Theology vs. the Bible

[Ascetic X]

Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.

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.

“How can this system or preacher be so right about so many things, yet be so wrong about other things?” is the troubling question that lingers unpleasantly. So we trust God and know that in heaven all will be perfectly clear and resolved…forever.

Some of the most popular and prominent pastors and youth leaders have fallen in shame. Their followers are in confusion and dismay. They begin to question the whole package. It is just an aspect of the battleground we have entered when we became Christians.

Which goes back to my persistent woe that burdens me: I wish every church, every denomination, was just a slight variation on the one true gospel.

I wish it was easier to find a place where the salvation message was foremost, sanctification was taken seriously, genuine love prevailed, and evangelism was practiced joyfully. A sanctimonious country club has often replaced the church. People figure out how to play the game of church and fit in smoothly. But not much that is truly spiritual is going on.

Sadly, some institutions and systems are apostate, abusive, abhorrent. I wish we could walk into any church or seminary and enjoy the fellowship and teaching of true believers. Often, the tares seem to overwhelm the wheat. In some cases, it seems like there is nothing but tares.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Which goes back to my persistent woe that burdens me: I wish every church, every denomination, was just a slight variation on the one true gospel.

IMHO, besides the Goodness of God, in His Ultimate Sovereignty, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the starting point for finding common ground with someone regarding their Doctrinal Stance would have to do with the position they take on what and who 'a sinner' is; in other words, that they were Saved as a Totally Depraved soul, like where Jesus said He Came "to Seek and to Save that which is lost," Luke 19:10.

How would we be doing concerning our 'fellowship', so far?

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Where does theology come from?

Better yet, where should theology come from?

Good theology and sound doctrine are vitally important to the church! Even if we end up in fights over it from time to time, it is far better than neglecting such things and going with subjective things like your emotions or whatever!

This has also been a battle throughout the ages. The Reformation turned into a scholastic mess where knowledge was king but there was little spiritual transformation going on. I believe that the Pietist movement (and the later Methodist movement) made corrections to this but turned to over-correction where emotionalism was the measure and there was distrust of anyone who was actually educated and knew a few things regarding biblical doctrine.

 

[DaveXR650]

How would we be doing concerning our 'fellowship', so far?

That's the best question I've seen asked on here for a long time, especially after the last thread just closed.

 

[JonC]

Where does theology come from?

Better yet, where should theology come from?

Good theology and sound doctrine are vitally important to the church! Even if we end up in fights over it from time to time, it is far better than neglecting such things and going with subjective things like your emotions or whatever!

This has also been a battle throughout the ages. The Reformation turned into a scholastic mess where knowledge was king but there was little spiritual transformation going on. I believe that the Pietist movement (and the later Methodist movement) made corrections to this but turned to over-correction where emotionalism was the measure and there was distrust of anyone who was actually educated and knew a few things regarding biblical doctrine.

Theology is the study of God. By definition it has flaws in a way that God's Word does not. We are that flaw (it is OUR study, OUR understanding). It is a flaw because we see as through a glass dimly.

While theology incorporates many flawed elements (human understanding and philosophy, various worldviews and ideologies, an incomplete knowledge of history, etc) there is one element that is not flawed. This element is God and His Word. I say one element because as human beings Scripture as God's revelation is that one pure element (while the Spirit leads, men often confuse this leading with their own initiatives and preferences).

Theology comes from men with Scripture as an aspect. It is our understsnding.

This is why no theology is perfect, and theology is never stagnant. It is constantly evolving and being corrected.

And this is why Christians lean on every word from God rather than their theology (their imperfect understanding).

 

[Ascetic X]

One of the dangers of theology is how it becomes for some people the only lens through which to see God’s Word. They understand scriptures, not according to what the Bible clearly states, but according to the dictates of a theological system, which replaces God’s Word as the final authority.

You can quote 20 easy to understand verses on a topic, but those verses are no match for a single theological principle that contradicts them. For disciples of a theology, the system usurps the Bible, in fact they will even declare “XYZ theology IS God’s Word.”

They don’t mean the founder’s writings are as inspired as the Bible, but what amounts to the same thing in practice: the founder’s theological system illuminates the Bible perfectly, as no other theology can.

Instead of judging the theology by the scriptures, the scriptures are judged by the theology. The theology asserts a principle, and the scriptures are interpreted according to that principle.

The theology is necessarily exalted above the founder of it. If the founder has serious flaws, the theology based on his writings still retains its absolute purity and unquestioned inerrancy. No matter how problematic the founder is, for the awe-struck disciples, the theology exists on an elevated plane and cannot be polluted, because it is seen as the impeccable explanation of God and His ways.

