Misunderstandings about theology

[Longfellow]

Sometimes people might think that some theology is a way for them to know and understand what their scriptures say, but theology isn’t always designed or intended for that purpose, and sometimes it even creates confusion and misunderstandings. Trinity theology is one example. Much of it was developed to solve social problems, not to help people understand the text itself. Councils and theologians often introduced concepts to:
• block modalism
• avoid tritheism
• counter Arianism
• stabilize community boundaries
• create doctrinal coherence

It’s about what not to teach, not about how to understand anything that the scriptures actually say. The theology itself says that it’s beyond understanding, so it can’t be a way to better understand what the scriptures say. Every time anyone tries to make it understandable, they end ip saying something false that the early church itself denounced as heresy.

For understanding, I think that it’s better for people to immerse themselves in the story and read the relevant passages themselves in that context.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Well, I can add nothing to that.

Regards Tony

 

[TheLightWithin]

What you say is true.

The distinctions between biblical theology and systematic theology never seemed clear to me.
The distinctions between "orthodoxy" and so called "heresy" often seemed arbitrary and power driven.
I don't even understand why some ideas were considered "heresy" or why they had to be blocked and countered.

 

[rocala]

It’s about what not to teach,

A worrying phrase that sounds like preparation for outright banning.

The theology itself says that it’s beyond understanding,

To say this about a physical phenomenon could make sense. When said about an idea, it sounds like an inability to admit that it is nonsense, at least by the state of understanding of that period.

 

[Thomas]

Sometimes people might think that some theology is a way for them to know and understand what their scriptures say ...

This is all entirely your own ignorance about theology both as a practice and a process.

 

[Longfellow]

This is all entirely your own ignorance about theology both as a practice and a process.

Is there something in that post that you disagree with?

You’re welcome to post your own thoughts about it.

 

[Thomas]

Just about everything you said I disagree with.

Look the term up in a dictionary. Your post is a variation of the Straw Man Fallacy.

 

[RJM]

I don't even understand why some ideas were considered "heresy" or why they had to be blocked and countered.

in early times the scriptures weren't available to everybody. 'The Church' founded upon the appointment of Peter by Christ, and as essentially encapsulated in the Pauline and other epistles, believed it had a mission to preserve the teachings of Christ against all sorts of other strange doctrines and interpretations?

 

[RJM]

Arius's arguments were never about the divinity of Christ, but about the precise nature of it, as shown by his own letters. There are folks who insist the letters were falsified, because they don't show the historical Arius they want him to be, IMO

There are a couple of threads around Arius and the different views of Arianism between mainly Christians and Muslims on the forums:

Arian Christology

What muhammad_isa rejects is that the Father can be God, and the Son be God, even though the Son is not equal to the Father (Arius actually says the Son is 'fully God', but begotten, not Unbegotten), without Arius claiming polytheism. I do reject it as being "what the Arians believed". "It is...

www.interfaith.org

Oral Torah, Sacred Tradition, Ahadith

A common theme in (at least) the Abrahamic faiths: the dual authority of written and (initially) oral transmission. Torah and Mishnah, and later Talmud. Both trace their authority back to the revelation at Mount Sinai. The Gospel and the Sacred Tradition (and later, Protestant efforts to...

www.interfaith.org

The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

Elsewhere @muhammad_isa said: Yes .. the Arian conflict was all about the trinity... This theological construct which was first established in the Roman church at Nicea still haunts us today. This is factually wrong on three points: The first is that the conflict was not about the Trinity – not...

www.interfaith.org

Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

@Thomas @muhammad_isa @juantoo3 @Tone Bristow-Stagg others ... At risk of repetition, and trying to start with a clean slate: This is spin-off from recent threads about the Arian movement and the Nicean Council, trying to focus in upon the central issue, which seems to be whether or not...

www.interfaith.org

There are other threads too ... search Arius/ Arianism

 

[RJM]

It was hammer and tongs in those days, perhaps we've all settled down a bit by now, lol ...

But essentially Arius seemed to have argued that the Son was begotten 'before time began' of the unbegotten Father? I think?

 

[TheLightWithin]

in early times the scriptures weren't available to everybody. 'The Church' founded upon the appointment of Peter by Christ, and as essentially encapsulated in the Pauline and other epistles, believed it had a mission to preserve the teachings of Christ against all sorts of other strange doctrines and interpretations?

Most of what is church theology is not even mentioned by Christ.

 

[Longfellow]

in early times the scriptures weren't available to everybody. 'The Church' founded upon the appointment of Peter by Christ, and as essentially encapsulated in the Pauline and other epistles, believed it had a mission to preserve the teachings of Christ against all sorts of other strange doctrines and interpretations?

It looks to me like at the time of the council that signed the first version of the Nicene Creed, the bishops thought of what they were doing as preventing the spread of false teachings, but they weren’t able to agree about which teachings were false. The emperor was concerned that their feuding might split the empire, so he called some of them together to sign an agreement, but that didn’t stop the feuding, because it just became a feud about what the creed meant. In fact, the bishop that the creed was meant to silence soon became a problem again.

 

[RJM]

Most of what is church theology is not even mentioned by Christ.

It looks to me like at the time of the council that signed the first version of the Nicene Creed, the bishops thought of what they were doing as preventing the spread of false teachings, but they weren’t able to agree about which teachings were false. The emperor was concerned that their feuding might split the empire, so he called some of them together to sign an agreement, but that didn’t stop the feuding, because it just became a feud about what the creed meant. In fact, the bishop that the creed was meant to silence soon became a problem again.

The Nicene creed accepts that Christ was born of the Father before all ages. That was essentially Arius' own position. I think? Christ was conceived of the Father but before time began?

