Having been Categorized

[MercyBreeze]

To any and all...

If the character of one's theology can be determined within the confines of a book, church, organized religion, or word of mouth, then how is anyone free to apprehend truth when they determine that their theology is false? If indeed, one considers the avenues of (let's say) dispensationalism, why must they be confined to such theologies that others place on them?

For instance,

Upon having attended a Methodist assembly during my early years, I eventually began attending a C&MA assembly during later years (which has since ceased) and it was predetermined by my mother that I was now one to believe in the so-called theology of "eternal security." She never asked, nor did she permit me to discuss Scripture regarding it. Rather, she predetermined my belief system by the organization that I had associated myself with.

Why then, do we do the same to each other? Why do we predetermine one's understanding of truth based upon a title that we, ourselves, place on one another? Why do we even place such categories on ourselves? Are we not just as free to be right as we are to be wrong? How then would one who is an "Open Theist" be able to apprehend a particular "aspect" of truth if they are obligated to hold to a general theology through which such a title usually is associated? How would one who is a "Baptist" or a "dispensationalist" or a "Nazarene?"

Why do we study varying theologies in a hope of knowing how to somehow "pin one's entire theology" into a box when in fact each man is his own individual?

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

[Darth Xena]

Hmm, let me give a little different take on it. I have no problem with the designation "orthodox preterist" being given to me. Why? Because it communicates in two words succintly a concept and a doctrinal system that I adhere to wholeheartedly that would take a whole book to accurately spell out. It is helpful shorthand.

[Lizard]

I would like to expound a little on what Dee Dee said (can we say role reversal :brow: )

Labels are OK when they are "self inflicted" that is labels we give ourselves. For example Both Dee Dee and I call ourselves "orthodox preterist" because we both accept that doctrinal system. Most orthodox preterist are also Calvinist, but it would be a mistake to assume the either of us are Calvinist, just because we are also orthodox preterist, as neither of us identify ourselves as Calvinist.

I go to a Southern Baptist church, but that doesn't mean that my theology is defined by church affiliation, and if someone assumed that I was a DF because of my church affiliation they would be wrong. In that I agree with you Mercy. However, if I identify myself as an "orthodox preterist" who is also a Molinist (sp?) then that gives the people here some insight into what I believe.

I do agree that forcing a person to fit perfectly into one system is confining. I have a "hodge podge" of beliefs that from time to time change. I am not a very "Baptist" Baptist, but then I am not sure what denomination I would be a good "fit" in. :duh:

So to sum up. Trying to Pigeon Hole someone it a large all encompassing theological system is wrong. Letting a person identify which system (or sub systems) of theology that they consider themselves to be is OK.

Just my two cents worth.

[Hitch]

I hate it when people think I wear Levis all the time just because I wear Levis all the time.

[MercyBreeze]

Dee Dee,

Thanks for getting the forums back up and running... :)

You said,

"Because it communicates in two words succintly a concept and a doctrinal system that I adhere to wholeheartedly."

Here's my problem with such a statement. No set of humanity's doctrines (though each one credits theirs to God) has all of the truth. Rather, each "partisan" is a "party" to both truths and falsehoods.

Such as Fara suggested, at whatever point someone "opens their eyes" to something false within their line of sight, they are then forced to either remain true to the pride that assumes a previous "association" has no amount of falsehood or they are forced to set aside the entire system that they've previously adopted and adopt a new one. Bouncing from one "identification" to another is not helping the problem of judgemental association, but rather, it is hindering the progress that man has to be able to call himself an "individual."

Either we become solely capable of apprehending truth as it comes and disregarding falsehoods as we see them or we remain partisan to defending a group rather than potential truth in and of itself. Why do we limit ourselves by "wholeheartedly" remaining true to a "set of beliefs" created by another instead of simply acknowledging individual truths as they come to our awareness?

Consider that the moment we assume ourselves "partisan" to "party doctrine" we cease to study Scripture according to unbias trait, but instead, we end up studying Scripture according to the "party creed" as it shapes our bias. Either we are free to see truth individually or we are limited by the "associations" we consider ourselves a part of.

