 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/28/2004 2:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Moon,
Narrative Theology is first of all like all theology a form of idolatry and spiritual whoredom. And like ALL theology, is how men with useless professions sit around and think up a bunch of garbage to keep you away from actaully reading the Bible.
Theology is the devil's try at having "wisdom". It makes you think your smart and intelligent to TALK ABOUT IT, but in reality it's vanity and a means of keeping you in darkness and truly ignorant of God's Word.
By the time you get done reading their garbage, you could have read the scriptures a thousand times over and God could have really taught you something. However THEN you'd know how full of pond scum theology really is because then you'd know what God thinks about their big words and their foolish worldly ideas.
A better question in general would be to ask god exactly what "theology" is in general. Then he would eventually lead you to Col. 2:8
"Beware lest any man spoil you (lead you off as prey) through philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ."
The truth is that you don't need their garbage to understand one single thing about God or his word. But for some people they would rather sit around and quote this theologian and rap about this or that type of spaced out theology, than just get accurate on the Scriptures.
However if you really want to know, here is a good overview.
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=narrative+theology&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&u=www.gregloving.com/dissertation/Chapter%25201.pdf&w=narrative+theology&d=17193CC7CD&c=482&yc=31375&icp=1
I personally just don't understand how you folks can read the junk these guys write that is just meant to "impress" you with bologna and think they actually know anything about God's word. If you'd come from where I came from out of a famliy of professional criminals and conmen, you might be able to see that's all these guys really are.
For real,
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/28/2004 2:54 AM (GMT -6) | | From another angle...
Per Gordon Fee, in Scripture we should note the difference between didactive and historical hermeneutics. Didactive (didactic) is instructional; it's when the author is laying down a point; he is teaching with the intent to convey a specific point. Historical (often times seen in narrative, and hence the reason for this post) is not intending to teach something, but is intending to convey.
What this means, then, is that we should be careful to distinguish between those passages that teach and those passages that convey. Paul, for instance, teaches often; Luke (in Acts) conveyed and did so namely in narrative. What Luke conveys is instrumental, indeed, but much of what he conveyed, as a historian, cannot be made into proof texts, as if Luke himself was teaching doctrine.
So, though this may be way out from what you were thinking when you asked the question about "narrative theology," moon_river, it's just something to be aware of in case you hear the term "narrative" and theology within the same sentence, and it's not having to do with that other stuff!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 6/28/2004 5:09 AM (GMT -6) | | | If theology is above all idolatry, then we all are bowing down (hope your knees aren't getting sore Larris...) Having said that, Larris, I would suggest you answer the person's SPECIFIC question, rather than give your own take on what it is... | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/28/2004 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | [
Larris: Narrative Theology is first of all like all theology a form of idolatry and spiritual whoredom. And like ALL theology, is how men with useless professions sit around and think up a bunch of garbage to keep you away from actaully reading the Bible.
Doc: THAT is quite an interesting piece of theology Larris. I'm wondering how much narrative theology or just theology in general you've read to arrive at this rather general conclusion. And I'm wondering what you're doing on a talk=board dedicated to taking about "a bund of garbage to keep you away from actually reading the Bible."
Larris: Theology is the devil's try at having "wisdom".
Doc: Don't let this out. It could hurt my book sales.
Larris: It makes you think your smart and intelligent to TALK ABOUT IT, but in reality it's vanity and a means of keeping you in darkness and truly ignorant of God's Word.
Doc: How many theologians did you interview before you came up with this judgment?
Larris: By the time you get done reading their garbage, you could have read the scriptures a thousand times over and God could have really taught you something. However THEN you'd know how full of pond scum theology really is because then you'd know what God thinks about their big words and their foolish worldly ideas.
Doc: How many verses could you have read during the time it took you to post this theological treatise?
Larris: A better question in general would be to ask god exactly what "theology" is in general. Then he would eventually lead you to Col. 2:8"Beware lest any man spoil you (lead you off as prey) through philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ."
Doc: And yet Paul quotes several pagan philosophers in Acts 17. Apparently, not all philosophy "spoils you." But, of course, the devil can take anything good and use it for evil -- in hopes that others will throug the good out with the evil.
Larris: The truth is that you don't need their garbage to understand one single thing about God or his word.
Doc: Either you know everything about God, or you have had questions. If you have questions about the Word, you might want to talk to others to get clarity. (per this board). If you want clarity it might help to talk to people who study the Bible alot, think about these things alot, and write about it. In other words, you might want to read THEOLOGIANS... and notice... you're DOING theology.
Larris: But for some people they would rather sit around and quote this theologian and rap about this or that type of spaced out theology, than just get accurate on the Scriptures.
Doc: And if you're wondering what "accurate" with Scripture is, why, just ask LARRIS. He apparent is one person who sits around and talks theology, and its (finally!) NOT a waste of time. Hats off to Larris.
Now, to answer Moon River's question: Narrative theology is the view that theology is best done in narrative form, not through abstracted proposition. All of us have a "story" about what the world is like, what we are, what the purpose of life is, what values to embrace, etc... Conversion is mostly a matter of committing oneself to the Chrsitian story. We grow in our faith as we come to see ourselves "within a story" -- the story of God's redemptive work in the world from creation to Revelation. When we think propositionally, we tend to plug our propositions into a pre-existing worldview that may not be biblical and that distorts the truth of the propositions -- assuming the propositions are true. When we think narratively, our entire worldview is transformed.
In other words, narrative captures truth in a transforming way that propositional truth does not. This is perhaps why God revealed himself to us through the narrative of a story (the Bible) rather than a systematic theology.
A GREAT narrative theologian is Stanley Hauweras. Read his "Resident Aliens." Powerful, insightful book. Larris, you ought to read it to.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/28/2004 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Dr. Boyd,
I apologize Sir, if I offended you, that was not my intent, and nothing "personal" was meant. And perhaps have spoken to rashly in the bluntness of my opinions. I realize that you are a sincere man that loves God and the Word of God. But the truth is that God’s men have been taken captive into the practice of some thing that is forbidden and warned about in scripture, and they are unaware of where it is leading them, just as the apostle Paul was unaware of this same thing before he was converted on the road to Damascus.
The People of God (of whom you are one) are not aware of the true origin and purpose of theology as it is defined in Plato’s Republic which you quote. Right there, in just saying that I have probably also offended you. For how could I dare to say that I know what Plato (Socrates) is really teaching, when here you are a graduate of some very highly acclaimed educational institutions with a B.A. in philosophy, a Master of Divinity and a Ph.D. And most especially since you quote Plato and by doing so would seem to know his intent.
Theology is a term compounded of two Greek words, theos(God) and logos (rational utterance). The word theology first appears in Plato’s Republic (book 2 chap. 18) with reference to poetry. According to Plato norms must be prescribed to which the poetry must conform in matters of theology. In this connection theology means the telling of stories about the gods. In Aristotle’s Metaphysics (book 6 chap. 1, sect. 19), it is one of the three speculative sciences: mathematical, physical and theological.
In the West down to the time of Abelard, the term “theology” was associated with heathenism. Abelard changed the meaning of the word. For him theology was as much the study of the Christian doctrine of God displayed in Holy Scripture and the church fahters, as of the doctrines of God found in writers OUTSIDE THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. (Encyclopedia Americana)
Abelard did not change the “MEANING” of the word, he changed what theology was APPLIED to.
“For him theology was as much the study of the Christian doctrine of God displayed in Holy Scripture and the church fathers, as of the doctrines of God found in writers OUTSIDE THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH.”
What is called “theology” is a complete and separate entity, and subject of study all it’s own before it is ever applied to any writings such as the Greek poets or the Bible. Therefore to say that just because someone discusses the Bible they are discussing “theology” is a misnomer (a wrong use or designation of the word).
