That is actually an excellent point Richard. I hadnt thought about that before.
Thank you for this, i really appreciate your insight there and its words of wisdom that has me deep in thought 
Mine must be face down.
1 Like
Exactly right Richard. That means that that particular piece does not belong in the puzzle no matter how much we love that piece.
1 Like
sound like a lot of people who are studying theology. Never saw the beautiful picture of the kingdom of God. So, is theology complicated? Yes. Boring? No.
It is also interesting to note that many people who study theology have the presumption of what kind of picture (calvinism, arminianism, dispensationalism etc) should be revealed in the puzzle. They are trying hard to fit pieces of the puzzle to conform to the picture they have in mind instead of letting the pieces reveal the true picture of God. Of course, in Jigsaw puzzle, we have a finished picture at the outside box so we know exactly what to look for. The Bible does not give such complete picture and we have to manuever each piece to its rightful place and then wallah⌠you have it.
That is what I have come to recognize as well. I often phrase it as âIt is really hard to make myself believe in something I donât believe inâ. I suspect this is true of most people.
Couldnât have said it better myself.
2 Likes
Not in terms of jigsaws. it just means the piece is in the wrong place.
Analogies only work so far.
Richard
I have come to think that a better analogy might be that of a mosaic composed of bits of stone or glass. The picture looks rough and chaotic when close, with gaps and contrasts, but when viewed at a distance where the complete picture can be taken in, becomes coherent and a thing of beauty.
So often it seems that when a theologian tries to put together a systemic theology to unite all the bits and pieces of what they believe, pieces get forced and contrived to fit the puzzle, and essentially the goal is to get God to fit in the borders we have invented. The theology may reach the goal of being internally consistent, but externally and eternally wrong.
4 Likes
Then there is the mathematical truth that God, being in some sense or dimension infinite (does any Christian question Godâs infinite love?) can never be completely described in finite terms, or fully understood by our finite minds.
What the infinity of God leaves as an open question is that however extensive theology gets, it is not the entire story of God. The mathematics of infinity is undeniable: Our finite theology, as a description of the infinite God, while criticallhy important as the foundation of our relationships with Him, is mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of the whole of God.
The point I wish to make here is just that anyone who claims to have the only true description of God is wrong. And that the infinity of God is a specific indicator that Theology does have plenty of opportunity to be complicated!
2 Likes
Google AI kind of gets itâŚ
âTheology is the study of religious belief, faith, and practice, with a focus on the nature of divinity and Godâs relationship to humanityâ
Religious belief in Christianity comes entirely from the bible cannon.
Any claim we develop theology from human reasoning and external evidence is not what i would consider theological.
Sorry to be so blunt jpm, however, you have inadvertantly stumbled into an ants nest with that one because not only have i been academically trained as a teacher in a Christian institution, my dad is a theologian⌠Ive lived under that umbrella since the age of about 11 (im 53 now).
I would argue that academics with a rather poor doctrine base are likely to compromise sound theology based on scientific observation, however, there is no doubt that is moving away from true theology with a kind of hybrid belief system. For some thats ok, but it is plainly obvious these individuals do not accept specific elements of the bible. The result of this at its worst is demonstrated when an individual comes on these forums doubting that miracles ever occured in the bible. Thats a huge dilemma because it turns salvation into a fairytale (as just happened here a few days ago)
1 Like
If you bury your head in the Bible you will not see the creation God made, and Paul, in Romans seems to think that God can be seen in creation. So any theology based soley on the Bible will miss this vital element.
I have sat at this compute reading all these proclamations about sin and what the Bible says from people who clearly do not know non-Christians well enough.
There is more to this world than the Bible. Our theology must include this.(INHO)
Richard
I must be reading what you have written here wrong because it appears to me that you are contradicting yourself in these two sentences.
How an you know what Paul says in Romans without reading it in the Bible? Therefore, burying ones head in the bible is how you came across Pauls writings regarding creation in the first place is it not?
Might i also add, in Romans Chapter 3 Pauls statesâŚ
22And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
25God presented Him as the atoning sacrificei through faith in His blood,
this tells us that clearly, Christs death on the cross is specifically in fulfillment of the old Testament Sanctuary Service model of atonement for the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).
So Christ died physically on the cross for sinâŚtherefore the wages of sin is physical death.
If we go back to the promise made to Eve in the garden of Eden after the fall, its pretty obvious the physical fulfillment of the prophecy means that the very prophecy itself was literal in that God gave this to Adam and Eve in person specifically because they physically ate of the tree in the middle of the garden in disobedience to Gods command!
That is how we know that internal consistency in the bible proves doctrine! The writings of Paul are consistent with the writings of the record of Christ ministry which are consistent with the original writings of Moses.
You seem to be being deliberately obtuse.
It does not take detailed study of Romans to read and understand what Paul said. Why would I assume that people are either dense or unable to read? Or have not red the Bible at all?
I do not care whether Paul declares all have sinned. It does not mean that sin is some sort of disease. It just means that the likeleyhood of someone sinning in their four score years and ten is astronomical. God is perfect. Sin is falling short of perfection, it does not make people automatically evil! Mistakes happen. We are not perfect. Thatâs wht the sacrifice was for!.
People are generally good. There are exceptions but they prove the rule rather than disprove it.
As for the rest of your sermon. Why do you think I need it? Stop treating me like an atheist! Or not a Christian!
Richard
And thatâs exactly what the modern creation science and ID movements have done. Trying to make their interpretation of Scripture be science, rather than recognizing that the text is written in the style of ancient Near Eastern thought, and prioritizing their âscientificâ models over careful theology and scientific honesty, has led to the modern mess of creationism functioning as a legalistic false gospel like that of the judaizers in Galatia.
4 Likes
ID has nothing to do with theology or Creationism. Along with IC it comprises the two things ToE cannot explain. It comes from comon sense , which seems to be non scientific, and basic Physiology and / or Ecology which are very much science.
All we hear is that anything can be made in small increments given enough time. I can offer numerous analogies of things that do not qualify for that methodology but analogies are not scientific either.
Specific examples are shouted down with incomplete progressions that may or may not include elements of the systems involved. But, and here is the real non scientific problem, there is no âreasonâ for any of it other than to produce what we have now. IOW
âit must have been as we say because that is what we now haveâ
which is false logic.
Evolution is the only process that grows and develops, everything else decays (Yes, even a chid is decaying as well as growing)
Richard
1 Like
ID is creationism.
âIntelligent Designâ was coined as an alternative name for creationism so that it could be taught in schools.
The original definition of âIntelligent Designâ was identical to the same authorsâ earlier definition of creation:
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
Every argument (bar one) that has been made for ID originated in Creationism.
ID is indistinguishable from the ICRâs Scientific Creationism, and was developed for exactly the same reason.
ID is Creationism. Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Only in the broad sense.
Creationism is seen as Genesis 1, or YEC.
ID can incorporate elements of evolution, as I do.
Richard
1 Like
Aah, that is an added meaning to the word. I propose that âdeathâ in that sentence refers to eternal death in hell instead of physical death.
If Christ had died for our wages of sin that was âphysical deathâ, then why do we (who are believers and redeemed and sin fully paid by Christ) need to go thru physical death? I wonder if anyone ever thought of that.
1 Like
agreed. However, the analogy still stands here because there are many doctrines that are man made and they do not belong in the true theology of God as presented by the Bible.
1 Like
perhaps in the same sense as the big bang is considered as creationism or the natural laws as part of creations or the constants being put there by a creator. While ID does not reject creationism, it does allow all progression of evolution.