How to adjust

[Rich]

Hi, could a continuum exist here, without being all or nothing? 

I think, which means my opinion only, is that sometimes a question of what supercedes what in influence in each of us as an individual is important for that individual to discern.  Over emphasis on Theology, time has shown, seems to have  tendency to permit people to become defensive and offensive, as this has become higher value for that individual.  Also, seems that being caught up in ones view of a interpretation is easier to follow then what we are called to do in general.  Anyone can do this.  At same time, if one has means to, spending time with scripture is very important as is trying to understand at some level.  But, think that sliding more on scale back to what Ded says is where world was changed, changed fast, and changed hard.  At same time, think theology certainly played a part.
Peace to all and will step back to being spectator as enjoying the discussion.  Thanks.

[MLCCP]

Hi, could a continuum exist here, without being all or nothing? 

I think, which means my opinion only, is that sometimes a question of what supercedes what in influence in each of us as an individual is important for that individual to discern.  Over emphasis on Theology, time has shown, seems to have  tendency to permit people to become defensive and offensive, as this has become higher value for that individual.  Also, seems that being caught up in ones view of a interpretation is easier to follow then what we are called to do in general.  Anyone can do this.  At same time, if one has means to, spending time with scripture is very important as is trying to understand at some level.  But, think that sliding more on scale back to what Ded says is where world was changed, changed fast, and changed hard.  At same time, think theology certainly played a part.
Peace to all and will step back to being spectator as enjoying the discussion.  Thanks.

I don't really disagree with what you said.  There should  be no conflict between the study of scripture and Theology. Not studying theology would be like an Engineer not sudying mathematics.

[VineBranch]

The definition of theology you submitted was:

the·ol·o·gy/?i'?l?d?i/ Show Spelled [thee-ol-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·ol·o·gies. 
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

When you say that someone has bad theology do you mean they have inferior methodology by which to understand or study?

[VineBranch]

Reply to VinceBranch *56

VB--In all fairness, there was no systematic doctrine of Christ yet.

I never said their was. I was referring to Systematic Thelogy as practiced today.

You said:  "The theology of the Pharisees stressed the outward appearances and ceremonies of the thousand and one rules they manufactured, instead of the doctrines of Christ." 

[VineBranch]

The bible decides what is good or bad theology and that's why in the place of proof texting, one should study the Analogy of Scripture. As they say, scripture interprets scripture. If you have no theology at all and  dismiss doctrine as a bad word, then you are equivalent to the guy who whoes into the forrest and hugs a tree and is mumbling about feeling the presence of God.

Like I keep saying, the modern day church in many cases, has abandoned theology and consider doctrine a dirty word--and it shows.

Forgive this comment I beg you if it's rude, or insensitive, but did you just put yourself up as the authority on proper theology?

[Rich]

Hi,

First, know said previously would bow out but wish to clarify last post due to feedback recieved.  With continuum, I go more towards what I perceive Sheila and Ded as saying.  Think both as we seperate them are important, but think the weight leans heavily towards their view.  Do not wish to offend or shut off conversation but to continue it, so say, this is one fallible persons opinion.

Who here can say on the majority of things, what is correct and incorrect? 

To the conversation, as an example, this Tuesday, my beloved mother, Orea Letitia, will have been gone for one year.  In 92, she fell from horse and suffered brain damage.  This had much adverse impact.  Sure myself and many others could quote things and run circles around her and make her "fool" if we wished.  Her simple and literally, unbending faith, in our God, brings tears to my eyes this evening, still.  I am humbled by what saw and thank her and God for this experience.  She did not argue theology as so precious, she just did and she just loved and she just had faith. 

In modern times, the story of the Hmar people shows more evidence of where on continuum of hierachy of focus should be.  With ego at forefront, if the great believer approached them not only would he have been eaten, but these people today, who are considered widely successful and great believers, would not be.  This was demonstration of God's power I believe.  A hero of mine, John Wesley, a great theologian in my opinion, was brought much closer to God due to the dramatic demonstration of faith (versus cognitive and keyboard illustrated) by what the intellectuals would call a simple people.  The early gentile Christians, the faith was not spread by theology and doctrine at cognitive level alone, but by being prostrate or on knees, and by their loving acts.

