Is theology SUPPOSED to be simple?

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God (I Corithians 2:12)

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? (I Corinthians 2:11)

 

Charles Spurgeon, "Christ Lifted Up" (John 12:32):

 

Generally speaking, who was it that understood Jesus's teachings and were saved? Was it the highly educated religious leaders, or was it the average and more simple folks?

 

Excellent observation.

 

I guess that is a major point that we are confused about.

Why does the new Christian need to grow into the desire to attend a theological university? Why cannot the Christian grow into becomeing more Christ-like without having to progress into being able to come on to the BaptistBoard and argue with everyone? They certainly should not be required to be able to write posts that insult everyone else.

Most of the heated arguments here are not about how to be more like Christ. They are about Calvinism and Armenianism. They are about which version of the Bible you should select.

If it were only about drinking, smoking, dancing, movies, and short skirts; those answers do not require a university degree to understand. They require Bible lawyers only to find loopholes in Scripture or to find ways to interpret the Bible to make it say what we might want it to say.

A simple approach would be to read the Bible and see what it does say. If the Bible does not say, refer to our need to follow Jesus' commandment about love and pray for guidance from God.

Those of you who spend your years getting a PhD in Bible studies of one kind or another have your own calling. Is that the same calling that all of us are supposed to have?

The best teacher of God's word may never have seen the inside of a school of theology.

 

Well said SRbooe!!!!!!! Some of the best bible scholars I know never attended a school of theology....they received their knowledge from on high.

 

I'll tell you this fact, the effective preachers of the past certainly expressed more Grace in their sermons, books, and lives than the heady intellectuals we have today do on forums and in churches.

Why are those who: want to express to us their deep deep knowledge, and who display their Christian vitae, talk much of self, what they know, how much they've read, who they know personally among the high rank; typically seen as lacking grace in speech and spirit? Don't these also tout their understandings of the DoG as a badge of honor? (isn't this ironic, great understandings of the doctrine, but not musch in the practice) Don't these become weary when one points out their error and show great offense and a lack of any humility, and are unteachable? Where's the practice and influence thereof upon the life of its proponents? To be honest and fair here, so are the ones who lay claim to this "Scripture only" mentality, and also their inability and weakness in understanding Scriptures is glaring. Both sides are simply magnifying self, one in intellect, the other in some super spiritual light, but again, both are merely illuminating one thing; self.

I don't recall too many in past, talking of their degrees, talents, knowledge, social connections, schooling, theological slant, IQ, but instead their main thing is/was the main One, our Lord Jesus Christ. But let's not do that lest we suffer persecution. "...all those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution."


We should probably concentrate on the grow in grace part more than the latter, grow in knowledge part since it is chronologically given to us in proper order by divine decree. And because knowledge makes arrogant.

I am not discounting knowledge, or study. Some will take it that way.

 

Yes we know.

And theology is not simple, yet we have simpletons that try to express that it is. If this forum were in realtime, and we were to ask these here in a live setting, who are proponents that all of Scripture is simplistic, to expound certain passages, they would fail miserably. This super spiritual Scriptures only ideology is just another form of arrogance and pride.

They know full well the Scriptures are not as simple as they say.

 

I addressed that and said the same thing in my post. So I guess that makes me just as right as you are, or can it just not be so that I am right, but need you to line me out? You really should read the entire thread instead of going off on a rant.

What did you learn from this, personally?

Somehow you have concluded I meant all intellectuals are arrogant. Uh, go figure.

Again, that's what I said in my post. So again, I disagree with you since you didn't read nor understand the full sense of what I said.

They usually think this of themselves, instead of thinking they are unprofitable servants who are only doing what was commanded them to do

Not always. And arrogance is also a REAL thorn, by itself.

Uh, you don't think what is true? Everything I said, or your assumptions of what you think I said, or what you are trying to make it look like I said? Nothing I've said is untrue. So chill. I just said the same things in my post. Calm down and actually read I addressed both sides. I never stated that all today are such, but the majority are. Your examples don't disprove what I said. They're the exception, not the rule.

 

The thing is I said the exact same things you said. Then you come off like you're proving me wrong. You didn't read my thread. I stated the same things.

You also can't prove your side. Both sides are an attempt to prove ones self experientially. You feel your experiential knowledge proves you to be correct. I simply allude to the past saints who for the most part were full of grace, not arrogance.

I don't think, I know this is going to be very difficult for you, but, one more time: I said everything you said, prior to you saying it.

Learn to read before your lips start accusing one of saying something untrue which in itself is blatantly arrogant, and said in plain ignorance of the facts. What do you do, read half the post, then go on a rant? Obviously you didn't see the latter parts of my post.

Sometimes others actually agree with you, and have already thought out and said the same things you've said, if you'd slow down and actually read them before your fingers get ahead of your brain.

 

So, nobody is going to answer the questions I asked.

There must be a reason that people want to think that the Bible is too complex for the common man.

 

Has someone said the Bible is too complex for common man?

I think some things are easy, some things are not. But common man can understand the Gospel, which is paramount.

What are you getting at with stating "there must be a reason that people want to think that the Bible is too complex for common man"?

What were your questions?

 

Post 86

This whole thread is about how complex theology is. Read the first post again.

English is not my second language. Some of you have a habit of belittling people's posts without ever trying to see the point. Does that come from such a strong desire to be right more than a desire to Communicate?

 

You think so, huh? Perhaps what most of the bickering in this thread is forgetting is that not everyone needs to be a theologian to fulfill his or her place in God's plan in the place where God has planted them.

For instance, one using scripture to preach the dangers of drinking alcohol in a place where alcohol abuse is rampant uses scripture just as correctly as the one who preaches moderation in a place where alcohol abuse is rare. Neither one is "wrong", both are right for their place.

Luke and I disagree on "calvinism". Just because I think he is wrong, doesn't mean that God doesn't want him to believe just as he does for the purposes of his own place. Just because he thinks I am wrong, doesn't mean that God doesn't want me to believe as I do because the place I am in includes folk who were raised by a man who refused to believe at all because he was born illegitimate and nothing could convince him that the passage about a "bast*rd not entering the gates of heaven" was meant symbolically, not literally. (specifically he believed that this passage clearly damned all illegitimate children to hell as part of God's election)

Everything for a time and everything for a purpose.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: