Theology 101

I read some things in the About section that raised some red flags. I’m really saddened by this because I would love to take a theology class online for my own understanding. But I cannot ignore the things he said and so I think I’ll pass on this.

Irenic theology is learning about truth in a peaceful manner, accurately representing the opposing belief even when you disagree strongly. In many ways it is the opposite of a dogmatic methodology which seeks to tell people the “truth” by positioning itself as the only true option.

If we believe in absolute truth, then we will have a problem with that last sentence. The truths of God are the only truth period but he calls it “dogmatic methodology”. I can’t imagine what else he means by this.

This next part I don’t understand:

In short, learning and teaching theology in an irenic way gives people the chance not to believe so that they might truly believe.

If someone understands the above, please tell me so I can stop scratching my head.
Those being taught may or may not identify with or be convinced of your particular persuasions. But it does not fair well before the Lord for us to sweep the other options under the rug in fear of the possibility of desertion.

The truth is, there are many “options” and Satan is the author of them. And if these “options” don’t line up with the Word of God then we ARE to sweep them under the rug. We are not to claim all views and options as valid just to keep the audience. He claims that if we lose the audience, that they will explore other options like Googling and when they find other options, then we will have “lost their trust and will not have an audience with them any longer. They will see you as manipulative, naïve, or, at best, misinformed and incompetent.”

So to avoid losing their trust and being called “manipulative”, “naive”, “misinformed” and “incompetent”, we are to accept all options? No, the Bible tells us that truth divides.

While disagreements may still exist, people will see that there is a center of peaceful unity upon which we all agree.

There will always be disagreements so that’s not the problem. The problem is how far do you take it? I’ve heard this same thing spouted by the ecumenical movement in what they’re trying to do today - bring together all religions by that in which they all agree. Also the wording is strange and very New Agey “center of peaceful unity.”

You will have disarmed all skeptics: No longer will you or others see our faith and other Christians in the likeness of a used car salesman, but as those who truly care about the truth. People will see that we have entrusted them with the ability and confidence to make their own decisions. All talk of knowledge being manipulative will necessarily cease for it will find no basis in reality.

There’s a few things wrong with this…building on what he said earlier about allowing for other options (paraphrased), if you do the opposite i.e. if you hold to one truth, then you are likened to a used car salesman? And he’s implying also that you truly DON’T care about the truth. And if we hold to one truth or option then we DON’T entrust them with the ability and confidence to make their own decisions. The Bible CLEARLY distinguishes between what is right and wrong, what is true and false. Who are we to decide FOR OURSELVES these things? I’m glad the Lord set clear instructions and boundaries and did NOT leave it up to us to decide what is right because we’d botch it up! If you follow what he says, then how can you be an effective witness since you don’t draw clear lines of true and false, right and wrong? How can one preach the gospel in this fashion? You cannot!

No worries, Carol, fixed it.

I was kinda hoping you’d spot something that I might have missed, and you did! I’ll have a look at the course materials again in that light.

Thank you!

No, it’s perfectly alright. At one time, I really did contemplate doing theology studies full-time but I had trouble finding a good school to go to. There were some good ones but were in the US of A, and therefore unfortunately too expensive.

I guess this is, in some ways, as good as choosing a theology school to attend so caution is definitely due.

Re: the codes — I had to fix it else I would have trouble reading your thoughts on it.

I don’t think so, Daniel; can’t afford it right now anyhow.

Of course, I’d go for accreditation if I were doing it full-time at a theology school though. Should that day come, I’ll be asking both you and Carol to help me look over the prospectus!

Hm… I’m almost afraid to write these things now if there’s going to be so much debate.
Just so that it clears things up a little (I hope), Carol: I’ll be reading through the course with two things in mind:

1. Sola Scriptura — everything that is said in the course will be tested against Scripture. They can take all the quotes from all the great theologians — Spurgeon et al, but I’ll draw my own conclusions based on the Bible, but but’s about it.

2. If there’s errant teaching in there, and I know it is so, then I’ll make a note of it and store it in my own database of what false teachings are out there.

That is the approach I take with every Christian publication, blog, program etc. It’s like how there are some things I don’t particularly agree with Piper, MacArthur and even Washer by my own merit but they give rise to me searching Scripture for myself.

I’d like to think that that’s how we learn to discern.

Shalom!

Daniel,

I’m sorry to be so hard on you. I don’t feel very well and I should be in bed instead of online. I didn’t mean to snap at you. Please accept my apologies okay? Please?

Hugs and blessings,
carol

Carol:

Apology accepted, and yeap, I think we should not comment when we are not in the right mood to do so .

Anyway, as I was saying, I am not defending the post. I know nothing about this course and nothing about the people involved. And I am not asking anyone to be “open to different views” in the sense of singing kum ba yah and holding hands with the ecumenists. However, as for me, I like to give such people the benefit of the doubt and do not think the worst of them, until I am proven otherwise. Therefore, I think we should not hastily pass judgement and assume that they are asking people to compromise the faith, but instead writing this in a spirit of genuine concern for Christian unity (the REAL type) that acknowledges variety of beliefs on “secondary issues” like Eschatology for example. I mean, is it biblical for let’s say pre-mil Dispensationalists to condemn amil Covenant Theologians as heretics, and vice versa? Or how about supralapsarians and infralapsarians? Or even Cessationists and Continualists?

I hoipe you can see what I am driving at. Note I am in no way defending the course or their blog post, just that this single blog post does not seem to lend itself for people to think that the writers and the course teachers are ecumenists.

Daniel,

I think we’re saying the same things. I know that we’re not going to agree on everything and no, I don’t brand those people as heretics. I simply stated that some of the things said raised ‘red flags’ for me which is not being “judgmental”. It is my opinion and for good reason and I stand by it. Perhaps if he would have stated that taking into account new views would not include doctrine that is clearly outlined in Scripture, I wouldn’t have concerns - but we don’t know exactly what he meant. We can neither defend or oppose him and I did neither - again, I stated that it was a “red flag” meaning exercise caution and I’m sure you don’t have a problem with that? The only way to find out is to go through the course (which Sicarii is) and find out. I simply choose not to because I got a bad feeling about it given the wording. Plus I’d rather study from a Messianic perspective. So it turns out we are in agreement on this and I think Sicarii knew what I was talking about.

I too am no longer a dispensationalist - but that doesn’t mean I label them heretics. I also know that I don’t know everything and am in error on some issues.

I don’t feel right about the term “secondary matters” because what constitutes that? There is an answer (i.e. truth) for every secondary matter as well and I think it’s important that we learn of these things too. The Bible teaches many things outside the Gospel.

Blessings

hey Shalene,

Good to see you again. Thank you for the links — looks like I’ll have my hands full reading those as well to find out what they are about.
Shabbat Shalom.