This all to me, is what history, the written Word, and life, has shown. 

Too much emphasis the other way as perceive discussion in some parts is being driven, has been shown time and time again what it can wreak.  What is most substantive gets subordinated. 

Lastly, intuition and feelings have a place, I believe.  We are given this ability by Him.  What has been quoted previously is serious business for sure, but not all or nothing thing?  Healthy, healthy warning for sure regarding feelings, but does not say to throw them away. 

In ways will not express, this thread has been very good to me so thankful for this.

Take good care please.

Peace.

[eaglesway]

Actually, I think MC's comment was a pretty reasonable statement about theology and doctrine in general. It is true that the church today is poor in the word of truth- otherwise we would not be in the degree of minority we are, who uphold the doctrine of the the restoration of all things.

[MLCCP]

The definition of theology you submitted was:

the·ol·o·gy/?i'?l?d?i/ Show Spelled [thee-ol-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·ol·o·gies. 
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

When you say that someone has bad theology do you mean they have inferior methodology by which to understand or study?

It certainly could  be inferior methodology. For example, one could be  like Origen,  who  maintained that every verse had four meanings to it.  Bad theology, as an example, would be a theology that leads one to believe that only members of one particular denomination will be saved.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we "believe" the Scriptures say. What matters is what was the meaning the writer was trying to get across. In most cases that means you take the verse to mean what any ordinary person reading it would understand it to mean.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

Article VII.
We affirm that the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single, definite and fixed.
We deny that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its application.
The Affirmation here is directed at those who claim a "double" or "deeper" meaning to Scripture than that expressed by the authors. It stresses the unity and fixity of meaning as opposed to those who find multiple and pliable meanings. What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to change by readers. This does not imply that further revelation on the subject cannot help one come to a fuller understanding, but simply that the meaning given in a text is not changed because additional truth is revealed subsequently.
Meaning is also definite in that there are defined limits by virtue of the author's expressed meaning in the given linguistic form and cultural context. Meaning is determined by an author; it is discovered by the readers.The Denial adds the clarification that simply because Scripture has one meaning does not imply that its messages cannot be applied to a variety of individuals or situations. While the interpretation is one, the applications can be many.

I think the above is a fairly good statement on a correct Hermeneutics. If one were to maintain turning most of scripture into an allegory, then you can make the scripture mean anything you want it to. People do that with the bible all the time,  but rarely with any other type of writing, like in Shakespeare, for example.

[VineBranch]

There is also strong evidence that Peter may have been illiterate. Yes, Paul was a master thwologian but it didn't mean a thing until Jesus knocked him upside the head on the road to Damascus and then taught him personally.

We have lots of evidence that Peter was illiterate ded.  In fact, it wasn't at all unusual for the men in that society to know how to read, but not how to write.  The Gospel of Mark is actually the Gospel of Peter; Mark was Peter's secretary who took down the words.  When I was a kid, I was writing long before I could read.  We see now that the acts of reading, and writing are two separate things.  I think in this society, because they are taught at the same time, we tend to see them as related:  apparently they aren't.

I loved your reflection on Paul.  So, you gotta ask yourself:  did Paul see the light because his theology changed, or did he see the light because his relationship with God changed?

[VineBranch]

Actually, I think MC's comment was a pretty reasonable statement about theology and doctrine in general. It is true that the church today is poor in the word of truth- otherwise we would not be in the degree of minority we are, who uphold the doctrine of the the restoration of all things.

I'm not disagreeing with that.  What I noticed was that we are told what to look at and how to look at it:  "... in the place of proof texting, one should study the Analogy of Scripture."  I am being told which specific form of theology I 'should' use.  When I studied theology there were many brands of exegesis open to students, I thought they were merely different.  Now I find out there is actually only one I SHOULD use.  I was just curious as to who became the authority on which avenue of theology became the 'right' one for all of us? That's why I asked him if he was the authority.

