Role of theologians

[Revelation210Faith]

Hi i am just wondering what role do you think theologians should play? Like in the Church? People talk a lot about guys like John Calvin, Athanasius, and Martin Luther but it's not like they're the apostles. What is the purpose from a Christian perspective of theologians? I am just curious to know

 

[Bluelion]

I think there is to much theology and not enough scripture.

 

[JM]

The Body of Christ is made up of many functioning members. All must play their role in the life and community of the church. Theology is important. Scripture is important. Feeding the poor is important. Preaching is important. etc. etc. All of the functions found in the Body are essential to healthy church life.

We need theologians.

Christians believe in sola scriptura or the Bible alone as our only rule for faith and practice but it is sola scriptura and not solo scriptura. We use the Bible alone but never are alone when we read the Bible. We read the Bible and practice theology within the community of the church.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[OzSpen]

Hi i am just wondering what role do you think theologians should play? Like in the Church? People talk a lot about guys like John Calvin, Athanasius, and Martin Luther but it's not like they're the apostles. What is the purpose from a Christian perspective of theologians? I am just curious to know

Ephesians 4:11-12 (NIV) states:

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.
​

Theologians could be apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers and their role would be to equip God's people for works of service/ministry to build up the body of Christ.

We need theologians historically and in the contemporary church to equip us for ministry and to help us grow in the faith. Too often in the contemporary church, the place of doctrine (i.e. biblical teaching) is placed on the back burner and is not given the prominence it deserves.

However, there is still a need to test the teachings of any theologian:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world (1 John 4:1-3 NIV).
​

This is made possible by the Holy Spirit who lives in and through believers but also through testing according to Scripture.

Oz

 

[Bluelion]

Lets be clear theology is man's idea about scripture. I think we need Biblical scholars which gives us easier to understand Bible Translations. But I gave up on theology when Towns started talking about how if God broke His law He would no long exists Him self. He would effective uncreate himself. Now does some one want to tell me how any man could know if it was even possible for God to be uncreated, and why would you want to discuss such things. That is theology for you the ideas about God from men not God.

and now as i edit this It can be proved wrong, God is not a created being, He did not create Himself, He always was. So no He can not be uncreated because He was never created in the first place. That and I don't have all the phd he does, Just what God Shows me. and that is back upped by scripture. God says I am Before all this I am. He always was.

Yeah so I don't think much of theology and I am mad I have to know all about it.

 

[skypair]

Hi i am just wondering what role do you think theologians should play? Like in the Church? People talk a lot about guys like John Calvin, Athanasius, and Martin Luther but it's not like they're the apostles. What is the purpose from a Christian perspective of theologians? I am just curious to know

Theologians are not mentioned as "gifted" to the church in 1Cor 12:29-31. I suspect they are "prophets" (in the sense of speaking forth the truth) or "teachers." But 1Cor 14:29-32 tells us that at any given meeting, we might have 2-3 teachers/prophets speak regarding their inspiration from any given scripture. There's not to be any arguing (others hold their peace) "so that all may learn and ... be comforted and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the [other] prophets."

My sense, then, is that we don't write down hard-and-fast theologies and doctrines but simply let the scriptures speak. I have found this VERY good, indeed, for Christian fellowship. That is, just studying scripture together and bringing in the views of all for consideration. Regardless of your church doctrines, you simply can't miss the point if you are studying the Word of God, itself. I even believe that the Word is the Holy Spirit that, instilled into our souls, is the still small voice of scripture coming as needed to address our daily needs.

One more thought: Do you know why Paul says that there must be divisions among you in such meetings. It is so that that which is approved may be made manifest. When we discuss like 1Cor 12:29-32, there are inevitably differences. But often one or the other of them will find that their differences are not ones that God or scripture approves. I've also found this: That often we can develop a consensus on something very near to the truth that teaches us holy living and comforts us all together.

skypair

 

[twin1954]

While I don't much care for "professional" theologians it must be acknowledged that everyone has a theology. Everyone has an idea about who God is and what the Scriptures teach including the unbeliever. Either your theology is founded on feeling, desires and natural ideas or it is founded on the Scriptures and truth.

