New blog answer the question "what is theology" from as many perspectives as possible.

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, it goes both ways. If one is a theologian, one will truly pray. And one who truly prays becomes a theologian.

Theology is simply "God-knowledge" if we translate it directly. Knowing God. And one comes to know God through prayer, spending time with Him.

It's very simple really.

And I find it beautiful. And true.

It doesn't matter that words like Theology, Christian, religion, and Church have gotten bad (wrong) understandings attached to them. Well, it DOES matter, but we don't stop being and associating with those things because of abuses somewhere. And if we respond by changing our language and creating new words, over time we will lose the understanding and contributions made through the ages.

Do we strike the word "religion" from the Scriptures because people misunderstand and ascribe a twisted meaning to it? James tells us what true religion consists of ...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Is one who (truly) prays a theologian then ? (I hope not, except it is refreshing new and different definition than what most people use)

i.e. "theologian" in the world/ in religions of the world/ has|had a lot of negative results and connotations. With a new and fresh and different outlook for
"theologian" , like when Christ came along and blew them out of the water and started afresh and new apart from them,
is perhaps enlightening !?

There is good theology, and there is bad theology; just as there are "good" Christians and "bad" ones too. The knowledge of God is not bad; rather it is what we all strive for; rather, it is wrong knowledge that is bad.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is good theology, and there is bad theology; just as there are "good" Christians and "bad" ones too. The knowledge of God is not bad; rather it is what we all strive for; rather, it is wrong knowledge that is bad.

Right-oh ! Just like when Y'SHUA was walking on earth,
the disciples being fishermen, tax collectors, uneducated mostly,
had GREAT TEACHER and practiced good 'theology' (though I wouldn't call it that) ! But the religious leaders who rejected MESSIAH had HORRIBLE theology. (generically speaking)

 

[Paul Yohannan]

@yeshuaslavejeff

Might not be a bad idea to review the Traditional Theology SOP...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

@yeshuaslavejeff

Might not be a bad idea to review the Traditional Theology SOP...

This thread isn't about "Traditional Theology"
from the TITLE:
New blog answer the question "what is theology" from as many perspectives as possible.
and the OP:

I have started a new blog trying to answer the question "what is theology?" from as many perspectives as possible.

 

[Jeremiah50]

I don't know why Luther specifically is pointed out for this.
It is well stated throughout Scripture (I thought) that all around us
enemies are , every day, tempting us and setting traps, trying to deceive us and take away whatever we have gained, even in the house of God.(we can't avoid temptation and traps anywhere, even from family, friends, neighbors, politicians, education, medical, religious groups, literally anywhere people are, and some places there are no people ! (i.e. demons / the devil may attack us constantly, daily, anywhere we are, as YHWH permits). Was this ever in question ?
However, the thought of God attacking His own sheep is incomprehensible to me, in view of all HIS WORD otherwise.

I think my point was that for Luther more so than Calvin, and then later Protestants, there is a sense where the threat of God that is felt before one's coming to faith/baptism is still felt in some degree afterward (though obviously to a lesser degree). Luther notably held a doctrine of the deus absconditus, or the 'hidden God', the aspect of God that comes to us nakedly without the cloak of Jesus Christ and his gospel.

For Luther there may come periods in one's life where the Spirit withdraws from the theologian/Christian (for luther these two are basically the same - though he would recognize a call to be a professional theologian/teacher). And when this happens the spectre of the hidden God arises. This is that aspect of God where he seems distant and uncaring, perhaps like when Jesus asks why God has forsaken him on the cross, or also on Gethsemane where his prayer seems to be one of a faithful and yet deeply troubled man.

Karl Barth notably did not approve of Luther's Deus Absconditus and funnily enough hung a large carpet over his bookshelves that contained all his Luther's works. It seems to be a Lutheran specificity to press this point, that's what I was trying to get at.

 

[Jeremiah50]

@yeshuaslavejeff

Might not be a bad idea to review the Traditional Theology SOP...

