Our Theology Must Change?

[RyanHale]

[Tim Bonney]

The line I would draw is that you can't modify theology just to make it more acceptable. My grandfather used to say, "You can put any label on an empty bottle." You have to modify theology because you believe that you have found the newer understanding to be a truer understanding, not just a more palatable understanding.

[RyanHale]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

I hear what you are saying about PKs. When our daughter was younger we tried to shield her from some of the worst behavior by not having her attend church business meetings. But still she is well aware of hypocritical behavior she saw in church and, I think, it has caused her to do a lot of thinking about what faith means to her and the church she has chosen to be in.

[Tim Bonney]

By the way, in reference to the Apostles' Creed, I like it as much for what it doesn't say as for what it says.

It doesn't try to define polity, church governance, beliefs about social issues that may or may not be addressed in the Bible, etc. I believe the foundational beliefs of Christianity are a rather small subset of the many things people may believe.

[RyanHale]

Which brings up an interesting question. Assuming Bart Campolo's now confessed non-belief is the result of the brain injury, how does that fit in our understanding of what constitutes a salvific faith? Isn't that part of the same line of thinking as those who never heard or have diminished capacity to understand the Gospel?

[RyanHale]

[Tim Bonney]

[RyanHale]

[Sandy]

I think creeds, and the lists of things we put together as "requirements," or perhaps affirmations of belief, are for our own assurance, and aren't particularly definitive when it comes to salvation. There are places in the New Testament where the confession is pretty simple, and grace is present. John's gospel, and epistles, narrow the creed down to a confession of Jesus as the Christ, without any pre-conditions. In the context of how he addresses this point, it appears that the only element of God's sovereignty which might be involved would be that a person would have to be in a physical location where the gospel was being preached and taught, in order to hear it and respond to it. Peter's epistles make a similar point.

The other point is that human beings have free will, and if God uses his sovereignty, and his eternal power to manipulate situations or circumstances to cause a particular outcome, or lack of a particular outcome, is that really free will?

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

By the way Ryan, thanks for starting a theological discussion. It feels like we discuss politics here much more than theology. And I find this to be more ultimately useful.

[RyanHale]

[RyanHale]

[RyanHale]

[Tim Bonney]

Ryan, I'm sold on Wesyan/Arminian views of salvation. I leaned that way strongly before become a Methodist, it is just what makes the most sense to me. Around here I'm pretty much known as a liberal. But, to tell the truth, most of my theology is pretty orthodox and conservative by most denominational standards outside of SBC land. I can say the Apostles' Creed without reservation and mean it. It is actually social issues that I'm a liberal on, none of which are a part of the historic faith statements of the Church that go back to the Apostles.

I see the attraction of universal salvation. It attracts me too. But I just can't get myself past free will and our own human responsibility. I see Universalism as just the flip side of the coin of Calvinism. Both are a form of predeterminism. So far, nothing in scripture or Christian doctrine has convinced me that our salvation or damnation is predetermined. If it were then it seems to me that it makes God responsible for the whole mess the world is in. I can't buy that.

I realize there are ways of getting around that responsibility by removing some part of God's sovereignty. But I fear that to do that also removes God's power to save.

[Tim Bonney]

Just another thought, if you notice the book I referenced about the "least you can believe" really none of it is about bedrock Christian beliefs. It is about stuff that Christians have added on like views of creationism and science, etc.

Could it be the things we've added on to Christianity that is the problem and not our basic beliefs?

[RyanHale]

[RyanHale]

[Sandy]

[RyanHale]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, I don't know where your quote comes from. But it isn't entirely true. Some of the reformers did indeed consider the possibility of salvation outside of Christendom, including John Wesley who entertained the idea that God's grace might extend to non-Christians under certain circumstances. Some Protestant authors live in bubbles too, particularly Reformed theologians who seem to think that all of the non-Catholic world is Reformed.

[William Thornton]

Ryan since we are both Georgia baptists, at least for now, I'd be interested in hearing your detailed view of the GBMB.