Name dropping... poor way to discuss doctrine

Leonard Ravenhill once said... oh wait... nevermind.

Brother, scripture is my final authority. I hope you know that and I hope that is clear in my writings. If it is not then I must correct that. But I hope you know that scripture teaches us to imitate others who have shown an example of Christ. Paul says in:

1 Corinthians 11:1, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."

1 Corinthians 4:16, "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me (Paul)."

Hebrews 6:12, "That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises."

Philippians 3:17, "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

I do not go to men as my final authority, but I do however see their walk with God and I strive to imitate/follow it as they are showing forth the example of Christ.

I 'dropped' their names to show you and others that many Godly men who have an example of Christ-like love have believed in the doctrine of Calvinism. To call Calvinism a 'sect or heresy' is to call these men heretics.

But do you understand the use of the verses I quoted?

In 1 Cor. 4:16 Paul says to follow him or imitate him in some translations.

Mike

Christ's commandments or Paul's opinions?

There is no reason to break apart something that is of a cohesive whole. That Paul had the integrity to mention those few things that were 'not the Lord' doesn't make them merely opinion.

Paul says, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me." (I COR 4:16)

[i]Of my example[/i]

[b]Be ye followers of me[/b] - Imitate me; copy my example; listen to my admonitions. Probably Paul had particularly in his eye their tendency to form parties; and here admonishes them that he had no disposition to form sects, and entreats them in this to imitate his example. A minister should always so live as that he can, without pride or ostentation, point to his own example; and entreat his people to imitate him. He should have such a confidence in his own integrity; he should lead such a blameless life; and “he should be assured that his people have so much evidence of his integrity,” that he can point them to his own example, and entreat them to live like himself. And to do this, he should live a life of piety, and should furnish such evidence of a pure conversation, that his people may have reason to regard him as a holy man.

Albert Barnes

I realize this is just the topic here; "names" but will come back to it.

"...and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." (I COR 7:40)

That is an idiom or figure of speech, certainly Paul was not in any doubt about whether he had the Holy Spirit.

There has been unfortunately many that have attempted to break apart or pit Paul against the Lord Himself, this same Lord who struck him blind and later used him, with all his background and knowledge to explain the faith even far beyond what His own closest disciples did. It is incredible that he both used it and at the same time refereed to it as 'dung' by way of comparison, [i]that I may win Christ, and be found in Him[/i].

My take on all this is that surely an over emphasis and clinging to one particular 'school of thought' or "name" would put us in the same ... ironic position that Paul spoke of;

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

But the flip-side of a 'strictly' sticking to scripture [i]mentality[/i] ... and boy does that need some qualifiers ... often breeds a very subtle form of pride, sometimes even an overt one.

I think a false perception can be made that by quoting some past fellow family member that there is an automatic agreement by bringing it forth. Often it can be just to consider and ponder it to put it out for consideration, to see it before you and then to also compare it to scripture, other scriptures even if it is explaining a verse of scripture itself.

Of course we ought to be testing everything back to the scriptures, I am more afraid of a dismissive mindset that cannot or will not learn from those far wiser than ourselves.

I know that is really not where Krispy was going with this entirely, just some observations.

Krispy wrote:

Providing a list of teachers and theologians who agree with whatever position we're taking is a very poor way of trying to win a debate.

Amen...

When we look for comfort amongst the company of men we often limit ourselves and go no further than these men with the Scripture. So we remove the posiblity that the Lord might actually speak to us personally by way of the Scripture. Denominations are the result of this worshiping of other men.

Likewise, one cannot compare Calvin, Luther, or Tozer to Paul, John, or Ezekiel.

In Christ
Jeff

Both

One of our common pitfalls is looking for the superhero to come and make sense of all our questions right now. Because we tend to be impatient and faithless, we create idols of strong leaders. My own wrestling with this issue has been much helped by reaffirming first the authority of scripture, and then the aim of scripture..

