-
January 4th 2005, 12:29 AM #1
Our Featured Ministry Article: "Why Care About Theology?" by Jerry Solomon
Why Care About Theology?
Jerry Solomon
PROBE MINISTRIES
What is your response when you hear the word theology? Some people tend to cringe and think that such a word is of use only to the seminary student or, at the most, their pastor. Have you given much thought to how this word may apply to your life? If so, please continue your pursuit by thinking along with us. If not, we hope to encourage you to begin to take theology a little more seriously than you may have before.
Just what is theology? Literally, it is derived from a combination of two Greek terms meaning "a word about God." Eventually it was employed to refer not only to a study of the nature and attributes of God, but to the whole range of Christian doctrine. Augustus H. Strong, a theologian of the early twentieth century, offered a definition that is even broader. He wrote, "Theology is the science of God and of the relations between God and the universe."(1) So theology is concerned with a very wide range of subjects, such as the Bible, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, man, salvation, angels, the church, and the end times. Or, we can even say our theology pertains to all of life.
Sound theology is very important in the life of a Christian. History shows us this has always been true. From heresies in the very early church, through the upheaval of the Reformation, to the "Jesus Seminar" of more recent times, Christians have been challenged to give serious attention to matters of theology. And there are important reasons for each of us to devote increased attention to it at this time in history. Historic orthodox theology is currently being questioned, if not attacked, from both outside and inside our churches and institutions. Several examples will demonstrate this.
Contemporary Illustrations
A few years ago an infamous movie entitled The Last Temptation of Christ drew national and international attention because of its blasphemous caricature of Christ. The non-orthodox reports of the Jesus Seminar, a gathering of various scholars, have received the attention of both theological journals and popular magazines such as Time and Newsweek. The conjectures of New Age advocates such as Shirley MacLaine include heretical views of God, Christ, and other facets of theology. Process theologians, who teach at many seminaries, teach a doctrine of God that includes the idea that "the world can be thought of as the body of God," and the notion of a changing God who is as dependent on the world as the world is on Him.(2) Recent books from within evangelical circles include titles such as The Openness of God, which "asserts that such classical doctrines as God's immutability, impassibility and foreknowledge demand reconsideration."(3) More orthodox evangelical writers have written such books as No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? Obviously, the title indicates that the author is concerned about what he believes is a collapse of theology.(4) The Body, a book by Charles Colson, decries what Colson sees as a drift to a consumer-oriented church that, among other things, isn't concerned about matters of theological truth(5).
Such illustrations serve to alert us to the need for more theological reflection, not less. These are challenging times for theology!
Who Are the Theologians?
Do you know anyone who can be called a theologian? You probably immediately begin to think of a seminary professor or an erudite pastor you may know. But is it possible you can be called a theologian? If someone were to ask you what you believe about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation, and many other doctrines, chances are you would answer their questions. Thus you are stating your theology; you are, at some level, a theologian. There are certainly "professional" theologians who spend their lives thinking about and teaching theology, but theology is not just for schools and seminaries; it is for life. It is for you and every other member of Christ's body, the church.
In the fairly recent past in this country theology was spoken of in both the academy and the church. David Wells, a contemporary professional theologian who is concerned about recapturing such unity, has written that at one time theology encompassed three essential elements: "(1) a confessional element, (2) reflection on this confession, and (3) the cultivation of a set of virtues that are grounded in the first two elements."(6) "Confession, in this understanding, is what the Church believes. It is what crystallizes into doctrine." Thus we are to confess our theology based on the inspired Word of God, the Bible. Then we are to wrestle intellectually with what it means to hold such theology in the present world. Finally, we are to wisely apply the truth found in the first two steps.(8) It appears that too often such steps are lacking among all but a few contemporary Christians.
