Salvation and the relation of the intellectual and spiritual aspects

dms1972 · Nov 24, 2022

Hi,

I am reading some theology and I am wondering what is the relation and place of the intellectual (theology and doctrine) and spiritual (work of the Holy Spirit) in becoming a christian. Is there a priority of one over the other? Not talking so much about apologetics as about theology and in particular the doctrine of God. Does an intellectual acceptance of correct theology precede the work of the Holy Spirit, or the other way round? Or does the Holy Spirit work through theology / doctrine?

Jonaitis · Nov 24, 2022

dms1972 said:
Hi,

I am reading some theology and I am wondering what is the relation and place of the intellectual (theology and doctrine) and spiritual (work of the Holy Spirit) in becoming a christian. Is there a priority of one over the other? Not talking so much about apologetics as about theology and in particular the doctrine of God. Does an intellectual acceptance of correct theology precede the work of the Holy Spirit, or the other way round? Or does the Holy Spirit work through theology / doctrine?

I would say that knowledge is necessary for faith and practice.

I would suggest reading Augustine's work 'On Christian Doctrine.' In it, he shows that the more we know about God, the more we want to love Him. Any doctrine that does not lead to a deeper love and reverence for God is erroneous. I use this as a basis for my interpretation of Scripture. If a system, a tradition, a doctrine does not engender greater devotion toward God it is puffed up and man-centered. This kind of falls within the Protestant banner of 'Soli Deo Gloria.'

dms1972 · Nov 24, 2022

I am struggling with theological ideas about God in particular Reformed versus Roman Catholic and Neo-Orthodox. I am reading Van Til's introduction to Warfield's Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Not sure how well I am understanding it all. Van Til sees the distinction between Ontological Trinity and Economic / Immanent Trinity as very important. For quite a while though I have been into Karl Barth and some of the other Neo-orthodox / Theology of Crisis theologians, so I have to some extent embraced the dialectic theology. The dialectic theology is a pretty big deal for Van Til, he sees it as a huge departure from the older orthodoxy.

Jonaitis · Nov 24, 2022

dms1972 said:
I am struggling with theological ideas about God in particular Reformed versus Roman Catholic and Neo-Orthodox. I am reading Van Til's introduction to Warfield's Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Not sure how well I am understanding it all. Van Til sees the distinction between Ontological Trinity and Economic / Immanent Trinity as very important. For quite a while though I have been into Karl Barth and some of the other Neo-orthodox / Theology of Crisis theologians, so I have to some extent embraced the dialectic theology. The dialectic theology is a pretty big deal for Van Til, he sees it as a huge departure from the older orthodoxy.

There have been a recent revival of discussions concerning the relationship between the ontology and economy of the Trinity, with some modern proponents denying Eternal Generation. I, too, lean toward dialectic theology myself, in part, because of Barth.

Lost Witness · Nov 24, 2022

dms1972 said:
Or does the Holy Spirit work through theology / doctrine?

this a question?

dms1972 said:
acceptance of correct theology precede the work of the Holy Spirit

Must be reading this wrong..

Lost Witness · Nov 24, 2022

Can someone Please Explain?
I'm not the Brightest Bulb so i need assistance.

Fervent · Nov 25, 2022

I'm not sure we can compartmentalize as neatly as it seems people are prone to. Intellectual aspects of the faith are just as much a matter of spirit as any other, with the Holy Spirit addressing the whole person. Theology is in many ways our relationship with God, it tells us how we are to handle our physical lives, how we are to order our political lives, how we are to order our intellectual lives. Done right, there is no part of life that is not theological. Done wrong, theology is useless speculation about paradoxes that belong to God.

dms1972 · Nov 25, 2022

It seems to me I could have a theology and still not be a christian, just in possession of a set of ideas about God. So I am wondering if I am putting the cart before the horse. But at the same time what I suppose I am getting at is where does theology and doctrine come in? I read quite often people saying they started reading the Bible after becoming a christian. So what part does the Bible have in someones becoming a christian? They must have heard some presentation of the Gospel taken from the Bible. In the past a catechism was much more the way of initiating people into the christian faith. But for me I am not even sure were I am at now spiritually.

bling · Nov 25, 2022

dms1972 said:
Hi,

I am reading some theology and I am wondering what is the relation and place of the intellectual (theology and doctrine) and spiritual (work of the Holy Spirit) in becoming a christian. Is there a priority of one over the other? Not talking so much about apologetics as about theology and in particular the doctrine of God. Does an intellectual acceptance of correct theology precede the work of the Holy Spirit, or the other way round? Or does the Holy Spirit work through theology / doctrine?