[ded2daworld]

Exactly VB. :thumbsup:

[VineBranch]

Hi,

First, know said previously would bow out but wish to clarify last post due to feedback recieved.  With continuum, I go more towards what I perceive Sheila and Ded as saying.  Think both as we seperate them are important, but think the weight leans heavily towards their view.  Do not wish to offend or shut off conversation but to continue it, so say, this is one fallible persons opinion.

Who here can say on the majority of things, what is correct and incorrect? 

To the conversation, as an example, this Tuesday, my beloved mother, Orea Letitia, will have been gone for one year.  In 92, she fell from horse and suffered brain damage.  This had much adverse impact.  Sure myself and many others could quote things and run circles around her and make her "fool" if we wished.  Her simple and literally, unbending faith, in our God, brings tears to my eyes this evening, still.  I am humbled by what saw and thank her and God for this experience.  She did not argue theology as so precious, she just did and she just loved and she just had faith. 

In modern times, the story of the Hmar people shows more evidence of where on continuum of hierachy of focus should be.  With ego at forefront, if the great believer approached them not only would he have been eaten, but these people today, who are considered widely successful and great believers, would not be.  This was demonstration of God's power I believe.  A hero of mine, John Wesley, a great theologian in my opinion, was brought much closer to God due to the dramatic demonstration of faith (versus cognitive and keyboard illustrated) by what the intellectuals would call a simple people.  The early gentile Christians, the faith was not spread by theology and doctrine at cognitive level alone, but by being prostrate or on knees, and by their loving acts.

This all to me, is what history, the written Word, and life, has shown. 

Too much emphasis the other way as perceive discussion in some parts is being driven, has been shown time and time again what it can wreak.  What is most substantive gets subordinated. 

Lastly, intuition and feelings have a place, I believe.  We are given this ability by Him.  What has been quoted previously is serious business for sure, but not all or nothing thing?  Healthy, healthy warning for sure regarding feelings, but does not say to throw them away. 

In ways will not express, this thread has been very good to me so thankful for this.

Take good care please.

Peace.

Rich.

Thank you for touching my heart with your story.

I have come to believe that when it's all said and done, when you ask people what convinced them there was something to the story of God, the answer will be more along the lines of...

The old lady down the street would got to the soup kitchen every day and serve.  When I was shovelling her walk I would sometimes look into the window and see she was praying.  She loved God and showed people in so many ways she loved them.  Her smile, her warmth, her generosity showed me there was a better way, a way that made my heart not hurt all the time.  I asked her what she knew, and then I asked her to pray for me because my heart yearned for more.  I don't think I ever knew her 'theology'.  I don't think it mattered.  I saw her love.

But then, I'm just guessin'.

[Lazarus Short]

Nice, VB! :iagree:

After reading you post just now, it entered my mind that the Shakers did NOT sing this:

"...and they'll know we're God's children by our theology, by our theology,
yes, they'll know we're God's children by our theology."

[I hate to say it, but...] The Beatles were right when they sang, "All you need is Love!"

[MLCCP]

Actually, I think MC's comment was a pretty reasonable statement about theology and doctrine in general. It is true that the church today is poor in the word of truth- otherwise we would not be in the degree of minority we are, who uphold the doctrine of the the restoration of all things.

I'm not disagreeing with that.  What I noticed was that we are told what to look at and how to look at it:  "... in the place of proof texting, one should study the Analogy of Scripture."  I am being told which specific form of theology I 'should' use.  When I studied theology there were many brands of exegesis open to students, I thought they were merely different.  Now I find out there is actually only one I SHOULD use.  I was just curious as to who became the authority on which avenue of theology became the 'right' one for all of us? That's why I asked him if he was the authority.

There are many forms of theology open to students, but only one that is true. How do you know the right one? The Holy Spirit is the authority and the enabler. He will lead all, sooner or later, in all truth.

Which theology should you use? I would answer the theology that was written in the canon of Holy Writ.