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle developed and refined the basic concept and principles of what they called “theology” long before it was applied to the Bible, applying it as they did to the Greek poets. Therefore though we might apply their techniques on the scriptures, they are in fact just “methods” of teaching people how they ought to read any selected writing be it the Classics, the Bible, the Koran or any other writing. All of these books could be discussed with out the use of any theology whatsoever.
A very close reading of the Republic shows that the whole intent of the principles of theology were not to come to a correct understanding of Homer and the rest of the Greek prophets. Rather it was to control and change what the Greeks believed the writings of those prophets to be saying. Socrates did not like what Homer or many other Greek writers had written and wished to change what people thought of those writtings. This would be done through a set of inductive principles that taught people how to read DIFFERENTLY from the normal and thus change the actual meaning of the texts more to Socrates liking.
In short it was meant as a method of deception and it cannot be used for anything other than it was intended for. HOWEVER this aspect of what it really was and still is, was hidden from the eyes of men until it was revealed to the apostles who then warned about it. Howbeit those warnings were not heeded and men again fell into it's use on the scriptures, once again being led to think they were simply applying a form of study, when in reality it was a system designed specifically to corrupt.
We do not have to use the “norms” (a principle, law or rule of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior according to that groups opinions.) of Plato which is what theology consists of to think, write or speak about God and his word.
But because what we are speaking of here is one of the greatest deceptions that has ever been perpitrated on man kind, 99.9 percent of the world, dose not understand that theology is really a means of controlling what you think about what you read, they do not realize that just talking about the scriptures is not always theology or using theology.
The theology that you were taught and indoctrinated into in College only became a separate branch of study from the tree of what is called “PHILOSOPHY” several hundred years AFTER Christ. Therefore men do not realize that the very theology they are taught is the very same PHILOSOPHY that Paul warned about to the Colosians.
Col. 2:8 BEWARE lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.
And again to Timothy when he said:
2 Tim. 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
As it was stated, this “science” which was not a real science was called “theology” by Plato, and later said to be one of the three speculative “sciences” by Aristotle, well known to those Paul wrote to in the first century. Paul called it the “rudiments” of the world, and was referring to philosophic FIRST PRINCIPLES, which is what the word “rudiments” means. However the first principles of God and the first principles in Greek philosophy are two completely different things.
Two verses same word used, two types of knowledge discussed.
Hebrews. 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles (stoikion) of the oracles of God;
Col. 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments (stoikion) of the world, and not after Christ.
Those stoikion or FIRST PRINCIPLES of Philosophy and those of God were TWO completely different and antagonistic fundamental teachings. Yet here we come 2000 years into the future to find them COMBINED, and taught to all sincere men simply seeking to serve God, but who are then led to believe that they must grace the halls of higher learning for induction, because that is the “culture” the “tradition” of this world. Sincere God loving men then led to think they are serving Christ, but in reality having been led away from the actual truth of Christ, through the corrupted educational institutions of this world that combine PAGAN philosophy with the HOLY Word of God.
And to this truth, that their knowledge has been corrupted by the infusion of theology and philosophy with that of God’s Word, even once they find out that their practices, which have become professions are in direct antagonism to the truth of the original gospel, few men if any will ever accept. For then they would have to deny all their learning, their profession and their living.
They would have to become like Nicodemus a "master" of Israel, who thought he KNEW a lot, yet did not understand the words of Jesus when he told him he must be born again. For a babe knows not anything, and a man that becomes as a babe, admits that he knows not anything as he should know it, and thus can be taught truly from the scriptures by God, without the methodologies of theology.
I know that God is calling men out of those methodologies, and out of their previous education in pagan theology, to come to a true and accruate knowledge of his word. He called me, he's calling you, he's calling every man. That few men will actually believe what I say here, or actually come out of it, is however also a fact. It was not easy for me to come to the conclusions I now hold, having had to renouce all my former learning. I cannot imagine that anyone would just take anything I say, and immediately accept it or that any one will ever accept it. But that I am supposed to speak it because it is the truth, that I do where ever I get led for what ever time I am allow to speak.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 6/28/2004 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Larris and All,
(Larris) Narrative Theology is first of all like all theology a form of idolatry and spiritual whoredom. And like ALL theology, is how men with useless professions sit around and think up a bunch of garbage to keep you away from actaully reading the Bible.