Sorry if I put this in the wrong forum. I wanted to talk about theological perspectives from the church fathers/medieval schoolmen/reformers/and modern dudes! I didn't know quite where to go with it. Traditional sounded good because I am not so into revisionist stuff, liberal bultmannian stuff, or process stuff. But hey I could get into those too! Where would have been a better place for this?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Sorry if I put this in the wrong forum. I wanted to talk about theological perspectives from the church fathers/medieval schoolmen/reformers/and modern dudes! I didn't know quite where to go with it. Traditional sounded good because I am not so into revisionist stuff, liberal bultmannian stuff, or process stuff. But hey I could get into those too! Where would have been a better place for this?

I think this thread is just fine; I was troubled by one reply, but note that I am not staff.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think everything is fine. The thread is very appropriate here, and beneficial.

This forum has a special set of rules, and they are fairly rigorously enforced, so as to promote civil discussion and respect for one another. It leads to proactive caution at times though.

There have been no problems in this thread so far. Carry on.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Btw @Jeremiah50 I very much like your OP so I upvoted it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think my point was that for Luther more so than Calvin, and then later Protestants, there is a sense where the threat of God that is felt before one's coming to faith/baptism is still felt in some degree afterward (though obviously to a lesser degree). Luther notably held a doctrine of the deus absconditus, or the 'hidden God', the aspect of God that comes to us nakedly without the cloak of Jesus Christ and his gospel.

For Luther there may come periods in one's life where the Spirit withdraws from the theologian/Christian (for luther these two are basically the same - though he would recognize a call to be a professional theologian/teacher). And when this happens the spectre of the hidden God arises. This is that aspect of God where he seems distant and uncaring, perhaps like when Jesus asks why God has forsaken him on the cross, or also on Gethsemane where his prayer seems to be one of a faithful and yet deeply troubled man.

Karl Barth notably did not approve of Luther's Deus Absconditus and funnily enough hung a large carpet over his bookshelves that contained all his Luther's works. It seems to be a Lutheran specificity to press this point, that's what I was trying to get at.

Thank you for explaining.

I can understand what you are saying, as I had at one time gathered a similar impression of God from a collection of Bible stories I had as a child.

I won't respond in detail, since the point is not to debate. But it is a radically different way in which we (Orthodox) approach God in our Tradition.

Do you think this was particular to Luther personally (I have read some of his writings that underscore this kind of thought) or do you think it represents broader Lutheran thought? I hadn't so much gotten that impression from speaking with Lutherans.

 

[Jeremiah50]

Thank you for explaining.

I can understand what you are saying, as I had at one time gathered a similar impression of God from a collection of Bible stories I had as a child.

I won't respond in detail, since the point is not to debate. But it is a radically different way in which we (Orthodox) approach God in our Tradition.

Do you think this was particular to Luther personally (I have read some of his writings that underscore this kind of thought) or do you think it represents broader Lutheran thought? I hadn't so much gotten that impression from speaking with Lutherans.

Yeah its not something characteristic of all Lutherans. Few would know of the Deus Absconditus. But I think it does run in the blood a bit. If you look at Scandinavian countries in particular there is an effort given to really meditate on the depths of the cross, of good friday, and of human sin. This doesn't mean that there is not (ideally) an equally important concern for the resurrection and new life, but Lutherans generally are not too hasty to get there.

You mention that the Orthodox approach God in a radically different way and that's what I have always thought as well. Given this, I guess the question I would have for you is how does the Orthodox church give expression to the minor notes of the faith? Does it contemplate depravity and sin? I have always really appreciated the Orthodox for their emphasis on the Resurrection (Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tomes bestowing life...), but does the resurrection simply swallow up all the other? Can I no longer dwell in depths of cross? And when this cross is meditated upon does it go beyond ascetic practices and truly become an existential experience.

I guess what I am asking, to put it plainly, is this: Lutherans (ideally) try to fully embrace the cross and all its depths, and also try to fully embrace the resurrection and all its new life and hope. I know the Orthodox church plums the depths of the resurrection (better than most other Christian traditions) but do they equally plum the cross?

And I mean no disrespect when I ask this. I assume the Orthodox church 'does' the cross as well. I just haven't heard much about it before.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Holy Week services are VERY focused on the betrayal, the trial, the Crucufixion, the un-nailing, the entombment. The Paschal Liturgy is a glorious service, but in truth it is but one that follows 8 days leading up to it, with 1-3 different services per day (in our parish). Going through Holy Week feels like having walked right alongside Christ through all of it, especially the crucifixion. All during Great Lent (including the Triodion period) we do look forward to Pascha, but there is always, always that heavy awareness that the crucifixion must come first. We focus on repentance (and so sin, yes) and taking up our own cross.

