I find it interesting how theological issues are so divisive. Often issues are framed in very stark black and white terms and only one position is presented as the only viable option. I saw this often in my younger years with the Landmark Baptists when it came to the concept of the “church.” Landmarkers essentially argued that for Catholics the church was the “universal, visible church,” while for most Protestants the church was the “universal, invisible church,” and for Baptists the church was the “local, visible church.” For them the word “ecclesia” always meant a local body of believers and they believed that they were the “true” body of believers. The problem is that “church” isn’t limited to a specific word, but to many words and concepts in the New Testament. Hence “church” can have a broad meaning and interpreted differently depending on context. This is called nuance.
milky way hair
u part wig
Another example is the doctrine of justification. For Calvinists the principle meaning is that of forensic justification, while other’s there are moral and ethical aspects to it. Permitting the various words and concepts to have their say in their respective contexts allows for the various shades of meaning to come out – nuance.
This doesn’t mean people won’t run to their favorite verses to argue for their specific theological preferences, but recognizing nuance should allow for more openness in dialog and less dogmatism.