My Theological Stance after Searching with All of My Heart

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The only thing I will add to this discussion is why the arbitrary need to come to a decision so quickly on an important doctrinal position? Was there some type of deadline that had to be met? I held to the Synergist position for nearly 25 years before I changed. The author of the OP is a young man. He may be surprised to know that he may change his mind quite a few things before he reaches my age.

My stance today leads me to conclude that Jesus never taught theology whatsoever. From what I see, His teaching is entirely spiritual. Historical Christianity, unfortunately, has largely concerned itself with theological & doctrinal questions which, strange to say, have no part whatsoever in gospel teaching. Therefore I would agree that it would be prudent to hold off on any conclusion that may change over the course of ones lifetime.

 

[Rippon]

My stance today leads me to conclude that Jesus never taught theology whatsoever. From what I see, His teaching is entirely spiritual. Historical Christianity, unfortunately, has largely concerned itself with theological & doctrinal questions which, strange to say, have no part whatsoever in gospel teaching. Therefore I would agree that it would be prudent to hold off on any conclusion that may change over the course of ones lifetime.

Listen, the word theology means the study of God. Jesus, in the Gospels taught us plenty about God. Paul certainly wrote theologically; not systematically of course. To categorize the teachings of Jesus as being spiritual alone is to miss the big picture. But what is spiritual without being theological?

 

[Steven Yeadon]

God help anyone who gets their main theology off/from this board!

I thought about this a bit after you said it. Thanks for the advice. My beliefs come from serious and exhaustive searching of the bible. I use this board to test my ideas, as the bible tells us that we sharpen each other as Believers.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Listen, the word theology means the study of God. Jesus, in the Gospels taught us plenty about God. Paul certainly wrote theologically; not systematically of course. To categorize the teachings of Jesus as being spiritual alone is to miss the big picture. But what is spiritual without being theological?

I do see where he is coming from though. So many martyrs have been killed or exiled for simply holding onto a theological idea that was unpopular in Christendom at the time, such as believer's baptism.

That said, theology is absolutely required to understand the bible. Because whenever someone reads the bible and writes out a study or sermon based on say a topic you can find all over the bible, they are doing theology. To reject theology is reject practically every sermon, study, and book I have ever seen by Christians, who study the bible to understand subjects.

Nonetheless, I myself only go so far with this. I do not buy into lengthy logical treatises such as those by Augustine, Anselm, or most of the Reformers. I regard it as human wisdom backed by church tradition, which should be replaced by careful biblical study. I always try and remember (Isaiah 8:20).

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
and He sovereignly chose a free will univers

Even God cannot do that though!
As no true free willed being would accept His rule over them, goes against their basic natures!

Your notion of "what God cannot do" is totally flawed.

The existence of still loyal angels refute it.

So now back to this list --

======================
The entire government of God is founded on His sovereign choice to have a free will universe.

Without free will
1. He would not tolerate Lucifer - changing into - Satan
2. He would not tolerate that Satan - then corrupting 1/3 of the angels
3. He would not tolerate those demons deceiving Adam and Eve - and the loss of this planet. Calling for the Gospel and the death of His Son.
4. He would not tolerate even fallen mankind becoming so evil that the entire planet earth had to be destroyed by the flood
5. He would not tolerate "the chosen" rejecting Christ .. "HE came to HIS OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
6. He would not be weeping and saying in Matt 23 "Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem how I WANTED... but you would not"
7. There could be no Isaiah Isaiah 5:4!! it would not be sensical to have such a text.
“What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it?
Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?

But WITH Free will we can have

"Whosoever will may come"
"We BEG you on behalf of Christ - be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5

 

[BobRyan]

It is unlikely that anyone can make such a drastic theological change just because of a message board thread. Most of us have our presuppositions, and we are looking for validation of the same.

True. We are "supposed" to come to the subject without pride, without a bent to entrench and ignore disconfirming facts. But Human nature being what it is - that is a rare find.

 

[BobRyan]

My stance today leads me to conclude that Jesus never taught theology whatsoever. From what I see, His teaching is entirely spiritual. Historical Christianity, unfortunately, has largely concerned itself with theological & doctrinal questions which, strange to say, have no part whatsoever in gospel teaching. Therefore I would agree that it would be prudent to hold off on any conclusion that may change over the course of ones lifetime.

read Matthew 22 and John 4 -- very very carefully and let me know if you still think that.

 

[JamesL]

So far as I have skimmed, the work is almost entirely written from logic like a work of Anselm or Augustine. Do you know of a work that bases its foundation on a study of the bible and all its verses on the subject instead?

Are you serious? Most every argument you encounter is from philosophy first. Then, if it's convenient people will quote a couple of proof texts

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Listen, the word theology means the study of God. Jesus, in the Gospels taught us plenty about God. Paul certainly wrote theologically; not systematically of course. To categorize the teachings of Jesus as being spiritual alone is to miss the big picture. But what is spiritual without being theological?

Perhaps it is complete confidence in the Lord in all situations....see Psalm chapter 27, verse 1-14 .

 

[Reformed]

Nonetheless, I myself only go so far with this. I do not buy into lengthy logical treatises such as those by Augustine, Anselm, or most of the Reformers.