(Jo-Anne) Larris, I thought that the word theology meant the study of God? I don't know what you mean by "whoredom" as it relates to theology? I noticed in Dr. Boyd's books that he refers to the open view as a THEODICY instead of theology...why is that?
(Larris) Theology is the devil's try at having "wisdom". It makes you think your smart and intelligent to TALK ABOUT IT, but in reality it's vanity and a means of keeping you in darkness and truly ignorant of God's Word.
(Would you explain what you mean by this?) - Jo-Anne
(Larris) By the time you get done reading their garbage, you could have read the scriptures a thousand times over and God could have really taught you something. However THEN you'd know how full of pond scum theology really is because then you'd know what God thinks about their big words and their foolish worldly ideas.
(Jo-Anne) I do know what pond scum is!
Larris, one thing that I HAVE learned is that you can have the right theology, but not have the character or love to go with it. But, none of us have just the right theology anyway...even the most righteous man alive did not have the right theology.
(Larris) However if you really want to know, here is a good overview.
(Jo-Anne) Thank you for the overview. It was a sincere question Larris.
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=narrative+theology&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&u=www.gregloving.com/dissertation/Chapter%25201.pdf&w=narrative+theology&d=17193CC7CD&c=482&yc=31375&icp=1
(Larris) I personally just don't understand how you folks can read the junk these guys write that is just meant to "impress" you with bologna and think they actually know anything about God's word. If you'd come from where I came from out of a famliy of professional criminals and conmen, you might be able to see that's all these guys really are.
(Jo-Anne) "these guys?"
Slightly more confused,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 6/28/2004 4:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman & Others,
(Starkman) Per Gordon Fee, in Scripture we should note the difference between didactive and historical hermeneutics. Didactive (didactic) is instructional; it's when the author is laying down a point; he is teaching with the intent to convey a specific point. Historical (often times seen in narrative, and hence the reason for this post) is not intending to teach something, but is intending to convey.
(Jo-Anne) Are parables didactic?
(Starkman) What this means, then, is that we should be careful to distinguish between those passages that teach and those passages that convey. Paul, for instance, teaches often; Luke (in Acts) conveyed and did so namely in narrative. What Luke conveys is instrumental, indeed, but much of what he conveyed, as a historian, cannot be made into proof texts, as if Luke himself was teaching doctrine.
(Jo-Anne) I've only ever heard of "proof texts" in a negative way? Is that what you are meaning here?
(Starkman) So, though this may be way out from what you were thinking when you asked the question about "narrative theology," moon_river, it's just something to be aware of in case you hear the term "narrative" and theology within the same sentence, and it's not having to do with that other stuff!
(Jo-Anne) I think I'm a little less confused now. Thanks. What is "that other stuff" ? I understand the term narrative as it relates to writing...but heard the term on another thread (actually conveyed by Brandon, asked that question there, but he never got back to me)
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 6/28/2004 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc & All,
(Doc) Now, to answer Moon River's question: Narrative theology is the view that theology is best done in narrative form, not through abstracted proposition. All of us have a "story" about what the world is like, what we are, what the purpose of life is, what values to embrace, etc... Conversion is mostly a matter of committing oneself to the Chrsitian story. We grow in our faith as we come to see ourselves "within a story" -- the story of God's redemptive work in the world from creation to Revelation. When we think propositionally, we tend to plug our propositions into a pre-existing worldview that may not be biblical and that distorts the truth of the propositions -- assuming the propositions are true. When we think narratively, our entire worldview is transformed.
(Jo-Anne) The idea of coming to see ourselves "within a story" is one that I like. I remember John Eldredge talking about that in his books as well. So, then, what you are saying, is that each of us in Christ are part of a narrative? Can you give me some examples (or someone) or thinking narratively?
