Theology vs. the Bible

[DaveXR650]

@Ascetic X. I think some of what you are saying there is correct. But the whole point of theology is to do exactly what you say was happening here:

That happened, notoriously so, in the attempts of the church fathers to explain how Jesus could be both man and God simultaneously. If you look at the explanations they give and the terms they use, they are the terms borrowed from Aristotelian philosophy. They were the only categories of thought open to them at the time, if they wanted to be philosophical.

I would think it would be worth trying to explain this, wouldn't you. And, using only scripture, you have verses where Jesus says "If you have seen me you have seen the Father". Or "I and my Father are one". Other verses Jesus seems to clearly say he came to do the will of his father. It's not just that they wanted to be philosophical, but that they used what they had. Do you not believe that Jesus is both man and God simultaneously? If you do then how would you explain it without drawing on anything but scripture.

 

[JonC]

Theology is the study of God. And that cannot be done other than the scriptures.

Yes! Better post.

The weak point of theology is not the "theo" part (it is not God).

 

[Ascetic X]

@Ascetic X. I think some of what you are saying there is correct. But the whole point of theology is to do exactly what you say was happening here:

I would think it would be worth trying to explain this, wouldn't you. And, using only scripture, you have verses where Jesus says "If you have seen me you have seen the Father". Or "I and my Father are one". Other verses Jesus seems to clearly say he came to do the will of his father. It's not just that they wanted to be philosophical, but that they used what they had. Do you not believe that Jesus is both man and God simultaneously? If you do then how would you explain it without drawing on anything but scripture.

Early theology began as an attempt to explain Christianity to Greek philosophers, a fool’s errand.

1. I don’t think Christianity needs to be defended. It is always on the offense, attacking, undermining, and destroying the kingdom of darkness.

2. You cannot reason anyone into becoming a Christian. Debating atheists or arguing with agnostics is useless. We transmit light, then they accept it or reject it.

3. It is impossible to explain how Jesus was both God and man. It is a mystery we accept in faith.

4. It is impossible to explain the Trinity, the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection, how cosmos came from Logos, how eternity is the absence of time, how the new birth occurs, and all the other spiritual realities disclosed in the Bible. We can describe these things to some extent, but things of the spirit are ultimately alien to the human mentality.

Read any theological book on the Trinity, for example. Some good information and insights can be found, but I doubt you will be very much closer to really understanding the Trinity.

 

[Ben1445]

I reject the Ransom Theory, that Christ’s sacrifice was a payment to Satan.

Matthew 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.


Bought and sold as merchandise? Yes.
To Satan? No.
But under sin yes.

There are too many aspects that, when mixed together make some weird doctrine.

For example, ye are of your father the devil applied to the ransom theory would lend weight (incorrectly) to the idea that Satan has any kind of authority over God’s relationship with men. In truth, Satan is a conquered being who is waiting for judgement. But his power and authority are two different things.
Even people exercise power where they have no authority.

But a payment is a Scriptural thought.
Penalty is a Scriptural thought.
Ransom is a Scriptural thought.
But these illustrations of atonement don’t cancel out the other. Some of them may have some of the details off. But that doesn’t mean we tear the word ransom out of the Bible.

 

[DaveXR650]

Just as a general thing to throw out there, the idea that some have is that anyone serious about theology must necessarily neglect not only the scriptures but also the necessity of actually living a Christian life. But here again Owen comes to the rescue. He says that "there can be a consistency between the unchangeableness of God's decrees and the freedom of our wills; that justification by the blood of Christ doth not render our own obedience needless; that the efficacy of God's grace and the necessity of our duty are reconcilable".

And again. "Nothing but a diligent attendance unto all gospel duties and a vigorous acting of all gospel graces will preserve us, if the Scripture may be believed. And as for those by whom these things are despised, it is no matter at all what religion the are of."

Theology and the Word of God are not in any way exclusive of each other. And practice is not instead of correct doctrine.

 

[JonC]

the idea that some have is that anyone serious about theology must necessarily neglect not only the scriptures but also the necessity of actually living a Christian life.

I am not sure that anyone actually has or had that idea. It seems weird.

I cannot remember which theologian.... maybe Barth... but one said that theology has to be Christ-centered as He is God's ultimate revelation of Himself to man. Any "theology" that tries to go around Christ, around the Cross, is no theology at all but merely philosophy.

I agree with that idea. We cannot look at the Cross in any other way than Christ.

But this means we cannot live in any other way either.

 

[Ascetic X]

Just as a general thing to throw out there, the idea that some have is that anyone serious about theology must necessarily neglect not only the scriptures but also the necessity of actually living a Christian life. But here again Owen comes to the rescue. He says that "there can be a consistency between the unchangeableness of God's decrees and the freedom of our wills; that justification by the blood of Christ doth not render our own obedience needless; that the efficacy of God's grace and the necessity of our duty are reconcilable".