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." As I understand it Inspired was from the Greek word theopnuestos meaning quite literally that Scripture is "God-breathed…. expired…. breathed-out.” In other words Scripture isn’t some great book dependent of men of higher education to explain it to the masses. The Bible is the effusive miracle of an outpouring God who filled selected men with His words, communicated directly, precisely, and successfully in human language with the power to make each of us intimately, and inwardly wise unto salvation.

I realize we probably believe this already, but just in case here is a better expression of this vital idea from B.B.Warfield to help drive the point.

“What is theopnuestos is “God-Breathed” produced by the creative breath of the Almighty. And scripture is called theopnuestos in order to designate it as “God-Breathed, the product of Divine spiration, the creation of that Spirit who is in all spheres of divine activity the executive of the Godhead. The tradional translation of the word by the Latin inspiratus a Deo is no doubt also discredited, if we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God…what it affirms is that the scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is the foundation of Divine Origin that all the highest attributes of Scripture are built.”

So God is intent on, and quite capable of, speaking personally to us by His Word.

Yet we cannot dispense with being taught from other men. (Letters may be written personally by one hand, but delivered by another...) We need each other. Though in Christ we have put on the New Man with God's incorruptable seed in us, we find much of our inwardness still human and our thought processes still worldy.(I'm not talking about two natures but about immaturity and inexperience.) In Christ we are perhaps capable of being made improved in our understanding, but remain liable to misunderstanding. We are all prone to stumble over our limited comprehension, past experiences, volatile feelings, incorrect knowledge, and lack of sense. I think for this reason, the Lord graces us with one another to help compliment, complete, reprove and sharpen our understanding of the His Word. We engage one another in the Scriptures, some teaching and others learning, but all with a heart of worship and attentiveness to the Holy Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord. I think the sphere of Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ includes doctrinal humility.

So in the end we should all desire to feel the light of God's Word adding understanding to our own hearts directly…the importance of this cannot be overstated. Even so, we are not self-sufficient even in Christ! (Bears repeating...) We may indeed have the sun shining warmly down on our private fields, and the rain softening our own soil, but the fact remains some of us are better at planting and some are better at harvesting. We need help even in our own fields. So we wisely and happily submit to one another scripturally to grow fruit in our own lives.

MC

My point here is... [b]scripture[/b], not teachers or theologians, is to be our final authority on everything.

This point also came up in the tongues/baptism in the Holy Ghost thread, where I also dropped you a few names.

I agree that scripture is the final authority, however we also need to watch that we aren't being misguided by the interpretations of another unnoticed man - ourselves.

For this reason I think it is valid considering different scriptural views of noteworthy Christians, especially if they have produced definite fruit for Christ.

I think it's a bit like analyzing various Bible commentaries when trying to get a full understanding of a scripture. It doesn't mean we automatically accept the first commentary as being right.

PassingThru

Dropping names to prove scripture isn't useful. What is useful is that when a doctrine is described as heresy or dangerous and false it is perfectly legitimate to reference that the doctrine was held by a very long list of the holiest most effective evangelists who ever followed after God. If men and women much more holy and more Spirit filled than I were burned at the stake for professing a high doctrine, then I will tread much more carefully over that debate. I think that knowledge of church history and reminders of the blood shed in these debates that we tend to take so lightly is important and probably explains at least my passion in a discussion of important scriptural mysteries.

scripture , not teachers or theologians, is to be our final authority on everything.

Countless cults, false teachings, and misinterpretations are supported by these very words. When we push aside all those “untrustworthy” authorities really we make ourselves the final authority. God has placed his truth in all kinds of people – some who can see through our blind spots (just as easily as we can see THEIR blind spots). It takes humility to admit this.

we also need to watch that we aren't being misguided by the interpretations of another unnoticed man - ourselves.

I believe THAT the Bible is God's authoritative word, as do countless others who hold quite different persuasions. But I would not for a minute claim that I believe and rightly understand every aspect of it. Quite the contrary. Realizing that, I fall at the feet of my Master and ask him to expose my errors and lead me to his truth. It's a life-long process, and involves the insights that God has given others.

We’ve all heard it said, “You can make the Bible say anything you want.”

