This is Theology

[Tree of Life]

It's always good to obtusely miss the point.

It's easy to miss your points Resha.

 

[Resha Caner]

Whats Lutheranism have to do with this topic?

The forum is general theology. There is no restriction to one denomination or another. @Tree of Life is Reformed, and so it is relevant to note the differences in our approaches to the topic at hand.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's easy to miss your points Resha.

The message you're sending is that you've decided to redefine a word because the standard definition indicates something you find boring and irrelevant. Why not just say you find theology boring and irrelevant and identify a proper word to explain what you're talking about?

Is that plain enough?

 

[Tree of Life]

The message you're sending is that you've decided to redefine a word because the standard definition indicates something you find boring and irrelevant. Why not just say you find theology boring and irrelevant and identify a proper word to explain what you're talking about?

Is that plain enough?

Frame's definition is not a redefinition. In Chapter 1 of his Systematic Theology (entitled: "What Is Theology?"), he goes through the historical suggestions of definitions of theology and shows their strengths and weaknesses. He then arrives at his suggestion. I think he makes a very compelling case for it. You can read chapter 1 in its entirety here.

Part of the task of theologians is to define theology and nearly every systematic theology begins with asking the question "what is theology?" So it's not uncommon for them to arrive at slightly different definitions. There is no established definition no matter what a dictionary says. The dictionaries don't have authority to give the final word on theological terms.

 

[W2L]

The forum is general theology. There is no restriction to one denomination or another. @Tree of Life is Reformed, and so it is relevant to note the differences in our approaches to the topic at hand.

Cool. Im a generic christian, no denomination. I love simplicity. I love whats in my heart. Praise the Lord my soul. Most theologians study many subjects and in the end ii may not even teach them anything that helps them. So i say keep it simple, seek what is within. God already sowed it there, we have His words. Maybe there are other reasons for complicated theology, such as debating other religions who use the same scriptures, such as Jews and Muslims, but for me as an individual i need none of that. I have the Word within. Amen.

 

[Tree of Life]

Cool. Im a generic christian, no denomination. I love simplicity. I love whats in my heart. Praise the Lord my soul. Most theologians study many subjects and in the end ii may not even teach them anything that helps them. So i say keep it simple, seek what is within. God already sowed it there, we have His words. Maybe there are other reasons for complicated theology, such as debating other religions who use the same scriptures, such as Jews and Muslims, but for me as an individual i need none of that. I have the Word within. Amen.

This is a good example of one of Frame's concerns in his definition. He is also trying to answer the question: "Why do we need theology when we have Scripture?" Or "What does theology add to Scripture?"

According to his definition, we need theology because we need to apply Scripture to life. And theology does not add anything to Scripture, but it does properly apply Scripture to how we think, feel, act, and speak.

 

[W2L]

This is a good example of one of Frame's concerns in his definition. He is also trying to answer the question: "Why do we need theology when we have Scripture?" Or "What does theology add to Scripture?"

According to his definition, we need theology because we need to apply Scripture to life. And theology does not add anything to Scripture, but it does properly apply Scripture to how we think, feel, act, and speak.

I believe scripture teaches us simplicity. Love fulfills the law, that is one example of simplicity. Galatians 5-6, more simplicity. Jesus yoke is easy and His burden light, another example. Acts 15 as well.

 

[Resha Caner]

Frame's definition is not a redefinition. In Chapter 1 of his Systematic Theology (entitled: "What Is Theology?"), he goes through the historical suggestions of definitions of theology and shows their strengths and weaknesses. He then arrives at his suggestion. I think he makes a very compelling case for it. You can read chapter 1 in its entirety here.

Part of the task of theologians is to define theology and nearly every systematic theology begins with asking the question "what is theology?" So it's not uncommon for them to arrive at slightly different definitions. There is no established definition no matter what a dictionary says. The dictionaries don't have authority to give the final word on theological terms.

Dictionaries are pretty important. Otherwise we end up with a result like post #15.

Asking, "What is theology?" is not a strictly definitional question, but a philosophical question. Just asking the question in the first place belies a strong potential for the magisterial approach I mentioned. Though I don't know the man, my guess is Frame wouldn't disagree with the dictionary definition. Rather, he's playing with the dimensionality of the term.

His conclusion, though, is very disappointing. As I indicated, all he's referring to is discipleship - nothing new (at least from what I've gathered in this thread).

 

[Tree of Life]

Dictionaries are pretty important. Otherwise we end up with a result like post #15.

