Too Consumed With Theology - quiz

[BobinKy]

So you would differiate between what are called biblical and Systematic Theology, and view Biblical as being more important than?

I am sorry but I do not know enough about Biblical Theology to answer your question.

What I can say is (and please understand this is my personal view) any kind of doctrine or theology that I have come across is secondary to reading the Bible, prayer with God, and giving praise and glory to God.

...Bob

 

[Skandelon]

Am I consumed with Theology? Yes, I am. "Theo" = God, "logy" = knowledge of. "That I may know Him" = That I may be fully acquainted with his nature, his character, his work, and with the salvation which He has so graciously gifted me with.

". . . and the power of his resurrection," That my life may express publicly the resurrection from the death of sin to eternal life in Christ.

" . . . and the fellowship of His suffering." That I may count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung.

. . . "conformable unto his death." His death on the cross delivered me from the bondage of sin and death so now I live for Him and conform my life to His sacrifice on my behalf.

Consumed with Theology? Yes, please God help me to live a life consumed by the Knowledge of You.

:thumbs: Well said.

However, I think if the Pharisees taught us anything it was that one can be quite diligent in the knowledge of scriptures and study of "God" while also not really knowing, following and loving Him. I believe it is that distinction we must be aware of when approaching this subject.

 

[jaigner]

Theology, for me, isn't detached from preaching the gospel. My theology informs my ministry completely (at least that is the goal). Of course, I'm talking about all facets of the theologically discipline. Systematics, on their own, are largely unhelpful, but Biblical and Historical Theology must be a part of the conversation. Of course, the Bible is the final word on issues of faith, but there is much we can learn by those who have gone before us

The real problem is that Christians in this country have largely compromised the life of the mind. Anti-intellectualism is alive and well, to the great detriment

In my opinion, if you're a pastor, preacher, minister of any sort and you say "I'm not worried about that theology stuff," you should resign. If you're not seriously concerned about theology, you're not fit to lead people.

 

[JesusFan]

I am sorry but I do not know enough about Biblical Theology to answer your question.

What I can say is (and please understand this is my personal view) any kind of doctrine or theology that I have come across is secondary to reading the Bible, prayer with God, and giving praise and glory to God.

...Bob

Think the saying that we "need to NOT become SO heavenly minded that we are no earthly good anymore" comes to mind!

 

[J.D.]

:thumbs: Well said.

However, I think if the Pharisees taught us anything it was that one can be quite diligent in the knowledge of scriptures and study of "God" while also not really knowing, following and loving Him. I believe it is that distinction we must be aware of when approaching this subject.

This reminds me of the time a young minister accused me of being a Pharisee because, among other things, I demanded "theological precision" of him.

So I've seen this notion before, that the Pharisees had some kind of deep knowledge of God and the scriptures, but the Bible says nothing of the sort. Jesus regularly upbraided them for their biblical ignorance.

"You do err, not knowing the scriptures..."
"Are you a master of Israel, and do not know these things?"
"slow to believe all that the prophets wrote"

The fact is the Pharisees were condemned because they were selective in their knowledge of scripture, had a overly literalistic hermeneutic, and excluded the weightier matters of law from their teachings. They were not Bible giants, but midgets who thought they were giants. They were guilty of theological imprecision, because their's was not a biblical theology, but a philosophical one.

 

[Jim1999]

Keep in mind that theology is bible knowledge. The bible is a varied garden, whilst theology is the organized garden.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Skandelon]

This reminds me of the time a young minister accused me of being a Pharisee because, among other things, I demanded "theological precision" of him.

Yet, certainly you recognize that I DIDN'T accuse him of being a Pharisee, nor would I. In fact, I was agreeing with his words, only adding a biblical warning based upon the very mistake made by the Pharisees that you go on to point out...

So I've seen this notion before, that the Pharisees had some kind of deep knowledge of God and the scriptures, but the Bible says nothing of the sort. Jesus regularly upbraided them for their biblical ignorance.

What "notion" do you mean? Look at what I wrote. I said that they may be "diligent in the knowledge of scriptures," in that they often had the Torah memorized by the age of 13, and "study of 'God'" in that they devoted their lives to their religion and thus their study of 'God' (which you may notice was in quotes).

Jesus said to them, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (John 5:39-40). That was the point I was making. I wasn't in any way alluding that he was a Pharisee or that the study of the Bible is not of value. I was adding to the point he made by pointing out that there is another ditch on the other side of the road which we could also fall into if we are not aware of it too. Scripture is some people's 'god' and they allow it to become an idol they worship to the neglect of knowing its author. I know because I used to be one of those people.