That happens when scriptures are pulled out of their context, be it literal or historical, and then interpreted through the filters of man's preconceptions – a very common error. Let’s admit, our evangelical fundamental traditions are peppered with such errors - some quite serious.

Diane

I think for this reason, the Lord graces us with one another to help compliment, complete, reprove and sharpen our understanding of the His Word. We engage one another in the Scriptures, some teaching and others learning, but all with a heart of worship and attentiveness to the Holy Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord. I think the sphere of Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ includes doctrinal humility.

So in the end we should all desire to feel the light of God's Word adding understanding to our own hearts directly

[i]Adding[/i] Rather like that MC. Like a lot of these, too many to quote from.

Sometimes I assume everyone here knows me well enough to understand my point without me having to explain everything in detail... thats obviously not always true. Usually I think I'm a good communicator, other times... not so much.

Without a doubt Krispy, just as well you would recognize the extrapolations and perspectives drawn off on to other considerations from that starting point.

There may yet be something to a bit of purposeful ignorance. That is to say on certain 'theological' constructs. Have mentioned it before but there is a great deal that is not all that interesting to ... 'have to understand' of particular ... "stances", be they of Calvinism and the points, Finney's line of reasoning, even the wonderful Godly reasoning of Wesley. If I am following you correctly it does become a snare and a stunting of growth if, by means of [i]holding[/i] tightly to these saints and their [i]particulars[/i], aping their thoughts, agreeing wholesale to their ... [i]methods[/i] the end can be one of being pigeonholed and far too often, mean, unruly, obnoxious, bitter, both spiritually and in practicality.

Another redundant rant often forwarded here is the beauty of gleaning from such a wide array of seemingly competing thought. It is not to form yet another [i]abomination[/i] but to distill and be made to consider, to glean ... [i]spiritual substance[/i].

Even after some four years traversing this wonder it is quite amazing how much ... in common ultimately, spiritually, where it truly matters there is agreement underneath so many diverse and seemingly opposite ... 'schools of thought'. The ignorance I am speaking of is one that sees all these vast perspectives as being of the same substance, namely Christ.

Of course that is a great sweeping generality and doesn't speak to many a false construct nor to do away with a ... deconstruction by way of examination in light of scripture, which I think by and large is one of the thrusts attempted here in this [i]forum[/i], something quite more than a place to post random thoughts of little import ... I digress, guess I felt a need to express that.

What is truly fascinating is to watch the growth of each other, for those who have tarried here for some duration. It is often on a level that even defies proper definition ... Have seen men softened in the right places and strengthened in others, all this chiseling and sharing, shaping and challenging, being used in ways unknown to even ourselves, a word, a sentence, a quote ... those things that scar themselves into the marrow of our being, we are changed by all this Praise God.

Yea... I cringe when I think of some of the things I said, and attitudes I harbored when I first arrived here a couple years ago!

Cringe would be mild ... to go back to some things written over these preceding years ..."What in the world was I [i]thinking[/i]?" ;-)

220 is much easier for finishing ...

I have to apologize to Jay for putting the spotlight on him. In retrospect I probably could have found a better way of getting my point across. Sorry Jay... hope we're good.

I forgive you. We are definitely good brother.

Also, whyme that was a great point you made in your last post.

My point here is... scripture, not teachers or theologians, is to be our final authority on everything.

Dear Krispy,

This will shock you, but I agree with you totally.

Though, I have an addition. Scripture should be the final authority once the Spirit reigns in us, so that when we read scripture, it is the revelation of God we are receiving, and not our own interpretation or understanding. In this way, we trust in God and do not lean on our own understanding.

The bible can be warped to fit any person's doctrine. This is quite obvious by how many doctrines of men have been established by using the bible.

We must first establish that a person needs to be completely abandoned to Christ, seeking God's Will, first. When this happens, the authority of the bible is established by God who is revealing it through His Spirit, and not by our own fleshly understanding of it.

Does that make sense? Do you agree?

In Christ,
Blake

Krispy said,

Sometimes I assume everyone here knows me well enough to understand my point without me having to explain everything in detail... thats obviously not always true.