For more than two years my wife and I visited worship services at many churches in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas metroplex, which some refer to as a major part of the "Bible belt." The churches represent a wide spectrum of denominational affiliations, and some are non-denominational. Our visits left us with many impressions, some of which are very positive. But one of several concerns is that too many of these churches emphasized appeasement rather than proclamation. That is, there was concern for relating to the "seeker" at the expense of teaching the believer; or there was an emphasis on "how to" sermons that contained little doctrinal substance; or there was stress on what is called contemporary Christian music coupled with lyrics that were often void of meaning; or there were statements of trite cliches that can do little, if anything, to lead the church to maturity. In other words, much was done to appease the "wants" of the people and little was done that would give the impression that theology is important in these churches.
On the other hand, those few churches that were the exceptions to such emphases boldly stated theological truth and genuinely worshipped God in the process. Their praise had meaning; their prayers were directed to the holy and sovereign God; their sermons contained truth that encouraged the church toward maturity; and even though individual "wants" were not stressed, true needs were met because theology for all of life had been proclaimed.
Which of these accounts is descriptive of your church? Does your church summon you to theological maturity? Or are you caught in a web of appeasement? The writer of Hebrews implored his readers to "press on to maturity" (Heb. 6:1). May God help us do the same!
Theology in the World
A 1994 U.S.News & World Report poll of religious beliefs in the U.S. indicates that "about 95 percent of Americans say they believe in God or a universal spirit, and about 60 percent say they attend religious services regularly."(9) In addition, "more than 80 percent, including 71 percent of college graduates, believe the Bible is the inspired word of God."(10) And "68 percent of Americans are members of a church or synagogue."(11) But do such statistics mean that sound theology plays a significant part in our lives? For example, could it be "that the surprising growth of church membership rolls in recent decades may signify the ascendancy of shallower, less demanding forms of religion with wider appeal?"(12) We believe the answer to this question is, "Yes!" It appears that too many Christians are unwilling to face the demands of theological thinking, and shallowness is the result. Good theology requires contemplation, study, and even debate. It is demanding, and it is certainly not shallow.
Since we are living in a culture that believes "anything goes," distinctive statements concerning our theology are increasingly necessary. Most people are willing to accept you as a Christian if your beliefs (i.e., your theology) are not narrow. If you are willing, for example, to state that Christianity is one of many legitimate paths to salvation, you will be accepted. But if you state that the gospel is the only path to salvation, you may be labeled as a narrow-minded bigot. Although a large majority of the people in this country claim to be religious, a large portion of that majority is still thinking within a relativistic worldview that attempts to reject absolutes. The exclusive claims of Christianity don't fit within such a worldview.
This was brought out clearly for me during an open forum in the lobby of a dormitory on a large state university campus. For more than two hours one of my colleagues and I attempted to answer questions concerning Christianity from approximately a hundred college students. Their questions led us in many directions. We discussed social, political, apologetic, and many other issues. But the subject that disturbed them most was salvation through Jesus Christ. When I declared that Jesus was the only way to God, many of the students expressed their strong disagreement and even anger. One student was indignant because he realized that my statement concerning Christ logically meant that his belief in an American Indian deity was wrong. Even some Christian students were uncomfortable with my assertion. They had an uneasiness about it because it seemed to be too intolerant. Thus I had to quickly remind them that Christ himself said He is the only way to God. I was not making a claim about Christ; I was simply telling them what He said about himself.
Those Christian students are indicative of the need for more demanding thought concerning theology. To claim to be a Christian and at the same time be immersed in the shallow pond of theological tolerance is antithetical. Perhaps the non-Christian students have an excuse; they don't know better. But the Christian students should know better; they need training in theology. And the same is true for all of us.
An Example of the Need
People continue to seek Jesus. But which Jesus? Is it the Jesus who was born of a virgin, who performed awesome miracles, who claimed to be God, who died on a cross for our sins, who rose from the dead, who ascended into heaven, who said He would return? Or is it the Jesus who died as a disillusioned revolutionary peasant? Or is it the Jesus who was a great religious teacher on a par with Buddha?
