|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page revised and Copyrighted: Theon Doxazo |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
03.1.1 |
||||
|
Theology
Theology is man's attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible, to explain the ineffable. As such, it can be expected to be limited and only useful in some situations. The problem arises when advocates of a given theology proclaim their system AS IF it were God's revealed Truth. They merge and confabulate the Scriptures with their theological understanding of the Scriptures. In such a situation any disagreements become attacks against God, Himself. Over the years this has split the Church and led to some pretty little wars. Even today, while we are less likely to torture and kill those who disagree, often they are still treated as 'enemies' and not brethren.
The diversity of Christian denominations is testimony to the fact that no completely satisfactory theology, systematic or otherwise, has been developed. This being the case, we should use a given view of God, Man, or the Church only tentatively. Ultimately, we need to be eclectic in our application of theology. What is the standard by which we should measure a theology and it's applicability? Scripture! Whatever approach we use to understand and apply God's Word must be driven by God's Word. It is we that must conform to it.
As you may have already noted, the Second Peter Theory is striving to demonstrate how it is causally linked to an exegetically-derived understanding of Scripture. It is hoped that, given the exhaustive exegesis of the Second Peter text, the reader will be prepared to judge how well the Second Peter Theory conforms to the Scriptural text. It is in the context of the exegesis of the Scripture that the Second Peter Theory should be evaluated.
Caveat
This being the case, the reader should approach the Second Peter Theory with some caution. What will be presented is a THEORY, not fact. Theories are human constructions. As such, all theories will be flawed. Sometimes the flaws will be minor, spelling, punctuation, etc. At other times, being human, these flaws may be major. The reader will be well-advised to read this theory critically, considering how well it conforms to the text of Scripture. Note, however, the Second Peter Theory may disagree with any given theology. Theologies are the works of men too! While compatibility with well-accepted theology is a strength for a theory, it is not determinative. Ultimately it is the Word of God that should be used as the standard of judgment, not the works of human-created theologies.
Also note: as a human creation, the Second Peter Theory is (hopefully) derived from Scripture. Yet, it itself is not Scripture. Should the theory be proven to be wrong, the data/text it was derived from is not disproven. In all things the Scripture is to be paramount, the theory is strictly secondary. After all, a human creation (theory) can be found wanting without nullifying the mysteries of the Lord's Creation.
It is the belief of this author that a well-crafted theory of Christian spiritual development will be found to be compatible with the Scripture properly understood and theology well-cast. Again, it is the classical tradition that teaches us that natural revelation provides insights into the divine that are at one with the special revelation found in Scripture. I see this theory as but one instance of this larger point of view.
|
||||