The Narrow Path Ministries

you'd rather not pick one and run with it, so to speak.

I guess you've got me there. I will hold one in reserve to judge against scripture etc. but I won't embrace something I don't believe to be true at a reasonable level of certainty. Having "default" positions most of my life has led to quite a bit of frustration and resentment as my theology has evolved. I've had to unlearn quite a few dogmas or sacred cows.

I guess you've got me there. I will hold one in reserve to judge against scripture etc. but I won't embrace something I don't believe to be true at a reasonable level of certainty. Having "default" positions most of my life has led to quite a bit of frustration and resentment as my theology has evolved. I've had to unlearn quite a few dogmas or sacred cows.

User avatar
darinhouston





I've heard Steve.G say that it's OK to be undecided about an issue and learn to be at peace with that. For example i'm undecided on whether the Holy Spirit is a
person or the influence of God. There are some verses that make it sound as if the Holy Spirit is a person yet there are numerous examples where the phrase "the Spirit of fear" or the "spirit of this or that" is used and everyone knows in every other example "the spirit" is not a person so to me it's an unclear doctrine.

I think default positions an lead to easier traditions of eisegesis. Some people are better able to avoid that than others but its really easy to seek patterns and passages that confirm a held view. The likelihood of change becomes much lower in perhaps most cases

I prefer to 'test out' a theory by pressing it into service in broader theological application. In doing so, I need not be bound to that view long-term. If it, more and more, doesn't 'fit' with the rest of my theology, I become more and more questioning of it. I just think the best way to actually pick a car is to 'test drive' them (so to speak).

I guess I test drive them too. I just don't adopt them til they pass the test.

I would say the 'Trinity' has passed my test. I am more passionately trinitarian today that I ever have been because when pressed into theological service it has served me very well. That being said, I hold ALL my theology in a somewhat provisional manner.

Matt wrote:Think about Jesus' attitude toward various Jewish people during his time on earth. All they had to work with in terms of written revelation was the OT. Almost all of us would agree, I bet, that the Old Testament is not super clear about the Messiah prophecies (even after the fact many passages are still debated in this regard!). Yet Jesus was actually upset and critical of many Jews for their failure to recognize him. Even after his resurrection, he gently rebuked the 2 disciples on the road to emmaus for not knowing from the Old Testament that what happened had to happen that way.

Hmmm -- it strikes me that this makes my point. The Jews failed to recognize Jesus because they had formulated their own ideas (not strictly taught by Scripture) about what the Messiah was and how they expected to see Him. They had, in a sense, clung to a dogmatic doctrine about Him instead of maintaining an open expectation about all the various possibilities. Surely, there were some that were able to do both (like you and Steve), but I think there is a danger to the rest of God's people when these derived doctrines are taught and held so dogmatically.

When we teach this doctrine, do we do so with as much care and "loose holding" of the doctrine as you and I might in our own minds? If we did so with such an open mind towards other views, would we be excommunicated or at least risk our teaching credentials as orthodox or would we be seen as dangerous to the faith?

(I wrote this post yesterday and was going to delete it, but after an electrical power failure at the Superdome delayed the second half of the Superbowl for 35 minutes this evening I thought that it was justified by analogy)

I like what Matt said about a doctrine that can has pass repeated testing “because when pressed into theological service” it works. I am an electrician and it would be hard to get anything done if all I had do is study, and sit on my theory, or just wonder if it works, eventually I have to trust what I know and put the wires together. My answer comes pretty fast if I’m wrong.

I call the three phases of the common 3 phase electrical power (other than residential single phase) the - Father - Son - and Holy Ghost - If you are only working with 2 phases you may have less than half the potential, three phase power is much more efficient than two phase in electric.

darinhouston wrote:Hmmm -- it strikes me that this makes my point. The Jews failed to recognize Jesus because they had formulated their own ideas (not strictly taught by Scripture) about what the Messiah was and how they expected to see Him. They had, in a sense, clung to a dogmatic doctrine about Him instead of maintaining an open expectation about all the various possibilities. Surely, there were some that were able to do both (like you and Steve), but I think there is a danger to the rest of God's people when these derived doctrines are taught and held so dogmatically.

Well argued

When we teach this doctrine, do we do so with as much care and "loose holding" of the doctrine as you and I might in our own minds? If we did so with such an open mind towards other views, would we be excommunicated or at least risk our teaching credentials as orthodox or would we be seen as dangerous to the faith?

I feel pretty comfortable being honest in my setting... but I recognize that not everyone has such freedom as a teacher

darinhouston wrote: When we teach this doctrine, do we do so with as much care and "loose holding" of the doctrine as you and I might in our own minds? If we did so with such an open mind towards other views, would we be excommunicated or at least risk our teaching credentials as orthodox or would we be seen as dangerous to the faith?

mattrose wrote: I feel pretty comfortable being honest in my setting... but I recognize that not everyone has such freedom as a teacher

This is a problem I'm dealing with now. We have started to be a part of charismatic church that we are excited about. In the past 20 years I have been a pastor in two churches. I and am gifted as a teacher, leader, evangelist. We are excited about their philosophy of ministry because it is so close to mine. But in order to minister in the church, you have to agree with their statement of faith. I don't think this is a bad thing for a church because it keeps the riff-raff from misleading people and causing division. But my beliefs are nuanced at this stage of my life. With honesty and integrity. I don't believe in inerrancy/inspiration of the Bible. Though I believe that it is the best that we have and should be an authority in our lives. I don't agree with tithing, though I believe in giving to the people who are teaching you, to the poor, and to poor churches.

I'm at a stage in my life when I don't need to convince people of my beliefs. I'm not one of those people that goes up to the pastor after the sermon to "tell him what I think." I am in a small group in another church pastored by a friend of mine for 20 years. My beliefs are very different in some areas. But I am very firm about saying that I will not knowing disagree with him in a way that is causing discord. I don't want to undermine other people's or church's ministries.

So, I am trying to figure out how to approach this. My wife and I feel like we need to be honest with their leadership team. I'm going to meet with the pastor sometime soon. But this is an example where holding to views that differ from the majority can get you in trouble, or mislead people, even if you don't intend them to.