Theology or History

 

This post is about decision making.  So, let the Holy Spirit lead you beyond the difficulty you have with contradiction.  Simone Weil, the beautiful absurdist theologian, understood contradiction as necessary for us to live with; because of her work, I am able to see no problem with contradiction. But for those who need inerrancy over contradiction, go for it. I am not bothered by either. There are those who would whine at the thought of this . . . . . . . .

I H Marshall wrote about the connection between Luke as historian and Luke as theologian.  I read his book in 1984.  It is quite informative and would be a good read for those who see Biblical literature as church (invented or constructed) theology, useful for training and creeds, but not as history.  For those who think that the Bible is not inerrant, but contradictory; I feel sorry for, because they cannot get over the hump to believe the Bible as the Truth and the Word of God and the sole source of Truth or Truth itself.  I am praying for that person.  In the meantime, check out some versions of these themes as laid out by interpreters and theologians. Feel sorry for them too.

--Me

 

A Different Religion Altogether

One hundred years ago, the great Christian scholar J. Gresham Machen saw the church drifting away from the traditional tenets of Christianity. Many embraced what was called “modernism,” or liberal theology. This viewpoint said that the Bible had errors in it and was the product of human reflection rather than divine inspiration. What Machen began to realize was that while his liberal colleagues were using the same Christian vocabulary he was, they were investing those words with entirely new meanings that relied much more on fashionable ideas than on the biblical context. Sound familiar? This theological liberalism, he said, was not merely another flavor of Christianity. It was an entirely different religion altogether.

I invite you to watch more.
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmcusercontent.com%2Fcd47cf2b58ae89c48e0c22cbe%2Fimages%2F98a66f67-f366-5a8e-9c95-bb38ce5c5f66.png&t=1696083385&ymreqid=5a3ef4cd-29bf-af0b-1c93-440001017500&sig=bs4l098FCvYfL9cKAUYstw--~D
Dr. Robert J. Pacienza

 

Word and Spirit, as Machen well knew, worked together hand in hand. For that reason, conversion could never be divorced from doctrine which was a systematic summary of Scriptural teaching.

Richard Mouw argued that twentieth-century Protestantism can be broken down into four different schools of thought regarding the essential nature of Scripture. First are those like Machen who read the Bible as essentially a book of theology. Second, pietists read the Bible in order to cultivate ‘certain pious … experiences and habits fundamental to the Christian life’. Third, moralists conceive of Christianity in essentially ethical categories and look to the Bible for right or wrong forms of conduct. Finally, culturalists read the Bible for wisdom about the transformation of society, from politics and economics to education and art. Mouw admits that these impulses are hardly ever distinct and that some movements within recent Protestantism have exhibited all four methods of interpreting the Bible. 

n D G Hart

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Let's spread MISINFORMATION

21st century prophecies

Dirty words