Who or What has Determined your Theology

[enoob57]

4 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I was raised an Atheist, or at the very least I was allowed to be one. I mentioned to my dad, that I was an atheist when I was 17, and he was furious. He told me "You have to be a complete void to be an Atheist!"

He seems shocked by that, I was shocked that he did not know that. He knew I loved science, my favorite topic. How could he not think I was an Atheist. I never saw he, nor my mother, nor my sister, pray, read the Bible, go to church, or talk about God!

A high school teacher, got me thinking about the topic of creation as a reasonable theory, not a superstition. I spent the next ten years of so, trying to prove him wrong. I was not able to do so, because science had taught be, not to evaluate information, and to be logical, to distinguish between mere ideas, and how to compare those ideas with objective data. Because of that, I lost my faith in evolution, and the idea that life sprung from inorganic material, and I lost any notion that the universe was eternal, or that it could spring out of nothing un-caused.

Settled science (so called) knew that the universe has a beginning, and that it morphed into something very impressive, almost seemed like the observations of how things behave, and what little facts we had from the present, seemed like it fit Genesis better, that it fit science literature.

So, that left me as some empty shell, knowing that I came from somewhere, somehow, but having no idea how I fit into the scheme of the universe. I had no faith in God, and no faith in a Godless universe. It was an odd time for me.

Not going into how i made the jump to Christian in this post, but at 29 years of age, I did. In my first year or two as a Christian, I became acquainted with John Warrick Montgomery and Walter Ralston Martin, through Christian radio at first, and then personally.

I would say that Dr. Montgomery did a lot to teach me how to think, while Dr. Martin helped me learn what to think. That is how I at first got up to speed, theologically. I read the Bible, attended churches, and was a very critical thinker about all of those things.

My theology these days, are the results of my own studies of scripture. I listen to what others say, and I tend to analyze that through the lens of scripture, keeping the good, tossing the bad, as best I can. It tends to give me strong opinions and convictions, and that upsets some. Still, I listen, and occasionally am convinced of the errors of my thinking.

The rules I depend on, right or wrong, prayer, and hopefully the Holy Spirit, all guide me, to accept things in the Bible, even if I do not like what they say. Who am I to say God is wrong, or to try to understand what He says, by what I think seems right, loving, fair, or comfortable? Nobody, that is who. So, I just do the best I can, with what God has given me, and he can correct me at His coming, if not sooner.

For those who might be interested in my "rules" for Bible study, I have them listed and explained.

You do not build from the darkness to become light... you simply become light by the miracle of God and dispel the darkness the you are in... Love, Steven

[Riccardo]

Hello brother Warrior 12

I thought I answered the first question by saying that each person on this site has a different perspective to each others beliefs though they will overlap. I hope on the major aspects of Christianity that being our Lord & savior died for our sins was crucified & buried rose again on the third day we are saved by grace through faith, not by our own works or anything we do.  

I brought up the remnant because I thought one brother said he didn't believe in denominations, so I pointed out that God seems to have always had a remnant. It is mentioned many times.        Here are just a few 

Isaiah 10:22  Talks about- Only the remnant within them,  Here we have Israel but only a remnant (within) Israel are Gods true people those that follow His precepts & commandments.  

Zephaniah 2:7-10 and the coast will be for the remnant of Judah. Once again it is not for all Jews but a remnant.

Isaiah 46:3-4 Listen to me O house of Jacob & all the remnant of Israel.

Isaiah 11:11     Jeremiah 44:14

Romans 11:5 even so at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, & went to make war with the remnant of her seed, who keep the commandments of God & have the testimony of Jesus Christ, so they have 2 aspects. 

So clearly to me the remnant have to have the testimony of Jesus, That leaves out modern day Israel that don't follow Christ, which most modern Christians are looking towards for fulfillment of scripture. The bible is Christ centered not Israel centered.

Romans 9:6 not all that are Israel are Israel

Rom 2:29 a person is a Jew, who is one inwardly; & circumcision is circumcision of the heart, 

If the branch doesn't bear fruit it is cut off & others are grafted in, we are now Jews, or we have no part in the new covenant God has only ever made His covenants with the Jew.   Jeremiah 31:31 I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel & the house of Judah. 

