To be fair, I think what you've stated is what jesusfan intended, in that, the God he witnessed in these circles differed from the God of Scripture, hence Bible first means God first in context of what he said.
He and He alone as presented in Scripture? Yes.
Too Consumed With Theology - quiz
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by BobinKy, Jun 18, 2011.
Page 5 of 6
-
-
-
-
I see what he intended. He looked for the God of Scripture, something lacking in his AG experiences, and it looks like he's found Him. -
Havensdad...
I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my post and providing your perspective to my comments. During supper, I was thinking how to proceed with this thread. I think your last post was certainly a step in the right direction.
Now, I do disagree with some of what you said. Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking the time to provide the comments you did.
So, if you can keep a level head and refrain from disrespectful comments, I would like to continue the discussion on the topic of this thread. And I will refrain from posting cartoons and such during our discussion.
. . .
I am not new to the discipline of theology. I am 61 years old and have been reading theology and other spiritual books for the past 45 years--if you include a minor in religion during my college days. I have owned and read books on Christian theology during these past 4 1/2 decades, while following a business career and raising a family. Below, to the best of my memory, is a sampling of the theologians I have studied.
Augustine (354 - 430)
Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274)
Martin Luther (1483–1546)
Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531)
John Calvin (1509–1564)
James Arminius (1560–1609)
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758)
John Wesley (1703–1791)
Adam Clarke (1762–1832)
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834)
James Petigru Boyce (1827–1888)
Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871 – 1952)
Louis Berkhof (1873–1957)
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976)
Paul Tillich (1886–1965)
Karl Barth (1886–1968)
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971)
H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962)
Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–1988)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945)
Francis Schaeffer (1912–1984)
Carl F. H. Henry (1913–2003)
Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1925-)
J. I. Packer (1926- )
Thomas C. Oden (1931- )
Millard J. Erickson (1932-)
Wayne Grudem (194:cool:
Stanley Grenz (1950–2005)
Alister McGrath (1953- )
Currently, I have purged the above theology books from my personal library with the exception of the following.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Walter A. Elwell, 2001).
Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Thomas C. Oden, 1987).
Vol. 1: The Living God
Vol. 2: The Word of Life
Vol. 3: Life in the Spirit
Thus, my current theologian is Thomas Oden.
. . .
There is one more concept I wish to mention in this post—Stools of theology. Instead of legs of a stool, this concept is presented as lenses we use to know God.
The traditional stools (or lenses) of Christian theology are as follows.
Evangelical Protestant
One leg/lens: Scripture
Catholic
Two legs/lenses: Scripture, tradition
Anglican
Three legs/lenses: Scripture, tradition, reason
Wesleyan
Four legs/lenses: Scripture, tradition, reason, experience
My current theological perspective is Wesleyan—a four legged stool of theology, or theological optical glasses with four lenses.
I mention the stools/lenses of theology because I have read some posts in this thread (other than my own) that mention experience as a way of knowing God.
It appears that your theological perspective has one leg; however, I am not sure if that leg is Scripture or Theology. Perhaps, you can explain this dichotomy to me in a future post.
. . .
Thus, you and I enter this discussion on theology from different perspectives, different points of view. I do not think either of us should have any hopes of changing the other’s perspective. Nor do I think we should spend our energies playing at the game of one-up-manship--"My perspective, my theology is better than yours, and yours is all wrong." Nor should we resort to disrespectful name calling as some have already done in this thread.
What I think we can accomplish, however, is an understanding of each other’s perspective, each other’s theology. And an acknowledgement that Christ endorses several paths for his children. What may be hard for you, is to come to that acknowledgement. I really do not want to win you over to my perspective. Rather, I will be happy if you come to the acknowledgment that there are several paths for the Christian faith.
For myself, I would like to learn more about the theology-based faith (Calvinist Baptist) you and others speak about in this thread.
Please let me know what you want to do.
…Bob -
What we ARE saying, and Havensdad said this clearly, is that emotions should not dictate our theological direction. I was a tad more complex in my own remarks, suggesting that an evidential or existential version of Christianity will almost always miss the mark set by the surety of Scripture. -
Interestingly, Odin, as a theologian, has become more conservative and has retreated from his former liberal views. He has been favorably cited of late by Piper.
That your favorite theologian is an Arminian Wesleyan, however, is telling.
Also telling is that you are following a THEOLOGIAN who is in process pioneering a new theology that disavows theology...
-
However, I do not understand the following comment you made about Odin and the OP. Perhaps you can speak more about this.
I have another interest, which I am not sure if it is theological or church history. I am interested in the concept of the primitive church--contemporary churches modeling the first century church. Sometime, after all of the brouhaha dies down on this current theology thread, I might start a thread on the topic of the primitive church. I know that is not your current church involvement, but I still would like to read your comments.
. . .
I am serious about wanting to learn about what appears to be a Calvinist/Reformed Baptist theology-based faith. I don't want to argue it--just learn about it and understand the perspective.
. . .
You were correct about one thing in your last post directed to me. Currently, I am experiential in matters of my personal faith, my personal spirituality. Those that attempt to describe this faith approach as emotional have got it all wrong.
