Self sufficiency vs God-dependency

pastorgeek

CubicleZ7 said:

Not to get too side-tracked, but @pastorgeek, just so I know where you're coming from, would you please define what you mean when you say "bad theology"?  And don't worry, this isn't some ploy to engage you in any sort of semantic pugilism -- I just want to know so I can frame your comments appropriately in my mind.  I think that if you asked 20 licensed ministers this question, you'd likely get 20 different responses.

CubicleZ7 - A very valid question and one that deserves a full answer. I'll add that to the list of subjects that I'll address on my blog. So I'm keeping this answer short to help try not to derail this thread.

The short version of the answer is that good doctrine lines up with the scriptures and bad doctrine does not. That sounds trite, but when you look at the history of doctrines promoted by church denominations and the changes that they make to their core doctrines, you have to conclude that many doctrines are man made. Many denominational doctrines have no basis in the scriptures (Purgatory is a great example here). Others have been changed, so that what used to be scripturally based is now no longer (The Baptists used to insist on the essentiality of baptism, but now say that it's an optional external sign). Many core doctrines have been changed to conform to political correctness. Many core doctrines have been changed to make them more accessible ... also known as dumbing them down.

Good doctrine is doctrine where you can point to more than one, contextually correct verses that teach that specific point you are addressing. Bad doctrine cannot do this. Unfortunately many people do not know their bible well enough to know when they have just been sold a bill of goods.

For those who enjoy fancy words, the term you want to research is Biblical Hermeneutics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaneutics#Biblical_hermeneutics

Athol_Kay

@Pastorgeek ; Oh come now, I really do understand the basic tenets of Christianity. I just don't agree with them.

I'm vastly closer to Taoism than Christianity. When you say "bad theology" do you mean bad Christian theology or bad Taoism?

I mean I do have a Maori variant on a Yin/Yang symbol on the cover of my book and avatar.

 

Obviously we don't have the same viewpoint on these matters, but the difference is I'm clearly disagreeing, while a couple people are telling me I should stay silent because I'm simply ignorant of the topic being discussed.

In all seriousness, I have nearly 20 years experience with the church from private church schools through to preaching in the evening service, leading worship, short-term missions, full-time Christian work for The Bible Society. I really spent nearly 20 years doing all that and get an "F" for theology?

x1134x

Athol_Kay said:Obviously we don't have the same viewpoint on these matters, but the difference is I'm clearly disagreeing, while a couple people are telling me I should stay silent because I'm simply ignorant of the topic being discussed.

Yes, the most annoying of the logical fallacies "You as a person have, or do not have, quality X, therefore your argument is wrong". The ad-hominem fallacy.

If a person who is not an "expert" in a field is wrong with an assertion, their assertion can be shown as wrong with facts and logic, rather than debasing the character of the person putting forth the argument.

If a tattoed Hell's Angel's member who's probably gotten away with multiple murders says 2+2 = 4 yet "pastorgeek" with all his great reputation and community support insists that 2+2 = 5.  Why waste time discussing the character of the debatees?

It drives me nuts, its the most commonly encountered logical fallacy on the internet today in my opinion.

Mona

Athol_Kay said:

Actually I do have a degree in Sociology.

I stand corrected then :-)  though it doesn't hurt my ultimate point that the letters behind a name don't automatically denote understanding or intelligence superior to others. 

Scarlet said:

You can understand theology and still disagree with it. For example, transubstantiation vs con substantiation - how do you know which one (or neither) you agree with if you don't understand either?

This is why I love theological debates it always leads to greater understanding, whether I come to agree with the other person or not.  There is always a new point I haven't heard made before, a new angle I haven't considered, a new insight to a passage I've grappled with.  One of the greatest tragedies of modern Christianity is the failure to teach theology.  It reflects much of modern education in that you are taught what to think, instead of how to think.  You are told what to believe, but the why is never explained, or only explained superficially.  The reasoning behind the doctrinal conclusion is never presented in depth.  There is little attempt to truly nurture a congregations understanding of scripture.  I began studying theology because I was so dissatisfied with the superficial tropes and platitudes I got in response to very real doubts and questions.  It is sad that so many believe or dismiss without understanding what it is they've accepted or rejected. 

Athol_Kay said:

@Pastorgeek ; Oh come now, I really do understand the basic tenets of Christianity. I just don't agree with them.