 

[J.D.]

[double post]

 

[J.D.]

Yet, certainly you recognize that I DIDN'T accuse him of being a Pharisee, nor would I. In fact, I was agreeing with his words, only adding a biblical warning based upon the very mistake made by the Pharisees that you go on to point out...

What "notion" do you mean? Look at what I wrote. I said that they may be "diligent in the knowledge of scriptures," in that they often had the Torah memorized by the age of 13, and "study of 'God'" in that they devoted their lives to their religion and thus their study of 'God' (which you may notice was in quotes).

Jesus said to them, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (John 5:39-40). That was the point I was making. I wasn't in any way alluding that he was a Pharisee or that the study of the Bible is not of value. I was adding to the point he made by pointing out that there is another ditch on the other side of the road which we could also fall into if we are not aware of it too. Scripture is some people's 'god' and they allow it to become an idol they worship to the neglect of knowing its author. I know because I used to be one of those people.

Fair enough - if I've misjudged you I apologize.

However, you bring up the issue of bibliolatry. I think that is a strawman always getting set up and knocked down by liberals. I go back to my point on this - the Pharisees were not guilty of bibliolatry (and neither are modern Pharisees). Their problem was that they didn't believe all the scriptures, but just some of them - the ones that suited their plans and programs.

But in the case of actual bibliolatry, can you describe exactly how someone might commit such a sin? Have you ever observed someone bowing down in front of a Bible and praying to it? Exactly when in my love of God's word do I rob God Himself of the love He deserves?

 

[BobinKy]

Think the saying that we "need to NOT become SO heavenly minded that we are no earthly good anymore" comes to mind!

Here are a few links to consider.

...Bob

Don’t be so heavenly minded that you’re no earthly good…Really?! (Beyond Cliches blog, Joshua Monen, 20 Jan 2011).

Heavenly Minded and Earthly Good: 1 Corinthians 3:18-4:5 (Study By Keith Krell, Bible.org).

So Heavenly Minded You Are Earthly Good (Larry Ollison, Cfaith: Freedom in the Word).

Too Heavenly Minded – No Earthly Good (Vic Gill, That I May Know Him blog).​

 

[preacher4truth]

Wasn't it A. W. Tozer that said something like “The devil is a better theologian than any of us, and is a devil still.” ?

 

[glfredrick]

I take the position articulated so well by J.D. Theology, rightly understood, is the knowing of God, which is DRIVEN by the text of Scripture. How else can we truly know God except the Scriptures? Experience is not an accurate teacher, and like the Bereans, we are to "test all things" to see if they indeed match the Word, rightly divided.

If there is an issue with theology, it is that we tend to use the grid or framework that theology imposes on Scripture over and above the "bigger picture" that the entirety of God's revelation presents. While one argues for a certain soteriological position they can then transpose that position into their entire take on God and God's people -- and arrive at false conclusions, both about the theology in question and about the Text that drives those conclusions.

Also, it should be noted that there is more than one frame of reference for "theology." Are we talking systematic, doctrinal, biblical, historical, evidential, etc.? Each SHOULD arrive at the same conclusion -- that matches Scripture, rightly divided -- but often these frames do not match at all, and end up at odds with other positions. That SHOULD be a warning to the user that they may be on a wrong track, for God is not divided in the sense that one revelation will not cause another to be set aside or invalid. It seems that theologians, whether professional or amateur, often neglect or forget that very important fact!

And, finally, in virtually every case, when I have read theology, I have read Scripture. Anyone who believes that reading theology is somehow or something other than a detailed analysis of Scripture simply has never read theology. More so, that same individual has no concept of what theology actually is, says, does, etc., their perception likely colored by some pastor/teacher/mentor who was equally ignorant of the subject. The antidote is to actually READ theology, open the Word, work through the propositions, then come to a conclusion, but to ignorantly state that theology is somehow less worthy than "just reading the Word..." is the utmost in stupidity and something other than what Scripture itself requires as well noted in posts above.

 

[glfredrick]

Wasn't it A. W. Tozer that said something like “The devil is a better theologian than any of us, and is a devil still.” ?

He knows the Word better than we do as well... What he can't and doesn't is what only we can have -- a supernatural encounter with the Living God of the universe whereby we are made a new creation. No pure knowledge can replace what only God can give.

 

[JesusFan]

I take the position articulated so well by J.D. Theology, rightly understood, is the knowing of God, which is DRIVEN by the text of Scripture. How else can we truly know God except the Scriptures? Experience is not an accurate teacher, and like the Bereans, we are to "test all things" to see if they indeed match the Word, rightly divided.

