These few things I know.

gordon 2

Senior Member
So this is the knowledge I have gained from this fellowship tread so far. Theology is a system to gain knowledge. Some say it is a more matured system compared natural theology.

Not all systems of theology are the same. Some have their departure from the witness of scripture first and some have other system from more equal sources and unequal sources, say scripture, tradition and the witness of individuals other than those within scripture.

Some saints can consent to the witness of scripture alone others can consent to the witness of the Church and other saints. Some can't consent to scripture alone and some can't consent to the Church that is not bible based.

Where theses systems get "sticky" for me is when to ideas on the Christian experience we glue our consent as opposed to the experience itself. In other words as the flesh is weak to properly assess and provide remedy, the renewed mind has no such weakness, is generally fearless and the source of genuine ministry.

Now the mind, renewed a powerful force for leaning and with an appointed system it, can be disciplined. And bent on the study of real elements, it can slip into error that ideas of this or that are the last word regards the reality of some tangible element-subject to which the system was subjected to. There are no outcomes possible other than what the system provides.

Did the gentile in Paul's day have a theological system available to drive them in the way? To mature them did they have such a system? They had the witness of the saints of what God was up to with explanation as to purpose. They had the witness of Christ from experience first and that experience could be mature because the experience was ongoing in the lives of individual and so the Church.

So what is the problem with a system of theology that has its source "the bible first" as a means to explore subjects such as tradition, the Church, salvation and God's makeup? It is that the witness of experience is compromised by a system with inherent bias and that ideas creep in and as in all systems become realities of their own which would not come about without the system and these creations of the mind become interpreted as elements of reality that no one outside of the system would consider as sound. In other words systems that organize the mind can promote themselves as systems and systems for the mature and become cults.

The system can defeat the purpose of God's designs to inform from experience ( from the eternal life experience) and yet claim it provides God's greatest purpose of informing a saint.

Systems are not perfect. I'm not certain but I don't think Jesus said it would be good to get one or two in order to follow him as we would need wear special garments to understand where God is "headed". I suspect that it was the experience that Jesus needed to beat them off his followers--systems, hats and coats. Though the mind was to be renewed, God was headed for the hearts of the babes and the mature. And therefore if knowledge is to be gained of exceptional importance to Christians it is from their willingness to reasonable dialogue in Christ with focus on love.

I have no conclusions. I have only more questions such as these ones. Is system theology an attempt to filter out weak flesh and vanity? Is it sucessful if the case.?


( It is not on purpose that no scripture was quoted.)

All praises to the Lord and thanks for a good hearted tread to all. :)
 
Last edited:

gordon 2

Senior Member
And Israel thanks for the rebuke. Much appreciated. For real. I shall pray.

Christianity is a call out to the multitudes and the nations if I have understood Revelations and I now realize that my manners regards questionings defeat the way. And defeating the way is my bugbear in others.

Thanks again and you are a true friend in Christ to me, of it I have never doubted.

:) ( I'm not being sarcastic.)
 

Israel

Senior Member
While I wholeheartedly agree with your proposition(?), vision, persuasion declaration(?)...that God's purpose is first experiential in His revealing, or to be made experiential through His revealing (?)...what seems hard to understand for me is how that the greater faith may come apart from some form of testimony. I don't deny it, just don't understand.

But maybe I don't understand what is meant by testimony in that context...as though a man has to be knocked to the ground, hear a voice, or in some way have some (what would probably be called) miraculous encounter...

If God's life is imparted in however the man receives it. understands it, even...experiences it...wouldn't that be a (his) testimony? Or, at least "a" testimony? And even if...let's say the "moment" he identified as his reception of new life seemed to lack some note...wouldn't there have to be some subsequent moment at which he would say "Hey, this is the experience of eternal life!"...and that be a moment of testimony?

Or...do you mean something more along the lines of "blessed is he who believes but has not seen?"
 
Last edited:

gordon 2

Senior Member
Yes the latter. "But has not seen." Also the examples in which God declares people have great faith, it is not that I can see they have such for having had an "Ah Ha!" moment due the Glory but simply they believed the prophets and their witness. They see wisdom and truth in God's promises through the prophets.
 

Israel

Senior Member
Yes the latter. "But has not seen." Also the examples in which God declares people have great faith, it is not that I can see they have such for having had an "Ah Ha!" moment due the Glory but simply they believed the prophets and their witness. They see wisdom and truth in God's promises through the prophets.
OK...thanks, that makes it way more clear.
Cause Jesus talked about the guys who wouldn't believe (if having Moses and the prophets were not enough) even if one came back from the dead to tell them.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps before I testify (if I am allowed) in "a" testimony (for in the sense I took Semper's exhortation it is to a "them" and not merely an it...as a one time event) the matter of sarcasm having been raised, should probably be addressed.