[ded2daworld]

I'm thinking of the demoniac of the Gaddarenes. When the people saw him (post Jesus contact) he was clothed and in his right mind. Actually, thinking back, I can't remember anytime Jesus cured someone and told them to learn theology and/or get their doctrine straight. It was either go tell others, do not tell anyone, or go and sin no more(Not sinning is loving - loving is not sinning)
The only people he told to learn the scriptures to were the pharisees - those that already knew the scriptures. They were told to learn what it means because they knew theology, they knew doctrine, they knew scripture, but they didn't know love.

[micah7:9]

VB and Ded.........your comments warm my heart and soothe my eyes. Thanks with Love. :HeartThrob:

[marie glen]

All very eloquently put and very down to earth! It kinda reminds me of what Jesus said how we should become as little children.. I'm glad we don't have to go around spouting theology and doctrinal beliefs in our relationships with others! What a bore one could become! That said, I have an absolute and ecstatic passion for truth!  :laughing7: ...and study. (Of God's Word, of course.)

These days after getting tired of reading in the new testament how something was prophesied in the old, i've begun to work my way through those prophecies of salvation and Jesus, starting with genesis 3:15(rev 21:4b and others), then on into Abraham and currently moving into Isaac's life (I'm following more or less a list in one of my bibles in its bible helps, of prophecies of and fulfillments of). I knew by reading Paul's letters that "the seed" all the promises and all nations and families of the earth would be "blessed in", is Jesus, but I like knowing where these promises were made.. First when Abraham was called out.. then again at other important events of his life and sojourn.. I like to study slow so I can absorb.. besides, I'm getting a bit more forgetful :eek: Is this theology or doctrine?  :dontknow: (Won't we all more or less be students/teachers during the millenium/2nd advent? and teachers after the 2nd resurrection?)

I guess "doctrine" to me is something like - is Jesus returning on the clouds and every eye will see Him or does He come secretly in the 1st or 2nd watch? (of the night) Or, is trinity Father and Son are one or Father and Son are two, or are they both one and two.. Yes I love all these topics. And yes I feel I have the right perception of them! :pointlaugh:

But theology, to me, would be our overall view.. like saved by grace or by measuring up..  and yes I love that topic too, though I suppose it too is doctrine? :Chinscratch:

"theology" in my old fashioned merriam-webster print dictionary says "the study of religion and religious ideas and beliefs; a branch of theology treating of God and His relation to the world; a theory or system of theology

"doctrine" - "something that is taught, dogma, tenet"

"dogma" - doctrine or body of doctrines formally proclaimed by a church

So if someone asks me what is my doctrine(s) - I perhaps don't have one. But if I'm asked what is my theology, they are asking what is my system of belief....?

Maybe I don't have that either! or of course I do but it's not what I study..? Of course someone else's idea of theology may differ from mine.. I can have a system of belief, but is it what one studies?

"Man shall not live by bread alone.." :smile:

[ded2daworld]

Marie said, "I knew by reading Paul's letters that "the seed" all the promises and all nations and families of the earth would be "blessed in", is Jesus, "

If one is only eligible for salvation and be reconciled to God IN THIS LIFE, I wonder how ET figures ALL the nations were blessed in Christ? :doh:

[marie glen]

hmmmm :Chinscratch: ... exactLy, Ded! :dsunny: how in the world is it so missed? UR, that is. :smile:

[ded2daworld]

I heard one preacher say because America is the only Christian nation, that ALL nations have been blessed because of the USA.
Very patriotic but ignores reality. :laugh:

[rosered]

   Rich that  was awesome !!!  just awesome  , thanks for sharing   this about you mom ,
mine just passed over  in Dec  and  you remined me of what she said     to me one day when they were having  a  church meeting   at the nursing home and it was  denominationlly based

She said They believe in Jesus , and thats good enough for me !  :HeartThrob:
Iam also remined of Jesus saying to the  disciples when they were  frustrated  that some other follower of Christ    was casting out devils in Jesus name  , they   were wanting Jesus to forbid him to do that , Jesus corrected them   saying  .. well here it is

Mar 9:38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.