 

[JonC]

That's the best question I've seen asked on here for a long time, especially after the last thread just closed.

I think it depends on the "we".

Our (personal experience) is doing great with fellowship despite theological disagreements. It is about two things - being united in Christ and realizing our understanding may be less than perfect. This allows for grace that covers many disagreements to be extended without compromise.

This is why we (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterian, etc.) can come together in Christ. The distinctions are there. But we are careful not to make distinctions into divisions beyond the congregation.

At one time this was a baptist goal (one probably rarely practiced) that was hoped to exist within a congregation called "soul liberty". One of the best examples was the SBC (the first SBC faith and message including those who believed PSA as well as those who rejected the theory).

But there is always the Greensboro mindset out there. It is natural (we struggle with these powers and influences).

 

[DaveXR650]

I think it depends on the "we".

Our (personal experience) is doing great with fellowship despite theological disagreements. It is about two things - being united in Christ and realizing our understanding may be less than perfect. This allows for grace that covers many disagreements to be extended without compromise.

This is why we (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterian, etc.) can come together in Christ. The distinctions are there. But we are careful not to make distinctions into divisions beyond the congregation.

At one time this was a baptist goal (one probably rarely practiced) that was hoped to exist within a congregation called "soul liberty". One of the best examples was the SBC (the first SBC faith and message including those who believed PSA as well as those who rejected the theory).

But there is always the Greensboro mindset out there. It is natural (we struggle with these powers and influences).

So in light of this I take it you are extending the same broad mindedness to strict Calvinists as well as those who believe that PSA is at the heart of the gospel. Excellent!

 

[JonC]

So in light of this I take it you are extending the same broad mindedness to strict Calvinists as well as those who believe that PSA is at the heart of the gospel. Excellent!

Absolutely. Most of my friends are Calvinists. Most believe PSA.

There is a difference between fellowship and debate (they are not mutually exclusive words).

Christian fellowship is among believers (people). Debate is about ideas, such as theogical differences. Fellowship is interpersonal - it is about people. Arguing theology is objective and impersonal.

Here is an example -

Many of us believe PSA and Calvinism is a theological error, but many of us believe PSA and Calvinism.

Yet we meet in each other's home, we celebrate events together (recently we went to a Japaneese resturant to celebrate graduations). We care about and love one another.

Last week we were debating PSA and election sitting in my home on the couch. We had dinner at my home (over 20 people). It was a great time of fellowship.


The reason that we can be united in Christ is that we understand our understanding of God's Word is not God's Word itself. We can examine our views objectively.

Nobody (among us) would claim that PSA is in the Bible because even those with that hold PSA are able to identify their understanding of Scripture from Scripture itself. So we ultimately discuss the reasons and validity of presuppositions and how they affect our understanding, which is a much more beneficial discussion than could be had here.


I was a Calvinist for years. When I left that philosophy I did not end my friendships with those who were my fellow Calvinists. We were all mature enough in Christ to know that we have imperfect understandings of God, that our mind is less than God's mind. And we had too great a view of God's Word to equate our understanding of the Bible with Scripture itself.

 

[DaveXR650]

Nobody (among us) would claim that PSA is in the Bible because even those with that hold PSA are able to identify their understanding of Scripture from Scripture itself. So we ultimately discuss the reasons and validity of presuppositions and how they affect our understanding, which is a much more beneficial discussion than could be had here.

So in your open minded group no one believes PSA is in the Bible. Well, that would make for less rancorous argumentation I guess.

 

[JonC]

So in your open minded group no one believes PSA is in the Bible. Well, that would make for less rancorous argumentation I guess.

In my group most believe that PSA is correct, but they recognize that PSA is their understanding of what is in the Bible.

For example, the other night the argument went a few directions. But two stood out.

One was our understanding of justice. My friend indicated that he believed that when we sin justice requires a punishment for that sin. My argument was that justice required a punishment against the wickedness that produced that sin. The difference is he viewed sins have to be punished either in this life (by Jesus taking our punishment) or at Judgment (when the wicked will be punished for their sins) as opposed to my view thar divine punishment is reserved for the day of Judgment where the wicked who remain in their sins are justly condemned but the saved have been transformed into the image of Christ.

This difference is not only related to religion. We differ in terms of secular justice as well. So we had a very interesting discussion that helped us understand some of what influences how we interpret Scripture.

The second difference was the meaning of the Levitical sacrifice system. Here the meaning differed based on each of our overall understanding of redemption.

Another difference that stood out was forgiveness. He had to admit that he interprets Scripture to indicate (based on the previous topic) that it is impossible for God to forgive sins. Instead he interprets the passages speaking of God forgiving sins to mean God "forgives" man from a human standpoint. We see God's work as "forgiveness" but from an objective point of view God can never truely forgive as God has to punish sins.