It was later Arians who started the "Jesus is not God" thing. But Arius' writings deny he took that position. The argument was about whether the Son was eternal like the Father, or whether the Son was born of the Father. Some say Arius' letters were faked.

I'm not sure of my ground however and there are several threads covering the subject in depth.

Traditional Catholics sometimes prefer the Apostle's creed.

 

[Thomas]

It appears my reaction to this post was unexpected, so I'll go through it ...

Sometimes people might think that some theology is a way for them to know and understand what their scriptures say ...

The implication of this is that there might be more to theology than knowledge and understanding of scripture.

I would hope so ... so I would read on to find out what theology actually is:

... but theology isn’t always designed or intended for that purpose ...

OK ... what is its purpose?

... and sometimes it even creates confusion and misunderstandings. Trinity theology is one example. Much of it was developed to solve social problems, not to help people understand the text itself.

Nonsense.

It’s about what not to teach, not about how to understand anything that the scriptures actually say.

In the words of an aforementioned, much-missed Jewish exegete ... actually I'v edited his very anglo-saxon comment out ... no, on second thoughts, for emphasis, I'll leave it in. This is bollocks.

The theology itself says that it’s beyond understanding, so it can’t be a way to better understand what the scriptures say.

Clearly, you've really no idea about what it says.

Every time anyone tries to make it understandable, they end ip saying something false that the early church itself denounced as heresy.

And yet more of the anglo-saxon stuff.

For understanding, I think that it’s better for people to immerse themselves in the story and read the relevant passages themselves in that context.
[/QUOTE
I only wish you had done this with the idea of 'theology' before launching into a piece that's heavily accented towards ignorance and prejudice.

 

[Thomas]

So ... what I had hoped would be a thoughtful contemplation on the nature of theology turns out to be a criticism founded on negative examples and an utter lack of insight or understanding, or even, in fact, the desire to understand better.

In the Dark History of Christendom, it's when thinking stops that abuses occur. It's when theology is shouted down by ideology.

If you want an example, look at the 'populist movements' in the world today – some are in government, and some in the government of the most powerful countries in the world – they are marked by a singular lack of intelligence, their sole interest is the accumulation of wealth and power, they respect nothing but force and might, and they draw support by appealing to the worst aspects of our human nature by marginalising and demonising the those weaker than themselves.

 

[Thomas]

What you say is true.

You might think so, but it's really not.

The distinctions between biblical theology and systematic theology never seemed clear to me.

'Biblical theology' traces the development of biblical teaching throughout the Bible’s storyline. The focus is on the texts, literary genre and narrative context.

'Systematic theology' is the organising of those biblical teachings into coherent and structured categories – the Propositions of the Catholic Creed, for example, are a systemised teaching. Catechisms are.

The distinctions between "orthodoxy" and so called "heresy" often seemed arbitrary and power driven.

They're hardly arbitrary – the reason for the anathema against every heresy is logically explained – power will inevitably figure where human nature is involved, but so is pastoral concern – care for the community.

I don't even understand why some ideas were considered "heresy" or why they had to be blocked and countered.

That requires an understanding of the faith. To reference what @IndigoChild5559 has said elsewhere, the Jewish journey is 'two steps forward, one step back in the journey of the Jewish people out of idolatry and into monotheism' – and many heresies were considered those back-steps in the growth of understanding. In some cases back into polytheism.

 

[Thomas]

A worrying phrase that sounds like preparation for outright banning.

It was – heretical theology is like bad medicine – it's dangerous to the wellbeing of the whole. There are heterodox ideas, there are teachings it's not necessary to believe literally ... there is a wide array of variation, but those ideas which were considered toxic received the most opprobrium.

To say this about a physical phenomenon could make sense. When said about an idea, it sounds like an inability to admit that it is nonsense, at least by the state of understanding of that period.

But that's not what it says – @Longfellow doesn't understand what he's writing about, but in all innocence people accept it, and unwittingly follow him in his error. That's precisely why theological debate took place, to clear up misunderstanding and point out when it occurs.

Theology is the path into the Mystery – and it's a Mystery because the Mind and Nature of God is a Mystery:
Isaiah 55:8–9
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways… As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (see also Psalm 40:5, 77:19, 139:6, 145:3 & 47:5; Job 36:26, 37:5).

St Paul said: "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord?" (Romans 11:33–34).

"And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:7)

 

[Thomas]

Most of what is church theology is not even mentioned by Christ.

Is it not And yet all of it references Scripture ...

None of what is church scripture – the New Testament – is mentioned by Christ.

And Christ mentioned He would not leave us abandoned: "but the advocate, the Spirit, the Holy One, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you" (John 14:23) and no doubt Jesus said a lot more than is recorded in the New Testament (cf John 20:30)

 

[Longfellow]

It appears my reaction to this post was unexpected, so I'll go through it ...


The implication of this is that there might be more to theology than knowledge and understanding of scripture.

I would hope so ... so I would read on to find out what theology actually is:


OK ... what is its purpose?


Nonsense.


In the words of an aforementioned, much-missed Jewish exegete ... actually I'v edited his very anglo-saxon comment out ... no, on second thoughts, for emphasis, I'll leave it in. This is bollocks.


Clearly, you've really no idea about what it says.


And yet more of the anglo-saxon stuff.

Thank you.

 

[Longfellow]

So ... what I had hoped would be a thoughtful contemplation on the nature of theology turns out to be a criticism founded on negative examples and an utter lack of insight or understanding, or even, in fact, the desire to understand better.

Thank you. That helps explain your reaction. I can sympathize with that.