Asking, "What is theology?" is not a strictly definitional question, but a philosophical question. Just asking the question in the first place belies a strong potential for the magisterial approach I mentioned. Though I don't know the man, my guess is Frame wouldn't disagree with the dictionary definition. Rather, he's playing with the dimensionality of the term.

His conclusion, though, is very disappointing. As I indicated, all he's referring to is discipleship - nothing new (at least from what I've gathered in this thread).

I believe if you gave his chapter 1 a read (probably 15-20 minute read) then you may come away with a different impression. It's well worth the time.

 

[Resha Caner]

Cool. Im a generic christian, no denomination. I love simplicity. I love whats in my heart. Praise the Lord my soul. Most theologians study many subjects and in the end ii may not even teach them anything that helps them. So i say keep it simple, seek what is within. God already sowed it there, we have His words. Maybe there are other reasons for complicated theology, such as debating other religions who use the same scriptures, such as Jews and Muslims, but for me as an individual i need none of that. I have the Word within. Amen.

Not everyone needs to understand the depths of theology. So if you're not interested, that's fine. But to dismiss its importance is dangerous. It's like saying dentists don't need to understand the chemistry of Novocaine. True, but somebody needs to understand it.

If you're not grounded in something, religion becomes "I get to believe whatever."

 

[Resha Caner]

I believe if you gave his chapter 1 a read (probably 15-20 minute read) then you may come away with a different impression. It's well worth the time.

Fair enough. I'll try to find some time today. I'll also admit I'll probably read with prejudice - it's a hard thing to avoid. The question, though, is whether you're curious to hear my reaction or you just think it would be good for me?

 

[Tree of Life]

Fair enough. I'll try to find some time today. I'll also admit I'll probably read with prejudice - it's a hard thing to avoid. The question, though, is whether you're curious to hear my reaction or you just think it would be good for me?

I think it would greatly help our dialogue. I'm presenting his definition with very little context. He makes a good and succinct case for it.

 

[Hawkins]

What is theology?

Theology is the theory behind God's salvation as can be delivered from the contents of our Bible.

 

[W2L]

If you're not grounded in something, religion becomes "I get to believe whatever."

I referred to scripture. That is my source of truth.

 

[Resha Caner]

I refereed to scripture. That is my source of truth.

You read Hebrew & Greek? Cool.

 

[W2L]

You read Hebrew & Greek? Cool.

I learned the greek alphabet once and a couple words.

What do i need to read Greek for? Have i not represented something in the bible correctly? Are my English translations misleading me?

 

[Resha Caner]

What do i need to read Greek for? Have i not represented something in the bible correctly? Are my English translations misleading me?

Translation leans heavily on interpretation, which is dependent upon theology. So, yes, different translations render certain verses in different ways, and that could be misleading.

Second, though, when was the last time you read a history book in a vacuum? Those darn Romans were a troop of professional clowns right? I mean, they always talk about the circus.

 

[W2L]

Translation leans heavily on interpretation, which is dependent upon theology. So, yes, different translations render certain verses in different ways, and that could be misleading.

Second, though, when was the last time you read a history book in a vacuum? Those darn Romans were a troop of professional clowns right? I mean, they always talk about the circus.

Translation leans heavily on interpretation, which is dependent upon theology. So, yes, different translations render certain verses in different ways, and that could be misleading.

Sure but so can theologians who read ancient Greek also miss-translate things. Look at the word "agape". Theologians tell us its some kind of Godly love, but God uses different forms of love not just agape, and pharisees had agape love too but the Lord rebuked them. Was their love Godly?

Second, though, when was the last time you read a history book in a vacuum? Those darn Romans were a troop of professional clowns right? I mean, they always talk about the circus.

Huh?

 

[Resha Caner]

Sure but so can theologians who read ancient Greek also miss-translate things.

Yes, that was my point. The ESV was translated via a different theological perspective than was the ASV or (ugh) The Message.

Huh?

It's an example. Do you know what a circus is? If so, please tell me.

 

[mark kennedy]

To me, this makes theology way too boring and academic. Theology is vital, practical, and approachable.

I think it's systematic, it has a broad base of relating to the more esoteric aspects. The modern approach is semantics, textual criticism and even atheists can juggle the semantics and put their philosophy into theological language. That's my problem with it, at the same time a systematic approach make theology a tool box. It's usefulness depends on what your working on and what your skill level is.