Thanks for inviting me to participate in your online fellowship. ;)

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

[PuritanD]

MercyBreeze,

You stated,

"Consider that the moment we assume ourselves "partisan" to "party doctrine" we cease to study Scripture according to unbias trait, but instead, we end up studying Scripture according to the "party creed" as it shapes our bias. Either we are free to see truth individually or we are limited by the "associations" we consider ourselves a part of."

Systematic theology is a tool to help individuals organize the truths of Scripture. It is impossible for any person to study Scripture without a bias. We must be able to admit to the bias when we do study the Scripture. As someone pointed out, we need both deductive (systematic) and inductive (Biblical theology) in order to understand truth. If we just systemities then we are at fault of what you called, party doctrine. But if we soley do inductive then we fool ourselves in thinking we have no bias towards Scripture.

A great example of how both work together is the doctrine of the Trinity. No one scripture verse talks explicity of the Trinity but by systematizing all references to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that are found by inductive study we have this important doctrine on the Trinity.

Michael Horton has written more on this in the lates issue of Modern Reformation. It is also on its website (I think) at http://www.modernreformation.org

[MercyBreeze]

Puritan,

Thank you for the response. :smile:

Yet, even in the midst of your response, I have to disagree that it is impossible to view Scripture unbias. Why? Because there are those who come to know the Lord simply by reading Scripture somewhere at some point and have never had any church contact. They do not enter their discovery of truth with any bias, yet they walk away with everything.

At the same time, for someone who has become accustomed to "party" bias (which indeed IS true for anyone in a church), it is still possible to set yourself apart from such mainstream thinking. The only problem is, most of American humanity is not content to be individual, but are eager to come across a potential truth and validate it with someone else who is also human. In a sense, most Christians will tend to feel out someone else's position before coming to their own. Such a problem creates bias. Yet, if it was possible for such a person to not attempt human validation (which I believe to be quite possible), then truth could be discovered on an individual and unbias nature.

Yet, even with the possibility, it is necessary to seperate one's self from "parties" for several months and years before the full bias of one's original mentality is broken.

Think about this for a moment...

If a Baptist grows up Baptist, they are not completely free from bias and are, in fact, indirectly responsible to uphold Baptist theology.

If a Methodist grows up Methodist, they are not completely free from bias and are, in fact, indirectly responsibile to uphold Methodist theology.

Both of these individuals cannot have the full truth, yet each one is fully convinced in his own mind. How is it possible to obtain further truth outside one's party unless such a person seperates themself from their original party?

Now let's consider that someone didn't just "seperate themself" from the "party" for the sake of joining ANOTHER party, but instead, simply chose to disappear into the mountains for three years with no one around them so that they could study. Is it not at all possible that bias would crack after eventual study?

If you think about it logically, at some point either one of those two men is going to discover something about the original bias that was false and in a sense, will end up chewing on the possibility that the ENTIRE bias was false. In which case, if this person has been studying for 1 of the 3 years, he has 2 more years to continue studying without any outside influences or innuendoes of truth. No other source for study outside his Bible.

Such potential is possible and has been accomplished by wise men who do not foolishly allow themselves to be reconstructed by every "wind" of doctrine that alters their mind in human form.

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

[Lizard]

Interesting post Mercy. I have a few comments, and a few questions.



03-04-2003 @ 01:37 PM
MercyBreeze:

Yet, even in the midst of your response, I have to disagree that it is impossible to view Scripture unbias. Why? Because there are those who come to know the Lord simply by reading Scripture somewhere at some point and have never had any church contact. They do not enter their discovery of truth with any bias, yet they walk away with everything.


While it may be theoretically possible for someone not raised in a church to approach the Bible without any "denonimnational" bias, everyone has biases of some sort. I don't see how anyone con read the Bible with absolutely no bias.

