Oh why can't we all just get along?

What are the ground rules for positive argument. The Scripture require that any such argumentation is to be done with:a) Gentlenessand b) RespectNow why is it you suppose that some Christians operate at full steam and are just plain hateful to one another?Would it not be nicer that a specific code, be adhered to so as to eliminate big heads banging into each other...oh yes it happens, everywhere.But what does one do when you enter a thread, and are having a nice old chat and in roars a *hothead and starts crumbling down the good fellowship with domineering arguments and hard views, and no matter how polite one is they just will not relent until eventually no one is talking anymore.Now that was really hard, for me to say, I normally bottle that stuff for the refuse heap.In Jesus:-P+++ *self proclaimed prophet

Hi Greg,In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise. We are here admonished concerning the government of the tongue, that necessary duty of a Christian. 1. It is good to say little, because in the multitude of words there wanteth not sin, or sin doth not cease. Usually, those that speak much speak much amiss, and among many words there cannot but be many idle words, which they must shortly give an account of. Those that love to hear themselves talk do not consider what work they are making for repentance; for that will be wanted, and first or last will be had, where there wanteth not sin. 2. It is therefore good to keep our mouth as with a bridle: He that refrains his lips, that often checks himself, suppresses what he has thought, and holds in that which would transpire, is a wise man; it is an evidence of his wisdom, and he therein consults his own peace. Little said is soon amended. [Amos 5:13; James 1:19.]I like Matthew Henry's take on this don't you?Humbleness and Gentleness are certainly foundational to a constructive argument.In Jesus:-P +++

What would you do in this situation? (This event actually took place.)I accepted Christ 5 years ago, this month, in a small Baptist Church. I immediately started studying my Bible & could not get my fill. In September of that year our church rotated teaching postitions, and I felt led to volunteer to teach a Sunday School class.I was assigned the senior adult class, and had been leading the class for several months when our study brought us to the subject of cults. We were discussing the beliefs of the individual cults when a long time member of the church, (and my employer at the time), blurted out, "I don't care what name a person calls god by or if they swing from one of those trees out that window to worship. As long as you believe in God you're going to heaven." Our class was an open forum class, and I was the only one to take exception to his comment. The 2 deacons in attendance didn't even hold this man to task for bringing heresy into the church. Now, let me ask you, how should this type of situation be dealt with?

So where is the grace in that? Apparently this grace you all trump up isn't so limitless afterall. Error should be corrected, but to kick someone out of a church? How can God allow that? That is in the Epistles, Paul wrote about it. I think it is silly. That is one of the MANY discrepancies...

It reminds me of the mafia.. Only for "god's glory"Humiliate someone over some scripture?Hmmm....

Apparently this grace you all trump up isn't so limitless afterall. Whoever told you that grace was limitless? My Bible says that God only gives grace to the humble. He resists the proud. If you've got resistance, can you call that grace???Error should be corrected, but to kick someone out of a church? How can God allow that? That is in the Epistles, Paul wrote about it. I think it is silly.I guess...If you don't believe the Bible...AND you put your own wisdom as supreme. Do your REALLY think that you possess flawless reasoning? I guess that is why you don't think you need God's word.RT

how shall they believe in him who they have not heard. the lost can not believe in him until they hear the good news of salvation.according to the word of god the lost cannot be saved without a witness.we cannot come to the father but thru Jesus. "I never know you"Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.22 and 23 also fit well

YeshuaIsMyGd is right. It can be found in Matthew 18:15-17. And Jesus said this, not Paul.

