 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
|  Posted 1/23/2005 6:10 AM (GMT -6) |   | Welcome to Theological Studies 101.
Drink up, you'll be glad you did.
So far as I can tell according to you Meph:
{Besides the fact that there is a self-disclosing Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who has demonstrated God's supreme goodness and greatness through the creation, sustanance/government, and redemption of Existence.}
Good, well thought out, proper theology contains the following ideas 1)Adam and Eve did not exist as literal beings 2) the gospels are too polemic to be taken seriously 3) the epistles (perhaps even all of the NT) are of doubtful veracity due to the authors interpretations and intentions. 4) Marriage is outdated, archaic and not necessarily taught in scripture as a lifelong, one flesh, union that mirrors the relationship of Christ to the Church. 5) Under certain stipulations (one being current, conscious, commitment) sex is appropriate prior to – or in the absence of – marriage vows. 6) Since God is love AND God does violent things, we cannot only mirror him in His love – we must also mirror His violence. That if God is at war in the heavens it follows that we must also be at war with one another – to some degree. Otherwise, we aren’t reflecting God (?!) 7) If God is love, He must love satan. 8) When Jesus speaks about hell, he is really just talking about a place that burns up all the “bad” stuff. We can be sure that all sentient beings, including satan will end up spending eternity with God. 9) I forgot if you believe in the OT at all…do you? 10) What do you think about the book of Revelation? (this will round out everything so tell us ok?) 10) assent of faith? POO! Always go with your intellect students -- remember that!
push push,
love
selah
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4Post Edited (Selah) : 1/23/2005 3:48:33 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/23/2005 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | | A driving hermeneutical principle seems to be, "if it's traditional, it's gotta be wrong." (Overstated, I know) Anyway, what's up with that? It just seems too easy to write off the soundness of 99.x% of the Christians that have gone before.
gently, Corey
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/23/2005 8:19:59 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/23/2005 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I do apologize if it's coming across that I haven't fully understood/appreciated where you're coming from. You're right, I'm sure I haven't, and I'll continue to seriously think this stuff through. Maybe when I can digest this further it will sink in.
Let me just say, I respect you TONS and REALLY appreciate the effort you put into your thoughts and writings. I'm not nearly as educated in this stuff, so it's more difficult for me to know the nuance of the various positions. I'm just voicing a general concern that most other great Christians minds of history would not agree with the positions Selah listed out.
love you
Corey
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/23/2005 9:01:16 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/23/2005 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah,
I read the Walter Brueggemann* article that MehpE linked a few days ago. www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2104
Brueggemann says:
"While I believe in the indeterminacy of the text to some large extent, I know that finally the Bible is forceful and consistent in its main theological claim. It expresses the conviction that the God who created the world in love redeems the world in suffering and will consummate the world in joyous well-being. That flow of conviction about God's self-disclosure in the Bible is surely the main claim of the apostolic faith, a claim upon which the church fundamentally agrees."
Beyond this "main theological claim", Brueggemann argues, "the Bible requires and insists upon human interpretation, which is inescapably subjective, necessarily provisional and inevitably disputatious." Beyond this "main theological claim", the the process of interpretation "precludes final settlement" on almost all other questions.
So, according to Brueggemann, there is the "main theological claim" of the Bible (which is inherent) and then there are all other claims [arrived at through human interpretation and having, at most, "tentative authority"].
1. Do you agree with Brueggemann's articulation of the "main theological claim" of the Bible? If not, how would you articulate the "main theological claim" of the Bible? Is there any such "main claim" upon which the church fundamentally agrees?
2. Regarding the issues you mentioned in your initial post, would you say that one's interpretation or resolution of any of these issues has a direct bearing on the "main theological claim" of the Bible"? Or would you say that they all fall under the "everything else" category?