The other part of the remnant is It has to be a commandment keeping church, And that is all 10 not 9 for all those who say they believe the 10 commandments are still Gods moral law but not the 4th commandment so its really the 9 commandments & they can go any day I like. O really . 

Therefore what is clear to me is not clear to others & the opposite will be said.

God bless 

      

[Riccardo]

Willa 

Christ is the fulfilment, the end, the culmination of the law, in the sense that the Law is powerless to save.

The only new law that Jesus gave was "Love as I have loved you". & yes Love is the fulfillment of the law but it doesn't negate it. On it hang the law & the prophets. It is encompassed in love they rest in love 

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? certainly not, on the contrary we establish the law

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? shall we continue to sin that grace may abound? Certainly not.

Mathew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven & earth disappear , not not dot nor the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the law till all is achieved.    

In Mathew 5:18 Jesus is talking to the people of His day, & of the laws they have in place.

[Omegaman 3.0]

20 hours ago, warrior12 said:

Your entire reply have shown your beginnings to where you are today in  brief and i am sure you have had to work out many Biblical beliefs that many are  divided  with today, e.g  OSAS.   I think and please  correct me if i am mistaken, i have  read once where you did move to a Calvinistic view and i think you said it was later on of your walk .   [If you are inclined to do so, how did you come to this conclusion or what was the determining factor in brief ]. 

I could do so, however, if I do so here, I would imagine that many who do not share my view, would use the opportunity to attempt to refute me, or to advance their particular pet theories. I am not sure how profitable that would be.

You are correct, I have switched to what people refer to as Calvinism. I do not like the term though, because it implies that I follow a man, John Calvin. To me, Calvin was a brilliant theologian. However, he had serious character flaws, in my opinion, and I do not want to be associated with that, any more that Christians want to be associated with the Crusades orf the Salem Witch Trials.

Additionally, Calvin wrote extensively on all sorts of matters, and I cannot begin to say how much I agree with him on those, I have not read his "Institutes". Even if I say, that I believe in the 5 points, I can be misunderstood. The so-called 5 points, or T.U.L.I.P. were not of Calvin's creation. The followers of Arminius, came up with 5 things they disagreed with Calvin about, and they protested them. Dutch reformers, answered the 5 points in reaction, which eventually became known as the TULIP, or 5 points of Calvinism, when really they were 5 rebuttals to the five points of the remonstrants, which were declared to be a heresy, at the council of Dort.

It is a lot of infighting, and I see no reason for people to get so riled up, so antagonistic, and seriously, that was a heresy? Glad I did not live there and then. Over reaction of divided, zealous people.

So, not wanting really to be a "Calvinist" because the name is loaded and the 5 points are so often misunderstood and mis-characterized by those who do not like them - if I have to put a name to it, I might identify with the term "Reformed Theology" or as some call it, the "Doctrines of Grace".

Really though, I just see it as where the evidence of the Bible leads, clearly, many disagree. If they choose to do so, they do not need to refute or challenge me, I am not the authority, scripture is, so that is where we need to look. Opinions, mean nothing.

So, for me, I already mentioned what my exegetical methods are, and applying them, led me to change my views on those 5 points, lol. I would be happy to elaborate at a later time, but not in this thread, if it is all the same to you. I am working, on and off, on making the notions I hold, more succinct and clear, with all my scriptural ducks in a row.

However, since I was thinking about my position on free will just last night, I will share with you, what that is. People think different things when someone says free will. Let's face it, I do not have free will, in that I cannot exercise it. If I decide I want to fly, can I do so by flapping my arms? Maybe I am not doing it right, or just lack the faith.

So, I wondered, since people think different things when they speak to free will, how would I make my position on it clear? This is what I came up with:

You are free to choose to do what you want to do,
but you are not free to choose what it is, that you want to do,
and you are not necessarily able, to do what you choose to do!

Hopefully, with a little thought, people are able to understand what I believe about free will. It is not just a yes or no issue.