Krispy, I’m not quite certain if these words are a response to my post. However, since they quickly followed my post, I couldn’t help but suspect that I may be one of those culprits who “obviously” doesn’t know you well enough.

You will be happy to know that my words were not geared to contradict your very insightful thoughts. (There are two sides only in wars, politics, sports, chess, debates ... and I’m not one for creating sides) I’m sure that you understand ME from my past posts – that the authoritative role of the Spirit and the Word is paramount to me.

There is a fine line to be drawn here – not between those who listen to man and those who do not, but between those who rely on man (including themselves) and those who rely the Lord. We cannot deny the fact that the Spirit does indeed equip people in the body with various aspects of his truths, and he leads them to share it. We are interdependent (as opposed to dependent).

I believe that the temptation to “go it solo” lurks under the skin of most of us; and also, it is easy to swing too far to one side. Therefore our various attempts to keep truth in balance aught to be as welcome as sunshine.

all this chiseling and sharing, shaping and challenging, being used in ways unknown to even ourselves

Diane

This is an aspect of what I call the 'Gashmu Syndrome', as in...“Wherein was written, It is reported among the heathen, [u]and Gashmu saith it[/u], that thou and the Jews think to rebel: for which cause thou buildest the wall, that thou mayest be their king, according to these words.” (Neh 6:6 KJVS)Of course if Gashmu, whoever he was, says it it must be true! :-)

For 'Gashmu' substitute 'Calvin, Wesley, Finney, Tozer, Ravenhill, Piper'... as required, to get my drift.

We tend to use these 'great authorities' to short-circuit the argument. Someone is charging along and can be brought to an abrupt halt by quoting some great Christian leader. Sometimes, of course, we need to be brought to an abrupt halt and the counsel of a saint of proven godliness and wisdom can serve a useful purpose as long as we don't use it as a blunt weapon to blugeon our 'opponent' into silence.

I think we all suffer from some degree of the "Gashmu Syndrome" although it is not wrong to respect the judgements of godly men who may be much wiser than we are. It is an error of arrogance to think that we shall settle what wiser and better men than ourselves have struggled with for centuries. Age, of course, does not not guarantee accuracy; it may be just 'error grown old'. However a little humility would not out of place.

There is a quotation from an English writer which I love. In addressing a company of young bible college students G H Lang once said "Remember my brethren than none of us is infallible, not even the youngest of us".

There's another scripture that always brings a wry smile to my lips...“For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them [u]an end of all strife[/u].” (Heb 6:16 KJVS)...if only.... :-)

For 'Gashmu' substitute 'Calvin, Wesley, Finney, Tozer, Ravenhill, Piper'... as required, to get my drift.

Still recall one of your messages here Ron and to paraphrase it, the line that stuck was on the order of, "[i]Don't you dare take my word for it![/i]" With the implication to test it all in light of scripture.

We tend to use these 'great authorities' to short-circuit the argument. Someone is charging along and can be brought to an abrupt halt by quoting some great Christian leader. Sometimes, of course, we need to be brought to an abrupt halt and the counsel of a saint of proven godliness and wisdom can serve a useful purpose as long as we don't use it as a blunt weapon to blugeon our 'opponent' into silence.

Would certainly be guilty of this in the first instance upon quick reflection ... could but wish it was always the later, that it was always unto edification, to betterment, to growth.

It is an error of arrogance to think that we shall settle what wiser and better men than ourselves have struggled with for centuries.

To throw another wrinkle in this ... Our favorite coach mentioned at the onset about 'winning the debate';

Providing a list of teachers and theologians who agree with whatever position we're taking is a very poor way of trying to win a debate.

