In yesterday’s LONG post about why God delayed in sending Jesus, I promised a short one today. Here it is:
Theology is like a food fight. After eating as much as you can, you throw the leftovers around just to have a good time.
Afterwards, however, the cleanup takes so long you wonder if it was all worth it.
You also realize that not much was accomplished and that there was probably a better use for that wasted food.
But you don’t regret it.
Why not?
You had some fun, you made a good memory, and you learned who your friends are.
Love your last conclusion (got me almost melting away; matches with my own experience).
Ha! Let’s go on just for fun … it seems as if the following quote goes with your “food fight being friend sight seeing” [Well maybe you’ve realized I love naively “misusing” language including nonsensical neglect of grammar and punctuation rules 😎 ].
“If you really want to make a friend, go to someone’s house and eat with him… the people who give you their food give you their heart.” (Cesar Chavez)
Love that quote. It is true that friends are made over food.
In my experience Theology is more like a knife fight. That’s why I avoid them.
Knife fight? Haha…that’s a scary comparison!
Food fight?…well, I wish to know more about what brought about this comparison.
Ha! Yeah, it is that too …
Interesting comparison!
Over the past few years relatives, friends and acquaintances have been responding to our letters, articles and DVD’s in different ways. The majority tend to respond with silence, avoiding any sort of discussion as far as possible. Here and there one would respond constructively, whether it be in agreement or disagreement. The third group’s response has been to send us the writings of others.
Fortunately no food has been thrown around – seems like some have gone elsewhere to dine.
Do they ask for the letters, articles, and DVDs, or do you just send them? If the latter, that may be why some do not respond.
Hi Jeremy, they are mostly our friends with whom we have good relationships and regular discussions. Discussing my view on end-times teaching, for example, one good friend’s answer was, But Gerrie, I need Jesus to come. It did not matter what the Bible really said. He is one that reacts with silence. And so are others. One lady friend asked me, What about the lion and lamb that shall lay together. After I pointed out that there is no such thing in the Bible, she also took the silence route. Etc.
I am sure it might have been different if I was simply presenting their old, comfortable doctrine.
Lastly, some are people that have come my way via different routes – even following one of my letters to a daily newspaper. One, for example follows the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. Another is waiting for the rapture. When I present anything that challenges their doctrine, they do not react by Scriptural argumentation, but by sending me books by Kim Riddlebarger, Finnis Dakes, etc.
There is probably no greater cause for the ease in which believers are being misled by the teachings of others (however well-intended and sincere such teachings may be), than the fact that they have for all practical purposes never been taught how to rightly divide the word of truth themselves. The presence of so many wrong perceptions and teachings of the Bible undoubtedly flow forth from this lack of education of believers in just basic principles of Scripture interpretation. Unfortunately it also seems to include some leaders/teachers who are supposed to do this equipping (and this is not meant with any sense of venom).
A research project undertaken among members of a variety of denominations in 2005/6 confirmed this unfortunate situation. According to 38% of the respondents to my research questionnaire, they have not had any education in the principles of Scripture interpretation and have not made any effort in this regard themselves. Only 9% indicated that they had made an intensive study of the biblical cultural background; 43% had undertaken a limited study, while 48% had not made any attempt to do so.
Wow. Those are some shocking statistics, and very sad. I am convinced that the historical cultural background study of Scripture is probably more important than the grammatical word studies that seem to be so popular.
I fully agree with you, for that gives focus on proper context.
Unity is in Christ but we can differ in theology as long as the basic gospel is the same.Heres some examples the seventh day adventist believe in the sabbath and worshipping on the first day of the week according to the jewish calendar thats fine it doesnt mean we are separated in Christ.Because i dont agree doesnt change the fact that they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.The anglicans dont have full immersion baptisms and are still saved in Jesus Christ.I go to an anglican presbyterian church but i dont push my view regarding baptism that would be rude.We fellowship in Christ they are my brothers and sisters in the Lord.He is the one who unites us regardless of our differences in theology at the end of the day we all are invited to jion together with Christ at his banquet table.Its about time christians started to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ instead of separating from them because of differences in theolgy.brentnz
…. but the basic gospel isn’t the same for the two groups you mentioned (Seventh Day Adventists and Anglicans). Neither believes salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Craig both seventh day and anglican are believers they are saved by faith in the death of Jesus Christ and they believe in the forgiveness of sins sactification and the resurection at Christs return.This is what i meant regarding theology one has to be careful otherwise you exclude groups of christians because some of there other theology may not be the same as ours.They still hold to the central truths of the bible but have differences ie like sabbaths or baptism but that does not mean they arent saved or are christians.What church denomination do you belong to if you mentioned jehovah witness or mormons that is a different story as they dont believe that Jesus Christ is central to there faith they have relegated him to nothing more than a prophet so there is no salvation in those religions.brentnz
There are true believers in both the Seventh Day Adventist and Anglican religions, but they are believers in spite of Seventh Day Adventist and Anglican doctrine, not because of it. If you drill down and peel back the layers you will see that Seventh Day Adventism and Anglicanism both do not hold to salvation in Jesus Christ alone. The Seventh Day Adventists try to mix law and grace and will call you heretic if you don’t worship on Saturday.
I think we agree on the fact that it is by faith that all are saved i have no problem with that and its in that that there is unity.You find within any christian modern church law can be mixed with Grace that is not peculiar to any domination maybe it is more extreme in some.Where there are believers there are works of the flesh such as pride and self reliance.I was thinking today the word says if we believe in our hearts and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord then you shall be saved.Its not a hard doctrine to believe thats in its basic form.The seventh day have tacked on to that belief adherence to the sabbath that is sadly how denominations spring up.In the anglican church we still recite the apostles creed how many church still do that today as a basis for there faith in Jesus Christ.Your statement that some are saved is just as true to those who go to modern christian churchs who say they are christian but walk according to the flesh..We follow Jesus out of love for what he has done for us not out of fear for what he will do to us if we disobey. brentnz