-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Theology vs. the Bible
- Thread starter Ascetic X
- Start date
-
- Tags
- church denominations theology
EXACTLY!!!
PSA is not the only option for a just God who justifies the one who has faith in Christ.
In fact, PSA advocates often take that verse way out of context (the verse is saying why God did not punish past sins and waited until the Promise had been fulfilled).
One problem with PSA is it insists God acted unjustly (punished the Righteous, cleared the wicked). Traditional Christianity avoids this (at Judgment, when God judges every soul, the wicked will perish without exception and those who have been recreated in Christ's image will be justified without exception).
I did not realize you were defining theologos. I must have misread you to have typed theology.
But yes ...theologos breakes down into "God" and "word". It is a Greek term that means "One who speaks with God". In Christianity it was applied to the Apostles who recorded the New Testament via divine inspiration.
Obviously theology and theologos are different words with different meanings.
But neither means God's words.
I was speaking of theology.
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
"-ology" is a suffix added to words to mean the study of, science of, or branch of knowledge regarding a particular subject. Derived from the Greek logia (speaking/study), it signifies a systematic field of research or academic discipline.
“-ologist” is a person who studies or practices a specific field (e.g., a biologist studies biology).
I agree. We use both prefixes quite often.
@Martin Marprelate mistyped "theology" when he meant "theologos" (one who speaks with God).
Theology (the study of God) has subcomponents as well (theology proper is the study of the Father, Christology is the study of Christ, etc).
But what they all have in common is the human limitation.
Not all psychology is correct, and all of it is limited to human understsnding. Same with theology.
BUT the Word of God (the Bible) is not subjective to our understanding.
I wonder why we opt for "theologian" instead of "theologist" (they are synonyms).
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I have to disagree with your assessment of the valve of confessions.
Confessions are man's ideas of what God's word means and are done so as to support a particular theological view.
The guardrail's are the actual word of God.
The guardrails should be the actual word of God.
My experience on this board informs me that they often are not. The guardrails here are much too frequently whatever confession keeps a sect together regardless of God's Word (whether the Baptist Confession of 1689, the Westminster Confession, the Free-Will Baptist Confession of 1834, the 39 Articles of Religion, the Articles of the Remonstrance, etc.).
People choose confessions to insulate the theology of a sect against God's Word.
But you are right. It should be the Word of God. This is the guardrail God set up when He said to not lean on our own understanding but on His words.
@Martin Marprelate highlighted the issue with theology in the minds of others when he erroneously said that theology means "God's words".
Many do take theology (or, specifically, their theology) to mean God's words rather than their understanding. This is, IMHO, a form of blasphemy as it demonstrates a complete disdain for God's Word and an utter lack of respect for God.
We, as Christians, have to know where Scripture ends and our understanding begins lest we hold "another gospel" entirely.
Many do take theology (or, specifically, their theology) to mean God's words rather than their understanding. This is, IMHO, a form of blasphemy as it demonstrates a complete disdain for God's Word and an utter lack of respect for God.
We, as Christians, have to know where Scripture ends and our understanding begins lest we hold "another gospel" entirely.
Armchair Apologist
Member
Then we will have to agree to disagree.
Not saying the confessions should ever be regarded as "final authority" but they are written based upon diligent study of the scriptures and summarizes to any outsider what they (the congregation) believe the scriptures to teach. Does your Church have a "Statement of Faith?" It had better! Where did it come from?
As I have stated elsewhere, candidates for a church office are often required to state that they are in agreement with the prescribed confession of the congregational body. They are allowed to make clarifications and exceptions to the confession according to their conscience and their understanding of the scriptures and I would say that no one is 100% in agreement 100% of the time. If someone was to tell me that they were in 100% agreement, It would raise suspicion that they had not adequately done their homework.
If one says "No Creed but Christ!" or "The King James Bible is my Confession," this raises a serious red flag for me as one can make this mean whatever they wish! This is where the restorationists went completely off the rails during the second great awakening and all of the cults started springing up. No one gets to take the word of God and make it mean whatever they want! If your interpretation of Romans 3 differs from everyone else in a congregation (and you are not in a Kingdom Hall, Mormon Temple, or Unitarian Universalist, etc. congregation), you had better reevaluate your interpretation! What do you think Paul means in Ephesians 4:14?
Notice also that I named an assortment of confessions representing all different sorts of theological views. Pick the one that you are most in agreement with and start from there.