Dear DDP,To toss someone out of church does seem harsh, however, the reason this should be done is so that the person being tossed would repent. In 1 Corinthians Paul wrote to the Corinthian church to toss a man out that was unrepentant of incess with his mother in-law. In 2 Corinthians the church was told, after the man repented, to bring back the man.God's grace, giving someone something that they are undeserving of, is for the repentant person. His judgement is for the unrepentant person.In Christ,GaryE

Generally speaking, since I wasn't there and the fullest of details I don't really know, this is how I would have responded. I would have opened the comment up to the class, you stay in the 3rd person(i hope you understand what I mean here). If no one would have spoken up I would have asked a seris of questions. Normally reasoning like this is circular reasoning and can be easily dealt with all the while you remain in the 3rd person. You would have needed to know word definitions like faith--disciple--believe--ect.... and supporting scriptures for each word inorder to get the class involved in looking up scripture references and reading them out loud. That in it self would have defused the situation. The great teachers know how to ask questions and draw peoples attentions to abstact object lessons. Jesus asked the crowd, "what did you go out to see", his reference to John the baptiser.Since this brother was in a position of authority the more you used the people in the class and gave word difinitions, the more the HOLY SPIRIT of TRUTH would have helped and without injury to his ego and possible job loss on your part all things would have been done decent and inorder.2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they gender contentions. 2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not contend; but be gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient, 2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth: 2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. I don't know if this'll help in the future,but that's how I've handled simular situations. Bro. Daryl

YeshuaIsMyGd is right. It can be found in Matthew 18:15-17. And Jesus said this, not Paul.I think he may have had Paul in mind too“But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” Titus 3:9-11

Hey RonB,I think we might have strayed a little here, the original thread was about 'arguing' Not about excommunicating, or casting heretics out. What is the civil way in which good argumentation is possible without turning it into a fight. I think this is a bad example, but the only one I got: wrestling with angels is not the same as 'dissing' them. [I could not think of the right reference...in Jude...the body of Moses.]There were many incidents where those who are heretical were dealt with being given over to satan etc. This is on the other extreme.What I am looking at is; 'when one has a very strong point of view and collides with another equally strong point of view', for example:Martin Luther and everyone else...lol.Seriously, even if one looks at the way Martin Luther dealt with some serious objections...one can learn some valuable lessons.I watched the movie and have read some of Otis Fuller's references to Martin Luther's speak. It was amazing at how he humbled himself, and even was prepared to admit that his own ideas and thoughts were like Paul had said, dung. [he used a slightly different phrase.]There is a need for humility in argument, which allows strongly oppossing views to be expressed and still a love and a respect to be maintained.This I believe is where I was heading with this.Well, no harm, we are learning tremendous amounts about why some of us were given marching orders in traditional barns, when we questioned doctrinal issues and found that no-one was prepared to give a proper defence, but instead shouted heretic...woops...I did spill the tea....In Jesus.:-P+++ Os Guiness, Apology for Apologetics in 1980 really got me thinking:if we resort to strong arm tactics, we will win the fight but lose the war...this is a definite listen for any who are serious about leading men and women to Christ. As Os says, and I quote losely, our real problem is we are not answering the questions, that are being raised. Simple things like 'Why does God allow suffering?' 'Why is there evil in the world if there is a loving God?' need to be addressed not just thumped away with pat answers. We need to know how to communicate in a way that reaches people...I give to much away, download the mp3's and have fun, he has a softer voice than Wilder Smith, who I think was truely one of the sweetest believers I have every listened to.Actually there were two others; we have heard the thumbers and bible beaters, who hurl verses around like Hercules hurled stones, only to find that the hall eventually was empty....sad. I heard a testimony that was given with such gentleness, that I think my mouth hung open and an entire train could have driven in unnoticed.The link to Os Guiness - Apology for Apologetics - they called in 'Nature of Apologetics' in four parts, enjoy!