If there is an issue with theology, it is that we tend to use the grid or framework that theology imposes on Scripture over and above the "bigger picture" that the entirety of God's revelation presents. While one argues for a certain soteriological position they can then transpose that position into their entire take on God and God's people -- and arrive at false conclusions, both about the theology in question and about the Text that drives those conclusions.

Also, it should be noted that there is more than one frame of reference for "theology." Are we talking systematic, doctrinal, biblical, historical, evidential, etc.? Each SHOULD arrive at the same conclusion -- that matches Scripture, rightly divided -- but often these frames do not match at all, and end up at odds with other positions. That SHOULD be a warning to the user that they may be on a wrong track, for God is not divided in the sense that one revelation will not cause another to be set aside or invalid. It seems that theologians, whether professional or amateur, often neglect or forget that very important fact!

And, finally, in virtually every case, when I have read theology, I have read Scripture. Anyone who believes that reading theology is somehow or something other than a detailed analysis of Scripture simply has never read theology. More so, that same individual has no concept of what theology actually is, says, does, etc., their perception likely colored by some pastor/teacher/mentor who was equally ignorant of the subject. The antidote is to actually READ theology, open the Word, work through the propositions, then come to a conclusion, but to ignorantly state that theology is somehow less worthy than "just reading the Word..." is the utmost in stupidity and something other than what Scripture itself requires as well noted in posts above.

isn't one of the big dangers is that we all come to the Bible with a spiritual "grid" that we view the scriptures through, that we filter them thru that lens..

That we are so at times immershed into our particular system, that we literally"force" the Bible to say what we want it to say..
That we become so into pur Church/Theological systems that the Bible just "proof texts" and proves all our doctrinal stances, exstead of standing over our views, our views stand over the Bible?

That one says "I am of Calvin" another "Of Arminist" one " I belong to Church of Tongues" other"Church of the Bible" yet none really reading the Bible as THE final arbritator of truth?

 

[J.D.]

isn't one of the big dangers is that we all come to the Bible with a spiritual "grid" that we view the scriptures through, that we filter them thru that lens..

That we are so at times immershed into our particular system, that we literally"force" the Bible to say what we want it to say..
That we become so into pur Church/Theological systems that the Bible just "proof texts" and proves all our doctrinal stances, exstead of standing over our views, our views stand over the Bible?

That one says "I am of Calvin" another "Of Arminist" one " I belong to Church of Tongues" other"Church of the Bible" yet none really reading the Bible as THE final arbritator of truth?

The phenomenon you describe is not just a danger - it is the common practice of the typical Bible student. So what we have is a continual process of taking our thoughts of God into the Bible with us (even the raw novice stars with a "theology"), and forcing those thoughts into our reading (eisegesis), yet being corrected, digesting what we've learned, and going back to scripture for more correction. And we see it as a parallel to sanctification - growth in the knowledge of scripture is progressive, ever perfecting, but never absolutely perfect.

 

[glfredrick]

isn't one of the big dangers is that we all come to the Bible with a spiritual "grid" that we view the scriptures through, that we filter them thru that lens..

That we are so at times immershed into our particular system, that we literally"force" the Bible to say what we want it to say..
That we become so into pur Church/Theological systems that the Bible just "proof texts" and proves all our doctrinal stances, exstead of standing over our views, our views stand over the Bible?

That one says "I am of Calvin" another "Of Arminist" one " I belong to Church of Tongues" other"Church of the Bible" yet none really reading the Bible as THE final arbritator of truth?

That CAN be a danger, but I find that danger highly over-rated. In fact, proper theology MUST be Text-driven, not the other way around. I do not know many true theologians who bring their personal "grid work" to their understanding of Scripture. I find MANY who allow Scripture to frame their grid work. I can name drop the theologians I know, but that would be pretentious. Safe to say, my personal acquaintance list includes many of the Evangelical theologians of consequence in our era, and to a man, they are DRIVEN by Scripture. Even a brief conversation with them will make that distinction very clear.

I also find the one who is adverse to theology as the one who both "thinks" and "brings" their grid work to play over and above Scripture. We see examples on the board every day!

 

[JesusFan]

That CAN be a danger, but I find that danger highly over-rated. In fact, proper theology MUST be Text-driven, not the other way around. I do not know many true theologians who bring their personal "grid work" to their understanding of Scripture. I find MANY who allow Scripture to frame their grid work. I can name drop the theologians I know, but that would be pretentious. Safe to say, my personal acquaintance list includes many of the Evangelical theologians of consequence in our era, and to a man, they are DRIVEN by Scripture. Even a brief conversation with them will make that distinction very clear.