(Doc) In other words, narrative captures truth in a transforming way that propositional truth does not. This is perhaps why God revealed himself to us through the narrative of a story (the Bible) rather than a systematic theology.
(Jo-Anne) Can you give me an example of a narrative truth and a propsitional truth - so I can see the difference? (hope that makes sense).
(Doc) A GREAT narrative theologian is Stanley Hauweras. Read his "Resident Aliens." Powerful, insightful book. Larris, you ought to read it to.
(Jo-Anne) Doc, thanks for the book recommendation. I'll look it up!
Understanding more now (I think)
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 6/28/2004 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris & All,
Sometimes (actually, quite often), I am bowled over by the knowledge of some of the people on the board. I read constantly. I guess I love the discovery part of this - but what is most important to me, is how I take what I learn, and how it impacts this journey that I'm on...how it helps me to get a clearer picture of the Father, and love Him and others.
Larris, I do have a suggestion for the future, if I may. Please don't assume things when someone asks a simple question. It was really a request to undestand what the term meant, nothing more. But, on the other hand, I have learned from this dialogue. I appreciate the sincere responses to my question, the patience of those who are far beyond my knowledge and understanding here...
One more thing. Theology (at least as I understand it), is important. The wrong theology can dramatically affect your relationship with the Father, and with others. So, in that respect, this is far from a waste of time.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/28/2004 10:30 PM (GMT -6) | |
One more thing. Theology (at least as I understand it), is important. The wrong theology can dramatically affect your relationship with the Father, and with others. So, in that respect, this is far from a waste of time.
Greg: Yes, the issue isn't will or won't you do theology. As I tried to show, Larris is FULL of theology and is DOING a ton of theology. Anyone with an opinion (logos) of God or God-related things, and anyone who talks (logos) about God, has a THEOS -LOGOS (theology). And as Joanne notes, the only way to guard against false theology is by being intentional about your own theology.
Greg to Larris: I'm not offended. Just trying to help you. And I don't know where you get your information about the origins of "theology," but I encourage you to stop it, or at least balance it with sources that are less THEOLOGICALLY dirven. Its conspiratorial and WAY off. Socrates and Plato and Aristotle were reflecting on the wild anthropomorphic things popular texts (like Homer... ever read it?) say about the gods. They weren't trying to "deceive" people but enlighten them. And the stuff on Abelard... wow. Don't know where to start. Just read a lot from different sources.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/29/2004 2:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello Moon...
Starkman & Others,
(Jo-Anne) Are parables didactic?
No, not in the sense that they are "stories." Do they serve to teach? In many cases yes. They reinforce, but they are different than Paul's teaching in Romans or Jesus' direct teaching in, say, John 3:16 ("You must be born again").
(Jo-Anne) I've only ever heard of "proof texts" in a negative way? Is that what you are meaning here?
It's negative when there is too much bias and not enough objectivity in exegeting the text. "Too much bias," I say, because in one form or another there is always bias or presupposition. But the goal of good exegesis is to set aside one's own theology in favor of the author's theology. A challenge to do sometimes.
(Jo-Anne) I think I'm a little less confused now. Thanks. What is "that other stuff" ? I understand the term narrative as it relates to writing...but heard the term on another thread (actually conveyed by Brandon, asked that question there, but he never got back to me)
The "other stuff" was the stuff Larris was talking about. Whatever that was all about, you can rest assure that theology is wonderful; it's impossible not to theologize, because every time one speaks about what one believes about God or how one understands God in relationship to the world, and vice-versa, one is speaking theologically.