  I really do not think  act or work done in LOVE   can be fruitless ,  no matter what you believe

  Thanks   to all contributers      !!  good thread  :girlheart:

[MLCCP]

The bible decides what is good or bad theology and that's why in the place of proof texting, one should study the Analogy of Scripture. As they say, scripture interprets scripture. If you have no theology at all and  dismiss doctrine as a bad word, then you are equivalent to the guy who whoes into the forrest and hugs a tree and is mumbling about feeling the presence of God.

Like I keep saying, the modern day church in many cases, has abandoned theology and consider doctrine a dirty word--and it shows.

Forgive this comment I beg you if it's rude, or insensitive, but did you just put yourself up as the authority on proper theology?

It is these type of comments that keep me away from these internet forums. I didn't set myself up as an authority on anything.  I'm searching and inquiring like everyone else. I've had enough of this.

[jabcat]

It's been a week or so for me finally accepting the fact that the bible teaches universal salvation for all of God's creation, and in that time I have been called "crazy," "nuts," and a "heretic." I must be on the right path.

Wish you'd hang around. 

[Rich]

Hi,
First, thanks for sentiments expressed rose.  Sorry about your loss.  Think regardless of our beliefs on perhaps being happy for them, the missing part...  Take good care of yourself.

MLCCP, am learning the art of forum.  It is different.  I am guest here and push a little for sure as am going to step away as have much to contemplate.  You seem to have much happen to you in brief minute as you have shared.  Think this forum is good for you.  Many of us still have vestiges of THIS IS THE WAY IT IS that get in way.  This is most open site have seen.  Think how we say things on forum is important and heck, this is huge challenge for me, so we keep trying. 

Since this is last diatribe will continue.  MLCCP, could you imagine if God said, THIS IS THE BOOK I HAVE WRITTEN....?  From what you have observed from us humans, history would have made the inquisitions look like a party.  We would be the Christian Taliban, world wide and continuos.  God perhaps knows something about us.  This is Jewish background and internal poking and questioning is a most healthy thing I think.  I have scoured this site, and just do not see malice as intent.  Will miss this place for sure and hope you reconsider. 
You start off yourself qualifying and then move to saying not whether you agree or not but what is correct or incorrect.  Not so hip to what Aramaic Bible is and would have loved discussion on whether what think it is.  Just can not see Paul discussing to Greek world in language other than Greek, let alone all four Gospels written in that language, etc..  By leaving brother, you miss answering this and participating in great give and take on many threads.  A secular new age type guy said, ego=edging God out.  Swallow pride and get back in here with these folks because I sense you have much to learn and have very much to offer.
Thanks to all, take great care, and best of luck MLCCP.

[eaglesway]

There is also strong evidence that Peter may have been illiterate. Yes, Paul was a master thwologian but it didn't mean a thing until Jesus knocked him upside the head on the road to Damascus and then taught him personally.

We have lots of evidence that Peter was illiterate ded.  In fact, it wasn't at all unusual for the men in that society to know how to read, but not how to write.  The Gospel of Mark is actually the Gospel of Peter; Mark was Peter's secretary who took down the words.  When I was a kid, I was writing long before I could read.  We see now that the acts of reading, and writing are two separate things.  I think in this society, because they are taught at the same time, we tend to see them as related:  apparently they aren't.

I loved your reflection on Paul.  So, you gotta ask yourself:  did Paul see the light because his theology changed, or did he see the light because his relationship with God changed?

Once Paul's relationship with God changed, did His theology change? Obviously it did, and Paul gave us most of our doctrine and theology, ALL THE WHILE NEVER RELEASING THE ASCENDENCY OF LOVE OVER KNOWLEDGE! :o) But at no point did he encourage us to leave knowledge behind- he simply exhorted us to KEEP IT IN ITS PROPER PLACE, under the love and humility of the divine nature- a tool for edification as opposed to A WEAPON IN CONTENTIONS.