Misunderstandings about theology

[Thomas]

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.

It might well do, but that is a shallow view, doesn't do the debate justice. It wasn't an either/or thing.

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.

Arius? He was largely sidelined. Exiled and excommunicated until 336, he died later that year.

The 'problem' was Eusebius of Nicomedia, a supporter of Arius, was related to the Imperial Family, and used his influence in the argument, so the Arian side was punching way above its theological weight.

When Constantine called a council, Rome thought its attendance unnecessary. The dispute was a local spat between a bishop and one of his priests – why involve the whole church? If you were going to do that every time there was a dispute, the bishops would be forever of the move.

If Arius had not enjoyed the support of Eusebius of Nicomedia, there would not have been a council, the dispute would have passed, and no-one today would even know his name.

+++

The loss of Arius was a shame. He was, it seemed, a good man, well thought of and well meaning. But his theology was questionable, and inevitably would lead to polytheism.

Marcion (c.85-160CE) was a theologian who argued that the Father, the God of the Gospels, sent Jesus to save the world, and was the only true Supreme Being, whereas Jahweh, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, was a malevolent creator deity opposed to the One True God.

No-one's defending him or his theology these days.

(Or, more likely, someone is somewhere ... )

 

[rocala]

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, thank you for your reply. I must admit to feeling a tad hypocritical after posting that. My spirituality began after very odd experience. It would "make sense" if we were discussing my overactive imagination; otherwise not.
So, I have to conclude that acceptance of "mystery" can at times make sense.

 

[Thomas]

It would "make sense" if we were discussing my overactive imagination; otherwise not.
So, I have to conclude that acceptance of "mystery" can at times make sense.

LOL, I too have experienced mysterious phenomena, and my view of the physical world is that there's more going on than meets the eye.

If the physical can present as mysterious, then that which lies beyond the realms of form must be utterly so!

 

[Thomas]

In closing this, I would simply say that one ends up in a position where the weight of ill-conceived, ill-informed and sometimes even prejudicial opinion so outweighs the truth, that by sheer quantity it becomes 'factual' – it dictates the narrative – and the truth disappears from view.

Hence the world is the way it is today, and it ain't getting any better ...

Addendum
I hope, by understanding this, some might understand the strength of my reaction to the OP. I'm arguing with @Longfellow, but I'm also making a stand against the world, and apologies to @Longfellow for suffering any collateral damage thereby.

 

[Longfellow]

I hope, by understanding this, some might understand the strength of my reaction to the OP. I'm arguing with @Longfellow, but I'm also making a stand against the world

I know that feeling very well.

, and apologies to Longfellow for suffering any collateral damage thereby.

Thank you. Would you believe that I miscommunicated again? "Theology" was a poor choice of words for what I was thinking.

 

[Longfellow]

It might well do, but that is a shallow view, doesn't do the debate justice. It wasn't an either/or thing.

I do have a tendency to highlight the seamy side.

 

[TheLightWithin]

'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.

Steps 1 & 2 then. Intriguing...

 

[TheLightWithin]

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.

What you say is true.

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

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

I've tried reading, and I've tried to agree, and yet I cannot see how people even draw conclusions from scripture, much less derive doctrine.
I wasn't raised in a religion and formally catechized, and I never managed to get into a Bible as Literature course.
Maybe that would make the difference.

Or maybe I would just wonder why the prophets didn't just write the Catechism directly.

heretical theology is like bad medicine – it's dangerous to the wellbeing of the whole.

The persecution of heretics is. The different opinions about the nature of G-d and salvation are not.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Marcion (c.85-160CE) was a theologian who argued that the Father, the God of the Gospels, sent Jesus to save the world, and was the only true Supreme Being, whereas Jahweh, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, was a malevolent creator deity opposed to the One True God.

No-one's defending him or his theology these days.

(Or, more likely, someone is somewhere ... )

Here it is: Marcionite Christian Church

 

[Longfellow]

My title for this thread seems to have created some misunderstanding about what I'm thinking.