Thanks,
JET
* Lately I've been reading a lot of Brain McLaren who credits Brueggemann with influencing his views on scripture more than any other writer. | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/23/2005 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | | JET said...Selah, I read the Walter Brueggemann* article that MehpE linked a few days ago. www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2104 Brueggemann says: "While I believe in the indeterminacy of the text to some large extent, I know that finally the Bible is forceful and consistent in its main theological claim. It expresses the conviction that the God who created the world in love redeems the world in suffering and will consummate the world in joyous well-being. That flow of conviction about God's self-disclosure in the Bible is surely the main claim of the apostolic faith, a claim upon which the church fundamentally agrees." Beyond this "main theological claim", Brueggemann argues, "the Bible requires and insists upon human interpretation, which is inescapably subjective, necessarily provisional and inevitably disputatious." Beyond this "main theological claim", the the process of interpretation "precludes final settlement" on almost all other questions. So, according to Brueggemann, there is the "main theological claim" of the Bible (which is inherent) and then there are all other claims [arrived at through human interpretation and having, at most, "tentative authority"]. 1. Do you agree with Brueggemann's articulation of the "main theological claim" of the Bible? If not, how would you articulate the "main theological claim" of the Bible? Is there any such "main claim" upon which the church fundamentally agrees? 2. Regarding the issues you mentioned in your initial post, would you say that one's interpretation or resolution of any of these issues has a direct bearing on the "main theological claim" of the Bible"? Or would you say that they all fall under the "everything else" category? Thanks, JET * Lately I've been reading a lot of Brain McLaren who credits Brueggemann with influencing his views on script ure more than any other writer.
Hi Jet,
Can't do it now, I'm swamped with papers!
Don't let me forget though. I want to read through the link first and learn a bit more about Brueggemann before I answer.
Just for fun, I'll guess my answer on number 2. Yes, I think they have direct bearing. And no they don't fall under the "everything else" category.
a hint why I would answer this way: I could be a JW and agree with that main theological claim. Numerous cults agree with that basic claim. Discipleship cults (in particular) have a great time asserting the absolute subjectivity of "everything else"...(but don't fear the leader will explain it to you!). And, Jesus is not in the claim.
so, what's up with that?
From watchtower.org (emphasis mine) "Jehovah has revealed himself to mankind ...By observing the wonderful things around them, many people have come to appreciate that there must be a Creator-God whose grand personality is reflected in his works.—Revelation 15:3, 4" and "The Bible assures us that "God is love." (1 John 4:8) Why, then, has a loving God allowed all this suffering to continue for so many centuries? When will he remedy the situation? "Under the rulership of God's Kingdom, survivors of the end of the present system of things will be ushered into an earth cleansed of wickedness and suffering...and will live forever in Paradise"
So there ya go, revealing himself as loving creator God...Suffering...restoration to Paradise.
love
selah
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4Post Edited (Selah) : 1/23/2005 4:15:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/23/2005 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | selah:
Good, well thought out, proper theology contains the following ideas
1)Adam and Eve did not exist as literal beings
possible rebut
No possible rebut here.
selah:
2) the gospels are too polemic to be taken seriously
possible rebut
No one ever said they can't be taken "seriously." Of course you can take them seriously... just not literally. They are subjective stories. Moreover, because Jesus was fully man, knowing only what those in his context could, he probably mistakenly made assumptions BASED on his flawed knowledge. Those statements cannot be taken as truth today. Especially with all we know now! Are you saying he wasn't fully man? Surely we all see this, right?
selah
3) the epistles (perhaps even all of the NT) are of doubtful veracity due to the authors interpretations and intentions.
possible rebut
As with all things in life, there are no objective truths. The authors of the NT were subject to their own interpretations and motives behind interpreting things the way they did (conscious or not). This is not to say that certain central themes cannot be perceived as true...or useful for teaching.
selah
4) Marriage is outdated, archaic and not necessarily taught in scripture as a lifelong, one flesh, union that mirrors the relationship of Christ to the Church.
possible rebut
no rebuts that I know of.
selah5) Under certain stipulations (one being current, conscious, commitment) sex is appropriate prior to – or in the absence of – marriage vows.
possible rebut
Well, this is only true within the context of a deep, DEEP, SUPER DEEP, WAY SUPER DEEP Loving relationship.
Ok... I've think that's enough for now. Note to everyone: I love mephi to pieces and only pick on him because he's fun, tough...and he graciously lets me. Come on Meph, set me straight!
s.w.a.k.
love
selah 
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4 | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/23/2005 8:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah: And, Jesus is not in the claim. so, what's up with that?
