{"id":1329,"date":"2009-05-29T16:15:27","date_gmt":"2009-05-30T00:15:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/?p=1329"},"modified":"2009-05-30T20:07:11","modified_gmt":"2009-05-31T04:07:11","slug":"doctrinally-sound-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2009\/05\/29\/doctrinally-sound-not\/","title":{"rendered":"doctrinally sound? NOT"},"content":{"rendered":"

Exactly<\/a>! What I have been saying with respect to the blasphemer is that he is not doctrinally sound. The repeated disclaimer for not completely rejecting the blasphemer and refusing to refrain from all recommendation of him is that he is \u2018doctrinally sound\u2019. Sound doctrine doesn\u2019t produce blasphemous behaviour. And close scrutiny, says Dave, will show that the \u2018sound doctrine\u2019 isn\u2019t really all that sound.<\/p>\n

So what is behind the seemingly compulsive qualification of so many who write disclaimers ((P.S. I can\u2019t wait for Dave\u2019s entry for me in his new \u201cDisclaimerpedia\u201d. I am sure it will be a doozy.)) for the blasphemer to include, \u201cWell, he\u2019s doctrinally sound\u201d?<\/p>\n

Could it be\u2026<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

That the \u2018sound\u2019 part of that doctrine is Calvinism?<\/p>\n

Could it be that the essence of Danny Sweatt’s complaint is correct? That the defining criteria for \u201cbroader fellowship\u201d for some<\/em> is becoming subscription to the doctrines of Calvinism? That Calvinism becomes the sine qua non<\/em>, the sixth fundamental? Or, maybe, the first fundamental?<\/p>\n

As a result, some<\/em> will look at those outside fundamentalism and find \u201cmore in common with them\u201d than with many (most?) other fundamentalists. Thus charismatism is ignored. Thus sympathy with the Toronto Blessing is ignored. Thus tolerance and some level of cooperation with Open Theism is ignored. Thus ongoing voices from God (prophetism) is ignored.<\/p>\n

Let me be perfectly clear. I don\u2019t personally have a problem with a believer who finds satisfaction to theological questions in Calvinistic soteriology. It doesn\u2019t work for me, but then neither does Arminian soteriology. Both are flawed human constructs and don\u2019t completely explain the whole of revelation concerning salvation. Neither one has satisfactorily answered the questions of all Bible believers for hundreds of years. ((All orthodox Bible Believers have been satisfied with the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, even though it is not explicitly revealed but systematically discerned.)) Thus I conclude that both Calvinism and Arminianism, as such, are incorrect. But I don\u2019t have a problem with my brethren who find either system satisfactory. I know that I don\u2019t have all the answers on this question either. I expect from them the same kind of charity for me.<\/p>\n

But also note this: the essence of Danny Sweatt\u2019s complaint, as I understand it, is that many \u201cnew image\u201d fundamentalists (to use a new term) and even many mainstream fundamentalists seem<\/span><\/strong><\/em> to be trying to make Calvinism the defining point of fellowship. They are willing to be much more open to non-fundamentalists on this basis and much more dismissive of other fundamentalists on this basis. ((And yes, Danny Sweatt erred in alienating Calvinists by seeming to take the other tack \u2013 I don\u2019t think he intended to do so, but that is obviously what he did.))<\/p>\n

This greater openness includes for some a compulsion, it seems, to offer a disclaimer on the disclaimer for the blasphemer. \u201cBe sure that I know this and note this, he\u2019s a blasphemer, but he\u2019s doctrinally sound.\u201d<\/p>\n

Doctrinally sound? Really? How do you explain the behaviour, then? Does sound doctrine produce impure behaviour? Does it produce blasphemy? Hardly.<\/p>\n

What I am saying about this is that I have a great deal of trouble giving any comfort to someone who clearly deserves to be roundly rebuked and refused any kind of platform for God\u2019s people. So he says some things you agree with\u2026 don\u2019t let it blind you to his grievous errors!<\/p>\n

Do you realize that this same kind of blindness happens to some who are willing to overlook Peter Ruckman\u2019s grievous errors because some of the things he says resonates with a certain particular doctrine? Does Ruckman ever say some things that are true and biblical? (I have read very little, if any, of Ruckman\u2026 but I suppose he most likely does.) Should we say of him, well, except for that<\/em> he\u2019s doctrinally sound<\/em>?<\/p>\n

There does come a point when people who love Jesus Christ must totally<\/strong> reject some men, no matter what things they say that might be doctrinally sound<\/em>. I submit that for the blasphemer, that time has long since come and gone.<\/p>\n

\"don_sig2\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Exactly! What I have been saying with respect to the blasphemer is that he is not doctrinally sound. The repeated disclaimer for not completely rejecting the blasphemer and refusing to refrain from all recommendation of him is that he is \u2018doctrinally sound\u2019. Sound doctrine doesn\u2019t produce blasphemous behaviour. And close scrutiny, says Dave, will show […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[62,71,68,44],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2fYWj-lr","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1329"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1329"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1329\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1332,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1329\/revisions\/1332"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}