Theological Catchphrases Pt. I
November 29, 2005 – 11:41 amSo I found this list of terms that have been involved in church division. I divided them (no pun intended) into three categories, Important, Not important, and Inane.
Important are those that I would be excited to discuss with people, and think are worthwhile theological concepts. If I went to some sort of Theological Convention, these sessions would be most likely to draw me in.
Not important are those things that I’m not concerned about. I’d go to a session on these, but not if it conflicted with a session on the Important items.
Inane are things I couldn’t care less about. I would go back to my hotel room and sleep.
This is a living list, so holler if you think I’m off base on something. ( “- ^” means someone talked me into moving something up; “- %” means I moved something down)
Important:
Trinity
Divinity of Jesus
Literal Resurrection
Full Humanity of Jesus
Justification
Sanctification
Nature of the Atonement
One Person, two Natures
Nature of Baptism
Not Important:
Necessity of Holy Spirit Baptism- %
Authority of Scripture- %
Inerrancy of Scripture- %
Nature of the Lords Supper
Age of Baptism
Sacramental Marriage
Virgin birth
Perpetual virginity of Mary
Authority of Tradition
Baptismal Regeneration
Decisional Regeneration
Human nature after the Fall
Premarital Sex
Postmarital Sex
Healing continues
Tongues continue
Literal Hell
Literal Devil
Private Confession
Divorce
Apocrypha (inclusion in Canon) - ^
James (inclusion in Canon) - ^
Revelation (inclusion in Canon) - ^
Supralapsarianism/Infralapsariansim (order of decrees) - *
The Filioque - **
Entire Sanctification - ***
Ordination of Women - ****
Ordination of Homosexual people - ****
Church Membership for Practicing Homosexual people - ****
Primacy of the Word - *****
Inane:
Common Cup
Intinction
Disposable Cups at Communion
Mode of Baptism (sprinkling or dunking)
Use of Images in worship
Contemporary music in worship
Specific translation of Scripture
Burial versus Cremation
Beer
Dancing
Playing Cards
Swearing
Rapture
Millennium
* Supralapsarian: One of that class of Calvinists who believed that God’s decree of election determined that man should fall, in order that the opportunity might be furnished of securing the redemption of a part of the race, the decree of salvation being conceived of as formed before or beyond, and not after or following, the lapse, or fall.
Infralapsarian: One of that class of Calvinists who consider the decree of election as contemplating the apostasy as past and the elect as being at the time of election in a fallen and guilty state; — opposed to Supralapsarian. The former considered the election of grace as a remedy for an existing evil; the latter regarded the fall as a part of God’s original purpose in regard to men.
** Flilioque: Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son or just the Father?
*** Apparently the same as Christian Perfection: the belief that, after conversion but before death, a Christian’s soul may be cleansed from all stain of sin. It is associated with the followers of John Wesley who are part of the Methodist movement.
**** I do have a strong opinion on this, but it is not something I am too worried about.
***** Still not too sure what it means, but found this article which mentions it. So I moved it to Not important.
Possibly Related posts:
- Theological Catchphrases Pt. I.V: Soteriology I took a step back and re-categorized the list. Now...
- Theological Catchphrases Pt. II: Definitions This list is really catching my desire to write, so...
- Huh? I was reading this article, and although I’m not a...
- The religious left stakes its claim Read the Article: “Take, for example, the familiar verse in...
- Funny Link Thanks, Jackson. Here We Stand: Rewriting Scripture for Theological Coherence...
11 Responses to “Theological Catchphrases Pt. I”
Well, if your use of the term ‘important’ is restricted to whether or not you would go to a seminar on the item in question, then the division of a list into ‘important’ and ‘not important’ is of little importance to me. You should have used the word ‘interesting’.
Everything is interesting.
I would define the term ‘important’ as something like: Able to save me from death. So there’s only one thing that’s important, and He seems to be divided into five or six items in the above list:
Divinity / Full Humanity of Jesus
Justification
Literal Resurrection
Nature of the Atonement
Alright. Keep rocking Dwight.
