Against theological neatness.
Posted on March 6, 2013 | By Chris Gale | 0 responses
Will noted last night
A sad day when catholics and only hard-core reformed know the bible.
And he also said, concerning tradition.
Its alright as long as it is scripture derived. But tradition must be measured against scripture. God’s Word>Man’s word. Doctrines that are pulled out of the ass of man under “Tradition” is not acceptable.
We now have over 2000 years of recorded meditations, sermons, theological treatises, biblical commentaries. Christians have always thought and written about the Gospel. In this are two dangers.
- We being to see tradition as equal to the gospel. We pay as much attention to the previous work of the saints that come before us as to what scripture says. This led to Thomas Aquinas’ (the schoolmaster) theology descending into speculation. This is most frequently seen among Catholics, and to a lesser extent among the Orthodox, but id does happen elsewhere.
- We think that we fully understand the nature and meaning of God. God is neatly tied up in our theological structures, and the issue is now one of correct belief and formulae. This is quite common among Protestants, particularly the ultra-reformed, who, like Anabaptists, dissolve into my factions, each believing they have the pure scripture.
Lewis once said that God is like a Lion. He may be gentle, be may do good. But he is not tamed. And at times he is messy.
12Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” 13Then the Pharisees said to him, “You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not valid.” 14Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know where I have come from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge by human standards; I judge no one. 16Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is valid; for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. 17In your law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. 18I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me testifies on my behalf.” 19Then they said to him, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come
The Pharisees were challenging Jesus because he did not stick to the rules of evidence. You needed witnesses to assert a claim. Jesus said God was his witness, and these rules do not apply. You see this when the Pharisees reflect back to Jesus (who has been talking about his Father, meaning God) “Where is your father?” — perhaps so that the father can bear witness to the son — Perhaps because his father was a carpenter from Nazareth, and Nazareth was a byword for Hicksville.
There is nothing illogical about what the Pharisees were saying. Their precision and their neatness demanded that they used reason. However, the assumptions they were making were wrong, and as a result their argument led to wrong conclusions.
For here lies a contradiction. We are made as creatures of reason. We should use reason. We are allowed, indeed commanded, to meditate on the nature of God and on his works. We should be just and we should be reasonable. But we should not try to tame God with precedent, or distress the Spirit by legalistic casuistry. This is a knife edge — we must use reason and scholarship and at the same time doubt it.
And this is another reason we all need the Spirit to guide us and be with us, each day, and every day.