I also find the one who is adverse to theology as the one who both "thinks" and "brings" their grid work to play over and above Scripture. We see examples on the board every day!

Just curious... In your experiences, either yourself or one of your "famous" friends...

Has the Lord forced you to finally confess that one of your held doctrinal points was just plain wrong and had to get either amended or totally rejected?

 

[Skandelon]

Fair enough - if I've misjudged you I apologize.

However, you bring up the issue of bibliolatry. I think that is a strawman always getting set up and knocked down by liberals. I go back to my point on this - the Pharisees were not guilty of bibliolatry (and neither are modern Pharisees). Their problem was that they didn't believe all the scriptures, but just some of them - the ones that suited their plans and programs.

I agree that they didn't believe all the scriptures, because if they did they wouldn't fall into this error, obviously. However, I wouldn't ignore their inclination toward "bibliolatry" either. Bibliolatry is a result of neglecting certain parts of what the bible teaches about itself, so the errors are not mutually exclusive.

But in the case of actual bibliolatry, can you describe exactly how someone might commit such a sin? Have you ever observed someone bowing down in front of a Bible and praying to it? Exactly when in my love of God's word do I rob God Himself of the love He deserves?

No, I don't think there is a literal bowing down to the bible, just as I don't think people would bow down to their TV sets or other "idols" in their lives. They simply put it before God. They value it more than God. They allow it (whatever "it" is) to be a substitute for God.

A spouse, friend, book, preacher or church can become idols in this regard. When we fail to allow Christ to be our true mediator we tend to substitute him with someone or something else. Sometimes that "thing" is the bible.

If someone asked me if God loved me a decade ago, I would have said, "Yes, of course." And if they would have said, "How do you know?" I would have said, "Because the Bible tells me so." I related to God solely through the third hand account of the apostles writings.

Now, however, I would say that I know God loves me because He tells me so, and I know that it is him because the scripture confirms this truth in my spirit. There is a huge difference in knowing someone loves you because someone else tells you they love you, and hearing it directly from the source. When I hear the spirit speak in that still small voice confirming His love for me and providing comfort and direction specific to my life's everyday circumstances it brings a personal aspect to my relationship with God that I never had when I only heard from God through scripture.

I believe the scriptures are meant to introduce us to Him and guide us in our relationship by providing training and correction, but they are not meant to be sole means of divine communication with us. The Bible is not "The Word", Jesus is. The Bible is a testimony of The Word so as to lead us to faith in Him and into a intimate relationship with Him.

 

[BobinKy]

. . . to ignorantly state that theology is somehow less worthy than "just reading the Word..." is the utmost in stupidity and something other than what Scripture itself requires.

I guess
you have to get seminary learning
before you can BLURT the above.

 

[J.D.]

I agree that they didn't believe all the scriptures, because if they did they wouldn't fall into this error, obviously. However, I wouldn't ignore their inclination toward "bibliolatry" either. Bibliolatry is a result of neglecting certain parts of what the bible teaches about itself, so the errors are not mutually exclusive.


No, I don't think there is a literal bowing down to the bible, just as I don't think people would bow down to their TV sets or other "idols" in their lives. They simply put it before God. They value it more than God. They allow it (whatever "it" is) to be a substitute for God.

A spouse, friend, book, preacher or church can become idols in this regard. When we fail to allow Christ to be our true mediator we tend to substitute him with someone or something else. Sometimes that "thing" is the bible.

If someone asked me if God loved me a decade ago, I would have said, "Yes, of course." And if they would have said, "How do you know?" I would have said, "Because the Bible tells me so." I related to God solely through the third hand account of the apostles writings.

Now, however, I would say that I know God loves me because He tells me so, and I know that it is him because the scripture confirms this truth in my spirit. There is a huge difference in knowing someone loves you because someone else tells you they love you, and hearing it directly from the source. When I hear the spirit speak in that still small voice confirming His love for me and providing comfort and direction specific to my life's everyday circumstances it brings a personal aspect to my relationship with God that I never had when I only heard from God through scripture.

I believe the scriptures are meant to introduce us to Him and guide us in our relationship by providing training and correction, but they are not meant to be sole means of divine communication with us. The Bible is not "The Word", Jesus is. The Bible is a testimony of The Word so as to lead us to faith in Him and into a intimate relationship with Him.

Jesus is not the scriptures. Your reference to Him as "The Word", while true, is an abuse of the full meaning of Logos. Any "spiritual" knowledge you have apart from the scriptures or expressions thereof is at best tainted, and at worst carnal and wicked.