Interesting.

I can't say for sure that Auguestine is any sort of example to look towards. He may have professed christianity very much so... and I am not judging him by any means... but to me, his opinions and words give no meaning to anything; as far as I'm concerned, he was already "off track" along with most of the church, as far as the doctrines and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

I little too much philisophy, and "doctrines of men" to be listening to him... that's my opinion.

_________________
J. Wilson

How much Augustine have you read?

_________________
Ron Bailey

I love pietism, because it gives birth to this sort of nonsense.

You people must realize that all of your teachings, all of your sayings, all of your thoughts are the "doctrines of men". The Bible doesn't speak to us in a vacuum, but it is interpreted by us. We all do philosophy, we all do theology, we all interpret life, but the issue is, are we doing it well and right. We must realize that we are people of our time and we don't come to the Scriptures naked, but with a post-enlightenment and for many Americans 35 and under a post-modern mentality. This colors our interpretation. To think you can hop over 2,000 yrs. of history and get to a naked text is philosophy---it is just poorly done.

openairboy

Hi openairboy
a couple or so questions and a comment.
1. "what on earth does pietism have to do with anything so far said on this thread?"
2. "who is 'you people'?"
3. "do you exclude your own contributions when you say 'all your teachings, all of your sayings, all of your thoughts are the doctrines of men'?"

If you are saying perfect objectivity is impossible you are right, but then I don't know who would want to argue with you on that.

Bible words and concepts don't have defintions, they have histories and that is why we must contintually give ourselves to prayerful study in, reading of, and meditation in the whole Book. All cultures have words with histories e.g. Alamo, Dunkirk. These are not just spots on a map but are part of the national psyche. The same is true with the Bible but with the additioan that, from the vaste amount of historial information God has at His disposal, God has carefully selected events and persons whose lives and locations have a lasting significance.

We need to marinade ourselves in this book so that its phrases and idioms become our spiritual mother tongue. And even then we must be open to the voice of God in our brethren,(and sometimes our mortal enemies 2 Chron 35:22) but absolute objectivity is beyond our grasp in this world. There is a poignant comment in Wesley's diaries. Wesley said of certain he met that "they had sundry excellent qualities, but unfortunately they knew everything and therefore learned nothing."

_________________
Ron Bailey

"nonsense"????

_________________
Tony Phillips

Openairboy, you said, "We all do philosophy, we all do theology, we all interpret life, but the issue is, are we doing it well and right."


Let me say that you can have the "right" theology the "right" philosophy and the "right" interpretation of life and still you could be lost in sin.

You can understand every detail about redemption, but not recieve any of its benefits. Also, you can understand nothing about redemption and recieve all its benefits.

This forum is about defining what it is that we believe and having others question it. In the process, hopefully, we learn.

None of us have enough knowledge to boast, but it is true that there is 2000 years of Christian theology that must be considered in our interpretations. Still, the Bible must be interpreted so that it is primarily consitant with itself.

I can assure you that no one has gone further than a mere "surface treatment" of the study of scripture (it will take eternity to get a little deeper).

_________________
Tony Phillips

Philologos,

Thanks for the questions, so I can clarify.

1. I think zaphy(something) has hints of pietistic understanding, as well as many of the other posts that think they are just "reading the Bible". It is an underlying sentiment in many posts.

2. The "you people" is referencing the aforementioned pietists. Pietism may not have been the best word, but I think that and fundamentalism captures the essence of the thinking of most.

3. Nope. And that's why you won't hear me throwing out statements rejecting 2,000 yrs. of the Church. Yes, there are problems with some of our historical understandings, but to negelct the fact that we stand on Augustine's and the rest of the Church's shoulders is naive to say the least. Many of the comments, I believe, suggest this much.

To act like Finney's moral government theology is in any way Hebraic thought and not the influence of American democratic ideals and the enlightenment is extremely anachronistic to say the least.

openairboy

"nonsense"????

Main Entry: 1non·sense
Pronunciation: 'nän-"sen(t)s, 'nän(t)-s&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 1614
1 a : words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1) : language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense (2) : an instance of absurd action
2 a : things of no importance or value : TRIFLES b : affected or impudent conduct
3 : genetic information consisting of one or more codons that do not code for any amino acid and usually cause termination of the molecular chain in protein synthesis -- compare ANTISENSE, MISSENSE

"You can understand nothing about redemption and receive all its benefits."

We must understand and BELIEVE the Gospel to be saved. If we do not believe the Gospel, then we are not saved.

Openairboy,

Why must we "stand on Augustine's and the rest of the church's shoulders"? Who said that Augustine was any authority on what is and what is not truth?

Throughout the centuries many have rejected Augustinianism. There are no new debates being argued here!

As for Finney, certainly his thoughts are no less Hebraic than are those of Augustine, Calvin, Spurgeon etc.

The thread we are discussing is whether or not man comes into this world with a sinful nature by direct result of Adam.

Popular Hebraic thought has rejected this. So have many Christian theologians.

How do we understand the doctrine? I know I have much to learn and am here with an open heart and a willingness to grow. Still I am not going to believe something to be true just because it is popular.

_________________
Tony Phillips