Theopedia talk:Statement of faith

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

A Question

Question: Personally, all correspondents for the DBU Snipe (www.geocities.com/dbusnipe) would tend to agree with inerrancy as defined/qualified/explained by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (my summary: Scripture is inerrant according to the respective author's intent in the autographs). How does Theopedia feel about that? --Unknown, ?

A response: My only problem with your summary would be that it could be difficult to judge intent. Such a statement would make much of Paul's writings along with much of the prophets and other epistles dangerously open to subjective argumentation, more so than is already occurring and could thus weaken our ability to stand firmly on the infallibility of scripture. There are some uncertainties in trying to gague an author's intent that while necessary when performing sound hermeneutics is often quite speculative and subjective. Also, by bringing in intent you also may weaken the timeless value of certain texts by allowing folks to write off certain things as culturally centered based on the author's intent and thus invalid. I think of the Corinthian correspondences and the role of women in the church as being one such area. However, I am only speaking from my point of view. --james 11:22, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)

A needed Corrections

4. We believe that salvation is by God alone as He sovereignly chooses those He will save. We believe His choice is based on His grace, not on any human individual's merit, or foreseen faith. --james 11:22, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)

The Cambridge Declaration

I strongly would like to add a line in this page that affirms the content of "The Cambridge Declaration" [1][2], from "The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals". Thoughts? -Aaronshaf 14:33, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

The Cambridge Declaration is simply a restatement and affirmation of the Five solas of the Reformation -- with which I firmly agree. I have no problem adding it as part of Theopedia's theological position. Gomarus 05:15, 10 May 2006 (PDT)

Preservation

I am overjoyed that the position is taken on the infallibility of Scripture but would like to know if you believe in the preservation of Scripture. Do you believe that we have all of God's Word in the 66 books that we have today. This is something you need to address in your statement of Faith.--JJ 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By default our S.O.F is referenced to Reformed theology, e.g. the WCF. What does it say? Also, sign and date your Talk Page entries with four tildes (~). Please introduce yourself on your User page. Gomarus 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Preservation continued

I am very familiar with the WCF and can see what you are saying but to the person who just comes along does not explicitly know what your stand on the preservation of Scripture is. --JJ 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cambridge Declaration and T4TG Statement (Draft)

Agreement with Cambridge Declaration

(still coming up with some text for this)

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

http://www.reformed.org/documents/cambridge.html

Agreement with Together for the Gospel Statement

http://www.t4g.org/T4TG-statement.pdf

-Aaronshaf 23:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How close?

I agree with #3 through #8 wholeheartedly, but not completely with #2; and I have real problems with #1. Is this close enough? Is there any point in creating a user account to discuss the possibility of working together?

Ed Poor (of Conservapedia)

Thanks for asking, Ed. I personally think you could create an account and contribute as long as you did not promote anti-trinitarian theology or the liberal views of higher biblical criticism. The way the SOF is stated, however, is stricter -- as you observed. So, it may be good to wait for another admin to concur before proceeding. Jim Ellis 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Permission to "talk"

Hi. Are those who do not completely affirm the "Theopedia:Statement of faith", forbidden from editing talk pages as well? (If not, I assume, if this statement appears, there is an exception only for this type of inquirery.) Lumenos 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lumenos :-). I assume you mean the "Primary statement of faith." If you disagree with that, then you probably would need to find another wiki. These are core doctrines of the Christian faith and thus are not up for debate or discussion. However, if you mean the secondary doctrinal statement, we welcome those who are not in complete agreement with it. If you have any questions concerning the Primary statement of faith that I can answer personally (off the wiki), I would be glad to answer them via the email function on the bottom-left of my user page. --Tom 05:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes that was accidental; I meant the "Primary". My apologies. Lumenos 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I should add that you are welcome to discuss minor errors and other such editing related activities, but you must agree with the first statement before editing any theological positions. --Tom 05:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't edit any of the articles themselves; the "contract" is clear on that. But there is another statement which I'm not sure how to interpret: "We believe the Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts." This makes it sound like the "Bible" you are referring to, are documents that existed before any "Bible" did, and even before any of the manuscripts that we now have. Lumenos 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
My question is, what about those who insist that a sinfully corrupt version [3] of the "Bible" (ie King James version) is the only English "Bible" of the Holy Spirit's own hand? Do these KJV-onlyists [4] fit the essential requirements as editors of this wiki? (My question is more from the standpoint of a rabble rouser concerned reader, looking to expose learn what assumptions this wiki is to operate under. :-) Lumenos 00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hell

The statement on hell has changed considerably. The older version encompassed conservative evangelical views generally, but the new version is expressly written to exclude annihilationists. I suppose it's a way of shielding yourselves from evangelicals whom you wish were not part of your fold, but the practice of shifting the goalpost is something I hold a very low opinion of. Farewell. Theonomy 10:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Theopedia_talk:Statement_of_faith"
Personal tools