There are other points during the liturgical year when we focus particularly on the Cross as well.

But it IS true, thst the Resurrection is so strongly engrained, that any focus on the Crucifixion acknowledges the Resurrection, even if only an undertone in our consciousness.

I have heard the period spoken of as being a "bright sadness". Hope is ever-present.

As far as sin, we focus heavily on repentance, always. Which deals with our sinfulness, of course. But again, there is hope in repentance. We don't wallow in despair. Which is not to say anyone else does either, or maybe some do, but we don't find it necessary. We are constantly reminded that we fall short of Christ and need to repent and receive forgiveness, so there is no need to try to dig down and "find" sorrow.

Depravity? I think we look at that differently. We acknowledge that we all bear the image of God, that mankind was created good. The likeness to God is marred or obscured, sometimes beyond all recognition, and we live in a sin-infected world. But we see man as created to be good. Now, on the other hand, we know that we in fact sin. And the closer we get to God, the more aware of our sins and our sinfulness we become. The more repentance, the better. But again, we should not despair.

Offhand I forget the name of the man who said it (really many have said something similar), but I think the one I read a couple of months ago is a recently canonized fairly contemporary Saint, but he said something to the effect that, "I know I am a great sinner, but I know that God loves very much."

We acknowledge that we are weak to sin, prone to fail. We struggle against sin and to discipline ourselves, with God's help, but when we fall short of the ideal (which is really Christ, so we always fall short), we don't make a big fuss over ourselves, which we would view as pride. We just repent, ask forgiveness, and get up and try again, depending upon God.

 

[Jeremiah50]

Holy Week services are VERY focused on the betrayal, the trial, the Crucufixion, the un-nailing, the entombment. The Paschal Liturgy is a glorious service, but in truth it is but one that follows 8 days leading up to it, with 1-3 different services per day (in our parish). Going through Holy Week feels like having walked right alongside Christ through all of it, especially the crucifixion. All during Great Lent (including the Triodion period) we do look forward to Pascha, but there is always, always that heavy awareness that the crucifixion must come first. We focus on repentance (and so sin, yes) and taking up our own cross.

There are other points during the liturgical year when we focus particularly on the Cross as well.

But it IS true, thst the Resurrection is so strongly engrained, that any focus on the Crucifixion acknowledges the Resurrection, even if only an undertone in our consciousness.

I have heard the period spoken of as being a "bright sadness". Hope is ever-present.

As far as sin, we focus heavily on repentance, always. Which deals with our sinfulness, of course. But again, there is hope in repentance. We don't wallow in despair. Which is not to say anyone else does either, or maybe some do, but we don't find it necessary. We are constantly reminded that we fall short of Christ and need to repent and receive forgiveness, so there is no need to try to dig down and "find" sorrow.

Depravity? I think we look at that differently. We acknowledge that we all bear the image of God, that mankind was created good. The likeness to God is marred or obscured, sometimes beyond all recognition, and we live in a sin-infected world. But we see man as created to be good. Now, on the other hand, we know that we in fact sin. And the closer we get to God, the more aware of our sins and our sinfulness we become. The more repentance, the better. But again, we should not despair.

Offhand I forget the name of the man who said it (really many have said something similar), but I think the one I read a couple of months ago is a recently canonized fairly contemporary Saint, but he said something to the effect that, "I know I am a great sinner, but I know that God loves very much."

We acknowledge that we are weak to sin, prone to fail. We struggle against sin and to discipline ourselves, with God's help, but when we fall short of the ideal (which is really Christ, so we always fall short), we don't make a big fuss over ourselves, which we would view as pride. We just repent, ask forgiveness, and get up and try again, depending upon God.

Thanks for the answer! That was very helpful.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for the answer! That was very helpful.

You are most welcome!

 

[Jeremiah50]

Hey Anastasia, I just posted on St Athanasius and his perspective on 'what is theology?' I thought you might be interested. Cheers!

http://www.whatistheology.com/index.php/2016/12/01/what-is-theology-st-athanasius/

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hey Anastasia, I just posted on St Athanasius and his perspective on 'what is theology?' I thought you might be interested. Cheers!

http://www.whatistheology.com/index.php/2016/12/01/what-is-theology-st-athanasius/

Hmmmmmmm.