And again. "Nothing but a diligent attendance unto all gospel duties and a vigorous acting of all gospel graces will preserve us, if the Scripture may be believed. And as for those by whom these things are despised, it is no matter at all what religion the are of."

Theology and the Word of God are not in any way exclusive of each other. And practice is not instead of correct doctrine.

I notice that to defend theology, a theologian is quoted.

To me, a simple Bible verse is much better.


James 1:22

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.


This is the danger of theology. It can replace the Word of God as the reference point for truth.

I don’t think any person here has said that “anyone serious about theology must necessarily neglect not only the scriptures, but also the necessity of actually living a Christian life”.

The main theme is that a theological system can be the lens that scripture is seen through. Theological concepts can be exalted above the Bible. Not always, but sometimes.

The first 4 paragraphs of the OP sums it up:

Theology can freeze the mind into a rigid pattern that seduces and imprisons thought, so that any different viewpoint is not prayerfully pondered, but is instantly rejected and renounced.

We are safer by studying the Bible, with occasional reference to commentaries, instead of devouring and adhering to a system of hermeneutics as though it was the ultimate, infallible, comprehensive truth.

The real danger is exalting theology above the Word of God and elevating a theologian above the Savior.

We may like and agree with much in a certain theology, but we must retain the resilience to question and reject any elements that seem to contradict the scriptures.

 

[JonC]

To me, a simple Bible verse is much better.


James 1:22

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

AMEN!!!!

 

[JonC]

To me, a simple Bible verse is much better.

I need to add this, @Ascetic X

I have posted my belief before only to me met with "that is just a bunch of verses...what does it mean?", or "you are merely quoting Scripture. You have to explain what that means".

This is was from Calvinists, primarily. But think about those criticisms.

Scripture was not written at a graduate school level. It was written to the working class (us blue collar folk).

It seems the deeper one gets into an "ism" the less biblically literate they become. They dismiss what the Bible says in favor of some hidden message they think is really taught.

And then they get to the point where they view Scripture not only as insufficient but as nonsense.

I have to take them at their word. They no longer understand "what is written" and only know what they think is "really" taught.

 

[Ascetic X]

I need to add this, @Ascetic X

I have posted my belief before only to me met with "that is just a bunch of verses...what does it mean?", or "you are merely quoting Scripture. You have to explain what that means".

This is was from Calvinists, primarily. But think about those criticisms.

Scripture was not written at a graduate school level. It was written to the working class (us blue collar folk).

It seems the deeper one gets into an "ism" the less biblically literate they become. They dismiss what the Bible says in favor of some hidden message they think is really taught.

And then they get to the point where they view Scripture not only as insufficient but as nonsense.

I have to take them at their word. They no longer understand "what is written" and only know what they think is "really" taught.

I have quoted relevant scriptures to support a biblical concept — and had allegedly Christian people cling to their unscriptural opinion, saying that I was wrong to quote those verses, that those verses were actually not relevant or I did not understand them properly. The verses were clear and easy to understand. No scholar was needed to illuminate their true meaning. Any child could comprehend it.

They basically were saying, “I do not care what the Bible says, I still do not believe it.”

Not that they had to agree with me, but I often did not even state my opinion, I just quoted scripture.

It reminds me of the erroneous phrase that nearly every pastor quotes: “Jesus spoke about hell more than He spoke about heaven.”

Strong’s Concordance shows 104 references to the word Heaven associated with Jesus speaking, but only 28 references to Hell associated with Jesus speaking!

 

[DaveXR650]

We are safer by studying the Bible, with occasional reference to commentaries, instead of devouring and adhering to a system of hermeneutics as though it was the ultimate, infallible, comprehensive truth.

The real danger is exalting theology above the Word of God and elevating a theologian above the Savior.

the idea that some have is that anyone serious about theology must necessarily neglect not only the scriptures but also the necessity of actually living a Christian life.

The idea, which I guess I failed to get across, was that one can be serious about theology and still also teach that the ultimate necessity is to follow Christ as revealed in scripture. Since the point I was making was that "one can be serious about theology" I quoted a theologian, Owen, who obviously taught the importance of actually living a holy life and following Christ and believed and taught that scripture was more important than any theology. But in order to show that I did do this:

I notice that to defend theology, a theologian is quoted.

To me, a simple Bible verse is much better.

You completely ignored what I had just said. I leave you to your own opinion. Your mind is already made up. I wish you well.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have posted my belief before only to me met with "that is just a bunch of verses...what does it mean?", or "you are merely quoting Scripture. You have to explain what that means".

Jon. You outright dismiss scriptures that others use. Why should anyone give you a different approach?

 

[Ben1445]

It reminds me of the erroneous phrase that nearly every pastor quotes: “Jesus spoke about hell more than He spoke about heaven.”

Strong’s Concordance shows 104 references to the word Heaven associated with Jesus speaking, but only 28 references to Hell associated with Jesus speaking!

So I am going to take this one on as a homework assignment. Don’t expect a quick answer.
It comes to my mind that there are going to be instances where judgment is spoken of without mentioning hell.

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

And I recognize the difference of beings being judged but this is the first example I thought of.

There are also times when the kingdom of heaven is mentioned when the kingdom of heaven is referring to the present time as described in Daniel 2:44.

Luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

There are times when it speaks of the physical.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And here is an example of where the kingdom has nothing to do with heaven, and judgment is spoken of without mentioning Hell. So this one in a quick search might end up in the kingdom side instead of the judgment side.

Matthew 8:12
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


I’m not saying that you have made any of these mistakes.
And I recognize that “heaven” and “hell” are not in each of these verses.
It is just that it is not as simple as it may seem at first.

I don’t have any dog in the fight. I have never said it. I have heard it from people who I trust. So it makes it interesting enough to study it out.

I’ll post results if I’m still around when I finish. I reserve the right to rest in peace with work left undone.

 

[Ascetic X]

The idea, which I guess I failed to get across, was that one can be serious about theology and still also teach that the ultimate necessity is to follow Christ as revealed in scripture. Since the point I was making was that "one can be serious about theology" I quoted a theologian, Owen, who obviously taught the importance of actually living a holy life and following Christ and believed and taught that scripture was more important than any theology. But in order to show that I did do this:

You completely ignored what I had just said. I leave you to your own opinion. Your mind is already made up. I wish you well.

My opinion is simply that there is a danger of exalting theological systems above scripture. That’s a serious concern.

Some people may like such statements as

"there can be a consistency between the unchangeableness of God's decrees and the freedom of our wills; that justification by the blood of Christ doth not render our own obedience needless; that the efficacy of God's grace and the necessity of our duty are reconcilable".

and

"Nothing but a diligent attendance unto all gospel duties and a vigorous acting of all gospel graces will preserve us, if the Scripture may be believed. And as for those by whom these things are despised, it is no matter at all what religion the are of.”

I just see them as stuffy and dry, compared to what the scriptures say. Adding “if the Scripture may be believed” rather dilutes the statement. Of course the Scripture may, nay must, be believed!

If your point is that a theologian declared that scholarship should not rule out basing our behavior on what the Bible teaches, I will accept this premise. But nobody was claiming that theologians do not urge students to be doers of the Word and not hearers only.

 

[Ascetic X]

So I am going to take this one on as a homework assignment. Don’t expect a quick answer.
It comes to my mind that there are going to be instances where judgment is spoken of without mentioning hell.

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

And I recognize the difference of beings being judged but this is the first example I thought of.

There are also times when the kingdom of heaven is mentioned when the kingdom of heaven is referring to the present time as described in Daniel 2:44.

Luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

There are times when it speaks of the physical.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And here is an example of where the kingdom has nothing to do with heaven, and judgment is spoken of without mentioning Hell. So this one in a quick search might end up in the kingdom side instead of the judgment side.

Matthew 8:12
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


I’m not saying that you have made any of these mistakes.
And I recognize that “heaven” and “hell” are not in each of these verses.
It is just that it is not as simple as it may seem at first.

I don’t have any dog in the fight. I have never said it. I have heard it from people who I trust. So it makes it interesting enough to study it out.

I’ll post results if I’m still around when I finish. I reserve the right to rest in peace with work left undone.

Every preacher I trust has made this claim. Nobody is perfect. But I exercise scrutiny and caution on Bible teachers I admire and respect.

Just remember, the pastors say “Jesus spoke about hell more than He spoke about heaven”.

So I restricted my research to those exact words, hell and heaven, as mentioned by Jesus, in Strong’s Concordance.

To include relevant verses using other, synonymous words is valid. Judgment, kingdom of God, torment, outer darkness, Abraham’s bosom, etc.

I look forward to the results of your homework!

 

[Ben1445]

Just remember, the pastors say “Jesus spoke about hell more than He spoke about heaven”.

So I restricted my research to those exact words, hell and heaven, as mentioned by Jesus, in Strong’s Concordance.

To include relevant verses using other, synonymous words is valid. Judgment, kingdom of God, torment, outer darkness, Abraham’s bosom, etc.

I look forward to the results of your homework!

I’ll get it both ways. I’m pretty sure when I heard it it was “the Bible speaks more…”

It won’t be hard to sort.