Cheeky200386
Well-known
Thanks Rose. I will consider your concerns. I realize some things I share can be clearer. I'll work on that.
In the sense of the video though, there was nothing Gavin said in that video that shared bad doctrine with us though. The only thing in what he said that could be construed as "potential" bad doctrine is when he used general rules of thumb of what is the generic way in which people believe a host of things and blending that with how one comes to believe the truth in scripture. I would not say though that that is axactly bad doctrine though. It seemed more like a blind spot in his analogy. Which did come out emmediately in conversation because in taking careful consideration of how Gavin put things, it became apparent he let his views of generic belief systems override how that works with His spirit and the power of the gospel and the word.
So what was it in that video that was bad doctrine? I mean I can understand your point if what Gavin was saying included statements of bad doctrine. But there was not any I am aware of. The only thing close to that beyond the above mentioned was his hint at his studies of Augustine. But in that statement itself he did not include any features of false doctrine I could detect. So in line with keeping with your point, to help me track as much as I might, what in that video was false doctrine, though?
The reason I brought up the Reformed Camp was not to suggest though that it is good to dialogue with Reformeds to learn from them. I brought it up because although there are some on the forum that hold to some tenants of reformed theology the forum itself is distinct from reformed thought. And since Gavin is "totally" reformed...lol, I brought it up to identify that my posting of that video was not in agreement with the Reformed camp. For I had a very long journey out from underneath all of that. It was to clarify that I was not posting the video as a testimony to any agreement with bad doctrine practices associated with the American Reformed camp. I could understand how it could be misunderstood if I left that statement completely out of the picture though. So I brought it up stating:
"The irony of sorts here is that Gavin is reformed. A world i came out of that i felt could be unduly harsh in dogma (and then of course there is their whole bad theology thing going on there)."
So I believe the warning I applied was fitting though, was it not? That I understood Gavin as reformed and that does contain bad theology. But I did not mean it to be a rabbit trail but an exact fitting disclaimer. That Gavin is reformed and that reformed theology contains error. There is no going off the point there though. In fact, what I was hopefully doing was showing the irony. Because one feature of Reformed theology in many of the American camps is to use harsh dogma to make their points. And even though Gavin is in that theater, he sees more soberly. So if anything, I was pointing to the transcendent spirit and attitude of being more conversationally minded than dogmatically minded when engaging with others. A camp, like the American Reformed Camp, that tends to use huge harsh dogma as a rule. So I brought it up to "highlight" my point. Not stray from it. Although you may not agree with the sentiment, you can see the point though and the appropriate connection there though, yes?
A greatly honored and loved dear sister in our forum in this section posted the following comment in our discussion...
When spending time discoverable along the way in the American Reformed camp, as I had previously, you learn the philosophical importance they place on argumentation. Because a prime basis for their theology is largely engulfed in philosophy. So what happens there is that there are prime branches of reformed thought that tend to skew the line of philopophy and theology. It is a prime practice in some very recognizable reformed thought. In many ways, the reformed church has leaned on philisophical practices far more than Calvin did. You can actually use Calvin on quite a few occasions to disprove American Reformed thought. Because part of the philosphical practices in those camps is to out do Calvin. So you can actually use Calvin himself to disprove many of the claims of Reformed thought today. But that won't stop them...lol. Because its like trying to nail jello to the wall with many in that camp.
Since the reformeds tend to lean more heavily on the philosphical than the theological "proper," they tend to drift quite a bit from orthodoxy. With Cheeky, I respect her conviction. And it is wise not to get all up in the machinations of reformed philosophical blunderdom. Amen. I can appreciate anyone not desiring to go there at all. Amen. For very good cause. But I post this quote because it does get somewhat at the core of why I posted the video. Ken Ham issued a statement about whether he was reformed or not.
Is Ken Ham a Calvinist or Arminian?
I want to be a biblical Christian, and that’s the emphasis I want to bring.answersingenesis.org
This is a classic Reformed philosophical approach to use argument to blur the line. Now I happen to see AIG as very rebuttable. However on their Rev 12 Sign 2017 coverage, they were extremely lacking (in my view) and dogmatically came out to say that Gen 1:14-19 had nothing to do with end times. That to me is a sheer sign of wanting to own the Genesis narrative and sound to the general public as the informed ones. And school the masses. Which is a classic reformed ideology. What Ken Ham does in his explanation as to whether he is a Calvinist or not is similar to the strategy used by some reformed camps who target non-reformed churches for conversion. It is a slow 5 year process 9Marks has outlined how to do. How to bring non-reformed churches slowly over to reformed thought. And it is, as should be, highly controversial. With Ken Hams explanation, he demonstrates to some degree a naive perspective himself on the reformed issue in America. For those who have taken honest evaluation in study, Arminius is a Calvinist. it is legitimately two-sides of the same coin.
Reformed thought seeks to blur that line. As if Arminius was not a Calvinist. Historical record speaks very differently. The idea behind reformed thought is to suggest to the populous an either/or fallacy. Such as Ken Ham uses in his logic. There are not two choices. It is not either Calvin or Arminius. That argument has been used to own argument by reformeds. It's a logical fallacy. So that reformeds in America have the upper hand in the argument. Because if you buy the fallacy, then you are that much closer to where they want to lable you for the sake of making it easier to philsophically bring you over to reformed thought. Ken Ham could know this. But it speaks to the level of how deep reformed thought has reached in America. It has very deep underpinnings in many non-reformed circles. And in many ways is deeply imbedded in our culture. So if we think we are completely free of its influence, in many ways we may not be as much as we might presume. Because its roots go very deep in our culture.
So I just bring this up because although I would agree with Cheeky's conviction that it is good and sound not to get into the gravity circle of American Reformed thought, my very abiity to be able to see what I just shared here is hopefully an example of the sobermindedness involved in considering the values of what I was highlighting that Gavin said. Because I believe the more we are able to see where others are coming from, the easier it is to exercise the muscle where we can be increasingly honest with our own evaluations.
So again, at the end of the day though Rose, what in that video that I shared had bad doctrine in it? The reason for this long discussion is as much to the point of the reason I posted it. Because where you share:
"Your saying that having an appropriate approach helps to know where they're coming from. But when you went into other things you made it seem as if you were implying that by listening to other views ours might change. At least that's how I took what you were saying."
...my point is as a social artifcat to the point, of sorts, that I am saying that we should consider the views of others to understand where they are coming from. Even Gavin making the point he did. But I believe that might sound too close to letting our brains go numb and foolishly be influenced by what wiles of others bad doctrine may be. Which I agree is a totally valid concern. I just don't see it as an ultimate one. Because love conquers all. That may sound like a poem...lol. But it's the word...
1 Cor 13:8.
Blessings.
PS -- And although your stress on love may be to be straight forward and unyielding to compromise truth, amen. I believe that is a prime feature of being clear and straight with others because we love them. But 1 Cor defines earlier also "by His own word" what is meant by that love that does not fail. And those features in 1 Cor 13 are the ones I would see as helpful to also consider in why the video and in what Gavin was getting at in it. If that makes sense.
It’s excellent that you pointed that out regarding Ken Ham’s views. It confirms what Rose said in her posts above that we can never fully follow any man but always look to scripture as our ultimate source of Truth. I love the resources from Answers in Genesis, as well as many Pastors well known on here, but at the end of the day, we have to follow the Bible above anyone or any ministry.