Oh, and theodicy is the dealing with the vindication of God in view of the existence of evil. It is making sense of evil in a view of a God who is not evil. Thus, theology and theodicy are not the same thing, though one may have a theology about theodicy!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/29/2004 3:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by larris
Hi Moon,
Narrative Theology is first of all like all theology a form of idolatry and spiritual whoredom. And like ALL theology, is how men with useless professions sit around and think up a bunch of garbage to keep you away from actaully reading the Bible.
selah:
just here to represent the WO-men who sit around and think up a bunch of garbage... gee.
quote:
Theology is the devil's try at having "wisdom". It makes you think your smart and intelligent to TALK ABOUT IT, but in reality it's vanity and a means of keeping you in darkness and truly ignorant of God's Word.
selah:
Larris, really, I wish I could meet you. I think you would see that I don't think I'm "smart and intelligent to TALK ABOUT IT" rather that I think I'm DUMB (about this or that ;)) and am seeking guidance through TALKING ABOUT IT with an "abundance of counselors" (counselors=theologians/professors of theology/pastors/laypeople)
Proverbs 11:14 Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory.
selah: Are you suggesting we only listen to God through God's Word? This seems historically problematic. For example, the LDS church believes they hear (and rightly explain) the word of truth because God teaches them and gives them a "feeling" it is right.
2 Peter 3
14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprinciple and fall from your own steadfastness...
selah:
How is one taught the "hard to understand things" if it is not through learning from others?
quote:
However THEN you'd know how full of pond scum theology really is
selah:
I'll have to ask Jo-Anne what pond scum is...
quote:
because then you'd know what God thinks about their big words and their foolish worldly ideas.
selah:
what does God think about my big word "supercalafragilisticexpealadocious" - JUST KIDDING!
quote:
A better question in general would be to ask god exactly what "theology" is in general. Then he would eventually lead you to Col. 2:8
Colossians 2
2:8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.
or yours:
"Beware lest any man spoil you (lead you off as prey) through philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ."
selah:
Right, beware of being taken captive and lead away from Christ...in your study. Good idea ... cling to what is good.
quote:
I personally just don't understand how you folks can read the junk these guys write that is just meant to "impress" you with bologna and think they actually know anything about God's word. If you'd come from where I came from out of a famliy of professional criminals and conmen, you might be able to see that's all these guys really are.
For real,
In the love of Christ,
larris
selah:
Well Larris, no offense but this does not sound like it came "in the love of Christ". Now that I think about it, maybe this post to you doesn't sound that way either. If not, I'm sorry. Just in case, I will sign this
"in the flesh of selah"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/29/2004 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
(Jo-Anne) I think I'm a little less confused now. Thanks. What is "that other stuff" ? I understand the term narrative as it relates to writing...but heard the term on another thread (actually conveyed by Brandon, asked that question there, but he never got back to me)
I am truly sorry about that Jo-Anne. I was writing up a response to that enquiry. I saved it in my hotmail and then I deleted a bunch of old mail and I think I deleted that along with the old mail. I was hoping you wouldn’t have noticed that I didn’t respond.
Greg is totally "right on" here and larris is totally "right off" here. Seriously, larris either totally misunderstood what the question was or he was sooooo into what he was conveying that he didn’t realize he was to some extent agreeing with Greg.
Narrative theology is “the story” (narration, narrative) of the Bible (Creation, fall, redemption, renewal). It is not the abstract proposition (as Greg says) of “the story.” Therefore, all theologizing of scripture is secondary to the “main thing” (“the story” as POW said on the ICONOGRAPHY thread). Trinitarian theology, feminist theology, liberation theology, Openness theology, process theology, Christology, soteriology, and on and on, all of these are the theorizing (abstract propositions) of “the story.”
Some of these need to be reformed. Some need refinement. Some may need to be ditched. No matter what your stance on these, diversity can be a good thing as long as they don’t stray too far from the “main thing,” the story, in which case, these should be recognized for what they are—"extreme," because they end up distorting the story in which they are based on.
In the end, what larris is REALLY ragging on is the (abstract propositions) of Scripture (which I think he sorely misunderstood). Along with Greg's suggestion to read Hauerwas, I would recommend Pinnock's, “Tracking the Maze” (that is, working through the differing theological options).
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 6/29/2004 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Hello Moon...
Starkman & Others,
(Jo-Anne) Are parables didactic?
No, not in the sense that they are "stories." Do they serve to teach? In many cases yes. They reinforce, but they are different than Paul's teaching in Romans or Jesus' direct teaching in, say, John 3:16 ("You must be born again").