Men who are called and gifted by God to preach and teach the Word of God are a gift from the Lord to His church as has been pointed out. What we naturally think concerning God is always wrong and we are to be instructed in the truths of the Scriptures. Otherwise it will be just as it was during the time of the Judges, everyone did that which was right in his own eyes.

The fact is that few people either take the time or have the gift of understanding the Scriptures and the things of the Spirit without being led and taught by a man. And even those men are usually taught by another man. That is what Paul told Timothy in his last letter:

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
(2Ti 2:1-2)

God has raised a few men up during history and given them the gifts to be able to relay the truths taught in the Scriptures and we ought to avail ourselves of their gifts and teachings.

That doesn't mean that we are to become disciples of men but that we are to listen and follow their teachings as long as they follow Christ.
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
(1Co 11:1)

 

[JLR1300]

I feel that theologians are a blessing to the church. Theologians aren't the primary problem. The primary problem is that sometimes Christians idolize certain theologians and are afraid to believe anything that departs from their opinions. They were just men and are not inspired like scripture is. They certainly can be wrong about many things.

I have found that confessions and creeds are even a bigger problem. Christians always claim that confessions are not above scripture but in actual practice they actually are. In theory, scripture is above confessions but the way it actually works is that in groups that have an official confession no one ever actually departs from anything that it says....ever. I have been around so many reformed Baptists and Presbyterians and they always say that the westminster and the 1689 london confession are not above scripture. But in the final analysis no one in those churches ever goes against anything in their confession. You could quote them a thousand scriptures but they will never actually have an open mind about anything that doesn't line up with their confession.

The confessions have become the new idol of the churches. I think most reformed christians should go ahead and throw their Bibles in the trash because the confessions are actually their final authority anyway. I hate to have this attitude but I have seen it confirmed countless times. The confessions are the new Protestant Pope. I think that the way to solve the problem is to avoid having a creed or confession that defines beliefs for a group of churches. If you want to have a confession or doctrinal statement for your local congregation that may be helpful... but once you make one for multiple churches you have created a paper Pope.

 

[JM]

The Revisionist Doctrine of "solo" Scriptura

In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, the revisionist doctrine of "solo" Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of "solo" Scriptura with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.
The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors to "lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, 'what saith the Scriptures?'" In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity, Charles Beecher (1815-1900) denounced "creed power" and argued for "the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d. 1884) declared in a similar way, "In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed book."
The radical American version of "solo" Scriptura reached its fullest expression in the writings of the Restorationists as they applied the principles of Democratic populism to Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809, the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, "Venture to be as independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in which you live." Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be "consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified." Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear, declaring, "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever." As the Reformed Princeton theologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850) rightly observed, "the most zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been latitudinarians and heretics."

 

[JLR1300]

Now the Bible teaches the all-sufficiency of the Scripture.

2nd Timothy 3:16 says " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This teaches...

Scripture is inspired... creeds are not (they are subject to error)
Scripture is profitable for doctrine... the Bible doesn't say that creeds are.
Scripture is profitable for reproof... never reprove a person with a creed.
Scripture is profitable for correction... who gives you the right to correct a brother with a creed?
Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness... creeds - not so much.

Scripture makes a man of God complete... if you are complete what more do you need?

Scripture makes a man thoroughly equipped... if I am thoroughly equipped why do I need a creed? Is thoroughly equipped not equipped enough?

Scripture equips the believer for every good work.... is every good work not enough good works? Do I need a creed so that I will be equipped with more good works than every good work?

The problem is that some people just don't believe the Bible when it says that the Bible is enough for everything the believer needs. We don't need another authority. The Bible alone is sufficient.
I know that we need to be in a local church and not be a lone wolf but creeds are put above the local church and that is not Biblical.

You gave some examples about some unbelievers and possibly non-elect people who take the great Biblical teaching of the sufficiency of scripture and show that they misused that doctrine to their spiritual ruin and that they lead other non elect persons astray. So what? All non-elect persons misuse great Bible doctrines to their spiritual detriment. What unbeliever hasn't used predestination to say that it doesn't matter what they do? So should we stop believing in predestination? What unbeliever hasn't used once saved always saved to support continuing in sin? So should we give up on the preservation of the saints? So the fact that unbelievers have used the doctrine of the all sufficiency of scripture to teach heresy does not prove that we should give up on the Biblical doctrine of the all sufficiency of scripture and say that scripture is not enough to teach doctrine so we must have creeds and confessions. That is bad logic.