03-04-2003 @ 01:37 PM
MercyBreeze:
At the same time, for someone who has become accustomed to "party" bias (which indeed IS true for anyone in a church), it is still possible to set yourself apart from such mainstream thinking. The only problem is, most of American humanity is not content to be individual, but are eager to come across a potential truth and validate it with someone else who is also human. In a sense, most Christians will tend to feel out someone else's position before coming to their own. Such a problem creates bias. Yet, if it was possible for such a person to not attempt human validation (which I believe to be quite possible), then truth could be discovered on an individual and unbias nature.

I think I am somewhat in agreement with you here. At least in that I think it is possible for a person who has become "accustomed to 'party' bias" to set themselves apart from mainstream bias. I also agree that it is difficult for most people to do.

Where we disagree is the reason for this difficulty. You attribute it to peoples desire to be a part of a group. I attribute it to intelictual laziness. To borrow a quote from your signature:

"I have not yet been able to stereotype my theological views, and have ceased to expect ever to do so. The idea is preposterous. None but an omniscient mind can continue to maintain a precise identity of view and opinions. Finite minds, unless they are asleep or stultified by prejudice, must advance in knowledge. The discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds." Charles G. Finney

I put asleep in bold because I think that that is the condition of that keeps most people from "advanc in knowledge". I know from my personal experience that when I decided to really study Scripture (that is to wake up my sleeping mind), and really study theology, was the time when my beleife system became much more fluid, and my biases eroded.

[i]03-04-2003 @ 01:37 PM
MercyBreeze:
Yet, even with the possibility, it is necessary to seperate one's self from "parties" for several months and years before the full bias of one's original mentality is broken.


I am not sure what you mean by seperate. Do you mean to susspend bias, or do you mean to disassociate from a denomination?

03-04-2003 @ 01:37 PM
MercyBreeze:
Think about this for a moment...

If a Baptist grows up Baptist, they are not completely free from bias and are, in fact, indirectly responsible to uphold Baptist theology.

If a Methodist grows up Methodist, they are not completely free from bias and are, in fact, indirectly responsibile to uphold Methodist theology.

Both of these individuals cannot have the full truth, yet each one is fully convinced in his own mind. How is it possible to obtain further truth outside one's party unless such a person seperates themself from their original party?


I agree here, if by seperate you mean to susspend bias. Becasuse I have done just that. I was raised Baptist, but many of my current beleifs are not reflective of mainstream Baptist theology (although many still are). However, I have always been an active member of a Baptist church. So, if by seperate you mean disassociation, then I have proven you wrong, or at the least I am the exception to the rule.

03-04-2003 @ 01:37 PM
MercyBreeze:
Now let's consider that someone didn't just "seperate themself" from the "party" for the sake of joining ANOTHER party, but instead, simply chose to disappear into the mountains for three years with no one around them so that they could study. Is it not at all possible that bias would crack after eventual study?


IMHO if a believer can partake in honest study, the bias will crack without physical separation from the "party". Admitidly it might take longer as the influence of the "party" would be felt. Although I am not sure that this is such a bad thing. For one, scripture clearly admonishes beleivers not to forsake fellowship with other belives.

Another thing is that isolation "into the mountain somewhere" may lead to a quicker abaondoning of bias, but it may also lead to a quick road to heresy. Just becasue a person has a bible, doesn't meant that they will interprit it correctly. LDS's and JW's both consider the Bible as scripture, and they both have heretical theology. If a person is active in a local church, then there is at least (or should be) some sort of accountability.

03-04-2003 @ 01:37 PM
MercyBreeze:
If you think about it logically, at some point either one of those two men is going to discover something about the original bias that was false and in a sense, will end up chewing on the possibility that the ENTIRE bias was false. In which case, if this person has been studying for 1 of the 3 years, he has 2 more years to continue studying without any outside influences or innuendoes of truth. No other source for study outside his Bible.


I agree that the Bible must be our primary source of study. However, why limmit yourself to the Bible. True only the Bible is inspired, but there have been many great minds that have dwelt on scripture and have written thier thoughs down. When I have questions about thelogical issues, I have no problem reading what others have said about the issue. I have no trouble considering what these people have to say. However, I always base my final decision on how well a particular "belief" on a particular issue fits in with scripture (I have even come up with my own "particular belief" only to later find that someone else had already come up with it several hundered years ago and had a much more refiened model).