JET: Hmm, I guess you could say Jesus is in the claim implicitly (Creator, Redeemer, Consummator), but not sure why Brueggemann wouldn't refer to Jesus explicitly. One might say that, to the extent that the Church sees the Bible revealing Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God to us as Creator, Redeemer, and Consummator, the Church agrees about the "main theological claim" of the Bible even while our Christology, our theories of the Atonement, etc., are subject to the "hard, disputatious work of interpretation" (Brueggemann).
Another way to look at it perhaps is that (as McLaren likes to say) Jesus is the way, the door -- not a barrier. So we might have to grant that even some folks who don't have "Orthodox" beliefs about Jesus may nevertheless share our convictions about the main theological claim of the Bible.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/24/2005 10:39 AM (GMT -6) | | | How's this Meph?
1)Adam and Eve did not exist as literal beings
True, and that becomes all but self-evident in a serious study of the stories that takes into account the original language. Arguments to the contrary are not based on Gen. but on Paul, generally speaking.
2) the gospels are too polemic to be taken seriously
False. They are too polemic to suppose we get such a pure nonviolent Jesus as Doc wants. This is not a question about the integrity of the Gospels so much as it is a question about the Christ revealed therein.
3) the epistles (perhaps even all of the NT) are of doubtful veracity due to the authors interpretations and intentions.
False. Insofar as these texts are witnesses to the lives of faith of the writers, they are good testimonies. To expect that they grow in historical trustworthyness in proportion to our sense of their importance is the error. The end here being ultimate importance = inerrancy. The error is that only Christ is ultimately important, not the texts that point to him.
4) Marriage is outdated, archaic and not necessarily taught in scripture as a lifelong, one flesh, union that mirrors the relationship of Christ to the Church.
False. But sexual mores have always been culturally relative. the Bible has no single sexual ethic. But God does seem to stay in the process with us and point us toward good covenant keeping in all the various settings. Its more about faith and faithfulness than about the ethics of sexuality.
5) Under certain stipulations (one being current, conscious, commitment) sex is appropriate prior to – or in the absence of – marriage vows.
This has been historically true in pockets of church history but may or may not be true now. I seriously doubt Meph is promoting this view, rather, the emphasis is probably on faith/faithfulness rather than social customs.
6) Since God is love AND God does violent things, we cannot only mirror him in His love – we must also mirror His violence. That if God is at war in the heavens it follows that we must also be at war with one another – to some degree. Otherwise, we aren’t reflecting God (?!)
False. Don't forget Meph's roots in boot-licking... Meph will love to the best of his ability simply on the clarity of the will of God in this regard (dispite whatever ambiguity exists in God's portrayal through scripture). Nothing is more central to him. God however, is not bound to the same command as is given to humans. If violence is a lesser evil, then I suspect Meph would not rule it out up front. But it would be a last resort. Don't forget Bonhoeffer.
7) If God is love, He must love satan.
This is simple logic, so Meph will be bound by it.
8) When Jesus speaks about hell, he is really just talking about a place that burns up all the “bad” stuff. We can be sure that all sentient beings, including satan will end up spending eternity with God.
This is a presupposition that judgment is one judgment per person. scripture sometimes sounds this way, but sometimes not. So there is some work to be done in conceptualizing this. Based on faith that all that can be saved will, and rooted in the convictions that say life is more a process than a static fact, and granting the conviction that we are largely a product of the choices we make...it makes perfect sense that judgment be applied in the form of purging those results of the choices we make that are not consistent with the Kingdom. The question is not so much whether any individual will be in heaven, but rather how much of their lives can be redeemed? When the rapist cried out to God but failed to truely yeild, I still beleive that cry will echo through eternity. That deep true cry for forgiveness will endure. But just like in CS Lewis' "Great Divorce" not everyone is equally substantial in heaven. Some people brought much more of themselves than others. That is to say, some peoples lives had more moments that were consistent with the Kingdom than others.
See next post for more on this...
9) I forgot if you believe in the OT at all…do you?
Of course. Questions to this effect are largely a way of calling attention to how others are using or ignoring the OT.