“The K is not silent”
By Matthew Talamini on Nov 29, 2005
I guess I’d have to ask: Is theology and/or a “correct creed” important in your sense?
By dwight on Nov 29, 2005
I was expecting you to say the “Important” things were those things you could understand as causing division, in other words, differing views pertaining to those items would necessitate division. Whereas the “Not Important” and “Inane” items would not be worth splitting a church over. Is this what you think, just out of curiosity, or would the lists look different if you considered them in light of what a church would “need” to divide over?
As for me, I would put Virgin Birth under the Important List, and I would probably move the biblical texts included in the canon from Inane to Not Important.
By kristi on Nov 29, 2005
I was pretty strained over my categorization… it changed a couple of times throughout the process of editing the original list. The blog I got it from said that they were dividing them in to “Die for” “Split over” and “not split over.” Equaly tough decisions in some places.
I can imagine going to church with someone who wasn’t sure about the virgin birth. It would bring out questions of their view authority of scripture, but I don’t expect everyone to be absolutly thorough in their thoughts ( I went to SJC were most people are trying as hard as they can and never met someone who was… the people who were close were dismissed as anti progress-ors?)
If someone took a hard line on homosexual ordination, I think I would have to split with them, but I’m not sure. It seems to me that “practicing” fill in the blank sin type people, since they are saying “I’m doing this and I’m going to do it again” is a whole other burritio than ordaining sinners (which I am fine with ;-)
But you are probably right about the canon…
By dwight on Nov 29, 2005
along the lines of healing and tongues, miracles might be included. Also things concerning the christian community like church membership the “casting out of the sinning brother”. also the division between church and state. I guess that’s kind of vague, but those might be some ideas.
By David on Nov 29, 2005
This list is a pretty interesting idea. I have to admit, I wish you’d been a bit bolder (and maybe a bit less honest) and classified some riskier things as “inane”. Like, say, “Authority of Tradition” or “One Person, Two Natures”. Regardless of whether one agreed or not, it’d be a cool thing to maintain.
For instance, I would definitely bump “Necessity of Holy Spirit Baptism” to inane.
Inane’s such a good classification, too. Vague, yet insulting.
By Nate on Nov 29, 2005
@ David: Maybe later I’ll add some of my own catchphrases, but right now I’m just working with what is given to me. It seems like “casting out the sinning brother” lies at the core of a whole class of church division. When Doctrine is “complete” or something, then anyone who disagrees is sinning, so we have to cast them out so they can see the error or their ways (or something)
@ Nate: I kinda like Honesty, when it comes right down to it :P Although, I did err to the side of “If I don’t understand it, don’t put it in inane”
By dwight on Nov 29, 2005
Dwight - what’s the deciding criteria for something going into a category or not?
By rhonda on Dec 2, 2005
Good question… I tried to lay it out in the intro, but it kinda changed as I was categorizing them…
I would guess the first category is stuff “I think I know what this means, and I’m interested in it and consider it important”
Second category is “I don’t understand this, or I think I understand it and I don’t consider it too important”
Third is “I think I understand this and it is silly to bicker or spend anytime discussing this”
By dwight on Dec 2, 2005
Gotcha. I suppose your preferences/categories sort of parallel a pyramid of ideas/issues/dogmas about God - some are more immediately necessary to discuss than others. For example, if someone isn’t sure they believe in God, it’s silly to discuss the canon of scripture or homosexual tendencies (btw, check out the Vatican’s statement on homosexual priests - at http://www.usccb.org) when the real issue at hand is whether or not God exists, and if he does, what a person does about that.
Then again, some of us may argue that the first and second tiers fit into the ideas of the most important things… that you can’t split them off from your understanding or discussion… but then again, if it’s there because you’re not interested in talking about it rather than belittling its importance, then that’s a different thing, right? (Sorry to be so rambling.)
By rhonda on Dec 2, 2005
yeah… as I said at the beginning of the post, the second tier of stuff is things that think I’d go to a first tier discussion before a discussion on them… if I had a choice… I tend to think that is because the first tier is more important.
By dwight on Dec 2, 2005