All these questions are very old, but at the same time they are very contemporary. And they indicate that theology, in this case the theology of Christ, continues to be important. As Christians, we are still challenged to think theologically. Long-held, foundational, orthodox theology is being contested, not just within academia, but in more public venues. Let's consider a prominent example.
In 1991 a book was published by the title of The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant.(13) John Dominic Crossan, the author, then published a second book in 1994 entitled, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.(14) Then the third book in his trilogy about Jesus, The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images,(15) was also published in 1994. Such titles are filled with indications that Crossan is anything but a believer in an orthodox doctrine of Christ. Jesus may have been a Mediterranean Jewish peasant, but was He something much more? The second title indicates that the author believes there is need for a new biography of Jesus, so he has provided it. And the third title boldly asserts that the "original sayings" of Jesus have been isolated from all other sayings so that we can discover the "essential" Jesus.
I have brought Crossan and his books to our attention because he is a prominent member of what is called the Jesus Seminar. This much-publicized seminar is composed of scholars who "used to meet regularly to discuss and vote on the originality of Jesus' sayings (1985ţ92) and are now evaluating his actions and deeds in a similar manner."(16)
Crossan's view of Jesus is exposed in a meandering passage that follows his perspective of the surrounding Roman Empire in which Jesus lived. He writes:
Jesus lived, against the systemic injustice and structural evil of that situation, an alternative open to all who would accept it: a life of open healing and shared eating, of radical itinerancy, programmatic homelessness, and fundamental egalitarianism, of human contact with discrimination, and of divine contact without hierarchy. He also died for that alternative. That is my understanding of what Jesus' words and deeds were all about.(17)
Please note that Crossan has painted a picture of Jesus as a revolutionary whose primary concern was with things of this life. In fact his last phrase, "divine contact without hierarchy" (a confusing idea), is as close as he comes to stating that Jesus was anything more than a political radical. There is no mention of Jesus as the sacrificial Savior who takes away sin and gives eternal life.
In light of the fact that such perspectives are in vogue, and in light of the fact that they are taught to future pastors and professors, can we afford to leave theology in the back rooms of our minds?
Practical Theology
A recent book asserts that God "learns something from what transpires" in this world. The same text also asserts that "God comes to know events as they take place," and that we should see God "as receptive to new experiences and as flexible in the way he works toward his objectives in the world."(18)
What is your reaction to such statements? If you have a reaction at all, you are to be commended. You are thinking theologically. As was true with me, your doctrine of God may have been challenged, and you may want to ask the author various questions. Those questions would probably have a lot to do with how you perceive God in your daily life. For example, you may want to ask if God is somehow dependent on you. If so, in what way?
Such thoughts demonstrate that theology is practical. If we stop a few minutes and concentrate, it is not difficult to see that our theology affects us, whether we are conscious of it or not. Let's consider a few questions that can lead us to see how this is true.
1. If God used His awesome imagination to create the universe out of nothing, what is implied when the Bible states that humans are made in His image? We can also use our God-given imaginations to create, not out of nothing, but out of what God supplied.
2. Is the Holy Spirit a person or a thing?
The Holy Spirit is a person within the godhead, the triunity. As a person, He interacts with us daily, and we can be filled with "Him," not "it."
3. If I accept Christ's sacrificial death for me, can my salvation be taken away?
No! "You have been saved" (Eph. 2:8) for eternity. You are secure as a member of God's family.
4. Was Jesus literally resurrected from the dead?
Yes! He has conquered death for us. "Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. 15:54).
5. What is man's nature?
Man is made in God's image. But his image has been marred; thus our very nature inclines us to sin. Yet, though our genes, society, and other factors may influence us to sin, God holds us personally responsible to accept or reject His gracious offer of sin's remedy in Christ.
6. Do angels really exist?
Yes! Evil angels are in league with Satan and are actively opposed to God's purposes. Good angels are doing the bidding of God in the spiritual realm. Both evil and good angels can serve to remind us that there is both a physical and a spiritual dimension.
