Sometimes this carriers over into our views of the non-essentials. Often we as Christians, so desperately think we are correct, yet often times not fully evaluating all sides of the premise. This is why its imperative to discuss these issues openly within a community setting (not Solo Scripture initiative).

I am not saying we do not make definitive statements, but readily admit we are prone to mistakes, and what we view as facts are an interpretation of the evidences. Anything else would be an assertion, although assertions are not necessarily always incorrect based upon a priori.

My thoughts are going to echo those of Nick and Joanie. I feel the degree of defense of a particular issue should be commensurate with the degree of certainty on the issue. And, it is just not realistic to believe every doctrine 100%. There are many doctrines that are open to interpretation. When I hear people defending every position dogmatically, I tend to think they are not being honest, and are defending a position for the sake of it. This leads to alienation and ultimately stunts our growth as Christians. If God wanted us to believe everything equally, He would have presented every doctrine with equal clarity. But, He has not. This leads me to believe that God wants us to each bring our perspective to the table. The fact that not all Christians have the same truth should lead us to believe that maybe the truth lies somewhere in between Catholiscism and Protestantism (or any other denomination). In order for us to be “one” as we are instructed, it is important to allow for some diversity.

Well, again, there is a difference between the basics of the Gospel message (see the new thread on orthodoxy) and more finessed doctrinal matters. You are knocking down a straw man, and that does not make for good debate. You did not answer my first question:

So, which theological doctrinal concepts fall under “Man, himself” and which fall under “Divine Reason”?

I agree with you completely that we should defend with vigor and without “humbleness” the “Gospel”, but that requires a definition the Gospel, which would then define a false Gospel. There is a huge difference between how we preach that Jesus died for our sins and Mankind is in need of redemption on the one hand, and the doctrine of double predestination on the other. I would hope you would agree that you should not be equally polemic on all of these.

Here is a quick question for you then. Let’s take something as basic as the 5 points of Calvinism. If you are a Calvinist, to what degree of certainty do you hold to each one? You can just list them out and give a percentage. If you are not, then you can list the degree to which you think they are NOT correct.

Vance:

Galatians 2:5 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Has something changed since Paul penned these words so that the truth of the gospel no longer abides (remains) with God’s people? Are you of the view that while Paul could tell who “false brothers” were then, we can’t any longer?

Does a claim to be able to define the gospel entail a claim to personal infallibility on all matters of theology? If so, please explain.

Michael: yes, that would be fine. We’ll extend the program to a full 80 minutes to accommodate you. I will try to complete my replies to what has appeared here since Tuesday by 7:45pm EDT, so we can have at least a full half hour; if you could call 30 minutes in (or earlier, if you like…you can listen on the phone if you want), that would be great.

James>>>

James, would you like me to call in? Hopefully we could clarify some of this stuff and have some good dialogue.

So, which theological doctrinal concepts fall under “Man, himself” and which fall under “Divine Reason”?

That is the real question here. If I am convinced that my belief is, indeed, Divine Reason, without doubt, then I have no reason to be humble about it, and am not.

It is not about being humble about presenting the Truth of God, but being humble about what very well may be just my understanding of the Truth of God. And, if that is the case, then I had better be humble.

I think Chesterton does, indeed, get it right: too many people are NOT modest or doubtful ENOUGH about those things which are Man, including our own concepts and understandings of theological issues.

The following was sent to me today in response to this controversy and my comments on my webcast on Tuesday. Chesterton nailed this one (note how I don’t think every Roman Catholic is wrong about every single thing):

“What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert—himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt—the Divine Reason . . . We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.” (Orthodoxy, p. 31f.)

One does not have to believe they are infallible about every single jot and tittle of the whole of theology to believe they have the gospel right.

I will be addressing all of these issues—or, at least, attempting to do so within the strictures of an hour’s worth of airtime—this evening, 7pm EDT, 4pm PDT, on the Dividing Line. http://www.aomin.org to listen, 877-753-3341 to participate.

James>>>

Oh, I see people on this forum every day present their doctrinal positions without the slightest hint that they acknowledge that they could be wrong on that point. People will present their defense of, say, predestination with the same level of certainty that they would that Jesus is God.

We should imitate Paul, yes, but that has to be tempered with the knowledge that we can not possibly speak with the same degree of certainty or dogmatism on as many matters as he did. Well, maybe you can, but I certainly can’t. When it comes to matters essential for salvation, and the core doctrines of Christian belief, then I feel fine being dogmatic and even polemic.

But, I see people all the time treating issues like transubstantiation or a flavor of election, or a aspect of grace, with the same polemic and dogmatism as they would the truth of the resurrection. When someone says that an Arminian is a heretic (as was stated in another thread), that is a pretty dogmatic statement on a subject one can not possibly be 100% certain about.

And, yes, of course we are able to say that the Scripture contains the true Gospel, and that anyone claiming a path to salvation other than that described in that Gospel is preaching a false Gospel. But when you start adding particular and debatable elements to that Gospel message, and asserting them AS Gospel, that is where things start to get dicey.

Michael does a good job in his Theology Program setting out what are the essentials of the Christian message, those basic, core, creedal aspects that we can all be dogmatic about. Beyond those, we should approach each doctrine with care and a realization that our particular position could be wrong.

That alone should help to ensure that our attitude and approach are intellectually honest, and ultimately more effective in our presentation.

Having an unwavering commitment to the gospel does not translate into not having “shrewdness.” Indeed, in our pomo world those goals are not popular.

Michael, I am not a neophyte when it comes to apologetics. Obviously I am going to approach a Muslim differently than I would a JW. However, I will be conistent in articulating _truth-claims_ with both groups. If that is not a goal in apologetics (or a secondary issue) then the gospel has been compromised.

Vance, with all due respect this is a naive response: “We are not Paul. I would not presume to be Paul. In fact, NO ONE is Paul today.”

So was Paul wrong when he told us to _imitate_ him, and that the truth of the gospel was to _remain_ with the churches, not just the apostles.

“Paul was flexible in his approach, and chose his battles.”

Where do you see that in Paul responding to those who wanted to add to what Christ has done?

“but too many apologists these days treat all of their positions as equally certain.”

Could you name one? Further, on the gospel, are we still able to say, “I have the true gospel, and that one over there is false”?

“And, if you find yourself thinking that you are 100% certain, or close to it, on all of your theological positions…”

Could you name a single apologist who thinks this?

Thanks,

Great response Vance.

You said:
“And, if you find yourself thinking that you are 100% certain, or close to it, on all of your theological positions, then you have a problem, without doubt.”

You are absolutely right. It is this type of attitude that is not only intellectually dishonest, but very naive. In fact, this attitude ironically displays more insecurity than it does security.