This is illustrated a while back (two years ago), when I had the opportunity to experience the services and faith of an Africian American Pentecostal church (AAPC). I ran into a former work associate who was very active in an AAPC. I asked if I could attend and he took me along. The church was small, more like a family church. I attended for several weeks, soaking it all up. I do not think I have ever felt more welcome in any congregation. And when Sunday services were over (around 3 p.m. or so), I knew I had been to church!
A few years ago I read a very interesting book - The Story of Christian Spirituality: Two Thousand Years, From East to West (ed. Gordon Mursell, Fortress Press, 2001).
I guess this book fits my perspective about the topic of this thread. More than anything, I think the book is an overview of the various paths the Christian Faith has taken over the last 2000 years. I found the book to be a milestone in my faith walk. I began to seek out corners in the Christian faith. After 2000 years, there have been many corners in Christianity. There is a lot of good stuff in the corners.
. . .
And I guess I may be off on another spiritual journey.
My wife and I have been attending a Free Will Baptist Church--her brother is the pastor.
Well, last night she announced she is a closet fundamentalist and wants to seek the most fundi-fundamentalist in town.
I told her there is an independent Baptist nearby that I had visited a couple of times when she was out of town. However, I told her she may not like it that much--the women wear lace doily-type coverings on their heads. Something like the following image, but square, not round, and a wee bit bigger.
. . .
I may be coming to Southern Seminary sometime this summer. I am doing some research on one of my wife's ancestors who was a Baptist preacher (United Baptist) circa 1830s. I have heard the library at Southern Seminary has some items from that time period in their special collections and vertical files. Send me a PM if you want to meet and have a cup of coffee during my visit.
. . .
May God give you more and more grace and peace as you grow in your knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord.
(2 Peter 1:2; NLT 2007)
...Bob -
I totally agree with you in this, of COURSE Jesus, father, Holy Spirit ALONE are to be the primary focus in our Christian lives ...
meant to actually say regardless of the 'spiritual" experiences that are going on, the Bible and IT alone is to be our primary source/text/guide to Christian truths!
There MIGHT be other means and ways Lord can even today prompt lead direct guide us, but ALL must be subservient to the Bible, it ALONE is the infallible source of Christian knowledge from God for today...
We worship God, Not the bible, that would Biblliogy! falsely worshiping the Book, and not its Author! -
I believe that we fall in and out of heresies, or perhaps just errors or "corners" as you mention below, without really realizing it, largely because of a general apathy or ignorance of historical theology. To that end, I HIGHLY commend Gregg Allison's new work, "Historical Theology," where he traces Grudem's systematic topics through history to see major developments and views, including a very helpfully researched compendium of original source document quotes.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310230136/?tag=baptis04-20
Note that I am not "against" the reading of the Church Fathers! MUCH is to be gained from understanding (or even just acknowledging) their contribution to our current state of theological affairs. We have not crafted an orthodox Christian worldview ex nihilo in this era. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before, and if anything, we merely hone arguments and propositions that have been with the church since its inception.
On that note, one thing very helpful for modern theology is the simple fact that we are now better equipped to grasp the original languages than were many of the Fathers of the Church -- especially after 300 AD when Latin was the rule of the day, not Greek and Hebrew. Much was lost during the Dark Ages and Medieval periods and the Enlightenment period was virtually "lit" by the rediscovery of the ancient tongues and documents! We now have 500 years of enlightenment scholarship brought to bear on OT and NT documents, plus the aid of powerful computers that can "crunch" more morphology in 10 minutes than a doctor of the church in a lifetime. In other words, we can epistemologically "know" with more surety now than most of the Fathers of the Church down through the ages could know based on the efforts of those who have devoted their life to the study of God and God's Word/languages/culture, etc.
There is much ado these days about returning to a primitive church model. That is fine, except that we ought to pay careful attention to two words, "description" and "prescription" in those efforts. To go out and model a persecuted house church because that is the "description" in Acts would be to make an error that doesn't have to be made. That same house church can also be shown meeting corporately when possible, and at the very instant that the church was not persecuted to death it branched out into large gatherings almost immediately, as was the normal practice inherited from the Temple of Jerusalem and the synagogue of the rest of Israel prior to the founding of the church.
Other practices such as liturgy, vestments, lighting (candles, etc.) may be as much cultural as "proscribed." In fact, there are very few "prescriptions" for the actions of a local church in Scripture. Most of what we know is gathered by the writings of the Fathers and by archeology, not from Scripture, which is largely silent on church practice. We know reading Scripture, OT and NT. We know singing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. We know preaching. We know the Lord's Table and Baptism. But after that, we really don't know... Even our forms are largely traditional versus prescribed.
All that being said, my current church is more closely aligned with what IS known of the primitive church than of a modern church. We have vetted what can be known from Scripture and have built our congregation accordingly. We are culturally immersed in this era, and with a particular people group that we are reaching, but our practice hearkens back to Scripture and the primitive church.
Oh, and primitive doesn't have to me no sound system or no creature comforts. It is more a "state of being" than "stuff."