7. Is the church a building?
No! The church is the redeemed people of God, of all the ages, living and dead; the church is also called the "body of Christ." As such it is a living, dynamic carrier of the grace and power of God.
8. Is Jesus returning in power and authority for His church?
Yes! The truth of this brings security and hope in the midst of a troubled world.
In a cursory way these questions have touched the major categories of theology. It is our hope that you will study such categories seriously. What you believe about them is important to you and those who follow after you. Theology matters!
© 1995 Probe Ministries
Notes
1. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson Press, 1907), 1.
2. Ronald H. Nash, The Concept of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983), 23-25.
3. Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994), cover notes.
4. David F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993).
5. Charles Colson, with Ellen Santilli Vaughn, The Body (Dallas: Word, 1992).
6. Wells, No Place for Truth, 98.
7. Ibid., 99-100.
8. Ibid.
9. Jeffery L. Sheler, "Spiritual America," U.S.News & World Report (4 April 1994), 50.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991).
14. John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).
15. John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).
16. Ibid., 22.
17. Ibid., 12.
18. Richard Rice, in The Openness of God, 16.
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, our extensive Web site at www.probe.org, and the ProbeCenter at the University of Texas at Austin.
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX(972) 644-9664
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Notice - The featuring of a particula article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statementor be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners."I'm hoping to rope enough corpses together to make a small raft." Mad_Gerbil, D&G
-
January 26th 2005, 03:59 AM #2
Re: Our Featured Ministry Article: "Why Care About Theology?" by Jerry Solomon
To avoid the risk of running afoul of the policy against blatantly offensive posts, I'd just like to point out that that the observation which follows is not intended to offend, but instead to help find insight into the nature of religious hierarchies, religious organisations, and their relationship with society at large.
That said, I have a friend who has been involved in the occult for several years, and whose complaints about his "secret society" were brought to mind by the commentary on the Texan churches.
His complaints about the refusal of the higher degree members to teach the occult system that the Order is supposed to teach, (instead of a "lite" version that attracts more new members by failing to challenge their existing beliefs) are echoed in the concerns about a lack of theology in the Texan churches. He complains that people simply rebrand their existing beliefs as the principle of the Order, instead of learning the principle itself; much like the article describes instances of Christianity being used as a new name for activism or revolution. Finally, there are shared complaints about the general resistance to hierarchies, especially to hierarchies that are demanding enough to actually be meaningful.
I'm going to stick with observing the similarities, and avoid making inferences or suggestions, partly out of concern for potential sensitivies, but more because I haven't yet properly thought out any consequences of these similarities.
-
February 1st 2005, 07:21 PM #3
Re: Our Featured Ministry Article: "Why Care About Theology?" by Jerry Solomon
I was glad to read the comments concerning John Doiminic Crossan and his rambling statements in his book...I heard a debate between Mr. Crossan and William Lane Craig. I couldn't believe my ears! Dr. Lane was well prepared and made his points clearly and with references to back them up. Mr. Crossan rambled on and on and never really said anything. He seemed to believe that the audience would just accept his statements without question...the longer the debate went on the worse it got. Crossan was totally unprepared and looked like a deer caught in the headlights. This so called "Jesus Seminar" comes out with the most outrageous nonsense ever written or uttered and yet they are the "experts" most often quoted on alleged "historical Jesus" programs. Unbelieveable!!
To paraphrase C.S. Lewis..."If, and when, you find yourself on the wrong path, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to continue on that path."

-
November 22nd 2005, 11:07 AM #4
Re: Our Featured Ministry Article: "Why Care About Theology?" by Jerry Solomon
Theologians are Baal worshipers
We are speaking about the most grievous sin of breaking the first commandment.
Baal - means lord, possessor, husband. Worshipers of Baal take their great Lord who is of the principalities, powers, and rulers of the darkness of this world, of spiritual wickedness in high places as spoken of in Ephesians 6:12 – “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and against rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” They are drinking from the golden cup full of abominations and filthiness of spiritual fornication of Rev. 17.
