconsistencies between their identification and what Arminius actually believed and taught, we get nowhere. The diversity within Calvinism doesn't help. A conversation with Pink looks different than one with Sproul.
Sometimes it's fun to say Arminius was a one-pointer and watch the aggravation that ensues
That's a good point Sister...
Wonderfully depicted and stated.
The Fundamentals, used as a Hermeneutic; what a Concept?!
I think I know what you are asking.
I think I know what you are asking.
I'm not sure I regard theology the way you do.
Yep. However, 1) even within TULIP there is diversity of both understanding and teaching (Pink and Sproul had different takes of God's sovereignty) and 2) Calvin's "Institutes" are certainly historically influential, but his commentaries are better for understanding his theology. The Institutes were originally intended to reform the Roman Catholic Church, not set Protestant doctrine and practice. Which means..... his followers' use of the Institutes was at least somewhat misguided. Historically, it's a seminal work, but theologically it's like Augustie's "Confessions" = not the best place to start understanding the man's more mature and studious theology.
If my experience is shared among growing Christians, then it is not surprising Arminius would hypothesize an intermediate moment between death and life in which God liberates the sinner because that's an easy way to hold the sinner to a greater degree of personal responsibility, culpability, and accountability. I got there without ever reading Arminius. Reading on Arminian views of salvation (not Arminius first-hand) only confirmed my already existing beliefs. Some of the older Cals in CARM can tell you how I sued to debate them as a Calminian (by that time I'd begun to have less rancor toward Cals and more learning from scripture.
The first 22 years of my 40 year walk as a stranger and wayfarer I thought it was me who chose Jesus. After all I remember saying the prayer in my home with a "Just in case this is true," tacked on. It is kind of a long story and doesn't need to be told. But that is all that was all I was ever taught. But I too would come across those scriptures that say God gives the new heart, God does this, God does that. And I would put it down to surely I was not being taught wrong.
I'm not sure I regard theology the way you do.