Armchair Apologist
Member
We read the Word of God which is the absolute, supreme final authority.
When we start explaining and making observations regarding the Word of God, we are speaking theology and what we believe the word of God says is a "Confession," you cannot get away from this. This is what expositional teaching and preaching is all about.
Please reconsider the outlandish statement you have just made.
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
I agree with @Armchair Apologist that a written Confession, Creed, or Statement of Faith is a good way to concisely sum up the main beliefs of a church or an individual believer. Like an elevator speech or list of bullet points.
When we think of God, what is ground zero, the fundamental essence, from which our understanding of all other divine qualities springs forth?
What basic nature of God orients us toward all questions about His actions, His will, and His mysteries?
Some people start their contemplation of God with His justice and anger at sin and sinners.
Others proceed from God as a tolerant being who will not judge or condemn anyone, even when they commit abominations and atrocities.
Or they initiate their pondering of God from a platform of hopeful uncertainty, because God seems totally alien, aloof, vague, unknowable.
I prefer to begin with the concept that God is love.
I add to that love the reality of His pure holiness, absolutely set apart from all darkness, disease, insanity, cruelty, and wickedness.
As my wonderful Father, God loves me, but He is no chump. He is not happy with my past sinful behaviors and He forbids me to cling to lusts or worldliness in any form. But He is not angry with me. The Holy Spirit convicts me, I confess my sins, trust the blood of Christ, and move forward, humbled by my weakness and my total reliance on His might within me.
Any theology that tries to make cower in fear of God all the time, worried about punishment, even though I’m currently not backsliding, disgracing Him, or willfully rebelling against Him, is not a theology I will accept.
When I read my Bible, I sense the grace and goodness of God shining through every page.
When we think of God, what is ground zero, the fundamental essence, from which our understanding of all other divine qualities springs forth?
What basic nature of God orients us toward all questions about His actions, His will, and His mysteries?
Some people start their contemplation of God with His justice and anger at sin and sinners.
Others proceed from God as a tolerant being who will not judge or condemn anyone, even when they commit abominations and atrocities.
Or they initiate their pondering of God from a platform of hopeful uncertainty, because God seems totally alien, aloof, vague, unknowable.
I prefer to begin with the concept that God is love.
I add to that love the reality of His pure holiness, absolutely set apart from all darkness, disease, insanity, cruelty, and wickedness.
As my wonderful Father, God loves me, but He is no chump. He is not happy with my past sinful behaviors and He forbids me to cling to lusts or worldliness in any form. But He is not angry with me. The Holy Spirit convicts me, I confess my sins, trust the blood of Christ, and move forward, humbled by my weakness and my total reliance on His might within me.
Any theology that tries to make cower in fear of God all the time, worried about punishment, even though I’m currently not backsliding, disgracing Him, or willfully rebelling against Him, is not a theology I will accept.
When I read my Bible, I sense the grace and goodness of God shining through every page.
Last edited:
I have considered very carefully my statement. Upon reflection, at your request, I stand by the statement.
Confessions reflect the understanding of the sect which holds that confession.
The Schleitheim Confession of 1527 reflected (and reflects) the understanding of Anabaptists who held/ hold that confession.
The Westminster confession reflects the understanding of those who hold that confession.
The Free-Will Confession reflects the understanding of those who hold that confession.
None of them ARE God's Word.
Calvinists believe Calvinistic preachers and theologians when it comes to that theology.
Free-Will Baptists believe Free-Will preachers and theologians when it comes to that theology.
SDA members believe SDA preachers and theologians.
Each sect considers the preachers and scholars who teach theology they hold to be "God given teachers".
But they all reflect subjective human understanding of God's Word and fall short of God's actual words.
Scripture is the only true guardrail the believer has in regard the Christian faith.
This is how confessions work. They show the understanding of a given sect (and that is why they are important). They let us know, without much consideration, congregations we do not join.
The problem is when they are taught. We are not called to proclaim or teach our understanding of God's Word.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
That's true. But what tends to happen in our modern times is that we tend to dismiss theology and confessions in favor of our own interpretations of scripture based upon whatever limited study we have so far done. And since we live in the age of the common man and the age of self esteem - well, what could possibly go wrong. Scripture is indeed the final authority. But understanding it involves a couple of things we consider. The most obvious and easy one is that we probably haven't studied all scripture and even if we have, we cannot simultaneously remember and recall all scripture at once. Thus we use confessions, theologians, and just our constant attendance to preaching, teaching for help. It's what humans do.