This was beneficial as there are passages (such as God doing evil to Israel) which are centered on the human experience rather than God. It can be viewed as a legitimate interpretation if applied to man rather than the nature of God. So we identified a difference in how we view God that influences our views.


But yes, those in this group realize that the biblical text is not the same as how men understand the biblical text and differences in understanding of the biblical text accounts for differences in theology.



BUT to be fair there are several theology students, and pastors, in this group. And the whole group studies Scripture diligently (I just saw two of them at the coffee shop studying the Bible).

The first thing a student of Scripture learns is to separate his or her presuppositions from the Biblical text. Today this is foreign to many (our culture has moved towards subjective truth....whatever the verse means to you is actually "in the Bible").

This group takes God's Word more seriously and their understanding less important than most I have encountered on this board.

 

[JonC]

Well, that would make for less rancorous argumentation I guess.

It makes for a more Christian argument as it seems to quiet emotional arguments and ad hominem.

We agree on the text of Scripture (and, for rhe most part, the meaning of the words in the biblical text). So the difference is not the Bible but our subjective understanding.

So we can calmly discuss why we interpret passages differently while maintaining united in Christ.

 

[JesusFan]

Where does theology come from?

Better yet, where should theology come from?

Good theology and sound doctrine are vitally important to the church! Even if we end up in fights over it from time to time, it is far better than neglecting such things and going with subjective things like your emotions or whatever!

This has also been a battle throughout the ages. The Reformation turned into a scholastic mess where knowledge was king but there was little spiritual transformation going on. I believe that the Pietist movement (and the later Methodist movement) made corrections to this but turned to over-correction where emotionalism was the measure and there was distrust of anyone who was actually educated and knew a few things regarding biblical doctrine.

And also realize that IF someone has the right Jesus, and right Gospel, we can agree to disagree in ways that do not break down into throw spiritual hand grenades back and forth

 

[Ascetic X]

Another difference that stood out was forgiveness. He had to admit that he interprets Scripture to indicate (based on the previous topic) that it is impossible for God to forgive sins. Instead he interprets the passages speaking of God forgiving sins to mean God "forgives" man from a human standpoint. We see God's work as "forgiveness" but from an objective point of view God can never truely forgive as God has to punish sins.

This was beneficial as there are passages (such as God doing evil to Israel) which are centered on the human experience rather than God. It can be viewed as a legitimate interpretation if applied to man rather than the nature of God. So we identified a difference in how we view God that influences our views.

Impossible for God to forgive sins???

But the Bible is loaded with verses on the mercy and forgiveness of God.

The whole point of repenting is to reject sin and be forgiven for it.

Punishment for sins can come in the form of consequences that are triggered by sinful actions, but to believe in a God who cannot really forgive is to construct something extremely different from the God of the Bible.

“God has to punish sins” negates the truth of God’s mercy. His mercy and forgiveness is from God’s own desire and point of view, His grace and love for mankind.


Psalm 103

2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:

3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;


Isaiah 30:18

Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you,
and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you.
For the LORD is a God of justice;
blessed are all those who wait for him.


Isaiah 1:18

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.


Psalm 51:1

Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions.


I John 1:9

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

And also realize that IF someone has the right Jesus, and right Gospel, we can agree to disagree in ways that do not break down into throw spiritual hand grenades back and forth

I fully agree. I believe that "confessions" play a vital role in this be it Westminster, London Baptist, Belgic, New Hampshire, BFM 2000, or whatever you happen to subscribe. We can examine and study out matters of which we may disagree yet the confessions are there as somewhat of a "guardrail" ensuring we do not go off into the ditch!

 

[DaveXR650]

Impossible for God to forgive sins???

But the Bible is loaded with verses on the mercy and forgiveness of God.

The whole point of repenting is to reject sin and be forgiven for it.

You illustrate why you must have some understanding of theology. The dispute here is whether God can simply forgive sins outright, and disregard his sense of justice and thus his nature. In other words, can God forgive sin without atonement. This has come up on here before and I and other adherents of PSA as well as all believers who believe that the death of Christ actually in some way made it at least possible for God to forgive sins (be just and the justifier of those who come to him) are differentiated from some who have a view that the atonement does something else.

You seem so anxious to jump on something that might make Calvinism look bad that you immediately jumped on this statement. It is indeed quite outrageous to think that God simply forgives sin in light of massive scriptures indicating the need for atonement and propitiation. And believe me, much twisting and nuancing of scriptures have occurred on this board by supposedly trained theologians who condescendingly try to instruct those of us who believe that without the shedding of blood, specifically Christ's blood, there could be no remission of sins.