10) What do you think about the book of Revelation? (this will round out everything so tell us ok?)
See preterist view with a heavy dose of reality around the symbolic character of the text. Much is to be learned here, but much to be unlearned as well.
10) assent of faith? POO! Always go with your intellect students -- remember that!
False. Completely false. Use the brain you have to the best of your ability but recognize that God is not limited to your comprehension. And your faith has little to do with your brilliance, in fact, they may be in tension. Your faith is rooted in experiencing the love of the living God for real in this life. Not simply talking or reading about it. This is why Meph is so big on a revealed God who acts in this world!
Okay, now Meph, read that Ricoeur article and get back to me...
How'd I do?
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc Post Edited (Modes of Thought) : 1/24/2005 10:09:16 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/24/2005 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | 1 Cor. 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. 14 If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.
Here we see several things related to 8 above:
1. All salvation is founded on Jesus Christ. This is a statement about the sufficiency of Christ's work for all and that it is only through Christ that the possibility for salvation comes to us. Meph would agree with this but likely want to have a conversation about who all is included in Christ's work and what sort of knowledge is required for Christ's work to be applied. Paul clearly claims that all are the recipients of Christ's work just as all were the inheritors of "Adam's" sin. Consider:
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9 Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. F21 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.
And... 18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
So Christ's work is clearly for all. Whether all are affected in some way or not is up for debate. But clearly, those who are building on the Foundation that Christ has laid are going to experience loss during the judgment. Only that which qualifies, and this simply is alluded to with various precious things, will not be burned up and lost. Why think that those who don't know Christ will experience a qualitatively different judgment? I can see how a quantitatively different judgment could result. Presumably, far less of their lives will be consistent with the Kingdom. But then again, maybe not. The fact is, Paul is speaking to the church, so the categories fit those in the church. Jesus warns us that we will be surprised at who is in and absent from heaven.
The question for ALL is, how much of your life do you want to echo through eternity? Only that which is consistent with the Kingdom will do so. Why not leave it at that?
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/24/2005 1:52 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]PS... HE's under my feet...under my feet...satan is underrrrrrrrrrrrr my feet..
Selah has possesed feet....  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/24/2005 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Selah! I've missed you! Still got that key. (Just imagine all the inquiring minds who want to know what that's about!  )
There's an old theological distinction between fides qua (the act of faith/the faith which believes) and fides quae
(the content of what one believes/the faith which is believed).
My guess is that Meph is speaking about the latter while you are asking about the former. One can accept much ambiguity in the latter but the former is clear and decisive.
Of course, we can be wrong about both. But Meph would not suggest that we do anything less than fully pour ourselves into fides qua and that might well be in response to a divine encounter (for Meph, this is almost certainly the case). The content is of less importance than the act because one relates to the way of life and the other relates only to "beliefs" and leaves the individual's appropriation of said beliefs up for grabs.
The great overconfidence about the objective truthfulness of their fides quae often present in Evangelicals is probably what draws Meph to be so provocative with his challenges. Indeed, the challenges lose their power if one is not threatened by the ambiguity that gives rise to them. It is principly fides quae that we debate on these pages. Fides qua should be pretty resistant to modifications in fides quae. If not, perhaps one has not really fully yielded themselves to the power that established faith in them to begin with (yes, I am implying that we are not the origin of our faith). Note that I have not overstated this so that any and all changes in fides quae can be tolerated by fides qua. There is a relationship between the two but more often that not, most people suppose far more is at stake than really is in any given discussion/debate. Especially if objective certainty is the goal for one or both participants.
As for subjectivity/objectivity, that is a tough one for most Evangelicals because they would like their subjective faith/beliefs to have the assurance of objective facts (which can still often be called into question). But this is not the case. I other words, there is a tendency to collapse fides qua into fides quae and then treat them both as though they were objective. It is a misguided pursuit from the jump since the Truth, Ultimate Reality, is not an object, but a Subject. And we have nothing like "objective access" to this Ultimate Reality. Of course, given this, the most profound and meaningful assertions in life with also be subjective. We can argue about objective things (ie. How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb? Did Matthew REALLY write the first Gospel?), but it is generally uninteresting, at least to me, and probably not directly relevant to to the life of faith (fides qua).