03-04-2003 @ 01:37 PM
MercyBreeze:
Such potential is possible and has been accomplished by wise men who do not foolishly allow themselves to be reconstructed by every "wind" of doctrine that alters their mind in human form.

I agree that it is foolish to blindly embrace a denominational system. My own theology is part Baptist, part Calvinist, part traditional Arminianist, and part a buch of other -ist.

I post this not to debate, but to try to understand your position.

I look forward to your response.

[Ishmael]

I have "Calvinist" stamped on my dog-tags.

[MercyBreeze]

Fara,

Indeed, I truly appreciate your kind words. Thus far, your comments have been the most gracious and welcoming. :wink:

Much of your thoughts were expressed in such a way that I had to chew a bit on my own. Rather than breaking down your entire response to me, it might be best if I focus on just a couple of things that stood out to me in your post.

"For one, scripture clearly admonishes beleivers not to forsake fellowship with other belives."

Were Scripture to "admonish" this point so "clearly," it would be evident in more than just a few verses. Yet, I do not disagree with your assertion. In fact, I very much agree. Here's the dillema...

Moses was 80 years old when he first approached Pharoah to discuss the release of Israel. And this for one reason... he had "fled" into the wilderness for a period of years. In that period of years, the Lord prepared him for the task which was destined for his path.

"But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went AWAY to Arabia," Galatians 1:15-17

Great men of God have historically withdrawn themselves from the public eye for the destined purpose of God's calling. For whatever reason they end up "in the wilderness," it ultimately becomes the design of God for them to have become "seperate."
In Paul's case, the significance of such a passage suggests that it was necessary for his growth and understanding in Christ that he "not consult with flesh and blood."

In the end of his life, Paul writes one of his final letters in which the "seperation" is coming from those around him...

"You are aware of the fact that ALL WHO ARE IN ASIA turned away from me," 2 Timothy 1:15

"...for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica..." 2 Timothy 4:10

"At my first defense, no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them." 2 Timothy 4:16

The phrases "turned away from me," "deserted me," would not "support me," suggest that it was not simply Paul's character that was not being supported, but that which he was trying to teach and preach as truth.

"For the time will come when men will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled,"

That word always makes me laugh because of its nature, but anyways...

", they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires." 2 Timothy 4:3

This is not so much to be refined to only JWs or Mormons who somehow twist Scripture around, but indeed, those who are IN the faith who will eventually "not endure sound doctrine." How can we know whether or not our traditions or our "tickled ears" are being tickled if we do not seperate ourselves from the bias that overwhelms us?

Let's play out the bias that Paul was up against with most Jews that he spoke to. To Peter, Paul says,

"If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Galatians 2:14

Bias is an influence that affects those around you. The only way to release a bias is to release yourself from your associations that teach from "flesh and blood." Without a doubt, there is a tremendous risk in such "fleeing into the mountains," for I do not disagree that it could lead to heresy. Yet, I am more inclined to believe that heresy stems less from escaping associations fully and more from becoming too much of an associated individual who desires the approval of "flesh and blood."

If someone went off and read Scripture and eventually came back saying that they were a prophet of God here to exclaim that God came back in 1997 while we were sleeping, all he would need is a strong grasp of Scripture and some way to "twist" things in order to gain the approval of others. Yet, there are such individuals who claim to be a "new prophet" with "new revelations" and such people are not solely trusting in the Word of God for their study. Rather, they are dependent on the dreams and revelations that God supposedly gives them outside His Word (i.e. Joseph Smith, The Apostle Eric, etc,). Were such men to have set aside the dependency on themselves and trust fully in the Word of God, there would be no variation of truth according to the Scripture.

Perhaps it goes into your fully valid suggestion that even when a person "wanders off" to study, they still carry with them some sort of bias that influences how they perceive what they are to spend years studying. I agree. Yet, there are those who have not really ever been grounded in anything and instead, ALWAYS questioned Scripture from the time they were young and raised in church. Those people who always saw something wrong in the sermons, but couldn't quite put their finger on it because they were partially influenced by bias association.

