Does God want us to do theology?

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Does God want us to do theology?

Post by Tychicus » Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:28 am

mattrose wrote:
Tychicus wrote:
mattrose wrote:Paul letters and epistles are usually pretty neatly divided between theology (first half) and practical application (second half).
Now, that's quite a bold claim, and pretty much begs the original question. Can you please give some examples of such epistles, and explain what you mean by "theology".
I think it must be my definition of 'theology' that is of issue, . . .
Well, I would agree with your sentiment that most of us here really are not that far apart. We all want to understand what Scripture means, and it's no big deal if someone calls most of it "theology" and someone else here prefers to use a different word. I suppose the major objection has to do with the way the concepts are arranged. See below. The other concern is with the word "doctrine", which in Greek just means "teaching" and usually refers to behavior (e.g. 1 Tim 1:10). The early apostles, and well as the Lord himself, did not make any clear distinction between "doctrine" and "practical teaching".
since nearly every commentator notes a bifold structure in nearly all of Paul's works. He tends to start with theology/doctrine/teaching and end with practical applications (Romans is the first of multiple examples, 1-11 making a theological point and 12 onward applying those truths to the church).
I have read lots of commentaries and just don't see them saying this (e.g. the Word commentary on Romans by Dunn). I have heard of this idea of the doctrine/practical application split in Paul (I've seen Ephesians described this way) but have never seen a serious piece of work defending that view.

I'll grant that Romans is supposed to be the most "theological" of Paul's letters, with Ephesians perhaps second. That's just 2 out of 13 letters. But even in those 2 letters there is no such "neat division" that I can see. For example, Rom 1:9-15 is about Paul's travel desires, as is much of chap 15. Most of chapters 6 and 8 would have to be classified as "application" more than "doctrine" (if you are going to make those distinctions), and 15:8-12 would lean towards "doctrine". But the biggest problem is that to classify Rom 1-11 as "doctrine" (as if some precursor to the Westminster Catechism) is to totally miss the point of what the letter is about. It is not some sort of abstract "doctrine", but a letter to a church dealing with specific issues. The interpretation can be debated, but it is certainly clear that Paul is facing an opposing teacher (see, e.g. Rom 2:17ff), and this shows throughout much of the letter. You need to understand Paul in light of the questions being asked and debated in the Romans church. If you follow Luther by interpreting Romans as a doctrinal treatise against the Roman Catholic Church "doctrine" of his day (or as a doctrinal treatise about anything) you will not understand it.

Sorry for being so long-winded, but perhaps it will help you to understand why some of us are not so comfortable using the word "theology" in the way you have.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Does God want us to do theology?

Post by steve » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:58 pm

Hi Tychichus,

I am not sure what you are thinking of as "theology." The normal working definition of that term refers to the ways we understand and discuss God's nature, His character, His purposes, His saving activity, etc. This is definitely not the same category as what the New testament refers to as "doctrine." You are right in saying that "doctrine" simply means "teaching," and generally refers, in scripture, to the moral and behavioral teachings of Christian discipleship.

The definition of "theology" as Matt gave it above, is the accepted meaning of the term in Christian parlance, and definitely does describe the contents of the first part of many epistles. Romans 1-11, Ephesians 1-3, Colossians 1-2; Galatians 3-4 would be clear examples. These chapters are explanatory of Christian truths, whereas the remaining portions of each book are generally occupied with practical instructions and commands. In some of the books (e.g., the Thessalonian and Corinthian correspondences) theology and practical exhortation are somewhat interwoven, rather than set out in discreet sections.

I agree with you that Romans is not primarily the theological treatise that many, following Luther, have made it out to be. I think it is an "occasional" letter, like the other epistles. I believe it is a protracted treatment of the need for the Jews and Gentiles in the church to come into practical unity. However, as in all the other epistles written to churches, Paul builds his hortatory case upon theological truths, which are concentrated in the earlier portion of the book.

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Does God want us to do theology?

Post by Tychicus » Thu May 16, 2013 2:44 am

Hi Steve,

Here is what I see from the OP:
[Montrose:] I think God wants us to continue developing our theology, even after the close of the canon.... just with canon-parameters in mind. [snip] I think God expects us to 'do theology'... to put 2 and 2 together... to formulate theories. This doesn't mean we should act like we have it all figured out. It simply means we should, led by the Spirit, try. Jesus even said that when the Holy Spirit came, he would lead us into all truth.
I appreciate this definition, and really have no problem with doing theology as stated here. The issue I have (and it is relatively minor), is that I don't think Paul was "doing theology" in this way ("putting 2 and 2 together", "formulating theories") in "the first half of his letters". There was much more interplay. For example, what would you call Rom 2:17-24?

I will agree that there is a measure of "putting 2 and 2 together". So Paul works like a "theologian", looking through the OT and bringing together several prophecies that talk of the gospel going out to all the nations. He then shows that this is totally consistent with the reality that Gentiles are entering the church in droves, whereas most of Israel is rejecting their Messiah. So, yes, I agree, Paul is reasoning "theologically" part of the time (as a good theologian/Pharisee in a healthy way).

But much of the time Paul is not doing "theological reasoning" as such, but speaking authoritatively as an apostle of Jesus Christ (both in his interpretation of the OT and his exhortations for Christian living), something that modern theologians cannot do. So, for example, Rom 2:7-16.

I also agree that there are sections that deal more with "practical instructions", and these tend to come in the latter part of the letters. But this can also reveal some interesting interplay. For example, what would you call Eph 5:25-32?

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”