(Jo-Anne) I've only ever heard of "proof texts" in a negative way? Is that what you are meaning here?
It's negative when there is too much bias and not enough objectivity in exegeting the text. "Too much bias," I say, because in one form or another there is always bias or presupposition. But the goal of good exegesis is to set aside one's own theology in favor of the author's theology. A challenge to do sometimes.
(Jo-Anne) I think I'm a little less confused now. Thanks. What is "that other stuff" ? I understand the term narrative as it relates to writing...but heard the term on another thread (actually conveyed by Brandon, asked that question there, but he never got back to me)
The "other stuff" was the stuff Larris was talking about. Whatever that was all about, you can rest assure that theology is wonderful; it's impossible not to theologize, because every time one speaks about what one believes about God or how one understands God in relationship to the world, and vice-versa, one is speaking theologically.
Oh, and theodicy is the dealing with the vindication of God in view of the existence of evil. It is making sense of evil in a view of a God who is not evil. Thus, theology and theodicy are not the same thing, though one may have a theology about theodicy!
Starkman
Starkman,
Thank you. This is very helpful. I can't believe that I read God At War and Satan And The Problem of Evil, and thought theodicy was a substitute word for theology. Now I understand why the term "Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy."
God Bless (Eureka!) 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 6/29/2004 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
quote:
(Jo-Anne) I think I'm a little less confused now. Thanks. What is "that other stuff" ? I understand the term narrative as it relates to writing...but heard the term on another thread (actually conveyed by Brandon, asked that question there, but he never got back to me)
I am truly sorry about that Jo-Anne. I was writing up a response to that enquiry. I saved it in my hotmail and then I deleted a bunch of old mail and I think I deleted that along with the old mail. I was hoping you wouldn’t have noticed that I didn’t respond.
Greg is totally "right on" here and larris is totally "right off" here. Seriously, larris either totally misunderstood what the question was or he was sooooo into what he was conveying that he didn’t realize he was to some extent agreeing with Greg.
Narrative theology is “the story” (narration, narrative) of the Bible (Creation, fall, redemption, renewal). It is not the abstract proposition (as Greg says) of “the story.” Therefore, all theologizing of scripture is secondary to the “main thing” (“the story” as POW said on the ICONOGRAPHY thread). Trinitarian theology, feminist theology, liberation theology, Openness theology, process theology, Christology, soteriology, and on and on, all of these are the theorizing (abstract propositions) of “the story.”
Some of these need to be reformed. Some need refinement. Some may need to be ditched. No matter what your stance on these, diversity can be a good thing as long as they don’t stray too far from the “main thing,” the story, in which case, these should be recognized for what they are—"extreme," because they end up distorting the story in which they are based on.
In the end, what larris is REALLY ragging on is the (abstract propositions) of Scripture (which I think he sorely misunderstood). Along with Greg's suggestion to read Hauerwas, I would recommend Pinnock's, “Tracking the Maze” (that is, working through the differing theological options).
Hi Brandon,
No problem - not answering. I know that there are a lot of threads here, and a lot of questions.
Thank you for the expanded explanation on narrative theology. Sounds like it is more important to focus on the narrative (on being in the narrative), than on theology? On the other hand, they do go hand in hand right? I can see where a theology that is "off" can distory the main story. How do you balance the two?
I'll look up Tracking The Maze as well. I enjoyed Pinnock's Flame of Love.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/30/2004 3:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Moon asked Brandon:
Thank you for the expanded explanation on narrative theology. Sounds like it is more important to focus on the narrative (on being in the narrative), than on theology? On the other hand, they do go hand in hand right? I can see where a theology that is "off" can distory the main story. How do you balance the two?
I'll jump in here and say that the first thing you DON'T want to do when you're readig narrative is to make the narrative didactive, UNLESS that's the author's intention. In other words, the "story" of the narrative should be read with the objective of finding the "intent" of the story. Try to get the main jist of the story, but don't try and create doctrines out of the story. The intent is what the author is trying to convey.