Theology in not a Bible term. It originates as a category in the definition of philosophy as arranged by a pagan who lived hundreds of years before Christ named Aristotle.
Theology is the arduous mental reconciliation of the Bible with pagan philosophy. Using the half truth of the first mover concept of Aristotle, the Living God of Abraham and Jesus and the Bible is replaced by a god who is far away, outside of time. Not withstanding the solemn admonition of Jesus "call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” Their spiritual fornication begins with the so called early church “fathers”. Origen finally wrote it down in the second century in which he called anyone who believed the Bible literally a heretic as well as any one who was an anthropomorphite. This long term means that if you believe that God has a body and if you believe the Bible that God in his body talked with Adam and Eve Origen says you are a heretic. This spiritual fornication of joining paganism to christianity was foundational in the writings of these so called early church fathers.
Upon this pagan concept the definition of the Living God of Abraham and the Bible is changed to the far off lord known as Baal in the Old Testament. All who believe these things are the same false priests of Baal as in the days of Elijah. They are the personal manifestation of spiritual wickedness in high places. If you believe in a pagan god you are a pagan.
John chapter one tells us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men… was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” The Living God is striving with every man in the world.
Placing God out of time there is added the pagan concept that God foreknows all things from all eternity and everything is predetermined from the beginning of creation. Meticulous misinterpretations are made of the Bible to try to give credence to this pagan concept, ignoring the active interaction of the eternal Spirit of God with every soul on earth. But ignoring the plain statement of God that he is in time when he declares to Abraham “now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son” God declares that did not foreknow but that he KNEW from that moment in time. The Bible declares in Heb 4 God said, “I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” God is in time. Believing the contrary concept makes you a worshiper of the great Lord (Baal).
Implicit in the pagan concept is that God is responsible for all things. Theologians by their premise are accusers of God making him ultimately responsible for all who are lost, declaring “Grace plus nothing”. This spiritual fornication is the most horrible for they are defaming God in the most intimate area of accusing him by premeditated intention of causing all of the tragedy and being responsible for all of the works of Satan.
The mighty presence of the God of all Spirits striving with every heart convincing of sin judgment and righteousness is ignored. The theologian instead substitutes his supposed superiority of understanding declaring that just trusting his theory of redemption with all your power of belief will place you in a position where God must make you part of his kingdom. In this defiant attitude of holding God to his covenant, theologians were identified by Jesus “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Their faith has a belligerence toward God
Theologians are intoxicated with the wine of superiority which was called by Jesus the leaven of the pharasees. Their pagan root leads them to suppose they are Philosopher Kings as described by Plato in his Republic. They wear the toga and pattern their buildings after the Parthenon. Theologians exhibit their intellectual gifts disdaining and ignoring the gifts in every believer. They take the name of pastor but have no care for discovering and developing those over whom they the suppose they are placed as spiritual leaders.
http://themartyrcall.blogspot.com/
Edward Moore author of the following
Email: emoore@theandros.com
St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology
A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel-Message Jane Lead - 1697.htm
I. Anthropomorphites: They take literally the anthropomorphism that the Bible attributes to God and to the soul and consequently picture God as corporeal: against these Origen clearly affirms the absolute incorporeality of the three Persons and of the soul.
Against the Anthropomorphites Origen explains that God is Spirit, and He alone is without body.
But the substance of the Trinity, which is the beginning and cause of all things, ‘of which are all things and through which are all things and in which are all things’, must not be believed either to be a body or to exist in a body, but to be wholly incorporeal.
But if it is impossible by any means to maintain this proposition, namely, that any being, with the exception of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, can live apart from a body, then logical reasoning compels us to believe that, while the original creation was of rational beings, it is only in idea and thought that a material substance is separable from them, and that though this substance seems to have been produced for them or after them, yet never have they lived or do they live without it; for we shall be right in believing that life without a body is found in the Trinity alone. Now as we have said above, material substance possesses such a nature that it can undergo every kind of transformation.