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/24/2005 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...One last question from modes post above: "Jesus warns us that we will be surprised at who is in and absent from heaven." Really, where does he tell us that? That's an interesting thought if everyone including satan is going to Heaven! Do you think someone will be "absent" from heaven? I'm thinking that statement was another reinterpratation of Jesus or something. How else can it be true?
I am thinking of times like when Jesus warns the believers of the day that sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes are going in ahead of them... and times like the seperation of the sheep from the goats where what was done was much more important than what was thought and said.
I think that God, in Christ, will redeem all that can be redeemed. This gives me hope that something of everyone might have some form of presence in heaven. This is clearly fides quae. It does not matter terribly one way or the other. I just have this hope based on my faith in the mercy of God. Justice would be served if I am wrong, but I hope for mercy nonetheless. My receiving it gives me this hope.
The fact that I view reality the way that I do (open view metaphysic) allows for this view.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/24/2005 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
A driving hermeneutical principle seems to be, "if it's traditional, it's gotta be wrong." (Overstated, I know) Anyway, what's up with that? It just seems too easy to write off the soundness of 99.x% of the Christians that have gone before.
What might be going on here is that the unquestioned apporpriation of an idea simply because it has been accepted historically bothers some. Especially those who have had their worlds turned upside down by being misled by tradition.
I consider tradition a source of authority. But only one of 4. And of course, "tradition" needs a bit of defining as there are many. I tend to trust core theological sensibilities of the "historic Christian tradition" which includes especially those places where there is agreement between protestant and catholic as well as Eastern Orthodox. If an idea has no solid ground in one of those traditions, I'd be pretty suspicious of it.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/24/2005 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | |
Modes of Thought said...
As for subjectivity/objectivity, that is a tough one for most Evangelicals because they would like their subjective faith/beliefs to have the assurance of objective facts (which can still often be called into question). But this is not the case. I other words, there is a tendency to collapse fides qua into fides quae and then treat them both as though they were objective. It is a misguided pursuit from the jump since the Truth, Ultimate Reality, is not an object, but a Subject. And we have nothing like "objective access" to this Ultimate Reality. Of course, given this, the most profound and meaningful assertions in life with also be subjective. We can argue about objective things (ie. How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb? Did Matthew REALLY write the first Gospel?), but it is generally uninteresting, at least to me, and probably not directly relevant to to the life of faith (fides qua). Great thoughts. "It is a misguided pursuit from the jump since the Truth, Ultimate Reality, is not an object, but a Subject." Good stuff. This is the story of my personal journey in recent years. Only a decade ago I was accosting fellow students on campus to convince them to accept Christ. I'm embarrassed of myself now, but at the time I was pretty assured that this was an act of faith, my spiritual service of worship. My third conversion (from Mephi's tagline) came only about two years ago thru Greg's sermon, the Pharisee and the Prostitute. I wept deeply realizing so much of my life has been a clanging cymbal. Please, Lord, make me a man of love! That's all I want! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/24/2005 4:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...That was a helpful distinction. Thanks. One question. Are you saying we always have both qua and quae but in varying degrees, or are you suggesting we seek to move FROM quae TO qua? Or, are you saying different strokes for different folks. Doesn't matter as long as you have qua? love neo-evangelical, selah
Definitely not different strokes for different folks. And both do matter. But not in the same way. When we are instructed to have faith like a child, it is not fides quae that is in mind here, but fides qua. Let your faith be so immediate and powerful in you that you yield to it as smoothly as a well cared for child jumps into her mothers arms, even if the leap is over terrible danger.
Right teaching is also important, and error here can be damaging for sure. But rarely, perhaps never, is salvation directly related to fides quae alone.
When we say "faith seeking understanding" we are saying fides qua seeking fides quae.
To my mind, true faith must have fides qua but may be quite wrong about much in the fides quae area. Though there must be some content to the faith being expressed.