I can believe a man could be sarcastic without his even knowing, in some form of imagining that he speak or act of a sincerity that God waits only to reveal as less than sincere in some way. Two scriptures come to mind:

These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

Do we understand this? Is there a "testimony" amongst us of some experience? And rather than say anything more about it...is there any other man here (here I am entreating for a testimony of truth to it) who has had what they receive as a particular light shone upon it? Am I allowed to ask, allowed to enquire "in the temple"? Or is that presumption? Even a sarcasm? God knows.

The other is of Paul's writing:

For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

Other translations (to me) simplify it, "My conscience is clear...but that does not make me innocent..."

Again...is there understanding? No man need accept mine or even need to hear it, but does any man (other man?) believe they hear what Paul is saying?

Yes, I believe a conscience can be seared to the extent that what passes (to him) for clarity or being clear "in" it, is only a scarred dullness of sensation unknown to the man. A man can (and does) easily presume himself innocent, thinking his motives always pure. In fact...presumption always leads there.

And I am not only sure I could be that man...but can also surely testify I have been.
But even that testimony does not now "clear me".

So, as to the possibility I may be being sarcastic (which has been raised) would it be wiser to make answer according to, or provoked by, some desire to "clear myself"...or even apply another of Paul's exhortations...to "judge nothing before the time" but wait for the Lord's appearing in it? To find I have been, and am made free of even having to judge myself...in some trust, due to an experience of that first bit of scripture...God always wills to show up to set the record straight? To set in order before thine eyes.

But, I am not wise, only fearful. And I believe the wise understand my fear.

Let us talk about two edged swords.
How that a thing wielded works two ways.

Since we so often brush up against...or even frankly confront the matter of handling the scriptures rightly, (are they for a parrot's repetition...or coming from some conviction?) we engage in a digging...is the man speaking casually of a truth, or is that truth making the man...true? God knows the answer, but dare we deny such measuring/judgments...take place among us? Am I being presumptuous believing I seek to...and hear spirits...and actually cannot avoid it...? Even if I (or any man) hear all wrongly in regards to source?

Did Jesus not make clear all men are being led of something? Or, was Jesus actually saying Peter was himself Satan?

Do we all eagerly accept one another at our word...or does some acoustic come into play? Is Jesus Christ of well tuned ear...and therefore only well spoken word? Each man reading already makes his answer to God...how, or what he answers to men is not even secondary.

Yet, we are exhorted by that same spirit to "speak truth to one another" (unless one believes Paul of a different spirit)

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

(And it could be curious here...Paul does not even use the word "brother"...but neighbor...but is it curious? Shall a man be "more truthful" in the assembly? Pious faced, deferential, and all? What might be another word for a man who believes truth...malleable to situation or audience in determining the consistency of his deportment and speech? Yet, I think Hummer addressed that well enough.)

Was Pilate lying "Do you not know I have authority to kill you or let you go?"
We could speculate as to the many things that might have been said, but there's enough in His response to destroy all speculations. It might be enough for each man to simply review what he himself has said (needing no speculation) when any authority is exerted toward himself. Did he speak truth? And if he did...could he bear its speaking? Did he "meet" his word? Was he equal to it? Could he bear it?

Do each of us "have authority" to judge the speaking of any? Even to the testing of those who say they are apostles...but are not?

So, two men speak "a" truth.

Each says "only God is able to judge me"... or "God is my judge" as Paul said.

It is surely true, yet remains two edged. For the casual man (is he the parrot?) it is meant as comfort to escape the judgment of man and assume to himself a superior estate by claiming superiority of Judge.

The other man cannot deny the truth of it, and will not, but he knows how much is less in the judgment of man than to be troubled, for to the one he gives authority to "trouble him" is his lord over him, becoming subject then to man for both reproval and/or recommendation. And ultimately...he will have disclosed what "that man" is.
Approving of himself.

But the two edged-ness does not go away for the second or "other" man has learned that self approval, in that place he cannot deny before God as judge, (and cannot but confess) seems all but less than tenderly treated. When things are "set in order before his eyes".
Yet, he knows there is (again Hummer, am I fawning?) no other way...even knowing as Hummer has said:







Therefore lastly a repetition of Paul's words (that I either parrot for my own advantage) or am persuaded I speak before the wiser and truer than myself

"Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men"

If I am a liar it is of no use (except for a time to myself) to say to another "I was not being sarcastic" and only compounding a lie for if being already suspect I would only prove the accusation by entering into that burden of proof before men.

But the testimony before God in that undertaking would be far more grievous than I believe I could bear, that I am not already made transparent, and easily seen and seen through, and that, by those of God.