Imagine you were heavily racist because your father was. As you get into college, you become associated with a fellow athelete who is black (or white if you were black) and you laugh several times together. Part of you still struggles with a traditional bias and thinks yourself higher than this other person. Now imagine a three week Christmas break from school in which you come home to a father who hits you for talking so highly of this new "colored" friend. The more he talks, the more you swallow. Eventually you go back to school and withdraw yourself a bit from this person. Then after a few weeks, something happens and you end up talking again because of circumstance. Your friendship begins to renew, but you still fight the bias. Why? Because no matter how long you get to know this person, your father will still be there when you get home to tell you how wrong you are.

Now parents are a different aspect of bias than a church. You can walk away from church bias or indoctrination, but you can't walk away from family so easily. Family is always family. So indeed, it is quite possible to withdraw one's self from "those who have served (or were apostles :wink: ) before," in order to achieve a proposed "escape from bias."

As to your presentation of Scripture and Scripture alone. I find myself agreeing only because of the way you presented it. Yet, I still contend that if we only had access to Scripture (these 66 books), that we would have everything necessary to discover unbias truth unified in the plan of God.

"Be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Ephesians 4:3

As long as divisions exist through varying associations of name that seperate us from simply being the Body of Christ, we will cease to have unity as Scripture edifyingly asks that we find.

Again, thank you for such kind words and gracious remarks. Your thoughts are well taken and I appreciate the indirect welcome.

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

[flipper]

Ooh! Ooh!

"having been categorized"

Perfect passive participle!

[Theolog]

Each of us on our quest for biblical truth is hopefully processing the data we input in a methodological manner. As the various equations are uploaded and defragged and pigeonholed in their proper place on our personal grid we need to keep in mind that the data will more than likely keep coming in until we die. Occasionally we have to reformat and sometimes get a new operating system and start new grids. Please do not hold me responsible for what I believed yesterday because today I have added a ton or two of new data that changes everything.

Never assume for a minute that you even understand even the simplest definition of any word that someone else uses. Dictionaries are great but generally people define words as they use them in their own peculiar understanding.

We study the great and gifted teachers and Christian scholars to gain from them their unique insights and ideas to help us understand the Bible and God to greater degrees of clarity than we are capable of on our own.
We also have available far greater resources than any other generation before us with this awesome machine we are addicted to. Study time can now afford the necessary time needed to actually think and unleash our creative potential and gain the necessary clarity of thought to know what our position actually is in this theological maze we are trekking through.

As we work through these various theological grids we gain the ability to somewhat pigeonhole those that have just begun the journey or have wearied of the process and have arrived at their destination.

Theological unity is out, our unity can only be in Christ. It must be a non action.

Ecclesia reformata simper reformanda
And lets start with the music.

[Lizard]

Mercy:

Thanks for your response to my questions. I intend to followup on what you said, but at the moment things are quite busy for me, and I do not have the time to give a well thought out response. Please be patient.

[RolandJS]

MercyBreeze has started a topic that is really dear to me :)
I'm bookmarking this...to return to this again and again.
One quick thought: would the situation be helped if I think of myself as a Christian first, Bible student second, X denomination third?
My wife and I are trying to loosen the "all or none" grip that association often carries with it.
I'll be back when I have gathered some more wool for this sweater we're all knitting! :)
ybiC, Roland

[Darth Xena]

WOW... you guys are having a great discussion!! I hope to be able to return... I am just knee deep (okay, I will be honest - neck deep) in some other threads right now...

Mercy... I am very glad that I invited you... reading your interchange with Faramir has been most enjoyable.

[studyhound]

mercy~
Yet, even with the possibility, it is necessary to seperate one's self from "parties" for several months and years before the full bias of one's original mentality is broken.


I would have to dissagree with this statement, why? Because of personal experince.

I was in the house hold of a "Hal Lindsay, John Hagee, left behind dispy. and was taught it on a daily basis. but as i read the bible even with my bias I saw problems and over a short time changed my views on this and a nimber of different points while in the middle of these parties that I once alinged myself with.

Studyhound