The Bible says that it is totally sufficient (all that we need) for doctrine and to equip the believer for every good work. You say that we need the creeds and confessions or we will go off into heresy. Which should I believe...you or the Bible? Why do believers need creeds if the Bible says that the Bible is enough? You are saying that it is not enough. And where in the Bible does it give a group of men with a creed the authority to tell several churches what to do? There is no higher authority than the local congregation. The Apostles could tell churches in their day what to do but that is because they were Apostles. Nowadays churches have to go by the Apostles... and that means churches must go by what the Apostles said in scripture. No man today is an apostle. So we must look to scripture. I like to read what Christians in the past have believed but it has no authority. If you make it an authority you are sinning. The Bible says scripture is sufficient for everything the believer needs .... I don't need your uninspired creed and the Bible says I don't need it.

 

[JM]

Now the Bible teaches the all-sufficiency of the Scripture.

Agreed.

2nd Timothy 3:16 says " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This quote is referencing the Old Testament. Context, context, context.

Most of what you wrote is based on your misunderstanding of what creeds and confessions are, how the church uses them...therefore your arguements do not apply to the discussion.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JLR1300]

Wow! If the old testament equipped the believer for absolutely everything that he needed in doctrine.... then just think how much more the New Testament equips the believer since it reveals even more doctrine!!!!!!!!!! Praise the Lord!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[OzSpen]

Now the Bible teaches the all-sufficiency of the Scripture.

2nd Timothy 3:16 says " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This teaches...

Scripture is inspired... creeds are not (they are subject to error)
Scripture is profitable for doctrine... the Bible doesn't say that creeds are.
Scripture is profitable for reproof... never reprove a person with a creed.
Scripture is profitable for correction... who gives you the right to correct a brother with a creed?
Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness... creeds - not so much.

Scripture makes a man of God complete... if you are complete what more do you need?

Scripture makes a man thoroughly equipped... if I am thoroughly equipped why do I need a creed? Is thoroughly equipped not equipped enough?

I think you are sinking your own theological ship. Since Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, why do we need further exposition and explanation from you on this forum? Surely it's a waste of space just as much as the creeds that you denigrate?

 

[JLR1300]

I think you are sinking your own theological ship. Since Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, why do we need further exposition and explanation from you on this forum? Surely it's a waste of space just as much as the creeds that you denigrate?

That is a good question. Since the Bible itself tells ministers to "Preach the Word" then we know that even though the Bible is sufficient for doctrine, nevertheless, it is good for preachers within a congregation to preach doctrine if they are teaching what the Bible says... so that they can remind the believer of what the Bible says and so on. In the same way, Parents are told to teach their children the Scriptures. Also Believers are told to tell others about Christ. Christians are told to speak the truth in love etc. etc.

But where does the Bible tell a group of believers in a certain country at a certain time in history to write down what they believe and make it binding as an authority on the consciences of other Christians in the succeeding generations? Where does the Bible tell a certain group to write down what they believe and that that document should become a standard for multiple churches and should be used as an authority over others? I don't see anything wrong with reading what Christians in the past believed. But they are not any more of an authority than the New York Times.

I realize that you can press the idea of the all sufficiency of Scripture to the point of being ridiculous if you want to, and perhaps I may at times go overboard. But the point is this.... I can teach others but they do not have to give any more weight to my teaching than simply to regard them as just an opinion of an individual believer ...nothing more, nothing less. In the same way, a group of believers can write down what they believe and that is fine just so long as everyone understands that the document they produce is nothing more than just the opinions of some educated believers at a certain time in history in a certain location.

I don't really mean to go so far as to say that people cannot write down what they believe. I am just saying that Scripture is the authority and that the scripture has never told us to have a group of men write down what they believe and use it as authoritative document to guide churches by. It is the USE of the document that is the issue. Is it used simply as a method to find out what some good Christians think or is it used as a fence to hem them in and correct them and reprove them and test them?