I agree the unbelieving sinner can do nothing noble, honorable, worthy, righteous and/or holy, but the sinner can choose to do one selfish act over another selfish act (sins) and thus be responsible for these choices. Therefore the sinner can for selfish (sinful) reason choose of his own free will, to wimp out, give up and surrender to his hated enemy (God) while he/she is still hating God be willing to humbly accept pure undeserved charity from their enemy (this is like what we see with the prodigal son). This seemingly selfish act allows God to shower the person with unbelievable wonderful gifts including Godly type Love.

Again, the father of the prodigal son, twice calls the young son “death” even after realizing the son is physically alive. While the son in this dead state (dead by Christ’s definition) could still turn to the father.

Tolworth John · Nov 26, 2022

dms1972 said:
Does an intellectual acceptance of correct theology precede the work of the Holy Spirit, or the other way round?

There is no set one way of being saved.
Some people come to God via there intellect, others through there emotions and others by a combination of both.

People need to hear the gospel before they can respond to it, this can be via a conversation, through sermons, even listening to hymns or by reading the bible or christian books or blogs.

dms1972 said:
for me I am not even sure were I am at now spiritually.

A clear case of a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
Stop reading t6heology and start reading the gospels.

If you want discussions about Christianity look up the Christianityexplored web site for churches in your area that run this course and sign up/start attending every Sunday such a church.

Clare73 · Nov 26, 2022

dms1972 said:
It seems to me I could have a theology and still not be a christian, just in possession of a set of ideas about God. So I am wondering if I am putting the cart before the horse. But at the same time what I suppose I am getting at is where does theology and doctrine come in? I read quite often people saying they started reading the Bible after becoming a christian. So what part does the Bible have in someones becoming a christian? They must have heard some presentation of the Gospel taken from the Bible. In the past a catechism was much more the way of initiating people into the christian faith. But for me I am not even sure were I am at now spiritually.

I would suggest you start with a good book by a good Christian author.

I highly recommend Knowing God by J. I. Packer, the best book written outside the Bible.

dms1972 · Nov 27, 2022

I had read a bit of Knowing God a long time ago and have read some of Packer's other books. As I recall it didn't really answer my difficulties, he set up two descriptions - what people who knew God were like, in contrast to those who didn't. Right, so I felt I didn't measure up to his description of those who knew God. I might look into it again, I'd have to get another copy.

I think maybe my problem is I am too much living in my head, so its always ideas about God I am seeking or reading about, maybe I confuse ideas with reality?

So I don't know, Its difficult even to say intellectually were I am at, or spiritually either. Some writers eg. Francis Schaeffer say a lot about the concept of truth, eg. Antithesis versus Synthesis. But even then there are others who disagree. eg. Greg Bahnsen disagreed with Schaeffer's antithesis, he said Schaeffer presented the antithesis as being along the lines of the concept of truth one has - God is there in antithesis to his not existing. Rather than some dialectic of being and non-being. Bahnsen said the proper antithesis was one of belief versus unbelief, not concepts of truth (Aristotle versus Hegel) So, I don't know, there seems to be more concepts about truth and reality than Aristotle and Hegel in any case.

So it seems like it comes down to questions of what reality is. But that is were I got into major difficulties. Because I was asking myself am I in touch with reality? Does one begin with a theory about reality? Whatever way I went about it (its a long time ago) I just got into incredible difficulties, because its not just academic with me.

Clare73 · Nov 27, 2022

dms1972 said:
I had read a bit of Knowing God a long time ago and have read some of Packer's other books. As I recall it didn't really answer my difficulties, he set up two descriptions - what people who knew God were like, in contrast to those who didn't. Right, so I felt I didn't measure up, I felt to his description of those who knew God. I might look into it again, I'd have to get another copy.

I found his presentations there to set me on the right path to knowing God, with the right body of knowledge to give me correct understanding

dms1972 said:
I think maybe my problem is I am too much living in my head, so its always ideas about God I am seeking or reading about, maybe I confuse ideas with reality?

So I don't know, Its difficult even to say intellectually were I am at, or spiritually either. Some writers eg. Francis Schaeffer say a lot about the concept of truth, eg. Antithesis versus Synthesis. But even then there are others who disagree. eg. Greg Bahnsen disagreed with Schaeffer's antithesis, he said Schaeffer presented the antithesis as being along the lines of the concept of truth one has - God is there in antithesis to his not existing. Rather than some dialectic of being and non-being. Bahnsen said the proper antithesis was one of belief versus unbelief, not concepts of truth (Aristotle versus Hegel) So, I don't know, there seems to be more concepts about truth and reality than Aristotle and Hegel in any case.