So, yes warrior, I am somewhat a newbie, 2 or 3 years of having switched camps I guess. I will try to remember than you asked about it, and let you know, when I have my thoughts more carefully developed and expressed, but the main thing, as to how I came to this:

I would say it was just a simple preponderance of evidence, largely from the books of Romans and Ephesians, regarding election, God's sovereignty, and man's inability to do ANYTHING to secure salvation, nor anything in his nature that desires to follow God.

Forgive my rambling, I am a senior, and it is beginning to show a lot.

[warrior12]

9 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Forgive my rambling, I am a senior, and it is beginning to show a lot.

Your reply was appropriate as to your stance on your Biblical walk .   I recalled you replied to a thread that you did indeed changed views and it stuck with me ever since and i was just intrigued by how your decision came about later in your journey, hence the reason for asking.  Yes, we do see "chosen" throughout the Bible and the first time i heard of the view i got really upset.   On listening to John MacArthur and his sermons on the subject, i saw some truths to it and searching through the scriptures it is hard to deny.   I also think about Israel and Judah and how the Lord led them as a people.

I also thoroughly understand you"not" going into details and as you said the reason i agree with to keep the peace.  That topic has been going on for centuries, and like one pastor simplified it to me, it is like two trains on tracks side by side running.  Thank you for your reply and forgive me for bringing that part of your testimony to the forefront.  I think though, that as you rightly said, it is your belief and that's what it is. 

Edited July 8, 2017 by warrior12

[warrior12]

 

17 hours ago, Riccardo said:

Hello brother Warrior 12

I thought I answered the first question by saying that each person on this site has a different perspective to each others beliefs though they will overlap

Ok, I see your point as to your full reply from the above post.   So according to your statement below in quotation, one has to belong to a denomination or church or they are creating their own church in some way or fashion to hold to their Biblical beliefs.  Therefore, a believer should make a stance on a particular denomination sets of beliefs and to grow with that church. Is this the idea.?  Anyway thanks for your input.

Also, should every believer be associated with a denomination or could a believer read the bible and isolate himself from other[ whomever] interpretations and still be a steadfast christian in good standings, which would mean also, not attending church ect. ?

"What ever one believes from the bible is now their doctrine beliefs, if you don't believe in a denominational doctrine, you have just created your own personalized club."

Edited July 8, 2017 by warrior12

[Omegaman 3.0]

5 hours ago, warrior12 said:

I also thoroughly understand you"not" going into details and as you said the reason i agree with to keep the peace.  That topic has been going on for centuries, and like one pastor simplified it to me, it is like two trains on tracks side by side running.  Thank you for your reply and forgive me for bringing that part of your testimony to the forefront.

Now you have me intrigued. You said you got upset, may I ask why it upset you, do you even know? I ask because if have seen people leave churches over these doctrines, and I don't get it. I have have been in one church, where I never found anything to disagree on, but it was a 133 mile trip from home (266 miles round trip), so I did not attend often.

When you say: 

Quote

i saw some truths to it and searching through the scriptures it is hard to deny

Well, you were just being noble-minded, good for you!

Quote

Acts 17:11 - Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

and then

4 hours ago, warrior12 said:

I also thoroughly understand you going into details and as you said the reason i agree with to keep the peace.  That topic has been going on for centuries, and like one pastor simplified it to me, it is like two trains on tracks side by side running.  Thank you for your reply and forgive me for bringing that part of your testimony to the forefront.

Part of it is about peace keeping, but not really that so much. You mentioned parallel tracks . . . part of the role I assume here, is trying to keep a little order and organization, though I lose site of that as I also am guilty or 'derailing' threads.

People may disagree. People can talk about their disagreements. People do not need to do so, in any sort of anger. Discussion, has a good connotation. Debate, on the other hand, turns some people off. I understand that there of some, who find debate distasteful, and many choose not to engage in it. Jesus and Paul debated. Jesus and Paul got angry. I think that we might take lessons from them. Discuss what they discussed, debate what (and how) they debated, get angry, at the kinds of things, they got angry at. 

I hesitated to include Paul in the same breath with Jesus, as though they are equivalents. However, I think both are examples, both are speaking the word of God, and Paul elaborates and expands, explained things further, and on topics that were not Jesus mission on earth.

