My (mini) Theology in a nutshell.

[fhansen]

Of course you realize that in the days of the Bible, very, very few people were literate. In those days there were few great theologians, Bible scholars, etc. People had to rely on what they heard in the synagogues or from the letters from apostles, evangelists, and others that were read aloud.

Now we have churches on every corner and many different Bible translations to teach us God's ways. Of course, they don't always agree on many points so one must decide for themselves (unless you're Catholic).

Catholics also have to decide for themselves-if what the Church and Scripture are saying is true-or at least they should do so. Members of other denominations are obligated to do the same. Either way we all choose our source of truth-and determine whether or not the commentators are giving us the right scoop-even if we're the only commentator/interpreter. But we don't live in a vacuum and none of us would've even heard of the Christian faith if not for those who've preceded us and it's really impossible to be totally uninfluenced or unimpacted by previous beliefs and theology, going back to the beginning, in fact. The Catholic Church for its part actually teaches that just being a card-carrying member isn't enough. Ultimately love of God and neighbor, above all the virtues, made attainable by grace, actually defines justice or righteousness for a Christian-and for all men.

 

[Albion]

Catholics also have to decide for themselves-if what the Church and Scripture are saying are true-or at least they should do so. Members of other denominations are obligated to do the same.

Either way we all choose our source of truth-and determine whether or not the commentators are giving is the right scoop.

Yes, but this isn't the issue I was addressing. You say that Catholics and others 'have to' or 'should', but I am commenting on those people who insist that they don't need to listen to anyone outside of themselves as they create, in effect, a denomination and creed of their own with one member, themselves.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, but this isn't the issue I was addressing. You say that Catholics and others 'have to' or 'should', but I am commenting on those people who insist that they don't need to listen to anyone outside of themselves as they create, in effect, a denomination and creed of their own with one member, themselves.

And I agree. I'm just making a general statement that all of us our obligated, to seek the truth with due diligence, wherever we hear truth-claims being made. Now, this should include questioning ourselves and our own interpretations as well, which should eventually lead us on to consider historical theologies.

 

[pescador]

Catholics also have to decide for themselves-if what the Church and Scripture are saying is true-or at least they should do so. Members of other denominations are obligated to do the same. Either way we all choose our source of truth-and determine whether or not the commentators are giving us the right scoop-even if we're the only commentator/interpreter. But we don't live in a vacuum and none of us would've even heard of the Christian faith if not for those who've preceded us and it's really impossible to be totally uninfluenced or unimpacted by previous beliefs and theology, going back to the beginning, in fact. The Catholic Church for its part actually teaches that just being a card-carrying member isn't enough. Ultimately love of God and neighbor, above all the virtues, made attainable by grace, actually defines justice or righteousness for a Christian-and for all men.

"The Catholic Church for its part actually teaches that just being a card-carrying member isn't enough. Ultimately love of God and neighbor, above all the virtues, made attainable by grace, actually defines justice or righteousness for a Christian-and for all men." also applies to Protestants of course. If you don't love God and your neighbor then you're not following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[pescador]

Yes, but this isn't the issue I was addressing. You say that Catholics and others 'have to' or 'should', but I am commenting on those people who insist that they don't need to listen to anyone outside of themselves as they create, in effect, a denomination and creed of their own with one member, themselves.

What kind of people don't need to listen to anyone outside of themselves? Solipsists?

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes, but there is also the issue of a single person fully understanding all of Scripture.

It is easy for any of us to read and form an opinion, but if we stand on that alone, never considering the consensus of the church, not taking account of what the great theologians, Bible scholars, and etc. of 2000 years of Christianity have said,..then that is to reach a conclusion on one's own knowledge.

We would never do that with a medical issue or a legal issue, but we have an impulse to do that with a theological issue, perhaps because the Bible is there for all men to read and/or because we know it to be divine revelation.

In any case, the "go it alone" approach is inherently risky, no matter who we may be.

I do lean on others understanding if they have demonstrated a good understanding of the Bible. It's true, "no man is an island" but there are problems with every theology and no theology is "perfect". That is what I believe. No perspective in infallible. Not the Anglicans, not the Catholics, not the Reformers, not any one group has a monopoly on Truth. All I can hope for is to get as close to the truth as God allows.

 

[Albion]

That's a start, but I didn't pick up any of that from your earlier posts.

 

[All Becomes New]

That's a start, but I didn't pick up any of that from your earlier posts.

It is a bit silly to assume that I came up with all the contents of the OP completely on my own, don't you think?

 

[fhansen]

"The Catholic Church for its part actually teaches that just being a card-carrying member isn't enough. Ultimately love of God and neighbor, above all the virtues, made attainable by grace, actually defines justice or righteousness for a Christian-and for all men." also applies to Protestants of course. If you don't love God and your neighbor then you're not following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

True enough, but easier said than done as I see it, of the quality and quantity of love that God desires. If a person perfectly loved God with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and their neighbor as themselves all sin would be excluded, the law fulfilled. And it's a challenge that grows or increases; the more we do the more capable we are of doing, and the more of it that's expected of us, grace leading to more grace, so to speak. And there're no limits to that love, a primary aspect of God's very nature.

At any rate in Catholicism love isn't a sort of side-benefit or obligation, but it takes center stage as the heart and soul of the faith and the very definition of righteousness for man. We'll be judged on it according to the church. So regardless of who teaches this truth, it's of great benefit to keep it firmly in mind as I see it. "Thou shall love." To phrase it differently.

 

[Halbhh]

True enough, but easier said than done as I see it, of the quality and quantity of love that God desires. If a person perfectly loved God with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and their neighbor as themselves all sin would be excluded, the law fulfilled. And it's a challenge that grows or increases; the more we do the more capable we are of doing, and the more of it that's expected of us, grace leading to more grace, so to speak. And there're no limits to that love, a primary aspect of God's very nature.

At any rate in Catholicism love isn't a sort of side-benefit or obligation, but it takes center stage as the heart and soul of the faith and the very definition of righteousness for man. We'll be judged on it according to the church. So regardless of who teaches this truth, it's of great benefit to keep it firmly in mind as I see it. "Thou shall love." To phrase it differently.

That's interesting that Love "..takes center stage as the heart and soul of the faith and the very definition of righteousness for man. We'll be judged on it according to the church." It's a rightful emphasis, and....it's interesting to consider if...(looking for the word that communicates this)...holistic Love -- to just say "love one another" and that's all there is to know really -- is indeed best emphasized singularly to the exclusion of details, instead or above the many detailed instances of love in action as laid out in the epistles, in smaller detail and specifics. Perhaps.

We tend, in my church, to go back and forth. We sometimes emphasize in a sermon simply Love, love one another. And in other sermons on different sundays instead it can be about a specific aspect of love in action, such as refraining from judging others, or such as forgiving them.