I'm vastly closer to Taoism than Christianity. When you say "bad theology" do you mean bad Christian theology or bad Taoism?

I mean I do have a Maori variant on a Yin/Yang symbol on the cover of my book and avatar.

 

Obviously we don't have the same viewpoint on these matters, but the difference is I'm clearly disagreeing, while a couple people are telling me I should stay silent because I'm simply ignorant of the topic being discussed.

In all seriousness, I have nearly 20 years experience with the church from private church schools through to preaching in the evening service, leading worship, short-term missions, full-time Christian work for The Bible Society. I really spent nearly 20 years doing all that and get an "F" for theology?

I don't think you should stay silent at all, fwiw, nor do I think anyone else meant for you to stop talking about it.  I've learned far more from people I disagree with than those I do agree with.  Re 20 years in the church.  I only really began researching and understanding theology in the last 4yrs or so.  Before that, I'd spent over 20yrs growing up in church, attending christian private schools, going on missions trips, etc.  My understanding of theology was little to nothing.  The church does not teach theology.  They should, but they don't.  My husband is in school working towards a BA in biblical theology.  He was very, very disappointed with his first two years of classes, and has learned more on his own time than from the classes he took.  While I've been less than impressed on the rare occasion you touch on christian theology, I'd at least give you a C :-P  And you beat out the majority of televangelists I've seen, so that's something.  :-)

Captaindude

This is very off-topic, but somewhat interesting.  Still--as a Christian, I can understand and appreciate that Athol doesn't base his ideas on Christian theology.

I've never had a class in Biblical Theology, but I have read my Bible, studied it, and carefully thought about it.  

@pastorgeek  Interesting summary.  I like your definition of 'bad theology."  I can think of a lot of bad theology taught by ordained and trained ministers who have doctorates and say they've studied the Bible and even sometimes quote it in support of their bad theology.

One of the oldest and deepest examples of this is the conflict between Arianism and Trinitarianism, which was resolved in favor of Trinitarianism and codified in the Nicene Creed at the 1st and 2nd councils of Nicea by mostly political negotiations.  Numerous New Testament Passages, such as Matthew 3:16-17, Luke 9;34, John 12:28, John 17, Acts 7:55-6, and others, make it plainly clear that Arius was right--that Jesus, the Son of God, was a separate and distinct being from God the Father.  Yet--Trinitarianism remains a prevailing theology taught by ordained and well-studied Christian ministers, even though I find minimal Biblical support for it.

I'm similarly familiar with people who have completed doctorates in Biblical Theology that were disappointed that many of their instructors denied the divinity and the historical reality of Jesus, His miracles and resurrection.  Talk about bad theology!

@Mona your husband's experience in studying is interesting, yet not surprising.  Studied "theologians" do not have a monopoly on truth.  Thank heavens the scriptures, and even God Himself, through prayer, are available for everyone to learn for themselves.

x1134x

Isn't "Self dependency vs God dependency" a different wording of "Wish in one hand and shit in the other. . . . see which fills up faster!"??

pastorgeek

x1134x said:

Athol_Kay said:Obviously we don't have the same viewpoint on these matters, but the difference is I'm clearly disagreeing, while a couple people are telling me I should stay silent because I'm simply ignorant of the topic being discussed.

Yes, the most annoying of the logical fallacies "You as a person have, or do not have, quality X, therefore your argument is wrong". The ad-hominem fallacy.

If a person who is not an "expert" in a field is wrong with an assertion, their assertion can be shown as wrong with facts and logic, rather than debasing the character of the person putting forth the argument.

If a tattoed Hell's Angel's member who's probably gotten away with multiple murders says 2+2 = 4 yet "pastorgeek" with all his great reputation and community support insists that 2+2 = 5.  Why waste time discussing the character of the debatees?

It drives me nuts, its the most commonly encountered logical fallacy on the internet today in my opinion.

x1134x - I do not think that pointing out a person's lack of qualifications to argue a point counts as ad-hominem. I am not attacking Athol, who I like, or his character, but rather his qualifications to make his argument. He then followed up by saying that he was nearly a minister. Well, I'm sure I could claim that I nearly won the Nobel Peace Prize, but I have no peace prize and Athol is not a licensed minister.