II. Millenarians or Chiliasts, because they take literally the thousand years of Apocalypse 20:1-10. They believe that there will be a first resurrection of the just, who will reign for that time in the heavenly Jerusalem which will come down to earth. They will enjoy with Christ happiness before the final resurrection.
M. Simonetti says, "The decisive reaction against millenarism came from the Alexandrians, who propound a much more spiritual conception of Christian eschatology. Origen rejected the literal interpretation of Rev. 20-21, gives an allegorical interpretation of it and so takes away the Scriptural foundation of millenarism."
Origen denied the millenarism, considering the exegesis of the literalists on some promises concerning the kingdom of Christ was "unworthy of the divine promises." He castigates the follies of literalist believers who read the Scriptures like the Jews whose belief in the future Messianic kingdom is understood as political and material rule. They cherish dreams of dwelling in an earthly Jerusalem after the resurrection, where they will eat, drink and enjoy sexual intercourse to their hearts" content.
Origen opposes the doctrine of the resurrection current among the millenarians or Chilliest. As regards to the state of the body after this resurrection, they imagine that it will be identical with the earthly body so that people will eat and drink, marry and procreate, and that the heavenly Jerusalem will be like a city here below. The spiritual body will differ in nothing from the psychic body and everything in the Beyond will be like life in this lower world. For, being anthropomorphisms, the millenarians take literally the biblical anthropomorphisms. They suppress all difference between the terrestrial body and the glorious body, keeping only the identity.
III. The Literalists, because they preserve the literal meaning of the Scriptures, even to the absurd lengths of which anthropomorphism and millenarianism are examples: Origen's doctrine of Scriptural allegory is also directed against these.
Multiple Ages, Metempsychosis, and the Restoration of All
Origen did not believe in the eternal suffering of sinners in hell. For him, all souls, including the devil himself, will eventually achieve salvation, even if it takes innumerable ages to do so; for Origen believed that God's love is so powerful as to soften even the hardest heart, and that the human intellect - being the image of God - will never freely choose oblivion over proximity to God, the font of Wisdom Himself. Certain critics of Origen have claimed that this teaching undermines his otherwise firm insistence on free will, for, these critics argue, the souls must maintin the freedom to ultimately reject or accept God, or else free will becomes a mere illusion. What escapes these critics is the fact that Origen's conception of free will is not our own; he considered freedom in the Platonic sense of the ability to choose the good. Since evil is not the polar opposite of good, but rather simply the absence of good - and thus having no real existence - then to 'choose' evil is not to make a conscious decision, but to act in ignorance of the measure of all rational decision, i.e., the good. Origen was unable to conceive of a God who would create souls that were capable of dissolving into the oblivion of evil (non-being) for all eternity. Therefore, he reasoned that a single lifetime is not enough for a soul to achieve salvation, for certain souls require more education or 'healing' than others. So he developed his doctrine of multiple ages, in which souls would be re-born, to experience the educative powers of God once again, with a view to ultimate salvation. This doctrine, of course, implies some form of transmigration of souls or metempsychosis. Yet Origen's version of metempsychosis was not the same as that of the Pythagoreans, for example, who taught that the basest of souls will eventually become incarnated as animals. For Origen, some sort of continuity between the present body, and the body in the age to come, was maintained (Jerome, Epistle to Avitus 7, quoting Origen; see also Commentary on Matthew 11.17). Origen did not, like many of his contemporaries, degrade the body to the status of an unwanted encrustation imprisoning the soul; for him, the body is a necessary principle of limitation, providing each soul with a unique identity. This is an important point for an understanding of Origen's epistemology, which is based upon the idea that God educates each soul according to its inherent abilities, and that the abilities of each soul will determine the manner of its knowledge. We may say, then, that the uniqueness of the soul's body is an image of its uniqueness of mind. This is the first inkling of the development of the concept of the person and personality in the history of Western thought.
