I have noticed in this forum that many will go to any lengths to defend their pet traditional beliefs. This digging in to defend one's territory at all costs, results in polemical discussions and often polarized views in which nothing can be agreed upon. This mirrors the real world, in which unfortunately, over history, this overreaction to perceived threats to one's doctrinal beliefs has led to sometimes extreme positions that not only contrast each other, but the biblical witness as well.
Consider the following text, taken from The Mosaic of Christian Belief, by Roger E. Olsen, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Il. 60515-1426, 2002, pp. 22-23.
[Begin quote] Often doctrines are developed defensively; they arise out of concern to protect certain beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, salvation and so forth from erosion, distortion or outright rejection. Sometimes Christian communities overreact to perceived heresies.....
...The pendulum swings one way and then another in the process of theological reflection that leads to doctrinal construction and reconstruction.....
....The result of this pendulum swing effect of theology is "either-or" theology. In other words, people begin to accept without question a series of false alternatives: either papal infallability or doctrinal chaos; either biblical inerrancy or relativism; either tear down the "house of authority" or live under oppression, and so on. Manifestations of either-or thinking in Christianity are everywhere. Either God is three or God is one. Either God is absolutely all-determining or he is not God. Either human beings are totally depraved from birth or there is no need of God's grace for salvation. Either people are unconditionally predestined by God or salvation is not a free gift. Either grace is conveyed through sacraments or the sacraments are "merely symbolic". Either the resurrection is physical or it is not real. On and on it goes.
What is unfortunately often unnoticed is the possibility of "both-and" in many cases of doctrinal divisions and controversies. Could it be that God is both three and one? Could it be that God is both self-limiting (in order to allow creatures room for some self-determination) and sovereign? Could it be that salvation is completely of grace alone even though humans are genuinely free and must decide freely (apart from any determination) for or against it? Could it be that the sacraments such as baptism and the Lord's Supper are more than "mere symbols" even though they do not convey grace automatically? Perhaps many of the doctrinal divisions that have arisen are due to unnecessary bifurcations--false alternatives. Either-or thinking becomes a habit. People fail to look for the combinations, the truth in both sides. What if instead Christians began to focus on synthesis rather than analysis? [End Quote]
I may not agree with all of Mr. Olson's ideas, but he does give us something to think about.
Consider the following text, taken from The Mosaic of Christian Belief, by Roger E. Olsen, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Il. 60515-1426, 2002, pp. 22-23.
[Begin quote] Often doctrines are developed defensively; they arise out of concern to protect certain beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, salvation and so forth from erosion, distortion or outright rejection. Sometimes Christian communities overreact to perceived heresies.....
...The pendulum swings one way and then another in the process of theological reflection that leads to doctrinal construction and reconstruction.....
....The result of this pendulum swing effect of theology is "either-or" theology. In other words, people begin to accept without question a series of false alternatives: either papal infallability or doctrinal chaos; either biblical inerrancy or relativism; either tear down the "house of authority" or live under oppression, and so on. Manifestations of either-or thinking in Christianity are everywhere. Either God is three or God is one. Either God is absolutely all-determining or he is not God. Either human beings are totally depraved from birth or there is no need of God's grace for salvation. Either people are unconditionally predestined by God or salvation is not a free gift. Either grace is conveyed through sacraments or the sacraments are "merely symbolic". Either the resurrection is physical or it is not real. On and on it goes.
What is unfortunately often unnoticed is the possibility of "both-and" in many cases of doctrinal divisions and controversies. Could it be that God is both three and one? Could it be that God is both self-limiting (in order to allow creatures room for some self-determination) and sovereign? Could it be that salvation is completely of grace alone even though humans are genuinely free and must decide freely (apart from any determination) for or against it? Could it be that the sacraments such as baptism and the Lord's Supper are more than "mere symbols" even though they do not convey grace automatically? Perhaps many of the doctrinal divisions that have arisen are due to unnecessary bifurcations--false alternatives. Either-or thinking becomes a habit. People fail to look for the combinations, the truth in both sides. What if instead Christians began to focus on synthesis rather than analysis? [End Quote]
I may not agree with all of Mr. Olson's ideas, but he does give us something to think about.