And Corey, thanks for sharing that. I feel that echoes my own experience quite well. I drove wedges between myself and my family for a few years before I began to realize that the anxiety I had about their state of affairs was MY anxiety, not necessarily theirs and that I needed to trust God and follow God's lead with them rather than force them into agreement with me.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/24/2005 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...That was a helpful distinction. Thanks. One question. Are you saying we always have both qua and quae but in varying degrees, or are you suggesting we seek to move FROM quae TO qua? Or, are you saying different strokes for different folks. Doesn't matter as long as you have qua? love neo-evangelical, selah
Sorry to belabor, but I actually feel it's more likely that one would move from qua to quae, I think that is what is meant by "faith seeking understanding." Fides quaerens intellectum, here faith is assumed and the movement is toward greater comprehension of the intellectual content of faith by the mind.
Traditional language about faith as a gift would put it, that God gives one faith, and then we seek to understand this strange new thing and what it means. Our seeking to understand is NOT the faith itself, it is our mind's work to attempt comprehension. Comprehesion of the Absolute/Ultimate/Truth will elude us, so we begin by more humbly seeking whatever understanding we can muster.
I do hear of others who's pursuit of knowledge seems to have led to a moment/decision of faith, but it seems more common for an experience to spark it or a moment of awakening to initiate it. Either way, it is not the knowledge but the inner change, the power (prevenient grace) that enables the self's submission to God that is the fides qua.
We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that by seeking understanding we are exercising faith. Jesus speaks clearly about what faith looks like. If you obey Christ's commands you demonstrate faith. Teaching Christ's commands, or learning more about them is not yet obeying them.
This may seem obvious, but one interesting phenomena that I have noticed is that it is often assumed that those who study and demonstrate great knowledge about fides quae are also great people of faith. I have learned that this assumption is not sound. It is by no means true that my spiritual health improves relative to my increase in theological acumen. And it is by no means true that the people I count most godly are also the people I count most educated/brilliant/informed biblically or theologically. Here we have experts in fides quae being mistaken for giants in fides qua. Sometimes they may be, but by no means does it follow as a matter of course.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/24/2005 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...The way I've framed this for my own thinking is that there is a gap between epistemology and ontology. There exists objective truth. But my knowledge of the truth is necessarily subjective and conditioned. Is this the qua/quae distinction?
Not quite, epistemology/ontology typically engage in abstractions and ideas. Talk about reality (being/ontos) and how it is represented (epistemology). Fides qua is always concrete and deeply personal. Once faith (fides qua) is abstracted from the human subject, it tends toward fides quae.
Another way of speaking the distinction is:
fides qua--The faith by which we believe (existential)
fides quae--The faith/beliefs we hold to be true (intellectual)
does that help?
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/24/2005 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | I'd like to highlight something that Modes said:
This may seem obvious, but one interesting phenomena that I have noticed is that it is often assumed that those who study and demonstrate great knowledge about fides quae are also great people of faith. I have learned that this assumption is not sound. It is by no means true that my spiritual health improves relative to my increase in theological acumen. And it is by no means true that the people I count most godly are also the people I count most educated/brilliant/informed biblically or theologically. Here we have experts in fides quae being mistaken for giants in fides qua. Sometimes they may be, but by no means does it follow as a matter of course.
I think this is EXTREMELY important. So much so that I'd like to use myself as an example. I'm not saying I'm some theological genius or anything...but I think I know a LITTLE somethin'. I've had some cool ideas. And God, by grace, has used those ideas to bolster my spiritual health. However, I can also remember quite clearly times when my mind was a flurry of creative theologizing and intellectual frenzy...while my spiritual walk was languishing FAR lower than it should have. I was theologian par excellence...and Kingdom person veritably non-existent. I'll never forget the first day that I started seminary, one of my professors warned us that doing ministry and theology professionally was a DANGEROUS vocation for one's faith...and that too often, seminaries became CEMETARIES for people's vibrant walks with God. I didn't believe it as much then as I do now.
This is an appeal to take these "fides qua" discussions with the respect (or healthy LACK thereof) they are due. Keep the main things the main things. Give you heart to God...daily. Be aware of the grace given you...daily. Live in love...daily. That's what matters.
Take it from me...and please, don't take it lightly.
Just being real,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:33 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 |
|
|