BUT... Some of those "corners" were and are "corners" for a reason. They end up at dead ends and the congregations never withstood the test of time, which suggests at a bare minimum that the Holy Spirit did not carry them forward into the mainstream. That ought to be at least a consideration in such an investigation!
And, I find the fundamentalist (versus congregations that focus on the fundamentals of the faith -- two different things!) congregations to be doing just that -- working too hard to appease God in order to find some sort of blessing. It is interesting that in a survey of historical movements of the church that the radical fundamentalists also end up becoming the most anti-nomian at the end of the day, and after observation of many persons and churches. It would seem that their zeal is misplaced by looking TOO much on man and not enough on God! Hope that is taken in the right spirit, but I've seen it time after time in an experiential nature as well. When it all comes down to us to DO then when we fail, we often fail BIG. God, however, never fails, and keeping our focus on Him, as did our Savior, we don't get led into false concern over minutiae by observation of each other quite so much. Our faith is rightly placed on Christ alone.
The library has a LOT of stuff... Our archives feature all of Spurgeon's collection and a lot of other influential pieces. It is a treasure-trove with over 1 million pieces. -
Bob's Heresy Post
This post will be my confession of some of the heresies in my personal spiritual life.
I have not heard the word "heresy" for some time. I actually looked up the heresy article at Wikipedia before writing this post. I also ran across a recent book on the topic.
Over the years, I have written several personal statements of faith, attempting to set down what I believe to be my personal core beliefs. I think I used Boyce's Abstracts of Systematic Theology as a guide for one or two of my written statements.
However, of late, I have taken to saying the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed as part of my daily prayer time. On that point, I must confess that I use the Morning Prayer outline in the Book of Common Prayer to wrap around my daily prayer, praise, scripture reading, and scripture study. Yes, I sing (or chant) a psalm every day. I am not a lone Baptist in this practice. Here is a website from a Baptist in Alaska who does something similar: Prayer Book Baptist.
I do not know if this is heretical or not, but to be safe I better confess -- I keep three running spiritual notebooks (7" x 5" spiral) in my personal study. I use Pigma Micron Archival Ink acid-free pens to make my entries.
Scripture Notebook
(log of scripture reading paths--Psalm, OT, NT, and Gospel)
Prayer Notebook
(log of my prayers)
Soul Notebook
(log of spiritual reflections and quotes from Study Bibles, commentaries, and spiritual writers)
Before I close this heresy post, I have one more confession -- I am an avid reader of Thomas Merton's writings and poetry. Once every year or two, I make a trip to The Thomas Merton Center there in Louisville at Bellarmine University. Sometimes I drive to the Abbey of Gethsemani at Trappist, Kentucky. And I have a copy of the following Merton quote hanging on the wall in my study.
"In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut, in the center of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all these people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. It was like waking from a dream of separateness...I have the immense joy of being man, a member of a race in which God Himself became incarnate..."
Thomas Merton (Kentucky Poet, Monk, and Spiritual Writer)
That about does it for my heresy post.
...Bob -
That is exactly right.
A hum drum attitude toward theology is a violation of part of the Greatest Commandment: "To love the Lord your God with all your... MIND..." -
Let us make sure we get the rest of the great commandment, which is what this thread is about.
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Matt 22:36-40; KJB)
...Bob -
In a church culture that is allergic to truth, it's hard to make an argument that sound theology is a bad thing. True theology leads to piety, and true piety leads to a study of the things of God we call theology.
-
Bobinky... do you also pray the rosary? Confess to a priest somewhere? I'm sure a Baptist somehwere does that, which, you know, if someone else is doin' it, well then, that justifies it! I know a couple of Baptists that read Awake! Of course, they can't stand too much theology either. They want to make sure they aren't missing something.
Wouldn't want you to miss out on it if one out there does these things. -
God needs to have both our hearts/minds, so that sound Theology ends up getting applied to our daily lives...
My pastor expalined it this way....
we can either be storing up teasure for JUST ourselves in the Storm or else have a "leaky" boat overflow and bring others along with us! -
I'm the one arguing for both/and; while he seems to be arguing for either/or (or "all or nothing").
-
-
Consider:
What is the origin of "Books of Prayer?" Catholicism? Yes. Episcopalian? You betcha.
The Books of Common Prayer, Anglican/Episcopalian/Catholic. Other "Books of Prayer" are Catholic. This book from Episcopalians copied the same religious practice of her mother church: RC.
So I presented the rosary. What is wrong with the Rosary? It's not far off from these books. So what stops one from praying the rosary? It's also a "cited" prayer is it not?
The point is where does one draw a line theologically?
I stand on my examples given.
Furthermore, if Catholicism leads to false (no) salvation, and also Episcopalianism, it differs not from the end of JW's.
Thus my point. Nothing uncharitable about that.
Imagine a Baptist rebuking a Baptist over this in our day and time. -
I don't know if you have read the Book of Common Prayer but it mostly just scriputure quotes: Seen Here
And I don't see anything non-Baptist (or more importantly, non-Christian) about using it as a guide or inspiration in your times of prayer.
Page 5 of 6