The restoration of all beings (apokatastasis) is the most important concept in Origen's philosophy, and the touchstone by which he judges all other theories. His concept of universal restoration is based on equally strong Scriptural and Hellenistic philosophical grounds and is not original, as it can be traced back to Heraclitus, who stated that "the beginning and end are common" (Fragment B 103, tr. J. Barnes 1987, p. 115). Considering that Origen's later opponents based their charges of heresy largely on this aspect of his teaching, it is surprising to see how well-grounded in scripture this doctrine really is. Origen's main biblical proof-text is 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, especially verse 28, which speaks of the time "when all things shall be subdued unto him [Christ], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all" (KJV, my emphasis). This scriptural notion of God being "all in all" (panta en pasin) is a strong theological support for his theory of apokatastasis. There are, of course, numerous other passages in scripture that contradict this notion, but we must remember that Origen's strength resided in his philosophical ability to use reason and dialectic in support of humane doctrines, not in the ability to use scripture in support of dogmatical and anti-humanistic arguments. Origen imagined salvation not in terms of the saved rejoicing in heaven and the damned suffering in hell, but as a reunion of all souls with God.
Eternal Motion of Souls
A common motif in Platonism during, before, and after Origen's time is salvific stasis, or the idea that the soul will achieve complete rest and staticity when it finally ascends to a contemplation of the good. We notice this idea early on in Plato, who speaks in the Republic (517c-d, 519c-e) of a state of pure contemplation from which the philosopher is only wrenched by force or persuasion. In Origen's own time, Plotinus developed his notion of an 'about-face' (epistrophĂŞ) of the soul resulting in an instant union of the soul with its divine principle, understood as an idealized, changeless form of contemplation, allowing for no dynamism or personal development (see Enneads 4.3.32, 4.8.4, for example). Influenced indirectly by Plotinus, and more directly by later Neoplatonists (both Christian and pagan), the Christian theologian St. Maximus the Confessor elaborated a systematic philosophical theology culminating in an eschatology in which the unique human person was replaced by the overwhelming, transcendent presence of God (see Chapters on Knowledge 2.88). Origen managed to maintain the transcendentality of God on the one hand, and the dynamic persistence of souls in being on the other. He did this by defining souls not by virtue of their intellectual content (or, in the Plotinian sense, for example, by virtue of their 'prior' or higher, constitutive principle) but rather by their ability to engage in a finite manner with the infinite God. This engagement is constitutive of the soul's existence, and guarantees its uniqueness. Each soul engages uniquely with God in contemplating divine mysteries according to its innate ability, and this engagement persists for all eternity, for the mysteries of the godhead are inexhaustible, as is the enthusiastic application of the souls' intellectual ability.
Eternal Motion of Souls
A common motif in Platonism during, before, and after Origen's time is salvific stasis, or the idea that the soul will achieve complete rest and staticity when it finally ascends to a contemplation of the good. We notice this idea early on in Plato, who speaks in the Republic (517c-d, 519c-e) of a state of pure contemplation from which the philosopher is only wrenched by force or persuasion. In Origen's own time, Plotinus developed his notion of an 'about-face' (epistrophĂŞ) of the soul resulting in an instant union of the soul with its divine principle, understood as an idealized, changeless form of contemplation, allowing for no dynamism or personal development (see Enneads 4.3.32, 4.8.4, for example). Influenced indirectly by Plotinus, and more directly by later Neoplatonists (both Christian and pagan), the Christian theologian St. Maximus the Confessor elaborated a systematic philosophical theology culminating in an eschatology in which the unique human person was replaced by the overwhelming, transcendent presence of God (see Chapters on Knowledge 2.88). Origen managed to maintain the transcendentality of God on the one hand, and the dynamic persistence of souls in being on the other. He did this by defining souls not by virtue of their intellectual content (or, in the Plotinian sense, for example, by virtue of their 'prior' or higher, constitutive principle) but rather by their ability to engage in a finite manner with the infinite God. This engagement is constitutive of the soul's existence, and guarantees its uniqueness. Each soul engages uniquely with God in contemplating divine mysteries according to its innate ability, and this engagement persists for all eternity, for the mysteries of the godhead are inexhaustible, as is the enthusiastic application of the souls' intellectual ability.
Eternal Motion of Souls
A common motif in Platonism during, before, and after Origen's time is salvific stasis, or the idea that the soul will achieve complete rest and staticity when it finally ascends to a contemplation of the good. We notice this idea early on in Plato, who speaks in the Republic (517c-d, 519c-e) of a state of pure contemplation from which the philosopher is only wrenched by force or persuasion. In Origen's own time, Plotinus developed his notion of an 'about-face' (epistrophĂŞ) of the soul resulting in an instant union of the soul with its divine principle, understood as an idealized, changeless form of contemplation, allowing for no dynamism or personal development (see Enneads 4.3.32, 4.8.4, for example). Influenced indirectly by Plotinus, and more directly by later Neoplatonists (both Christian and pagan), the Christian theologian St. Maximus the Confessor elaborated a systematic philosophical theology culminating in an eschatology in which the unique human person was replaced by the overwhelming, transcendent presence of God (see Chapters on Knowledge 2.88). Origen managed to maintain the transcendentality of God on the one hand, and the dynamic persistence of souls in being on the other. He did this by defining souls not by virtue of their intellectual content (or, in the Plotinian sense, for example, by virtue of their 'prior' or higher, constitutive principle) but rather by their ability to engage in a finite manner with the infinite God. This engagement is constitutive of the soul's existence, and guarantees its uniqueness. Each soul engages uniquely with God in contemplating divine mysteries according to its innate ability, and this engagement persists for all eternity, for the mysteries of the godhead are inexhaustible, as is the enthusiastic application of the souls' intellectual ability.
Edward Moore
Email: emoore@theandros.com
St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology
Originally posted by Trout
-
June 13th 2006, 07:30 PM #5
Re: Our Featured Ministry Article: "Why Care About Theology?" by Jerry Solomon
Jerry Soloman,
Originally posted by Trout
Your artical is interesting. I cannot fathom whom God is, yet. With respect, how can any one religion make such a claim that God is, and Jesus is, faith I suppose must stand alone, no harm there, or is there harm?
Imagine, that so many "religions gone wild" assume they are right, yet how can they all be correct? Faith rises again I suppose.
I cannot share a faith based on such narrow views of what is right-wrong; no disrespect; lets discuss this sometime?
patrick
Similar Threads
-
Our Featured Ministry Article: "Why Care About Theology?" by Jerry Solomon
By Trout in forum Theology 201Replies: 6Last Post: January 16th 2012, 04:20 PM -
OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE Examining Joseph Smith's "Rocky Mountain Prophecy"
By Trout in forum Editorial Dept.Replies: 15Last Post: November 14th 2008, 03:10 PM -
Our Featured Member Article: "God in the Flesh" by John Sparks
By Trout in forum Editorial Dept.Replies: 8Last Post: June 9th 2005, 10:55 AM -
Our Featured Ministry Article: "Rules of Engagement" by Bill Mckeever
By Trout in forum Editorial Dept.Replies: 6Last Post: January 23rd 2005, 03:16 AM -
Our Featured Ministry Article: "Rules of Engagement" by Bill Mckeever
By Trout in forum LDS - MormonismReplies: 0Last Post: January 4th 2005, 12:21 AM















































































Quote


Questions on the Earth-Moon system
Today, 05:02 AM in Natural Science 301