As an example, say you're listening to a story teller tell a story about, oh, Huck Finn. Well, you're goal as the listener is to get the point of the story. What you wouldn't do is start formulating doctrine on anything noted in the story; you'd get the point and work from there.
Anyway, that's something to be aware of when reading Biblical narrative.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2004 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Then, is THIS the opposite of narrative theology? (This is "Acts-Nine Dispensationalism.)
quote:
1-Way: Just as we approach any other bible doctrine, you must take the whole teaching without violating any part of it if you are ever going to rightly and objectively understand it, let alone teach for or against it. That is how we know if a teaching is right or not, the question is not, is this according to the bible in any sense, the question is, is this according to the bible in a righteous and non-contradictory sense, according to the entire council of God's word, not just some here or there.
. . .So many of Paul's teachings speak of his unique message and ministry. It is only a shame that most Christians miss the entire point of all this which is a consistent theme throughout all his writings. I pray for you that you will come to understand even the mysteries of God.
bibleconcordances.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000185.html
The "whole teaching" that 1-Way talks about is the assumption that Paul taught a different Gospel than the rest of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.
What is termed there "rightly and objectively understand" is more ussually called "rightly dividing" as in the phrase "rightly dividing the word of God." The Acts-Niners seem to think that dividing up the various New Testement books into which ones "apply" to Jews and which apply to Gentiles is what this scripture is saying to us.
"Objectively" seems to mean casting the reading of scripture according to "this foundational and comprehensive bible truth" of the dispensational divisions of scripture.
In that way the fact that Paul was glad that he hadn't baptized many people in a place where folks were drawing fault-lines through the congregation according to who-wunked-who...becomes...a statement that Paul does not believe that the command of Jesus to baptize is no longer valid, and that he is actually glad that so many people in that church are not baptized AT ALL. (I don't consider this an objective exegesis, but a sample of issogesis in the extreem.)
OBVIOUSLY I DISAGREE WITH 1-WAY.
He does say "not just some here or there" which sounds objective. I'd say the same thing. In fact, in a post there that I made but didn't send, seven times I wrote "Let the text speak!" But it strikes me that Acts-Niners bring a SYSTEM to the text and that system itself becomes the "entire council" and not the text.
The mysteries of God" then become acceptance of a certain division of scriptures into "apply" and "don't apply."
Any observations, views?
PoW/STT | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/30/2004 12:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Now according to my fellow brothers I've been dialoguing with, there is NO NEUTRAL GROUND AT ALL on which to make any kind of case for the truth of one narrative over and against another narrative, so it just comes down to "who tells the better story." Of course, I agree that it comes down to this, but I think part of telling the "better story" is showing that the Christian narrative itself is more rational (gasp!) than competing narratives. Am I wrong on this?
If we are competing against other narratives (i.e. secularistic Enlightenment) both sides could make all the rational arguments for their side. However, even the secularist is “telling the story” of ultimate reality. So instead of getting no where through rational argument (which really only goes to the head as Greg said above, “Hey look at the two stories, this one sounds better!” as if we are disassociated dispassionate viewers of the stories. This too is a modernistic rationalistic category) truth will be embodied (though this does not entail radical relativism either). Simply stated then, all meta-narratives are believed by faith. It becomes "faith against faith in opposing stories." Believers and unbelievers are people of faith.
Also, it should be noted that just because there is a focus on narrative that that means that all rationalism goes out the window. It does not. Postmodernists Christians (which narrative theology gels nicely with) would not say that they are being irrational but rather trans-rational or “surpra-rational” as Empiress stated one time.
quote:
Nice post, Brandon!
Thanks S’paastar.
Jo-Anne I will get back to you on your question of balance tmw. Very good one by the way. And "Flame of Love" is consider by many to be Pinnock's magnum opus. But right now I have to go see…Spiderman Deux! Spiderman! Spiderman! Does whatever a spider can! Spins a web any size. Catches thieves just like flies! Lookout! Here comes the Spiderman!!!
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 6/30/2004 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:26 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|