Reno,
The volume of systematic theology and the volume of
Church history are for your benefit in understanding
the issues you are raising on these threads. They
are the background information as well as sources
for basic answers to some of your questions.
Look, for years, people would say to me on FR threads,
“Yes, but have you read Atlas Shrugged?” Well, I
hadn’t. Finally, I realized it was worth reading
for my own edification (in a capitalist sense).
I did. I am suggesting to you that if you wish to
be conversant on these issues and have some depth
to your points, this is basic information you should
know. It is not an insult to you. It is very worthy
of the investment of your time. Most of the answers
to questions you raise here are there in one volume
you could refer to (and they are typically reference
books and not the kind of book you read cover to cover).
Second point... I do not draw my personal faith from
the creeds. At times, I sense you believe Christians’
faith revolves around creeds? I’ve yet to meet my
first “creedal Christian”.
Third point... John passage. It doesn’t say a word that
is contradictory to Christian belief. It has been discussed
by others extensively already on the mormon threads. It
seems pointless for me to re-post that which is available
for all to see.
Have a good day,
ampu
PS - as an aside, included in the courses I took in seminary
a gem called, History of Doctrine. We took each major Christian
doctrine and traced it through from the OT through the time
of Christ, through the Church Fathers and up until the
year I graduated. Then we would go back and take the next
Christian doctrine and do it all over. Then the next. It was
a treat!
What I realized is that some doctrines are arrived at because
we know what cannot be true (from scripture) and what the
possible correct answers are. That is where original languages
are often very useful.
Sometimes we hold a doctrinal position because out of all
the possible choices, one answers the most questions and
raises the fewest problems.
Do the creeds play any part in your beliefs? You seem very conversant on temporal things, how conversant are you on the spiritual? I rarely, if ever see you talk about the spiritual. Which do you really think is the most important? Is it more important to get close to the Lord spiritually or temporally? Would you rather have a great knowledge of what the Lord has done, or would you rather have a great relationship w/ the Lord? Can you have a great relationship w/ the Lord w/o that spiritual connection?
As far as the John passage, perhaps it has been discussed at length somewhere here but I don’t know where. Can you provide the Link? I personally have asked you & others several times & only received one legitimate response, a Catholic, whom I admire for his forthrightness & willingness to discuss the issue & do so in a very civil manner. Besides, I was really interested in what you had to say about the issue, not others. Perhaps you can provide a link & then just say ditto. You seem to rely a lot on others’ thoughts so that would be fine.
For those not familiar w/ the workings of the Holy Ghost, I can certainly see where systematic theology could be a big benefit. Actually, I think it could be beneficial for those familiar w/ the Holy Ghost as well but not as an end all conclusion. It certainly is a reasoned approach & one that I can respect. I cannot accept it as being a way to reach a final conclusion on truth of gospel concerns however.
Let me give you an example of why I think the Holy Ghost is so pivotal in this process & why reasoning alone won’t carry the day. When Paul was writing to the saints in Corinth, where they using systematic theology as a basis to form their testimonies? Did they have the bible? They had some scriptures but in most cases a very scant availability of such. They had the writings of Paul, but was that really enough to form the basis of systematic theology? What about the saints in outlying areas that didn’t receive from Paul? Did they have to rely upon systematic theology or the Spirit?
The only ones that really practiced a form of systematic theology were the leaders of the Jews w/ all their seminaries & higher education. The saints were instructed to study, yes, but to ultimately get their witness from the Spirit. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not trying to slam systematic theology or you for that matter, b/c I really do think it can be a good thing, just not the ultimate when it comes to truth. The ultimate as I’ve stated all along, is a witness of the Spirit just as the saints of old received. Just food for thought as we wind down the week.
I need to step back for awhile as yesterday things got somewhat contentious on my side. I love having a spirited debate but not normally at the expense of others & yesterday that was not the case. My purpose is not to show up my fellow Freepers but to have reasoned discussion even when bated to do otherwise. Yesterday I fell into that trap & for that I have deep regret. Have a great finish to your week. I’m sure we’ll meet up again somewhere down the line.