Anyway, I certainly don't mean to offend anyone and I admit that I have a tendency to be bombastic. I just can't find a place in scripture where it says we need to have a group of men write down what they believe and then give it some kind of power and influence over the minds of believers and over multiple congregations. It probably is the fault more of the readers of the creeds than the writers. Lots of men who write confessions say that they are not trying to be an authority over others.... but then hundreds of years later people read those writings and they give it more influence than it was meant to have. Those writings become something that you must follow and cannot question. People think they are not giving too much authority to creeds but the reality is often different than what they imagine.

 

[twin1954]

I feel that theologians are a blessing to the church. Theologians aren't the primary problem. The primary problem is that sometimes Christians idolize certain theologians and are afraid to believe anything that departs from their opinions. They were just men and are not inspired like scripture is. They certainly can be wrong about many things.

I have found that confessions and creeds are even a bigger problem. Christians always claim that confessions are not above scripture but in actual practice they actually are. In theory, scripture is above confessions but the way it actually works is that in groups that have an official confession no one ever actually departs from anything that it says....ever. I have been around so many reformed Baptists and Presbyterians and they always say that the westminster and the 1689 london confession are not above scripture. But in the final analysis no one in those churches ever goes against anything in their confession. You could quote them a thousand scriptures but they will never actually have an open mind about anything that doesn't line up with their confession.

The confessions have become the new idol of the churches. I think most reformed christians should go ahead and throw their Bibles in the trash because the confessions are actually their final authority anyway. I hate to have this attitude but I have seen it confirmed countless times. The confessions are the new Protestant Pope. I think that the way to solve the problem is to avoid having a creed or confession that defines beliefs for a group of churches. If you want to have a confession or doctrinal statement for your local congregation that may be helpful... but once you make one for multiple churches you have created a paper Pope.

Sadly this has been my experience among Reformed folks, both Baptist and Presbyterian. They quote the confession before they quote the Scriptures. The confessions have, by default, become the last word on all doctrinal matters and if you disagree you are in need of discipline from the elders at the very least or at worst a heretic. I have heard sermon series that go on for years on the confessions. How sad.

I have no problem if folks want to have a confession or creed and understand the use of them very well. I just have a problem with binding a believer to them in any way. Bondage is bondage whether to the law or to a confession.

There is much in the confessions that I can wholeheartedly agree with but there are also parts that I cannot due to the light given me by the Spirit through study and prayer. When the confession becomes your source for doctrine or it is the determiner of truth and error it has replaced the Scriptures. Sadly, though they deny it, that is the common practice among confessional folks today.

 

[OzSpen]

Anyway, I certainly don't mean to offend anyone and I admit that I have a tendency to be bombastic. I just can't find a place in scripture where it says we need to have a group of men write down what they believe and then give it some kind of power and influence over the minds of believers and over multiple congregations. It probably is the fault more of the readers of the creeds than the writers. Lots of men who write confessions say that they are not trying to be an authority over others.... but then hundreds of years later people read those writings and they give it more influence than it was meant to have. Those writings become something that you must follow and cannot question. People think they are not giving too much authority to creeds but the reality is often different than what they imagine.

You still haven't addressed my point that you are here on this forum telling us your theology about Scripture and creeds, but you are doing it in your own words and you want me to understand and believe what you are saying.

I currently attend a church that supports the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, whenever the pastor or elder quotes from the WCF it is emphasised that this is a subordinate standard and that the ultimate standard is Scripture.

Where are you seeing a creed or confession being given more emphasis than Scripture?

Does the church you attend have a statement of faith that is a summary of the core doctrines accepted by that church? When people become members of your church, do they have to accept the church's statement of faith or not? Or could anyone, including a JW, Christadelphian, Mormon, Christian Scientist, etc become a member of your church?

Oz

 

[twin1954]

You still haven't addressed my point that you are here on this forum telling us your theology about Scripture and creeds, but you are doing it in your own words and you want me to understand and believe what you are saying.

I currently attend a church that supports the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, whenever the pastor or elder quotes from the WCF it is emphasised that this is a subordinate standard and that the ultimate standard is Scripture.

Where are you seeing a creed or confession being given more emphasis than Scripture?

