Reply: Growth in Understanding Theological
Post 2 replies of 200 words each. Support your assertions with 2 scholarly citations in Turabian in-text parenthetical citation format. Acceptable sources include the Bible, textbooks, and scholarly sources published within the last five years. You’re writing from an evangelical conservative perspective.
Student 1 Matthew
Which doctrines studied caused you to reconsider, change or develop your position on during the course and why?
Demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter by inserting substantive content.
In this last discussion I touch upon two to three topics which strike me as thought provoking. I will be skipping back forth in the texts and books. First, I offer as interesting to me and needs to be addressed by the orthodoxy of the Protestant church is that of Liberation Theology[1]. This is a departure from Protestant theology on many levels, in addition it is also closely tied to political and social agendas which confuse and obfuscate Orthodoxy of our faith.
As we read the theology is partially based on a Marxist[2] foundation and not on sound Biblical doctrine. Though I will agree that inequalities must be addressed how that is done is another issue. The theology is flawed in its goal since it is flawed from the beginning, based in temporal issues. What Erikson describes is a preoccupation with wealth and power, the very thing Christ refused when he was temped. Yet, Liberation Theology seems to ignore the real problem right in front of their face, namely sin. How we define sin and its origin will guide us in what actions and decisions to make.
From Erikson we understand that for a Liberation Theologist sin is going to be removed when oppression and inequalities are removed. Thus, sin is a product of said oppression and inequalities, which begs the question. Is sin a part of human nature because of the fall or is it a external weakness human have which we can confront and defeat? Isn’t this exactly what the governments[3] of the world have sought for millennia?
I will leave this topic here, for discussion, let’s turn to abortion[4]. From the earliest Christian writings, we see the condemnation of abortion. The early church spoke of this in the Didache, which was actually used in the text of Elwell[5]. As the early church explained clearly, “You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child.[6]” This is a non-negotiable for the believer, this makes the believer make a clear and choice. Barth also concludes that this sin is a sin. Especially in this day or time in the US, it is critical for the Bible believing and preaching churches to continue. Again, there can be no compromise on a sin such as this.
Future Punishment is my last topic, one which has become a question since a discussion with another minster I had a few months back. The most interesting option is that of complete annihilationism, though if seems a fitting end and the more compassionate solution it insults the Scriptures. This results from a misconception of the enormity of sin and its devastating nature, it is eternal and can only be cleansed by an eternal God. This is clear from Scripture and the theory also deviates from Scripture as seen in Erickson[7]. I believe this theory of annihilationism is easier to hear from those in the church and outside the church, it is still a misguided attempt to smooth the conscience of those that promote the theory.
Though is does seem in the beginning a kinder punishment it does not take into account an eternal God had to die to save eternally, it down plays the suffering of Christ and elevates humanity to a status it shouldn’t. A better theology is found with the idea of degrees of punishment. Again, Erickson points to this in Christ’s[8] own words. Though it is painful, considering this as it is presented in the Scriptures is the only responsible and faithful way to interpret the future of punishment.
Student 2 Aubrey
Week seven is almost the end of this class, which has impressed upon me the importance of my voice and articulation of my theological understanding. Throughout the last seven weeks of theology 525, we have examined numerous doctrines, examining the varying views and understandings of these doctrines and learning how to articulate our position on them. The section I found the most valuable and substantial in developing my theological position was the “problem of evil,” an issue that plagues Christians and non-Christians alike, significantly impacting the understanding of God and the world.
Personally, I always associated evil as the counterweight to free will and left my general understanding of evil as an equal and necessary side effect of free will. Through this course, I developed a much deeper understanding of the “problem of evil,” which contributed to my theological position and response to this theological problem. As I acknowledged that free will does not solely answer to all aspects of evil within the world, combined with the textbooks suggestion to consider a combination, I began to develop a more substantial view of the “problem of evil” and the profound impact on our understanding, on how we view God and the world (Erickson, 394). After working on the reading material, I evaluated and developed my position to include a combination of themes, applying different themes to both moral and natural evil, answering the question which free will alone. I contend that moral evil is a necessary side effect of free will, existing prior to original sin, as Adam, Eve, and the serpent all made the direct choice to go against the command of God, creating upheaval within His creation, risking the death of God’s creation “when you eat from it you will certainly die,” despite knowing the consequences of their action (Genesis 2:17). However, this answer does not answer for natural evil in the world, as these events are sometimes considered acts of God, which have been a part of the human experience since the expulsion of from Eden, and were not part of God’s original created order. The repercussions of the fall are recorded within scripture; Romans 8:20-23 speaks directly to the pain of the created world and man’s pain as they await the redemption of the world and the body. “Sin in general” resulted in the fall and the expulsion from Eden (Erickson). Abner Chou writes of three significant effects the fall had on the human enterprise “communicative distortion, economic scarcity,” and “managerial Control,” God’s creation was altered at this point (Chou 2016, 175). Since I previously contended that moral evil came before the fall, it is logical to conclude that natural evil and the alteration of God’s natural and created order coincide with the fall of man and “sin in general” (Erickson, 394).
In the first journal critique assignment, I examined G.K. Beale’s “Can the Bible Be Completely Inspired by God and Yet Still Contain Errors? A Response to Some Recent ‘Evangelical’ Proposals,” and then a week later, we examined inerrancy as a class for our discussion board topic in week 3, which allowed for me to clarify and better articulate my knowledge of the doctrine of inerrancy.
(530 Words)
