Originally posted by vistesdI am a systematic theologian. To which earliest Christians do you refer?
But, Freaky—you stand neither in the hermeneutical stream of the Jewish Oral Torah (which tradition takes back to Sinai, but which historically gets lost in the mists of time some centuries before Jesus), nor in the tradition of the earliest post-apostolic Christians. Who is the qualified interpreter you found who finally “got it right”?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHe recognized that "intense study of the Scripture" does not equal understanding of it particulary when that study is based on preexisting conceits.
Hilarious. In typical fashion, you throw out the baby with the bath water and declare the area clean. So Jesus despised the religious of His day owing to their intense study of Scripture? Or, instead, did he castigate them for failing to see Him in the same?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSola Scripture, Sola Fide, inerrancy, depravity of Man, etc. etc. etc.
Agreed, to a degree. What do you mean by "preexisting conceits," exactly?
These are all beliefs that exist prior to a study of Scripture and then Scripture must be interpreted to comply with these beliefs.
Originally posted by no1marauderI disagree. The tradition that the Lord Jesus Christ grew up in was one of constantly questioning. One of the reasons I frequent this venue is for the same reason. I want someone to point out some angle of God that I have either missed or never quite answered. Not that I am completely satisfied that my answers are pat and done, but rather, that I have been so consistently surprised by the answers that God provides, I actually look forward to the stages of doubt.
Sola Scripture, inerrancy, depravity of Man, etc. etc. etc.
These are all beliefs that exist prior to a study of Scripture and then Scripture must be interpreted to comply with these beliefs.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn light of your refusal in this thread to even discuss Matthew 25 for the apparent reason that you think that only "Believers" could possibly understand it, I find this post ironic, unintentionally hilarious or just plain hypocritical.
I disagree. The tradition that the Lord Jesus Christ grew up in was one of constantly questioning. One of the reasons I frequent this venue is for the same reason. I want someone to point out some angle of God that I have either missed or never quite answered. Not that I am completely satisfied that my answers are pat and done, but rather, that I have ...[text shortened]... ntly surprised by the answers that God provides, I actually look forward to the stages of doubt.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy mistake: for some reason, I thought you were a business executive. 😳 Where did you do your studies? Do you teach? What denomination?
I am a systematic theologian. To which earliest Christians do you refer?
I was thinking of folks like Origen (condemned for some views, but still considered an great exegete in the orthodox tradition), Irenaeus, Cement of Alexandria, Athenasius, Tertullian, later the Cappadocians (especially Gregory of Nyssa)... Generally, the post-apostolic tradition that the Greek Orthodox have preserved (along with the language).
LATE EDIT:
Several (egregious) spelling errors above... 🙁
Also, the reason I asked the questions is because you were the one who raised the issue of qualifications. On the one hand, brilliant systematic theologians like Paul Tillich and Karl Barth disagree (toss in, say, Bultmann and Brunner—or Moltmann, though he distrusts a systems approach). Orthodox theologians follow the tradition of the early post-apostolic fathers (via oral tradition handed down from the apostles). I don’t know enough about Roman Catholic theologians to comment.
On the other hand, non-theologians can bring other reading skills. Literary critics like Harold Bloom, historians, textual critics generally. Theologians often have to rely on them.
Lately, I’m having only snatches of time to grab on here, and I think the point of my above questions in response to the issue of qualifications is likely missed, so I’ll toss in another quick jig-saw piece as an example:
You have claimed that God is subject to two different kinds of love, personal and impersonal; I have claimed there is no scriptural support for that; you said that it’s not in so many words, but it’s there if you know how to look for it...
Now, the Greek Orthodox, who never lost the language or its continuing use, have continually maintained that agape always at least includes eros, and the two are sometimes (legitimately) used synonymously—and I have “heavily footnoted” ( 😉 ) this on here before. The etymological root of agape is to caress and to desire. It is the word used in the Greek translation of the erotically-charged poem, the Song of Songs. It was only very late in the game that anyone began to make a sharp distinction.
The early post-apostolic church knew of no impersonal agape (I’m speaking of the church for about the first 600-800 years, both pre- and post-canon)--at least insofar as I have found. Orthodox Christians who stand in that continuing tradition know of no such thing.
Hence, (1) sans it being clearly articulated in scripture, (2) unsupported lexically, and (3) absent from the early post-apostolic church or the church that continues that tradition today—who was the first theologian to discover that there is an impersonal agape? Luther? Calvin? Somebody later? Earlier? The earliest overt articulation separating agape and eros that I have seen referenced is Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros (1932)—
“The use of the terms eros and agape to denote these two kinds of love is purely modern. In both classical and koine Greek the words do not carry this distinction...” Alan Watts, Behold the Spirit (1947), citing “Nygren’s useful distinction.”
Watts continues in the same footnote: “...and in the Johanine literature, agape is used of both types of love.” ?! Now that seems a clear bit of question-begging, since Watts has now assumed “both types of love” even though the Greek words “do not carry this distinction”—and then says that agape “is used of both types.” Now, I really like Watts, and this particular work I believe was originally the thesis for his M.Th. degree from Seabury-Western (he was an Episcopal priest and for a time chaplain at Northwestern University). But I think he’s muddled this one a bit.
But even so, nothing in his distinction connotes any “impersonal” love, by whatever name.
I haven’t read Nygren’s work, so I don’t know if the distinction is his creation for theological purposes, or whether he derives it from some earlier sources.
___________________________________
As a non-Christian, why should I care? Because I am a (self-educated in this sphere) student of comparative religion, especially in terms of expressions of the so-called “perennial philosophy.” I have studied both widely and deeply (well, deeply in terms of Zen Buddhism, Christianity and rabbinical Judaism)—albeit eclectically.
With that said, however, I am lately giving up scriptural exegesis itself, and the above is intended only as an example.
Originally posted by no1marauderI find this post ironic, unintentionally hilarious or just plain hypocritical.
In light of your refusal in this thread to even discuss Matthew 25 for the apparent reason that you think that only "Believers" could possibly understand it, I find this post ironic, unintentionally hilarious or just plain hypocritical.
I don't think any of the three reactions would be warranted in this case. For instance, you are a practioner of law. As such, you have been certified as having achieved a certain level of expertise with respect to your study, if not also in your trade. When you engage in discussions about any particular aspect of law with one not versed in either law or rules of engagement, your comprehension of law is still brought to bear.
If you have an open and inquisitive mind, you consider the path of thought taken by the neophite, regardless of their lack of qualification, testing the same against what you know about the various aspects of your profession. In other words, a child's inquiry into law should still challenge your own understanding, even though (most likely) your perspective remains firm in the consideration. Sophistication of conceptal thought or learned delivery should never be the price at the gate for thoughtful consideration of any perspective.
Originally posted by vistesdMy mistake: for some reason, I thought you were a business executive.
My mistake: for some reason, I thought you were a business executive. 😳 Where did you do your studies? Do you teach? What denomination?
I was thinking of folks like Origen (condemned for some views, but still considered an great exegete in the orthodox tradition), Irenaeus, Cement of Alexandria, Athenasius, Tertullian, later the Cappadocians (espec ...[text shortened]... , the post-apostolic tradition that the Greek Orthodox have preserved (along with the language).
The mistake is mine for lack of a concise delivery. In declaring myself a systematic theologian, I am merely describing my informing perspective. In my view, we are all theologians... some simply take their duties therein more seriously than others, is all.
Originally posted by vistesdWhen I speak of the distinctions between God's policy toward man in relation to love, I do not speak of the eros, phileo, agape distinctions. Rather, it along the lines of love dependency. For instance, in the following sentence, there is a subject, an action and an object:
Lately, I’m having only snatches of time to grab on here, and I think the point of my above questions in response to the issue of qualifications is likely missed, so I’ll toss in another quick jig-saw piece as an example:
You have claimed that God is subject to two different kinds of love, personal and impersonal; I have claimed there is no scriptural s ...[text shortened]... I am lately giving up scriptural exegesis itself, and the above is intended only as an example.
I love you.
In personal love, the subject's love is dependent upon the qualities, characteristics and actions of the object. If, for whatever reason, the object ceases to behave in the manner consistent with the standards of the subject (or if the subject arbitrarily decides to change the standards), love ceases to be the policy of the subject toward the object.
In impersonal love, the integrity of the subject becomes the standard, not the qualities, characteristics and actions of the object. Regardless of how the object behaves, the subject maintains a policy of love based upon who and what they are.
When the Bible speaks of God loving the world, since He cannot sponsor, condone or encourage sin, He certainly cannot love the world based upon the conditions therein. There is truly nothing worthy of His love within man, given his abject inability to muster up even a small amount of affinity between his actions and God's character.
God can love the world, however, based upon His own character. Regardless of how depraved man is, God loves because of who and what He is.
When imputed with Christ's righteousness through rebirth at the moment of faith in Christ, the justice of God demands that He personally love the believer--- the believer now possess affinity with God on at least that level.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow does this post possibly justify a refusal to even discuss the matter? If this were a thread on Roe v. Wade and I said "I won't discuss this issue with non-lawyers as they could not possibly comprehend the legal issues involved" that would simply be arrogant and rude (as well as incorrect).
[b]I find this post ironic, unintentionally hilarious or just plain hypocritical.
I don't think any of the three reactions would be warranted in this case. For instance, you are a practioner of law. As such, you have been certified as having achieved a certain level of expertise with respect to your study, if not also in your trade. When you engage ...[text shortened]... elivery should never be the price at the gate for thoughtful consideration of any perspective.[/b]
Even worse, you don't claim expertise based on qualifications; you claim expertise based on your belief in a certain interpretation. No amount of advanced study of Scripture would be deemed sufficient to you IF the well-schooled person didn't share your theological beliefs at the end of the day. So your last few posts stressing some kind of higher learning requirement is a red herring.