Mike, you use the word opinion here rather over-zealously, I would love to understand more of the biblical basis for these opinions (and Church history must be tested also, it hasn't always had it right in the past).
Do I? I tend to use "my opinion" in order that people don't think they have to agree with me. It gives room for friendly disagreement and discussion.
The point I am trying to make is that there is a large number of streams of Christianity - and I'm not talking just of denominations - they all will claim some Biblical basis for their beliefs/rituals/traditions.
Some of these are incompatible, yet have sincere Godly men and women who believe them and can show some Biblical basis for them. The thing John Stott was called out about does have a Biblical case. You would expect it to, because Stott was suggesting it. Stott being a significant Godly man in the evangelical arena. We can't discuss that topic here, but it can be googled and the Biblical basis found. There are man books on the subject.
I agree, church history has not had it right - that needs to be tested, too.
I struggle to know what it should be tested against, though, because all our views have a Biblical basis.
When I'm thinking on things (some may say testing things) - I always hold it up to the goodness and love of a God who wants to be like a daddy to us. (These are Bible concepts after all). And I try to imagine what Jesus would have done in a situation - after all He revealed the Father to us. As Bill Johnson says, Jesus is perfect theology.
In my view, the traditional understanding of the blind man in John 9 fails this test. When questioning people about it I get accused of "re-writing the Bible to fit my view of God", am told that "His ways are not our ways" and "how can mere humans understand the mighty mysteries of God" while they continue to claim that making someone blind from birth for no other reason than to make yourself look good later is compatible with the actions of a good, loving person.
Then I discover that the translation is likely to be bad, making the traditional view probably wrong and God is good all the time after all.
I really don't know where to go with this. There are other traditional beliefs that require some mental gymnastics in order to reconcile them with the goodness and love of God.
Are they, too, the subject of poor translation or understanding of the original text?
Well, in my studies, it does not seem to me that the translation of the Greek and Hebrew to the English word "eternal" is at all secure. I'm not saying it isn't correct, but I'm saying that there are questions to ask about it. And when you do study it, you find many other people, respected Godly people, have looked at it and have found it lacking.
I guess what I'm saying is that the whole "testing" idea is very difficult and not as easy as just checking against the Bible. That is why I think that it is imprudent to categorically throw away a theological idea just because it disagrees with tradition or your particular understanding of the Bible.
Who knows, I may be wrong. But then again, someone with a bigger audience than me may be wrong, too - for them it is much more serious. Wiser to give a little room for others. In my opinion.
Regards,
Mike