I willingly admit that there are conversations initiated on Christian theology that probably could do well to have never have been had. However, there are many conversations that should take place regarding doctrinal position and understanding. If the affirmation of righteousness and the presence of salvation in a believer's life is present and yet there are doctrinal differences, how then should a conversation on differences take place?
I would venture to say that there is seldom examination of the scriptures in question themselves and often a proclamation of personal opinion in order to refute any claim in difference of opinion. I can honestly state that when I try to converse with other believers, whom I truly believe are in Christ over different doctrinal positions, especially in ecclesiology, that It drives me up the wall when every point you offer up for consideration is refuted by...
YEAH BUT YEAH BUT YEAH BUT YEAH BUT YEAH BUT YEAH BUT.....
2 comments:
the YEAH BUT has to be most commonly found in discussions about ecclesiology because there is perhaps no area of doctrine that is founded less on Scripture in the modern church. when it comes to ecclesiology, Acts is descriptive not prescriptive and tradition rules da roost!
Yeah but.... No seriously, I have begun seeing that what I once held to be an unchangeable truth, Acts as a descriptive didactic, is now becoming a bit of a lesson in prescriptive practice. Simply stated, "MY" theology is changing and I have to learn to accept rebuke from the truth of scripture when naturally I want to defend my opinion and why it's right.
Post a Comment
Please keep your posting clean. Comments, free-thought, and otherwise contradictory remarks are definitely welcome, just be considerate with your language. Oh yeah, I also reserve the right to completely eradicate your comments from any of my posts, but seldom do. Just so you know...