It is not only a matter of preference that I cannot care whether I be seen fool, liar, manipulator, heretic or even blasphemer...



When I weigh those words and listen for the acoustics I hear also a man who has been to the dungeon of men's placing, himself submitting to that placing as "outside the gate" where all of men's scorn and accusation are heaped...not because of his own preference, nor because he suggests things are made easy by this way.

Who has the almost embarrassing matter of having to deal with, negotiate, wend his way through some honor being given...making sure it is not a snare to capture by flattery?

Make no mistake as to my selfishness...see through me and therefore, past all deceit. But really don't stop till you see through a man of all vanity, all presumption, all devious intent and twisted motive. All ignorance and blindness and self exaltation. See through and assign his place.

You cannot only do this...you cannot avoid it.

Spectacles are only useful to be seen through.


See through all that can be seen wrong of "a" man...and find what's on the other side.

Then...get back to me.

But, many of you are already doing this, spectacles yourselves.

Your prayers of deliverance are made mighty through Whom you have found...even believing the chiefest of sinners can be saved.

And:

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

Honor is the easiest thing on the soul to give when we see who gave it first, and to whom. And chose you, formed you, initiated you, to be included.

I'm saying nothing is possible any other way.

But, maybe, I am giving a testimony.
I am awestruck by the interesting and beautiful tapestry you have woven from so few threads.

Thank you Brother for sharing with us the product of the Artisan's gift.
 
Last edited:

Israel

Senior Member
I am awestruck by the interesting and beautiful tapestry you have woven from so few threads.

Thank you Brother for sharing with us the product of the Artisan's gift.
It's my turn.

But I may have to wait a few days or weeks before my wife could render an ROFL after last night's exchange.

If she were to see the word artisan in any reference to me she'd probably say "You mean that ham fisted rusty sledge hammer slinging horse pucky artist?" (But even then I may be being to generous)

And of course, she has every right to.
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
I am awestruck by the interesting and beautiful tapestry you have woven from so few threads.

Thank you Brother for sharing with us the product of the Artisan's gift.

Agree. Israel is good at weaving threads and indeed an Artisan at it. I wish I had that talent. I have my full to try to weave the posts of a single tread and it is so very hard to get post-it- notes and plasti-tack sentences and ideas to look beautiful. Israel's ideas and his way of reasoning is always interesting. :)


My comment about sarcasm was gleaned from another tread however. :)
 
Last edited:

Israel

Senior Member
Agree. Israel is good at weaving threads and indeed an Artisan at it. I wish I had that talent. I have my full to try to weave the posts of a single tread and it is so very hard to get post-it- notes and plasti-tack sentences and ideas to look beautiful. Israel's ideas and his way of reasoning is always interesting. :)


My comment about sarcasm was gleaned from another tread however. :)
Sorry if I misunderstood.
I should have been more considerate.
^^^^And I think I should put that on a loop^^^^^
(Though I speak, or write, with the tongues of angels...)
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
You are and were more than considerate. All is well that ends well. This tread has thought me so much, I'm sad that it will go...into the sunset. The things I know now were not known before this tread-- by myself that is. I'm still studying trying to get up to speed on the subjects brought to light... I'm not exhausted by them yet. Nevertheless... :)
 
Last edited:

gemcgrew

Senior Member
When I first saw your post I thought you were going to make me do some hard work to think it throught, but in a mater of seconds I realized that was not the case at all. It's just a case of placing things in there proper order.
I recently had a conversation with a dear brother about this forum. Your name came up and I told him just how much I've enjoyed your posts through the years. I said, "I really love that guy. I probably ought to tell him sometime".

But I'm not comfortable saying it publicly. :ROFLMAO:
 
I recently had a conversation with a dear brother about this forum. Your name came up and I told him just how much I've enjoyed your posts through the years. I said, "I really love that guy. I probably ought to tell him sometime".

But I'm not comfortable saying it publicly. :ROFLMAO:
While "I really love that guy" is an expression that we share (not to suggest exclusivity), I must say that, it seems to me, the emoticon could never be more appropriately used than when applied to the idea of your being hesitant of sharing what is in your heart.
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
While "I really love that guy" is an expression that we share (not to suggest exclusivity), I must say that, it seems to me, the emoticon could never be more appropriately used than when applied to the idea of your being hesitant of sharing what is in your heart.
Ah yes the hesitancy and the nervous laugh. :)


"The human heart has so many crannies where vanity hides, so many holes where falsehood works, is so decked out with deceiving hypocrisy, that it often dupes itself."


and


"My heart I give you, Lord, eagerly and entirely." Johan Cauvin

You two are so cool. :)
 
Last edited:
Top