Does the church you attend have a statement of faith that is a summary of the core doctrines accepted by that church? When people become members of your church, do they have to accept the church's statement of faith or not? Or could anyone, including a JW, Christadelphian, Mormon, Christian Scientist, etc become a member of your church?

Oz

Apparently you haven't visited sites such as the Puritan Board or even the Presby. forum on this site. All you have to do is visit almost any Reformed Baptist church in the US to see it happening. I have been around a long time and have been among the Reformed quite a bit so you can either take my word for it or not.

One Presbyterian on this site not only quotes the confession rather than the Scriptures but he will give you links to commentaries on the confession.

 

[OzSpen]

Apparently you haven't visited sites such as the Puritan Board or even the Presby. forum on this site. All you have to do is visit almost any Reformed Baptist church in the US to see it happening. I have been around a long time and have been among the Reformed quite a bit so you can either take my word for it or not.

One Presbyterian on this site not only quotes the confession rather than the Scriptures but he will give you links to commentaries on the confession.

Mate,

When will you get realistic about churches I can visit. I do not live in the USA so will not be visiting 'any Reformed Baptist church in the US'. I attend a Presbyterian Church in Australia and it DOES NOT happen in this church to treat the Confession above Scripture.

The Confession is a statement of Reformed and some other core doctrines of the faith. I have no problem in quoting a summary of a particular doctrine. That's what a creed and confession do. They provide opportunities for summaries of teaching to be quoted.

This copy of the Westminster Confession of Faith provides Scripture throughout to support the doctrines. I don't agree with all doctrines of the Confession, but at least this edition does back up its statements with Scripture.

The Presbyterian Church I attend always is clear that the primary standard of faith is Scripture and that the Confession is a subordinate standard to Scripture.

Oz

 

[twin1954]

Mate,

When will you get realistic about churches I can visit. I do not live in the USA so will not be visiting 'any Reformed Baptist church in the US'. I attend a Presbyterian Church in Australia and it DOES NOT happen in this church to treat the Confession above Scripture.

The Confession is a statement of Reformed and some other core doctrines of the faith. I have no problem in quoting a summary of a particular doctrine. That's what a creed and confession do. They provide opportunities for summaries of teaching to be quoted.

This copy of the Westminster Confession of Faith provides Scripture throughout to support the doctrines. I don't agree with all doctrines of the Confession, but at least this edition does back up its statements with Scripture.

The Presbyterian Church I attend always is clear that the primary standard of faith is Scripture and that the Confession is a subordinate standard to Scripture.

Oz

I am very aware that you cannot visit churches in the US. Which is why I felt the need to inform you of it. I am also very aware of what creeds and confessions are for. You challenged the veracity of one poster asking that he give specific places that this is practiced. Neither he nor I have even intimated that it is practiced universally among the Reformed. So yes there are some of the Reformed who do not put the confession above the Scriptures. Moreover those who do deny it by saying the very things you say. It is one thing to say that the confession doesn't supersede the Scriptures but another altogether to practice as though they do while denying it.

I gave you examples of the practice that you can easily check if you so desired. Yet you act as though we don't know what we are talking about because you haven't experienced it for yourself. Though I wonder if you would recognize it if you did.

You have a habit of calling into question the truthfulness of those with whom you disagree. You do it very subtly to be sure but you do it nonetheless.

One last thing, how is it that you, being a Presbyterian, can debate in the Baptist forum?

 

[OzSpen]

Though I wonder if you would recognize it if you did.

You have a habit of calling into question the truthfulness of those with whom you disagree. You do it very subtly to be sure but you do it nonetheless.

One last thing, how is it that you, being a Presbyterian, can debate in the Baptist forum?

These are false accusations.

Why am I, 'being a Presbyterian'. You have made a false assumption. I am NOT a Presbyterian. I am ordained with a Baptistic denomination, am unable to attend my denomination's church in the region where I live (there is none locally where I live), and my wife plays piano for the services in a Presbyterian church so I, as a caring and committed husband, am accompanying her on many occasions (generally mornings) when she attends this church.

So does that satisfy your false accusation against me? It pays you to check with me first before you make this kind of accusation.

I notice you do not have a Baptist icon associated with your name and the posts you make in this Baptist directory. Is there a reason for this?

Oz