Pardon the didactictness and I feel pretty confident that is not the intent of meaning but thought it worth pointing out that it is often the very case, the goal in mind, to [i]win[/i] which justs feeds the pride. Think it also agrees with something inherent in what Krispy is stating;

Providing a list of teachers and theologians who agree with whatever position we're taking

Presumption and agenda. We have seen it's outworkings here when someone, whatever their motivation, [i]brings[/i] that which is well crafted before hand, a 'teaching', a 'construct', a preposition that is already fixed and largely immovable. Because of that beginning it becomes a great defensive battle and a [i]providing a list of teachers and theologians who agree[/i], there is next to no wiggle room for learning or consideration, reconsidering because the position is 'cemented'. It ends up in a stalemate most often.

The desire to learn is what is curiously missing, the sheer love of being corrected replaced with the strange fear of 'embarrassment' or shame, of 'not measuring up', right on into the fear of man, but should we fear our own Brethren? If all they are after is to challenges us to deeper truths and crafting into the image of the Lord? Their is no embarrassment in that and shouldn't be any in admitting our shortcomings if we know enough of our own hearts.

Redundantly, Zac Poonens admonishen still reigns supreme; [i]That we ought to approach the scriptures everyday as if for the very first time.[/i] Am finding it goes even further into approaches from those who have since left us their legacy of spiritual sweat and labor in the scriptures, we have to remember that the vast majority of these are in fact, to quote Krispy again, are using; "[i][b]scripture[/b], not teachers or theologians, ... to be (their) final authority on everything[/i]"

Of course opinions will vary ;-)

It was a general statement because several people completely missed my point.

Krispy, reading your response makes me think about the Spirit of God - how absolutely precise his voice it when he speaks into our lives. He doesn’t mail out mass form-letters or generalized forwards to “whomever” - hoping that the right people will get the message. I think that this is one of the most exciting aspects of being one of God’s children – he is so perfectly accurate because he knows us through and through. We just could never aim as accurately as he can!

Praise God, We can trust him to get us to our final destination. And that is worth smiling about, right?

“… the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace..” Rom. 8:6

Diane

I hate to belabor this point, but I find it ironic that many who don't support name dropping to "win a debate" do exactly that when someone else in these threads gives scripture to support any of the doctrines that accompany predestination. Those who oppose such doctine dismiss out of hand the interpretaions as just more of the "Calvinist" line.

Scripture is the source of all truth. In interpreting scripture, the teaching of divinely inspired holy men is very useful, not to win a debate but rather to broaden our thinking beyond the humble limitations or limited inspirations of our own brains. At the risk of being hounded on this, Charles Spurgeon is quoted in the most recent edition of Old Paths as saying.....

"He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains, proves that he has no brains of his own."

Yet, there can be a strategic place for pulling names out of the bag - in order to give truth more credibility in the eyes of our listeners.

Let’s face it, for most of us, using ourselves as authorities doesn’t cut it. In my Presbyterian church I am a nobody with no spiritual authority in the eyes of the denomination - just a lowly music director, a "Gentile". Yet, when I quote a respected Presbyterian leader, like the Rev. Dr. Insightful, my idea suddenly has more clout. Thankfully there are Christian leaders I can draw from - as in the case of an article that I posted recently.

By the same reasoning, I might quote Ron Bailey on SI, but not to my neighbor who doesn't know him from Adam. (though I may say "I once heard someone say....")

And also - when talking with a Catholic, I wouldn’t quote Billy Graham, simply because BG is not an authority to THAT person. Mother Teresa might be a better person, - even to use as an example of love for Jesus.

Just today I saw some excellent articles in the Toronto Star that would be very handy “authorities” when speaking to an atheist (since they would never see the Bible as an authority).

See what I mean? You’ve got to be shrewd with your name-dropping – not to defend YOUR position (who cares about that anyway) but to nudge others towards truth.

“Be as innocent as doves and as shrewd as snakes.” Matt 10:16

Diane

Now, I disagree with Calvinism. I strongly believe that scripture disagrees with Calvinism. I dont think that all Calvinistic theology is wrong. But the thought that God has predestined everything that has ever happened or will happen is just wrong thinking to me. It doesnt line up at all with the OT, and it doesnt line up with the NT.

Brother you are not describing Calvinism but Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism believes everything you just disagreed with.

Calvinism in its true form says that God is sovereign in salvation and that man is completely responsible for his actions.