I want to give you a coherent response, but I'm not sure that I can. I have read Athanasius of course, but I suppose your point of view in comparing is a little different from mine.

Someone who has spent longer studying Orthodox theology might have more to say in either agreement or disagreement, so I don't want to falsely give a sense of either.

I have tended to study our theology in terms of doctrines, drawing the topic together and using Patristic and other sources to do so. But I rarely focus overmuch on how one theologian himself differs from others.

(Though I am quite interested in later times how one theology leads to others, especially in Protestantism.)

Anyway. With all of that said, I will make an attempt.

Perhaps the most famous of St. Athanasius' quotes to us is "God became man so that man might become god." This does not mean that we become what God is in His essence. Indeed, we as creatures can never really know His essence. But we "become by grace what God is by nature" which is probably best "translated" to Protestantism as "we become like Christ."

And this is perhaps minor, and I may not even be understanding you well, but I get the impression from your article of something of a focus on faith, and knowing God. Again, maybe I'm wrong - it's been a few years since I read a work exclusively by him - but I got the impression of a more ontological focus, or speaking perhaps of the heart of man. I got the impression more of BEING than I did an emphasis of believing or knowing.

Again ... I'm not criticizing. I may be way off base. We have quite a different point of view and my mental organization of what I know is not well suited to compare to your blog post. Which made it interesting to read, btw.

Oh, one point I did want to ask about. Did you mean corruption somehow associated with Christ? I'm not sure what you meant by that ...

 

[Jeremiah50]

Hey, sorry its been a busy week and I haven't had time to sit down and catch up on things.

Yeah, I have always thought there to be considerable overlap with the doctrine of deification and justification/sanctification/glorification. The latter just seems to break it up a bit more. We become by grace what God is by nature and Athanasius certainly sums it up nicely as you point out there.

The reason I was talking more about faith, and its not really faith so much as a 'subjective approach', is because I am trying to ask some methodological questions and these can benefit from both a subjective and objective perspective.

One of the reasons he wrote the text it seems was to instruct his friend regarding their shared faith. And with all the ink spilled by Athanasius and others at the time to defend the doctrines related to the trinity, It would seem that they think it's important to know about these things. Which is what you seem to have done (studied doctrines).

The emphasis in Athanasius, at least as far as I have read, on the subjective, focuses on talk about the image of God, which I mentioned. This image, through the aid of the Holy Spirit allows the redeemed person to be able to 'know' God again, or at least begin to know him.



I gave a shout out to the Orthodox in a comment I made on my blog that perhaps you might like. The person commenting beforehand was asking whether it was an Orthodox writer that I was using for my research. Here it is:

Thanks Jason for the comment. Yes I believe the writer is Orthodox and of course writes from that perspective. What I really appreciate about it is that it seems to answer some of the questions of logic we might have like ‘why was the world created?’ The Trinity is the only answer that makes sense if you want to believe some very basic things about God (he is creator, he is active in the world, he reveals himself to us and saves us). Without the Trinity, it becomes hard for a ‘god’ to engage with out world in any meaningful and intimate way.

I think some of these logical aspects can make up for what my tradition (Protestantism) lacks in ‘uses’ for the Trinity. For many the trinity is simply a mystery and a dogma that is scriptural, but if that is all it is and it doesn’t have a ready-to-hand use then it is easy for it to get forgotten and neglected (not to say that all or even most Protestants do this).



p.s by corruptible I meant that human bodies had become corruptible, not that Christ's body had become corruptible. The incorruptible put on the corruptible so that we the corruptible might become incorruptible (another variation of Athanasius' maxim/St Paul 1 Cor:15:54

Peace, Jeremiah

 

[~Anastasia~]

No problem, things are getting pretty busy for me too. For which I'm kind of thankful, at least to be able to be doing them.

And thank you for the info. I would have expected you and I to have a different focus - no criticism intended, btw.

And thanks for explaining what you meant by corruptible. I wasn't quite sure of your meaning when I read the article, but I may have just been really tired when I was reading it.