This is a copy of a posting I made on another site.In all but the basics, all biblical theology is a 'best fit' hypothesis. This may disturb the idealists (I am a fully paid up member of Idealists Anonimous) among us but it is the case. As you say Wesley and Whitfield were miles apart in some of their understanding of scripture. So how do we react to that? We can say 'well, pay your money and take your choice' but something in us says 'it must be possible to get to the truth'.Biblical theology has a built in danger in that we extract passages from various places and assemble them to prove our point. It ought to be noted that this is not the way the Bible was written; rather 'truth' is scattered through the whole and we are forced to consider each 'truth' in a context of other 'truth'. To extract 'a truth' and to isolate it from 'other truths' is the route to most of the heresies which have plagued us down the centuries.Sometimes a much respected brother will have a hypothesis to which he is passionately committed; the 'Restoration of Israel' is one which comes to mind. If another brother is unable to 'affirm' the hypothesis tensions inevitably arise and two camps are established with 'saints' taking up the banner of one or the other. This is very destructive of real 'fellowship' in the scriptures. It is interesting that although Wesley and Whitefield held diametrically opposed views on some topics their personal relationships were usually very good. Sometimes the holder of a hypothesis immediately goes into 'attack' mode thinking that you have your own hypothesis that you are setting up against his, but at times you're not. You are simply saying 'I am listening to you but I am not persuaded and I have some questions. I am putting it on hold'.I think this is where the nature of what is happening actually surfaces. Some people want to control what others believe and cannot rest until they have 'won'. Theology consequently becomes a 'battle' with winners and losers rather than a forum in which people can learn from each other. In practical terms there are some whose published views on other matters make it much more difficult to 'go with them' on a current issue. There are some who have earned your trust so that you are willing to give them 'the benefit of the doubt' in the short term. There are some whose reasoning patterns have showed themselves so unreliable that your instinct is to 'go to red alert and maximum shields'.The real conflict is often to be found not in the originators of the view but in their supporters. This was so with Wesley and Whitefield where their supporters made much more extreme statements than would have been made by either Wesley or Whitefield. I often think of the statement of Paul to the Corinthians “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”(1Cor. 4:6, KJVS) where they are puffed up not against one another, but 'for one against another'. In other words the trouble was being caused between the supporters' clubs and not the main players. Wesley clearly spotted this and advised Beware of a dividing spirit; shun whatever has the least aspect that way. Therefore say not "I am of Paul, or of Apollos:" the very thing which occasioned the schism at Corinth. Say not "This is my preacher, the best preacher in the land; give me him and take all the rest..." Do not run down any preacher. Do not exalt any one above the rest, lest you hurt both him and the cause of God. On the other hand, do not bear hard upon any by reason of some incoherence, or inaccuracy of expression; no nor for some mistakes, were there really such...We are to bear with those we cannot amend, and to be content with offering them to God. This is true resignation. And since he has borne our infirmities we may well bear those of each other for his sake. "a plain account of Christian perfection"We are required, not to change someone's opinion by the power of eloquence or knowledge, but to give an account of the faith that is in us. In this spirit I do not seek to convince holders of the 'Restoration of Israel' hypothesis that I am right, but I do challenge their assumptions and am ready to say why I believe what I believe.It does not take a professional theologian (which I am not) to do this, just someone who is prepared to think a little.

RonB, to retain objectivity, you must try to refrain from making a thread all about yourself. Your view of whatever it is you are trying to make a point of is not what this thread is about, it is about examining a workable system that allows people to argue effectively.Let me quote a little of Martin Luther's attitude to his accussers: [these were hotheads and extremely ready to do him harm, should he directly oppose them]'However, because I am a man and not God, I am not able to shield my books with any other protection than that which my Lord Jesus Christ Himself offered for His teaching. When questioned before Annas about His teaching and struck by a servant, He said: 'If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong.' (John 18:19-23) If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to hear testimony against His teaching, even from the lowliest servant, how much more ought I, who am the lowest scum and able to do nothing except err, desire and expect that somebody should want to offer testimony against my teaching ! Therefore, I ask by the mercy of God, may your most serene majesty, most illustrious lordships, or anyone at all who is able, either high or low, bear witness, expose my errors, overthrowing them by the writings of the prophets or the evangelists. Once I have been taught I shall be quite ready to renounce every error, and I shall be the first to cast my books in the fire.' from A Treasury of Evangelical Writings by David Otis Fuller.There is nothing I can add to this. In Jesus,.A.:-P+++

Bob, to retain objectivity, you must try to refrain from making a thread all about yourself.Is this addressed to me?