Another thing to keep in mind is that if you have ever really looked at documents like the LBC 1689, etc., low and behold they are heavily referenced - with scripture. So you indeed have plenty of opportunity to look at scripture, have suggested places to start your search, and you have opportunity to hear what more experienced and eminent people have done already in their Bible study and in collaboration with others.
So think for a moment about what you are saying in the post above. What you are really saying is that your own private interpretation of scripture is the only true guardrail you need and you can just dismiss what anyone else says. In the end, we all have to decide which way we will go on how we interpret scriptures, so in a sense you are right. But all I am saying is that I would suggest when you do this that you at least consider what these confessions and theologies say and I would be so bold as to suggest that we, even as modern men, try once in a while to at least consider someone else's studies as at least being somewhere near our own level of wisdom.
Armchair Apologist
Member
I really am not seeing wherein lies our disagreement. Are we arguing over semantics here? You have named three different confessions by three different groups having differing beliefs. What does this tell you? That perhaps people read the scriptures and reach different conclusions right?
What happens when everyone reads the scriptures and comes to their own conclusion? Admittedly, this is the argument that the Roman Catholic Church has regarding Protestants. Of course, they often look to the restorationists (who are not protestants) in order to validate their argument! What about those who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction? What of those whom God has given as "Gifts to the Church" that we be no more children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine? What do you do when someone comes into your congregation and starts teaching somthing contrary to sound doctrine? How do you determine that their teaching is contrary to sound doctrine? How does a congregation come to an agreement of what is and what is not sound, doctrinal teaching?
I believe this is a matter of simple common sense. Yes, the scriptures are the TRUE guardrail but I would also say that in a multitude of counselors, there is wisdom and for this, you have a congregation of fellow believers to which you are accountable and of whom you will "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is right!"
I am certain that your church has some sort of "Statement of Faith" that you have read, become familiar with, and decided you were in sufficient agreement that you could join said congregation right? OF COURSE the scriptures are the "True Guardrail" and the statement of faith is assurance to you that they are, in fact, within the guardrails and not in the ditch. And therein lies my point.
Going back to the confessions though including the ones you have named. Each of these come to differing conclusions regarding ecclesiology, eschatology, election-free-will, covenant/dispensational theology, and so forth. What do each of these confessions have in common? I would bet (not familiar with all) that each affirm the essential, fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith (Virgin birth, deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, literal second coming, etc.)! This is what I would throw back in the face of any Catholic Apologist looking for some sort of "gotcha" moment - We actually agree more than we disagree!
Armchair Apologist
Member
I'd say it goes far beyond just restoration! We are not restored just to where Adam once was but far above and beyond!
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
I love studying theology, commentaries, and hermeneutics.
But no single system governs the totality of my beliefs.
I like reading Luther, Augustine, ECF, St. Symeon, St. Ephraim, John Wesley, Charles Finney, Tito Colliander, Oswald Chambers, Walter Wink, Erwin Lutzer, Marguerite Porette, Mechthild of Magdeburg, Lorenzo Sculpoli, Andrew Murray, TL Osborn, FF Bosworth, Thomas Watson, Richard Baxter.
As a Baptist believer, I also hold to elements derived from Eastern Orthodox (hesychia, the Philokalia’s desert monk teachings, ascetic practices like no TV — but not icon kissing, aerial toll houses, Jesus Prayer repetitions, or Mariolatry), Mennonite (pacifism, separation from worldliness, strict living), and some other traditions, including continuationism, but not Pentecostalism.
I also embrace the concept of ahimsa, never harming or alarming any living creature or inanimate object.
Thus, I cannot truly fit in anywhere perfectly.
My favorite liturgy is Greek Orthodox. My favorite preachers are Baptist. My favorite educational institution is Moody Bible Institute. My favorite Christian ethics are Mennonite / Anabaptist. My favorite Christian music are hymns, some CCM, and tribal Ethiopian Orthodox.
Armchair Apologist
Member
One may slam down their King James Bible and declare "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD!" And I would give a hearty "Amen" (and would do so if you slammed down an ESV, NAS, or whatever just so you know).
The confessions say "I have studied the Word of God and this is what I beleive it says!"
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
And someone else might slam down the Institutes of Christian Religion or the Summa Theologica and declare “THIS IS HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF GOD!”
The confessions, creeds, and statements of faith say “This is a concise summary of the basic essentials of our belief system.”