When I was a kid, my Sunday school teacher called the Bible “God’s Love Letter” to us; that stuck with me ever since. You know, as I peruse the theoblogosphere and look at all the different postings on various foci of Christian doctrine; it makes me wonder, and ask the LORD: “Lord, why didn’t you just give the Apostles a Systematic/Dogmatic theology; with every single point covered (like on issues surrounding salvation [e.g. election, predestination, etc.]), that way we would know exactly what we’re supposed to believe, and there would be unanimity and unity in the Church of Jesus Christ?” And this question made me think about the Bible itself, and the “form” it took under God’s inspiration; the Bible is an occasional book, all of its parts are shaped by certain historical and even theological situations (like Covenant unfaithfulness, immorality, Pseudo-Apostles, etc.) which each book (in its parts and whole) seek to speak into. So what this leads me to think is that the Bible does reflect what’s important to God in our understanding of him; 1) He is concerned with relationships, 2) And He is concerned with us realizing that our relationships find their ground in Him, His Son! So what’s important is illustrated by the form the Bible has taken itself — it’s not the scholastic points of doctrine, it’s loving relationship with a loving God. And the fact that He has left “doctrine” enthymemic (unstated, explicitly) in the Text, illustrates the importance of working out such things in the context of dynamic relationship (which is interesting, because our God — who is Trinity — is dynamic and relationship by nature).
Just a thought . . .
Bobby,
You should see and note T.C. Hammond’s classic book: ‘In Understanding Be Men’. He has a sweet explanation between Dogmatic and Biblical Theology! In the first paragraph of the Intro.
I’ll do that someday, thanks Fr Robert!
And you know, in some ways my reflection here is trying to go beyond the “academic” points on such things; it’s more innocent than that π .
Yeah Bobby, I am very “mystically” bent, it comes with being raised Catholic, and loving Mary I suppose? This is always a pull on me! St. Paul was certainly a mystic soul don’t ya think?
Yeah, I think Paul just loved Jesus when it comes right down to it π . The way I see theology, that is doing it, is a result of the curse. In other words, knowing God is a battle and requires work (praise the Lord the work has been done by Him, but we must walk in it).
Neat point Bobby! That doctrine would have to be hashed out in community, and never to everyone’s satisfaction. And so a splinter group which would divide itself away from other Christians for finer points of doctrine, would be cutting itself off from the larger relationship in the body of Christ.
Nice!
Lovin’ it Bobby. These are great points. Thank you! π
Brian
Great post Bobby, I can give a hearty Amen here!
Bobby,
You said “Just a thought.” I think you’re spot on. That brings us back to the notion of Accommodation.
Besides, this dynamic relationship with the Trinity and one another is based on faith. What is faith if everything was spelled out for us?
Amen, good responses π !