For the record, I met a number of Hell's Angels back in my drinking days and not one of them ever regaled me with a conversation concerning mathematics. I am not asserting 2 + 2 = 5 in this thread. I'll save that for another one. I am questioning Athol's qualifications to speak to the subject of Christian doctrine. He feels at liberty to speak as one who has authority in the matter and I disagree. I'm trying to disagree politely. I am making no negative comments about his character. But I very strongly disagree.

pastorgeek

Athol_Kay said:

@Pastorgeek ; Oh come now, I really do understand the basic tenets of Christianity. I just don't agree with them.

There is a difference between understanding the basic tenets of Christianity and understanding Christian theology. I'll grant you basic tenets and that you disagree. :-)

I'm vastly closer to Taoism than Christianity. When you say "bad theology" do you mean bad Christian theology or bad Taoism?

Good catch. I was referring to your bad Christian theology. I am not qualified to analyze the purity of your Taoism.

I mean I do have a Maori variant on a Yin/Yang symbol on the cover of my book and avatar.

 And very striking it is too.

Obviously we don't have the same viewpoint on these matters, but the difference is I'm clearly disagreeing, while a couple people are telling me I should stay silent because I'm simply ignorant of the topic being discussed.

"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips [is esteemed] a man of understanding." - Proverbs 17:28 (KJV)

In all seriousness, I have nearly 20 years experience with the church from private church schools through to preaching in the evening service, leading worship, short-term missions, full-time Christian work for The Bible Society. I really spent nearly 20 years doing all that and get an "F" for theology?

I know people who have been in computer programming careers for twenty years who couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. Some people have twenty years of experience and some people have one year of experience twenty times over. Throwing a number around doesn't prove anything. My father-in-law is a bible school graduate and taught me my first bible study, yet he calls me up and asks me questions now. It's not the number of years. It's also not the things that you've done. I am thankful for any of the things that you have done for the kingdom of heaven. I am only addressing your theology. And I have arrived at my conclusion purely through reading that which you have written. This seems a fair approach.

x1134x

pastorgeek said:

x1134x - I do not think that pointing out a person's lack of qualifications to argue a point counts as ad-hominem

Thats exactly what it is.

. I am not attacking Athol, who I like, or his character, but rather his qualifications to make his argument.

qualifications, degrees, experience levels, etc are all elements of a person's character.

He then followed up by saying that he was nearly a minister. Well, I'm sure I could claim that I nearly won the Nobel Peace Prize, but I have no peace prize and Athol is not a licensed minister.

You don't have to be a licensed minister to speak intelligently about these things, and him saying he was almost a minister tells me he knows more than someone who's never been to church or cracked a bible, so it is pertinent, and it doesn't claim to purport he is IS a minister.

For the record, I met a number of Hell's Angels back in my drinking days and not one of them ever regaled me with a conversation concerning mathematics. I am not asserting 2 + 2 = 5 in this thread. I'll save that for another one. I am questioning Athol's qualifications to speak to the subject of Christian doctrine. He feels at liberty to speak as one who has authority in the matter and I disagree. I'm trying to disagree politely. I am making no negative comments about his character. But I very strongly disagree.

I don't see much authority being claimed, just a viewpoint being put forth. Why not just win the 'arm wrestle' by pinning him on the table rather than trying to have him disqualified? Saying "you're not qualified to make that argument" is essentially saying "I deem your argument unworthy of my attention or thought because you don't meet my arbitrary requirement X." It is a direct expression of disdain for another human in my opinion. One should always be willing to teach, even to the most uneducated. Jesus was.

Chimpy

I'm a Wiccan, so I don't have a dog in  this fight, but the normal position is that the God and Goddess expect you to be self sufficient, but that your faith will help give you the tools to be so.

On another point, to see some of the best here fighting among thereselves helps no one. Athols house, Athols rules. As I understand it, christians have been debating/arguing/fighting over this kind of thing for nearly 2000 years. Is this adding anything or...

pastorgeek

qualifications, degrees, experience levels, etc are all elements of a person's character.

Qualifications do not constitute character. Experience can help develop character, but it's not the same thing.

Serenity

“We must be ever courteous and patient with those who do not see eye to eye with us. We must resolutely refuse to consider our opponents as enemies.”  --Mahatma Gandhi

Christian prayer has been vehemently argued for more than 2000 years by both the educated and the unschooled. One either feels led to pray or not. You will never convince someone to feel otherwise with mere words.

I am just grateful that I am neither forced to pray nor persecuted for doing so.

Chimpy said:

As I understand it, christians have been debating/arguing/fighting over this kind of thing for nearly 2000 years. Is this adding anything or...

JellyBean

pastorgeek said:

... I have no peace prize and Athol is not a licensed minister.

 I am questioning Athol's qualifications to speak to the subject of Christian doctrine. He feels at liberty to speak as one who has authority in the matter and I disagree. I'm trying to disagree politely. I am making no negative comments about his character. But I very strongly disagree.

Was Jesus a licensed minister?

No?

Ok, then.

pastorgeek

JellyBean said:

pastorgeek said:

... I have no peace prize and Athol is not a licensed minister.

 I am questioning Athol's qualifications to speak to the subject of Christian doctrine. He feels at liberty to speak as one who has authority in the matter and I disagree. I'm trying to disagree politely. I am making no negative comments about his character. But I very strongly disagree.

Was Jesus a licensed minister?

No?

Ok, then.


Nice try. Jesus was God. And that is a claim that neither Athol or I have made. :-)

Cowboy

At the risk of being a complete jackass..this discussion is certainly spirited, but is it helping the OP?

pastorgeek

No. And that's why we've all stepped away.

Cowboy

Oops, sorry, I don't want to reignite it, then.  For some reason it looked recent to me.  Carry on!

DarKeyes

@European_bob and others, if you believe in a higher power, then you know there are times when you admit to yourself that you need help and reach out to your higher power and surrender your will. What comes next is rarely passive hoping and praying, but a willingness to make decisions and act in accordance with what you believe the Divine is calling you to do. You may be called to quit your job or get a new one, admit some truth to your spouse or yourself, start going to a 12-step group, start writing the book that's trying to get out of you, whatever, it is, it sure as hell isn't just "pray and hope," at least that's my experience. I was born Catholic, I am now a Pagan Shaman. Talking to God (in my case, to The Gods), is not for the faint of heart, they ask me to do shit that terrifies me, until I'm doing it, then I know peace and comfort. My Gods are calling me to step up and be a rock-steady alpha man to my wife and family, when I am much more comfortable with the beta-nice-guy crap that comes from growing up in the seventies. I am terrified of being an asshole and hurting people, but I'm stepping into my sovereignty as a man.

What is your higher power calling you to do? You won't find that answer in the Bible, in me, in your wife, in @athol_kay or in church. You listen to your higher power, then follow your calling. Running from your calling will find you suffering in a whale's belly, whether you are a praying man or not. Following it will bring you peace.

Unto the Breach, my friend.

DarKeyes

European_Bob

OK coming back more to the original question, in church recently we were looking at Genesis 15-16.

TL:DR God promises Abraham he will have millions of descendants despite his wife Sarah being 90 and childless. Sarah tells him to take a concubine, and the concubine falls pregnant.

This obviously wasn't what God wanted as a bit later Sarah became pregnant, and through Sarah's son came the millions of descendants as promised.

In this case though Abraham "bought the lottery ticket" by sleeping with the concubine, but "taking action" was the wrong choice when he should have been sitting tight and trusting God.

How can we know when to sit tight and when to take action?

Captaindude

European_Bob said:

This obviously wasn't what God wanted as a bit later Sarah became pregnant, and through Sarah's son came the millions of descendants as promised.

In this case though Abraham "bought the lottery ticket" by sleeping with the concubine, but "taking action" was the wrong choice when he should have been sitting tight and trusting God.

Where do you get the idea that this "obviously wasn't what God wanted?"  I don't see anywhere in the text that this was a "wrong choice'  that says God didn't want Abraham to take action with Hagar.   

In fact, here's what God says about the son of Hagar, Ishmael in Genesis 17:20:

20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

I just don't see any evidence that God wanted Abraham to just "sit tight and wait."   If I've missed something, give me a verse here.

Another equally valid assumption could be that God made the promise, and then watched to see if Abraham was going to take any action to try and fulfill the promise before He rewarded Abraham with a son through his wife Sarah.   Maybe Abraham's action actually helped trigger the fulfilling of the promise!

I feel much safer leaning toward action than inaction.