So it seems like it comes down to questions of what reality is. But that is were I got into major difficulties. Because I was asking myself am I in touch with reality? Does one begin with a theory about reality? Whatever way I went about it (its a long time ago) I just got into incredible difficulties, because its not just academic with me.

Well, first of all, I am "blessed" not to be interested in tracking in those realms.

However, that may well be due to the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit to my spirit of the majesty, truth, glory, reality and authority of the Scriptures, such that nothing else really compares to them.

dms1972 · Nov 27, 2022

What I think maybe is that I am resistant to the Holy Spirit. And that therefore when I sometimes set out to work through the question of whether there is a God, or follow the arguments of some of the christian apologists such as Francis Schaeffer, I end up if I accept their process of reasoning seeing that logically God must exist, however while seeing that I am still resistant and not willing to take the next step and this leaves me in a fearful state, that I try and find a way to get out of.

Clare73 · Nov 27, 2022

dms1972 said:
What I think maybe is that I am resistant to the Holy Spirit. And that therefore when I sometimes set out to work through the question of whether there is a God, or follow the arguments of some of the christian apologists such as Francis Schaeffer, I end up if I accept their process of reasoning seeing that logically God must exist, however while seeing that I am still resistant and not willing to take the next step and this leaves me in a fearful state, that I try and find a way to get out of.

Why do you not want to believe in God?

Fervent · Nov 27, 2022

dms1972 said:
I had read a bit of Knowing God a long time ago and have read some of Packer's other books. As I recall it didn't really answer my difficulties, he set up two descriptions - what people who knew God were like, in contrast to those who didn't. Right, so I felt I didn't measure up to his description of those who knew God. I might look into it again, I'd have to get another copy.

I think maybe my problem is I am too much living in my head, so its always ideas about God I am seeking or reading about, maybe I confuse ideas with reality?

So I don't know, Its difficult even to say intellectually were I am at, or spiritually either. Some writers eg. Francis Schaeffer say a lot about the concept of truth, eg. Antithesis versus Synthesis. But even then there are others who disagree. eg. Greg Bahnsen disagreed with Schaeffer's antithesis, he said Schaeffer presented the antithesis as being along the lines of the concept of truth one has - God is there in antithesis to his not existing. Rather than some dialectic of being and non-being. Bahnsen said the proper antithesis was one of belief versus unbelief, not concepts of truth (Aristotle versus Hegel) So, I don't know, there seems to be more concepts about truth and reality than Aristotle and Hegel in any case.

So it seems like it comes down to questions of what reality is. But that is were I got into major difficulties. Because I was asking myself am I in touch with reality? Does one begin with a theory about reality? Whatever way I went about it (its a long time ago) I just got into incredible difficulties, because its not just academic with me.

It seems pertinent to discuss unbelief/doubt rather than looking for a positive declaration of belief. Within the Biblical corpus unbelief and doubt are not passive properties, meaning they are not simply a matter of being uncertain in the face of limited evidence. They are active, insistent skepticism in the face of historic assurance. Someone who has never felt God's goodness cannot live in unbelief, only one who has tasted and declared it insufficient.

Looking to historic Christians, some figures who loom large themselves struggled with issues of doubt and assurance. John Wesley is one of the more famous among them, one of his letters speaking of having a zeal for others to learn a faith he himself did not possess.

dms1972 · Nov 29, 2022

The soteriologies in the theologies i have studied are very different. All I have to go on is what one says about the other. And I think I am approaching the matter of salvation in a very intellectual / mental way. Its difficult for me because I tend to live in my head somewhat.

On the matter of soteriologies - Barth's seems to be more or less saying you are saved by grace - and salvation seems not to depend on a decision or belief, belief is just what follows, the person who having heard the Gospel doesn't live the new life in Christ, remains in unbelief is in a sense living in unreality. Barth preached short sermons to prisoners at Basel, and one time he preached on "By grace you have been saved..." He illustrated it with the story of a man who unknowingly had one night rode on horseback across a frozen lake. It was a very short a sermon, you can read it at the link below. But I think there is a very different type of soteriology here than in most evangelical preaching, because it seems like in some evangelical preaching the emphasis is to get someone saved by them doing something believing / repenting etc. Barth is saying if I understand him your old life is nailed to the cross, now go and live a new life which means serving Christ. People can respond to that in belief or unbelief. I think soteriologically Barth is very objectivist, while some other presentations of the Gospel are much more decisionist (Arminian).