What is the civil way in which good argumentation is possible without turning it into a fight. ... a workable system that allows people to argue effectively.Hi aeryck,I think in asking for a workable system that allows people to argue effectively without dealing with the heart issue, we may be putting ourselves into a hole in the sense that we cannot legislate goodness or humility. One thing about truth that stands out is that it has one, among many, distinct personality. A man who has been transformed by the truth loves albeit he may sometimes be misunderstood. He is not quick to put others in line knowing the goodness, patience and mercy of his Master. Neither is he in the business of defending himself. Rather, he is zealous in defending the Truth.A consciousness that this forum is not about who is right or wrong among us is of utmost importance. In every exchange, which may be heated at times, it is our lining up to the revealed truth in scriptures that must take precedence. It shows often in our posts whether we have not only laid hold of the truth but also whether the truth has laid hold of us as well. In the heart of such person grace and mercy unmistakably abound. :-)

We are required, not to change someone's opinion by the power of eloquence or knowledge, but to give an account of the faith that is in us. In this spirit I do not seek to convince holders of the 'Restoration of Israel' hypothesis that I am right, but I do challenge their assumptions and am ready to say why I believe what I believe.Well said.

aeryck wrote:...it is about examining a workable system that allows people to argue effectively.Don't take things personally. Nothing to spiritual about that. Thats my system. I do have a weakness in that I tend to give people gears, tune (I'm not quite sure what english word to use) when they do have big opinions. Sometimes the wise thing is to just let the person have their rant and let them leave. It is amazing that sometimes it is as if some folk try to bait others into a cyber squirmish, but generally if you give respect you will get it back.It is quite difficult as we are dealing with people who are talking about their belief which undergirds their lifestyle. Imagine someone saying to you, everything you know is wrong, and telling you like you have to believe it...clash of wills is what you get.I am thinking of the Pharisees in their working of religion. They 'loved' God and related to God by what they believed in the scriptures. They had searched the scriptures deligently hoping that by it they would find eternal life and missed the life himself. His application of scripture was not based upon what he had read, but on knowing he who had written the scripture.Please forgive me for going a little off topic, as I was writing about my thoughts on this workable system of discussion. ;-)

Yep, ZekeO ~ We have only one basic rule as believers. That effects how we are willing to be vulnerable. I once read the most amazing writing by a Terry Talbot. I think I was speechless for days. It was all about this. Let me see if I can find it again and put up a link....it's gonna go here, it is a mind blow. My brother in law did the Comrades for the first time in his life and finished 6000+ PMB is good place, I have plenty family in that hot dry place...The weather is so eratic down here in the Cape.Yeah, I met plenty ravers on the net. Been surfing here and there, and some of the nastiest critters, with language even a *bergie would be ashamed of. I have found the softness in Os Guiness'and Wilder Smith's writings so appealing. The biggest argument from those who are not believers, is that we do not open up. We retreat to comfortable verses, instead of saying our truth.[this is a hard view]Every so now and then one will be allowed through the rants into someone's lounge and then it is magnificent to be honoured with trust. Enough, I am getting bored with my nattering.In Jesus,.A.:-P *bergie is a hobo in SA.

aeryck,There seems to be something amiss in this.RonB, to retain objectivity, you must try to refrain from making a thread all about yourself. For all that came before this, that is very peculiar.Your view of whatever it is you are trying to make a point of is not what this thread is about, it is about examining a workable system that allows people to argue effectively.Oddly it seems as if you didn't hear a word that was said and this response just throws everything you are trying to say right out the window. Besides what you are saying now is not what was expressed at the outset or if it is what Ron shared there is very much the issue. Difficult to respond to this because it seems you are confusing the matter.Furthermore, to attempt to dictate how or where a particular thread is going is not yours to do. Surely an attempt to keep on some kind of track is warranted, but the strangeness to this is that while you seem to be saying that we ought to be forebearing and at the same time are taking a dig at a brother...?There is an awful lot of history here that you are not aware of. There has been some very disturbing things that have come through here just on this matter and it is very, very difficult to deal with, to discern and to attempt to moderate, not to mention just grievous.There was a time when there was a lot of serious discussion without any lack of love, respect or otherwise, even with widely varying opinions. That a necessary 'system' needs to be built is not the answer, there is far too much difference of expression from brethren in all stages of this walk to attempt that, besides it would seem to lean into almost a denominational mindset after awhile.Unsure what brought this all about in the first place, as a stand alone posting, and agree with almost everything you have brought forth until this peculiar response came forth. Was just as puzzled as to who 'Bob' was before you apparently edited that, which you out to give the rest of the benefit of knowing that you corrected that. If you have some personal problem with our brother here, who is of long standing and a wonderful blessing to us all, perhaps you might take the initiative to discuss matters privately, all this is just making what you are saying here a contradiction.The general and basic 'rules' are that we consider one another more valuable than our own selves which has far reaching implications, but that is a heart issue ultimately. In fact, all that what Ron wrote earlier is precisely the point and the issue. Conduct is the biggest problem that rears it's ugly head around here. A rudeness of barging in without any concern for the whole or to just push an agenda, a teaching, a whatever. No consideration for what others are expressing... That such pains need to be taken to point it out over and over again.The rules for engagement are to leave the engagement aspect out. Very puzzling why this was brought up in the first place.

aeryck…maybe you’ve answered your own question. It occurs to me that we have become too wise for each other. I’m not prompted soley to your offhand comment, but to a pervasive creeping mist of mistrust that has clouded our esteem for other Christians. It grieves this brother that we are eager to “see” through each other. Discernement is all the rage in these suspicous times. A leader falls and too many people want to claim the prize for predicting it first. Sure, discernment is useful…Yet love and trust are also discerment… discernment of Christ’s heart. Jesus washed our feet and then said that we need to do this for each other. The most important thing I take from this lesson is simple: that I must clean off the dirt that I see on my brother. That I must cover instead of expose. If I assume good motives and am dissapointed then the downside is that I share a little sweet sorrow with the Man of Sorrows. My wife saw me at my worst but she saw the best. When I went through a season of deep cynicism towards the Church she still respected me like some mighty man of faith. I played dissonant sour notes that were made music by her harmony. I was wise and she played the fool. In circles where other wives critize their ungodly husbands, she was zealous for my reputation and my honour. That is love. There are many types of love for God. Love of truth, love of wisdom, love of repentance, love of worship; all these are worth much. But there are no substitutes for love that believes the best about one another. Why else would love need to be patient and kind?"Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;" All too often, I get in the way of the gospel instead of being a servant of the gospel. I obscure Jesus, either in the presentation or my message. It reminds me of the little girl, who when a smaller man was guest speaking could finally see the stained glass window of Jesus behind the pulpit said, “Where’s the man who usually stands there so we can’t see Jesus?” So why can’t we get along? We think God commends us for our maturity and holiness towards one another. I think we are mistaken. I think He delights in our innocence towards one another. MC

All too often, I get in the way of the gospel instead of being a servant of the gospel. I obscure Jesus, either in the presentation or my message. It reminds me of the little girl, who when a smaller man was guest speaking could finally see the stained glass window of Jesus behind the pulpit said, “Where’s the man who usually stands there so we can’t see Jesus?” on behalf of the preachers among us... ouch! ;-)

crsschk, I believe that very long comments do very little to bring clarity. In the earlier part of this thread, that was clearly the standard discussed. Refer back, please. [the first four entries]Searching the scriptures to first of all see if 'argument' is a valid form of behaviour for a Christian might have been a good start.Second, if the above were discovered to be an acceptable way of behaviour. How does one embark upon such a journey? [Hence some ground rules...]I suggested a read of Os Guiness' 'Apology for Apolgetics' 1980. Though that was very new back then, it certainly gave some really good guidlines as to how this might be done.I realize that this is by it's nature a hot issue, and if you prefer rather to delete this thread, then do so.I am so sorry, I was not clearer, and for being touchy. In all sincerity, I noticed that there is a tendency towards long comments on this site, and I was wondering if one restricted the length of comments a bit, there might be a chance for others who are not so eloquent, to get a word in.In Jesus,.A.:-(

aeryckRegarding long comments, perhaps that's true, some of us struggle to just get out a proper expression, it's a learning process. We are not all college educated and why do you feel compelled to dictate what the standards are?Trying not to read too much into this but is this argumentation for argumentations sake?There is something that feels of hostility here and that is what I find puzzling and confusing. Not trying to add to that, but understand just what point you are trying to make here.As Ron made mention, the dividing aspect is most troublesome, the forcing of opinion and making of camps for/against.

Crrsck: People will always have differing views, this is inevitable, some will become angry when they are told to stop 'bible punching' or 'forcing your view', or 'give us a truthful word without all the cushioning' etc. Is there such a thing as a 'good argument'...? Maybe that is what I should have titled this thread. In truth, if you would rather delete this one, I will happily sail on back to the other threads which seems to be getting along a lot better. ['What is Truth?'][Believe, means what exactly?][Tracking down the Ultimate Apologetic]Sorry once again for this thread, it is beginning to sound a little bit ridiculous. As you said,'argumentation for argumentations', I hoped it might be, 'apology for apologetics', if failed. lol.Who knows maybe it will still work out, hey? In Jesus,.A.:-P

Goodness, just trying to get an understanding here and agree that it is ridiculous. From the original:What are the ground rules for positive argument. The Scripture require that any such argumentation is to be done with:a) Gentlenessand b) RespectOK. Agreed, in that context. But didn't your slight there earlier contradict that?Now why is it you suppose that some Christians operate at full steam and are just plain hateful to one another?Pride.Would it not be nicer that a specific code, be adhered to so as to eliminate big heads banging into each other...oh yes it happens, everywhere.If it was just so easy... But what does one do when you enter a thread, and are having a nice old chat and in roars a *hothead and starts crumbling down the good fellowship with domineering arguments and hard views, and no matter how polite one is they just will not relent until eventually no one is talking anymore.Welcome to my world...It is practically impossible to keep up with everything and when things begin to breakdown in this manner, let one of us know. Not too many months back the level of disruptions that came through this otherwise serious yet respectful marketplace was unbelievable. There are many threads attesting to it and to this whole issue of conduct.Now that was really hard, for me to say, I normally bottle that stuff for the refuse heap.Again, what brought this forth in the first place? The asterisk was towards a 'self proclaimed prophet' and maybe what is difficult here is if you are speaking in generalities or something bothered you to the point of bringing this all forth.One of the biggest problems I have seen in how discussions breakdown is in how a superiority complex can come in. A lot of questions that may be asked are ignored with a sense of being 'above it all' often times.The other big issue is in presumptions and what MC alluded to with discernment to wrong ends.Misunderstandings abound and patience is a must. Waiting for some clarification often can diffuse many a problem, but only if there is truly a willingness to do so and that is often in just answering others questions.Alluding back a bit, another is in reading too much into things, asking questions and for clarification is much better than an "I got you pegged mindset" and that is not an accusation just that it too raises it's ugly head often times.Is there such a thing as a 'good argument'...?Sure! There are many here and if there is a word that seems to hold them together it's, "consider".Often times it takes awhile for things to develop but have watched some brothers here that early on butted heads somewhat and were coming from such differing views that it seemed an impossibility that it would ever be otherwise. But from considering each other honestly and really hearing rather than only listening have seen views change completely. It is an incredible thing to behold. Not that an argument was won, but just the rarity of hearing, "I changed my mind"... and that wonderful sister, "I was wrong".

Another note. Please refrain from using the edit function without explanation, it causes a lot of confusion. It is one thing to correct spelling errors, or make additional comments with a note "edit:", but to change comments midstream is very problematic.

Crssck,Whew, I thought I was a gonner, I have noted all you said, and will try my best to comply."edit"-add on: [in italics below]'After reading through both your comments again, after going to the shop: 'I want to make plain the details of my appearance here at Sermon Index; I am passionate about 'apologetic' as explained by Os Guiness, and I will certainly endeavour to avoid generating 'hot-air debates'. I most certainly will contact you if I suspect anything of that nature arising, well in advance.''I still feel compelled to advise that loading up huge articles to a thread, tend to frighten off those who would like to comment. Hence the term, 'CONSIDER' most definitely will apply to how I will conduct myself here in the future.''I am grateful for your close examination of this thread, and the way you have intermediated. All glory of course to the one that makes peace possible. Jesus.'In Him,.A.:-P

Ye all, please take note, I have overshot my brain, and not taken careful note of a most valuable contribution to this thread by Ron.Truly these are wise words and certainly are words to live by. Being a lover of John Wesley and George Whitfield, I am sorry that I did not read with a cooler head. I wish to apologize for getting up on the olde high horse, of pride with this one. In Jesus. .A. THE STANDARD FOR SUCCESSFUL EXCHANGE FOLLOWS:by philologos on 2005/6/16 12:39:52This is a copy of a posting I made on another site.In all but the basics, all biblical theology is a 'best fit' hypothesis. This may disturb the idealists (I am a fully paid up member of Idealists Anonimous) among us but it is the case. As you say Wesley and Whitfield were miles apart in some of their understanding of scripture. So how do we react to that? We can say 'well, pay your money and take your choice' but something in us says 'it must be possible to get to the truth'.Biblical theology has a built in danger in that we extract passages from various places and assemble them to prove our point. It ought to be noted that this is not the way the Bible was written; rather 'truth' is scattered through the whole and we are forced to consider each 'truth' in a context of other 'truth'. To extract 'a truth' and to isolate it from 'other truths' is the route to most of the heresies which have plagued us down the centuries.Sometimes a much respected brother will have a hypothesis to which he is passionately committed; the 'Restoration of Israel' is one which comes to mind. If another brother is unable to 'affirm' the hypothesis tensions inevitably arise and two camps are established with 'saints' taking up the banner of one or the other. This is very destructive of real 'fellowship' in the scriptures. It is interesting that although Wesley and Whitefield held diametrically opposed views on some topics their personal relationships were usually very good. Sometimes the holder of a hypothesis immediately goes into 'attack' mode thinking that you have your own hypothesis that you are setting up against his, but at times you're not. You are simply saying 'I am listening to you but I am not persuaded and I have some questions. I am putting it on hold'.I think this is where the nature of what is happening actually surfaces. Some people want to control what others believe and cannot rest until they have 'won'. Theology consequently becomes a 'battle' with winners and losers rather than a forum in which people can learn from each other. In practical terms there are some whose published views on other matters make it much more difficult to 'go with them' on a current issue. There are some who have earned your trust so that you are willing to give them 'the benefit of the doubt' in the short term. There are some whose reasoning patterns have showed themselves so unreliable that your instinct is to 'go to red alert and maximum shields'.The real conflict is often to be found not in the originators of the view but in their supporters. This was so with Wesley and Whitefield where their supporters made much more extreme statements than would have been made by either Wesley or Whitefield. I often think of the statement of Paul to the Corinthians “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”(1Cor. 4:6, KJVS)where they are puffed up not against one another, but 'for one against another'. In other words the trouble was being caused between the supporters' clubs and not the main players. Wesley clearly spotted this and advised Beware of a dividing spirit; shun whatever has the least aspect that way. Therefore say not "I am of Paul, or of Apollos:" the very thing which occasioned the schism at Corinth. Say not "This is my preacher, the best preacher in the land; give me him and take all the rest..." Do not run down any preacher. Do not exalt any one above the rest, lest you hurt both him and the cause of God. On the other hand, do not bear hard upon any by reason of some incoherence, or inaccuracy of expression; no nor for some mistakes, were there really such...We are to bear with those we cannot amend, and to be content with offering them to God. This is true resignation. And since he has borne our infirmities we may well bear those of each other for his sake. "a plain account of Christian perfection"We are required, not to change someone's opinion by the power of eloquence or knowledge, but to give an account of the faith that is in us. In this spirit I do not seek to convince holders of the 'Restoration of Israel' hypothesis that I am right, but I do challenge their assumptions and am ready to say why I believe what I believe.It does not take a professional theologian (which I am not) to do this, just someone who is prepared to think a little.Thankyou my brother, I am sorry I did not read with a humbler heart, a kind sister pointed out my error and it is to her and Jesus that I am thankful that I did not persue a blantant error of judgment.

Arghh...Wrote out this whole eloquent response and goofed it up somehow...aeryck,Thanks and appreciate your understanding and patience as well, was a bit confused but this is very helpful. May give it a go again later, but just want to acknowledge your heart here.The Lord is truely good.