It looks to me like sometimes people think that things that they read in Internet discussions and on Web pages about the Trinity, the crucifixion, salvation, and other Christian beliefs, are telling them what the Bible says. Part of what I'm thinking is that that isn't always true, and that a better way to know what the Bible says is to read it.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It’s about what not to teach

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.

I think outright banning is worrying too. If somebody were to ask me "why is heretical theology dangerous to the wellbeing of the whole?" I'd have to say "I do not know" or "It isn't. It's the banning that is bad"

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.

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 know the logical explanations. I don't know how refuting or banning them helped anybody, or did anything but hurt people. I do not know how pastoral concern and caring come into it.

I'd love to find an easy cheat sheet from an objective scholarly viewpoint or even a skeptical viewpoint that explained what all the so called "heresies" were and why they were supposedly wrong or bad. Interestingly I found a book by an evangelical pastor who loves comic books and has a comic book hero comparison for every supposed heresy.

I'm glad to live in a time and place of religious freedom and freedom of speech... well, I thought I did.
Worrying times, these.

 

[Longfellow]

f somebody were to ask me "why is heretical theology dangerous to the wellbeing of the whole?" I'd have to say "I do not know"

If you want to understand how beliefs can be considered as harmful, think of how slavery, subjugation of women, and discrimination against gays were justified by religious beliefs.

Differences in beliefs were tolerated until they started being used as reasons for massive disruptive actions. A natural response is to denounce the beliefs.

 

[Longfellow]

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 agree. I read the letter that we have from Arius. He's protesting against people saying that "the Son is an eructation, others that He is a production, others that He is also unbegotten." Especially he is protesting against saying that the Son was unbegotten. He's saying that there was never a time when the Son was not begotten or when he was a part of God. Apart from being begotten, he was always fully God.

 

[Thomas]

He's saying that there was never a time when the Son was not begotten or when he was a part of God. Apart from being begotten, he was always fully God.

You might want to check your sources ... He did assert the divinity of the Son, but he also famously claimed "There was a time when he (the Son) was not", which became an axiom of the Arian party.

Arius held that the Father begat the Son before the creation of the world, but also argued that to beget implied there was a time prior to the begetting.

Origen, before him, had argued for the eternity of the Father and the Son, on the basis that the Father is eternally the Father, therefore the Son is eternally the Son – by eternally he did not mean a long duration of time, but as something outside of time.

Today we understand this begetting as not some extraneous act by the Father, but rather as something intrinsic to the Divine.

 

[Thomas]

The different opinions about the nature of G-d and salvation are not.

That depends on what's being said.

Some construe Scripture in really harmful ways ... the latest influx of 'manosphere' adherents claiming traditional Christianity affirms their views is toxic, wrong, and needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

 

[Bloodshot]

My title for this thread seems to have created some misunderstanding about what I'm thinking.

I was certainly expecting something broader than the entirely biblical discussion I see.

 

[Longfellow]

You might want to check your sources

You might want to check yours. Did you read the letter before you posted that? Have you examined critically how people have interpreted it?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I'm going to take a swing, and let's hope I don't miss.

Biblical theology does things like, "First Abraham and his family did their stuff, which led to Moses and the Exodus, followed by the Judges and Prophet, and then (if you are Christian) Jesus, followed by the Apostles. IOW you follow the storyline.

Biblical theology might also include the sequential history of the grave becoming the netherworld becoming gehinnom becoming (for Christians) hell. Again, it is a time oriented, sequential approach.

Systematic theology is completely different. You take a topic and look for everything that is said on that topic throughout the entire Bible. The topic might be grace, or predestination. Trinitarianism and orthodox Christology are the best known results of systematic theology among Christians. And it is important that all these ideas fit together. If you ever take a look at the Five Points of Calvinism, each point links together with every other point in a very tight logic. I have no idea why this is the case, but I seem to remember systematic theology being more obvious among Christian than Jewish scholars. But hey, maybe I'm just not aware.