I see debate as a good thing, a very good thing. We do not learn from people, if they are just telling us, what we already know and believe. Debate, when done right, gives us an opportunity to learn, and to find out weaknesses in our own thinking, and that helps us to discover new things, and makes us also, able to help others learn from us. The problem comes in, when we close our minds, and in our pride think: 

"I am right, your are wrong, and what I think is equivalent to the word of God, so your doctrines must be demonic!"

That is not thinking, that is not honorable, that is just arrogance. My hesitancy to expound upon the merits of reformed theology, is not about peace keeping or avoiding controversy. It comes back to the orderliness, and the parallel tracks. Some topics here have so many parallel tracks, that they look like the teeth of a comb! 

We see here, the same people, saying the same thing, over and over, every time a topic is broached in a new thread. When there are already perfectly good threads on a topic, I tend to try to herd people in the direction of existing threads. I wonder sometimes (and I will point a finger at myself here also), if people don't just jump into a new thread to speak their mind, to hear themselves talk, lol.

If one goes into an existing thread, and says the ten things they think they know about a subject, eventually they begin to repeat themselves, and start to sound silly. When you have no more to say on a topic, maybe it is time to shut up! Some people, don't even engage the topic, they just say, I believe that too, or you are right, as if it is up to a vote. Maybe it provides moral support, but it does nothing to help us learn. Again, maybe we just like to hear ourselves talk!

Jumping into new threads, gives us the opportunity, to try to impress others, with how sharp our brains are, how much we know, and how well we can turn a phase. Doing this, we can almost make the topic about ourselves.

There is nothing to forgive, about your bringing that part of my testimony to the forefront. Especially since the thread is a topic you started, and the topic is how one came to believe our theology. It is in keeping with that topic, and I probably should not have basically tried to narrow it to less that that. 

I just did not want to see this thread, become about specific theologies and get taken over, when I thought the question of "who or what determined" your theology was an interesting departure from "what is you theology". That is why I spoke to specific individuals in my case, as well as my exegetical methodology.

However, I did recently (like a week or two ago) assemble a related study, about some aspects of reformed theology. It is a bit lengthy in that it sort of asks a lot of questions about what is being said or implied in certain verses and passages, with a goal to making people answer for themselves, from scripture quoted, what really is being said. I do not try so much to make it say what is, but to make the reader figure that out for themselves. I have not put it out there anywhere, but I am willing to do so here, if that would interest you.

If I did that, it would just be a link, where you could look it over or even print it out, and not fill pages here, with things for people to argue over with their "yes, but what about . . . " -  diversions without confronting the actual issue. I am annoyed with the "yes, but" approach, lol, how about focusing on the yes part   ?

[missmuffet]

God and the bible

[warrior12]

7 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Now you have me intrigued. You said you got upset, may I ask why it upset you, do you even know? I ask because if have seen people leave churches over these doctrines, and I don't get it. I have have been in one church, where I never found anything to disagree on, but it was a 133 mile trip from home (266 miles round trip), so I did not attend often.

When i mention upset i was referring to the first time i heard the term "predestination" as explained by a Baptist pastor .  My mind was that everyone had a choice to choose and the pastor was saying like Jacob was chosen over Esau.  I think you know the doctrine and teachings of this.  At that time, i had just left a pentecostal church and started to attend a Baptist church. I did not know many things about church and denominations and their teachings as i was fairly new in the faith.    But as i read and listened to sermons and searched out terminologies ect, i understood more about the vast differences in beliefs and interpretations ,especially with Calvinism and it's opponent.   I am still searching out and listening to others as we are not all on the same page, hence the reason also for the thread topic. 

Your overall reply especially the last, has shone some light on where you are at and thanks for  speaking your mind to us. 

[warrior12]

3 hours ago, missmuffet said:

God and the bible

I am pretty sure at the beginning of you walk, you had to make some choices and decisions that led you to lean or gravitate to expositors of the word, as in those early years, the Bible would have not been an easy study.  God has left, his servants to teach and  expound his word in this present age.   Even reading the Bible on your own, you still use tools like concordance ect to help you along the way, which to be frank are men who interprets or give their best effort to make it simple for us to get a better picture.    Surely, you can put some more words and give a bit of history to your coming to faith and the leaders you liked , or something along that line.

Edited July 9, 2017 by warrior12