On a personal level, it really does not matter to me whether you are a Synergist or a Monergist. After all, the BB is melting pot of sorts; beliefs are all over the map. However, this statement of yours is troubling. If you are bothered by polemics then you really are not a good student of theology. When reading patristic or post-patristic writings it is good to maintain a healthy level of skepticism, but when it comes to the time of the Reformers I caution you to be careful about dismissing them out of hand. Most of the early Reformers were paedobaptists, so naturally, I disagree with them on that point. But the Reformers had much to say about important doctrines such as justification by faith, the nature of the atonement, and the mortification of sin. More than the Reformers, the Puritans (both Baptist and Presbyterian) left us a rich heritage of developed theology. One does not have to be a Monergist to appreciate their writings.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

read Matthew 22 and John 4 -- very very carefully and let me know if you still think that.

Sorry Bob but you are a ritualist....I through that out of my spiritual life long ago

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Are you serious? Most every argument you encounter is from philosophy first. Then, if it's convenient people will quote a couple of proof texts

On a personal level, it really does not matter to me whether you are a Synergist or a Monergist. After all, the BB is melting pot of sorts; beliefs are all over the map. However, this statement of yours is troubling. If you are bothered by polemics then you really are not a good student of theology. When reading patristic or post-patristic writings it is good to maintain a healthy level of skepticism, but when it comes to the time of the Reformers I caution you to be careful about dismissing them out of hand. Most of the early Reformers were paedobaptists, so naturally, I disagree with them on that point. But the Reformers had much to say about important doctrines such as justification by faith, the nature of the atonement, and the mortification of sin. More than the Reformers, the Puritans (both Baptist and Presbyterian) left us a rich heritage of developed theology. One does not have to be a Monergist to appreciate their writings.

I studied theology for four years in grad school. So, I'll just be bluntly honest. I view the so called greats of the faith, all conveniently academics, as basing almost everything on their own minds and a very odd thing called Christian tradition. For real heroes of the faith I look to long forgotten martyrs and tend to reject the intellectual leaders of the church.

I also stated earlier in this thread:

I also have a severe problem with Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and their teachings, given the warning in (Matthew 7:15-20). That I should be careful of the character in the teachers and prophets I go to. All three persecuted and murdered martyrs. I consider them thorn bushes to pick from for this reason alone, let alone their well recognized, public sins.​

So, for now, I believe that works of pure logic used to prove things independent of exhaustive biblical discussion to be foolishness. I am not against the Reformation though of course, as there is Menno Simmons, the Anabaptists that pass the smell test, and the baptists.

 

[Reformed]

I studied theology for four years in grad school. So, I'll just be bluntly honest. I view the so called greats of the faith, all conveniently academics, as basing almost everything on their own minds and a very odd thing called Christian tradition. For real heroes of the faith I look to long forgotten martyrs and tend to reject the intellectual leaders of the church.

I also stated earlier in this thread:

I also have a severe problem with Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and their teachings, given the warning in (Matthew 7:15-20). That I should be careful of the character in the teachers and prophets I go to. All three persecuted and murdered martyrs. I consider them thorn bushes to pick from for this reason alone, let alone their well recognized, public sins.​

So, for now, I believe that works of pure logic used to prove things independent of exhaustive biblical discussion to be foolishness. I am not against the Reformation though of course, as there is Menno Simmons, the Anabaptists that pass the smell test, and the baptists.

Then I will leave you to your own devices. I have nothing further to add. Peace.

 

[Rippon]

Perhaps it is complete confidence in the Lord in all situations....see Psalm chapter 27, verse 1-14 .

What are you trying to define, theology or spiritually?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I studied theology for four years in grad school. So, I'll just be bluntly honest. I view the so called greats of the faith, all conveniently academics, as basing almost everything on their own minds and a very odd thing called Christian tradition. For real heroes of the faith I look to long forgotten martyrs and tend to reject the intellectual leaders of the church.

I also stated earlier in this thread:

I also have a severe problem with Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and their teachings, given the warning in (Matthew 7:15-20). That I should be careful of the character in the teachers and prophets I go to. All three persecuted and murdered martyrs. I consider them thorn bushes to pick from for this reason alone, let alone their well recognized, public sins.​

So, for now, I believe that works of pure logic used to prove things independent of exhaustive biblical discussion to be foolishness. I am not against the Reformation though of course, as there is Menno Simmons, the Anabaptists that pass the smell test, and the baptists.

So....you are learning! Good, good.

BTW. Look up Anthony of The Desert....you might just like that guy.

Be well!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What are you trying to define, theology or spiritually?

Confidence in God...above all things.

 

[Rippon]

Confidence in God...above all things.

Your original position was that Jesus never taught theologically.

 

[BobRyan]

Earth Wind and Fire said: ↑
My stance today leads me to conclude that Jesus never taught theology whatsoever. From what I see, His teaching is entirely spiritual. Historical Christianity, unfortunately, has largely concerned itself with theological & doctrinal questions which, strange to say, have no part whatsoever in gospel teaching. Therefore I would agree that it would be prudent to hold off on any conclusion that may change over the course of ones lifetime.

read Matthew 22 and John 4 -- very very carefully and let me know if you still think that.

Sorry Bob but you are a ritualist...

Not in real life.

(unless of course your point is that to pay attention to the Bible details that address your statement - is to be a ritualist)

 

[BobRyan]

Your original position was that Jesus never taught theologically.

Indeed that was his point - not at all sustained by the Bible "details" of John 4 and Matthew 22

 

[Rippon]

I also have a severe problem with Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and their teachings, given the warning in (Matthew 7:15-20). That I should be careful of the character in the teachers and prophets I go to. All three persecuted and murdered martyrs. I consider them thorn bushes to pick from for this reason alone, let alone their well recognized, public sins.
​

You are misinformed historically about all three Reformation greats.​