Karl Barth’s Sermons to the Basel Prisoners: How to Preach the Church Dogmatics | The PostBarthian

postbarthian.com

I like to see more discussion about Barth on the forums, for or against, but its rare that there are threads about his theology.

I suppose my difficulty is because I am trying to be saved through an intellectual / theological theory about salvation?

I think the real point of my going astray may have been getting into the theology of Rudolph Bultmann quite early on. I was always struggling from that point I think, probably before it too. But once one's mental concepts are formed in a particular way, round particular ideas its hard to think outside that.

Clare73 · Nov 29, 2022

dms1972 said:
The soteriologies in the theologies i have studied are very different. All I have to go on is what one says about the other. And I think I am approaching the matter of salvation in a very intellectual / mental way. Its difficult for me because I tend to live in my head somewhat.

On the matter of soteriologies - Barth's seems to be more or less saying you are saved by grace - and salvation seems not to depend on a decision or belief, belief is just what follows, the person who having heard the Gospel doesn't live the new life in Christ, remains in unbelief is in a sense living in unreality. Barth preached short sermons to prisoners at Basel, and one time he preached on "By grace you have been saved..." He illustrated it with the story of a man who unknowingly had one night rode on horseback across a frozen lake. It was a very short a sermon, you can read it at the link below. But I think there is a very different type of soteriology here than in most evangelical preaching, because it seems like in some evangelical preaching the emphasis is to get someone saved by them doing something believing / repenting etc. Barth is saying if I understand him your old life is nailed to the cross, now go and live a new life which means serving Christ. People can respond to that in belief or unbelief. I think soteriologically Barth is very objectivist, while some other presentations of the Gospel are much more decisionist (Arminian).

Karl Barth’s Sermons to the Basel Prisoners: How to Preach the Church Dogmatics | The PostBarthian

postbarthian.com

I like to see more discussion about Barth on the forums, for or against, but its rare that there are threads about his theology.

I suppose my difficulty is because I am trying to be saved through an intellectual / theological theory about salvation?

I think the real point of my going astray may have been getting into the theology of Rudolph Bultmann quite early on. I was always struggling from that point I think, probably before it too. But once one's mental concepts are formed in a particular way, round particular ideas its hard to think outside that.

It's beginning to sound like a dance to keep avoiding the issue:
coming to him with hat in hand,
willing to believe and obey what he shows you is truth,
no conditions on your part.

You can pray for a heart that will do that.

dms1972 · Nov 29, 2022

Yes, its probably true what you say. It difficult though given the path I have gone, and the ideas I have accepted.

dms1972 · Nov 29, 2022

I'd like help with this aspect of theology, namely what the Neo-Orthodox (Barth / Bultmann etc.) refer to as God's otherness - that he is "Wholly Other".

I listened once to the fundamentalist John Gerstner, and he was giving a talk on modern theologians, and he summed up Barth's thought like this: "There is no God and Jesus is His Son."

I am not sure that one can lump in Barth, Bultmann, Neibur, Brunner as all saying the same thing.

But that does seem to be in a sense what some are saying at times, because Bultmann for instance says "God is not a given entity". Its strange because they are not espousing atheism but trying to say God is beyond the world of beings or something. The world exists, but God doesn't exist like the world does? Tillich says something similiar. I think they are trying to say God is not like created things which can be said to exist.

"If one speaks of God's existence, he lays himself open to the suspicion that he understands 'existence' in the old pre-Kierkegaardian sense, namely as real presence in distinction from essense." (Bultmann)

Robert C. Roberts explains what he means: "In that old pre-kierkegaardian sense a unicorn has essence, but not existence: we can describe unicorns just as well as we can alligators; but unlike the alligators, there aren't any unicorns. To say that God exists is to say that there is one; and in a certain sense, Bultmann wants to deny that God exists, or to deny that it is proper or true to say that God exists. How does this position differ from atheism? Is it not precisely atheism to say, 'Yes, you can describe God all day, but there isn't one.'

Bultmann apparently understands atheism in two senses, methodological atheism (as in science) and real atheism. Bultmann conceives of God as a reality beyond that of beings. Real atheism denies the being of God as a reality beyond the world of beings, and thus as a transcendent reality.

It seems these theologians were trying to re-emphasis or restate the transcendence of God, after the loss of that in liberal theology. But in classical theology God is both transcendent and immanent. So have they reacted and gone to the other extreme?

Salvation and the relation of the intellectual and spiritual aspects

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Ezekiel 3:3 ("Change")

Ezekiel 3:3 ("Change")

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads