Seminary students – ambassadors of unity or disunity?

I have always been of the mindset that open, transparent, and raw conversation is what the Bible means by iron sharpening iron or what gives way to a “Mars Hill” encounter¹. The church needs these conversations, and it is what keeps people in check and often humble. But the Bible is also very clear that these interactions need to be in a Galatians 5 spirit of unity. I love teaching/preaching styles where there is an interactive group dynamic. That is typically the model we see with Jesus and Paul in the first century church, questions, more questions questioning the first question, and perhaps some answers or at least implications to answers². One of the great experiences of attending a good non-denominational seminary is that your taught to understand this style of communication better. I hate to call it a way of honoring theological diversity because diversity has taken on connotations of “wokeness” and I don’t think the two perspectives are the same. But we should return to this first century theological respect within the realm of edification for each other. This “Mars Hill” way of respecting other people’s theology is accepting diversity as much as it is challenging it.³ Sometimes there is a fine line. Will you be an agent of unity or disunity?

BRIAN ZAHND PRAYER SCHOOL

Last week our TKC students spent some time with Brian Zahnd in prayer school. One student asked if he had any suggestions for early seminary students. His reply was to not teach on something as soon as it comes to mind. Let it sit with your spirit for a while. John Walton says a “good theologian should change their mind occasionally” which holds the same regards. Give yourself a season to consider things. If you are looking for unbiased truth, let it marinade for a while. That is one of the best aspects of a seminary experience. You don’t have to act like you know everything. In seminary or not, I hope you never lose that. Glean Glean Glean.

Those that were in the TKC prayer school also might remember my last question for Brian. It was a little long and drawn out but it was worded in a way that (although might be deemed in disagreement to what he was teaching) was shrouded with humble words of edification. And Brian then reciprocally answered in deep respect and honor. It was a beautiful interchange and small mosaic of what the church might better look like working through differences in theological opinion.

REFORMED TENDENCIES

I am not reformed, and in some senses that word might describe the most opposite of my theological views, but I have several great friends and colleagues that go that way and they are some of my dearest advocates. I have a deep respect for their views and beliefs and realize that when we meet Jesus, one of us is going to find out that our theology is slightly off. I always hope that it isn’t me, but my good friends are of course saying the same thing; and we both understand this sense and have a deep respect for the hopefully well-founded views of our friends even if we don’t agree. If you have been around me for much time at all, you have probably heard me say something like, “that’s a good theological view… that I don’t hold.” I think there is a place for that sort of thinking. I should pause here and say that I believe it is important to stay Biblical. If the Bible clearly says something in multiple places, we need to be very careful to not do what is right in our own eyes and stick with Biblical theology.⁴

What I (and I believe the better part of the theological church) doesn’t have a lot of room for is “dogmatic charisma” insisting your particular view is the right one and even teaching it as if the Bible clearly says it, when there are likely several other “Biblical” views or interpretations on the subject. The clearest imagery of this is within reformed theology. For instance, many that hold to a reformed view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)⁵ would say that their view is the only “Biblical” view. That comes off as narrow and dogmatic when even their own theologians would admit there are at least a handful of other views of atonement held since the early church⁶. Reformed theology is known for doing this sort of “our way or the highway” kind of dogmatics.

EXAMPLES

For instance, if we look at particular translated Biblical words such as “sin” which in the Greek is Hamartia or election which in Greek would be eklektos, to say that there is only 1 doctrine of sin or election; or similarly to refer to “one doctrine of election” such as the reformed understanding of unconditional election within the TULIP acronym as “THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ELECTION” is simply not philosophically or ontologically correct regardless of what position you hold.⁷

As an example, if you went to Calvin College (and I just use them because their very name implies, they teach Calvinism and are affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church denomination) and they taught “the doctrine of election” it might make sense (to an extent) as part of the indoctrination of their theological teachings. You attend Calvin to learn Calvinism, so in this sense if you attend a class called “THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION” it is understood that you are learning their denominational version of that subject. But if you took that same word or phrase outside of Calvin College, people would say you hold a specific version or type of that view specifically a Calvinistic view of election… or they might say you have been indoctrinated by your denominational views. Which I get has some negative connotations to it today, but I don’t use it in that sense. That is what indoctrination means.⁸

UNDERMINING SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

When someone tries to exert their authority or view as the “only option” or the “correct option” it undermines the mystery of the gospel and disrespects other people’s opinion to interpret scripture differently. But at the same time. I also think there is a place for some of this. There are many different churches largely because people see things differently. Even within the same denomination there will be slightly different understandings. Where do you draw the line? That’s a great question that only you can determine through the Holy Spirit.

Going back to our example – In the case of “sin doctrines” we have several doctrines that not everyone holds to such as original/imputed, propitiation/expiation, inherent/sin, nature personal/communal, moral/religious/social, mortal/venial, total depravity/righteousness, to name a few⁹. Therefore, to my point earlier, if you went to Calvin College, you might take a class on the doctrine of sin, which would indoctrinate you to the reformed view of Sin… but even then within Calvinism, you’re going to get some people that view these things differently, therefore the better title of the class might be “doctrines of Sin” to which you explore all of the doctrines… which is what you would likely get at a good unbiased non-denominational seminary.

In terms of election there are several views that could be constructed from the Bible, not simply one. The primary debate centers on whether God’s choice is unconditional (based solely on His sovereign will) or conditional (based on His foreknowledge of human faith)¹⁰. Obviously, you understand Armenians and Calvinist see this issue similarly yet would divide on some important aspects¹¹. Wesleyans have their own version¹², and then you need to define how individual or corporate election could differ which is a point of contention even within each of the above paradigms. Once you move thoroughly away from churches that reside with reformed theology and get into the free will churches (typically more spirit led) you might see even more differences within theology of election. It is always tricky when you are trying to adhere to a denominational preference. There will be difficulties somewhere along the way. Yet I also respect the agreement of theological ideals within the lens of scripture and sometimes denominational preferences might aid in this way. Perhaps a council has gone before you to interpret how the differing constructs work in harmony together.

NARROW MINDEDNESS

My point is, to try not to cast a personal view on someone proposing your view as “the only theologically Biblical supposition” as this would seem very narrow minded to the mystery of the faith and a slap in the face to so many of the great church fathers that felt differently about the subjects. We need to respect commonly held theological views, sometimes even if you feel personally, they are terrible or borderline not biblical in their interpretational methodology.

As the internet holds theological dumpster fires constantly (that I usually suggest steering clear of), I would propose that when you don’t agree with something written, you might connect your perspectives within the type of theology that you view as perhaps “better” or “what you have found to be true” rather than juxtapose that your view is the “only” viable view in the Bible (which I would deem as inaccurate or wrong regardless of what view you hold.) Another way of more respectfully addressing this subject would be… to say something like “after a significant amount of research I have landed understanding this topic a little bit differently according to your reformed view of total depravity and election, let me explain how I would see it slightly differently and perhaps it could influence your thoughts on the subject.” Phrasing something this way comes off as significantly more respectful and implements edification.

When people tort their personal theological views as the only Biblical option or possibly even the best option, it also might be “irreverent” before the LORD.¹³ To think that what you believe is completely true – as if it were the infallible word of the LORD revealed by Jesus himself to you personally (do you see how that could be construed as Joseph Smith Cult type of thinking) shows a narrow-minded approach to the faith rather than a mature approach to faithful interpretation proposing that your view might make the most theological sense. There are lots of great theologians and church fathers that think differently than what you are proposing. Therefore, proposing that your view is unequivocally the correct view amongst many other “biblical interpretive” views is narrow at best and as I have implied- might be irreverent.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Lastly, I would also consider caution in this regard, some would not view such dogmatic spirit within the unity of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, and Romans 12. I believe we as a church can do better and when we have done, I pray that we take on a better spirit and truly find the edification of the church and the intention of iron sharpening iron. Let’s edify and create unity in the body, not disunity. So, you can live in this way, and do your part as a better ambassador, but the rest of the world might not… Sounds a bit like the mission Christ was on doesn’t it!

Dr. Will Ryan

1. https://digitalbible.ca/article-page/modern-topics-what-does-the-bible-say-about-mars-hill ↩︎
2. Schiffman, Lawrence H. (2003). Jon Bloomberg; Samuel Kapustin (eds.). Understanding Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Jersey, NJ: KTAV. ISBN 9780881258134. ↩︎
3. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation:A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd rev ed (Baker Academic, 1980), 3. ↩︎
4. Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (David C. Cook, 1991), 22. ↩︎
5.  Elwell, Walter A. (May 2001). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker Academic. p. 990. ISBN 978-0-8010-2075-9.  ↩︎
6. Christus Victor – Jesus defeats Satan, sin, and death to free humanity.
   Ransom Theory – Jesus’ death is a ransom paid to free humanity from bondage.
   Moral Influence Theory – Jesus’ life and death show God’s love and inspire us to change.
   Satisfaction Theory – Jesus satisfies the honor of God that human sin offended.
   Penal Substitution – Jesus takes the punishment we deserve so we can be forgiven.
   Governmental Theory – Jesus’ death upholds God’s moral law so forgiveness is possible.
   Recapitulation – Jesus “re-does” the human story correctly, restoring humanity. ↩︎
7. Sproul, R. C. (April 1, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. Unconditional election is another term that I think can be a bit misleading, so I prefer to use the term sovereign election. ↩︎
8.  גרינבוים, יוסף (27 October 2025). “כובעים צהובים וסמל החטופים: אלפי ילדים הפגינו בכלא 10 • הרב סורוצקין: ‘החטופים שלנו. אנחנו עשינו את הניסים הגדולים’”. חרדים10. ↩︎
9. Burson, Scott R. (13 September 2016). Brian McLaren in Focus: A New Kind of Apologetic. ACU Press. ISBN 978-0-89112-650-8. ↩︎
10. Hägglund, Bengt (2007) [1968]. Teologins historia [History of Theology] (in German). Translated by Gene J. Lund (4th rev. ed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 139–140. ISBN 978-0758613486. ↩︎
11. Olson, Roger E. (2014). Arminianism FAQ: Everything You Always Wanted to Know. Franklin, Tennessee: Seebed. ISBN 978-1-62824-162-4. ↩︎
12. Osborne, Grant R.; Trueman, Carl R.; Hammett, John S. (2015). Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 views. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic. ISBN 9781433669712. ↩︎
13. Niebuhr, Reinhold (1986-01-01). The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr: Selected Essays and Addresses. Yale University Press. pp. xv–xvi. ISBN 978-0-300-16264-6. ↩︎

This is a repost from EXPEDITION 44