Originally Posted by OBW
There is a general flaw in modern theology — actually going back almost all the way to Martin Luther.
For all the faults with the RCC, at least they generally took the initiative to dig into areas of theology. Since it was a closed system, change was slow. But there generally was change. The problem in Martin Luther's time is that the Pope was corrupt and was behind the things like indulgences. He didn't want the topic discussed. And some of the others as well.
But starting there, the same thing has become the norm. Theologians, groups, etc., silo themselves from all external thought on theology such that their only interaction with it is to spend time debunking it. And all branches of theology spend a lot of time debunking virtually all the other branches of theology. At least on certain issues. Rather than be open to continued discussion, Luther said "no" and thus the first Pretestant split. And from there through each split — Anabaptists, Methodists, etc. — rather than discuss what it is that some see and the "stalwarts" do not, they just separated and let it be. No more willingness to allow for difference of opinion as the truth is studied.
And the same can be said today about so many of the theologians that I personally think very highly of. They do not seek to do this as a matter of will. But they have generally started their journey on a particular track of theology and live their lives defending it. They "believe" it is the right thing to do. Seldom actually studying alternative understandings. Only sharpening their skill at skewering it without true understanding.
I realize that I am overstating it at some level. But the tendency for bias in study is very real. And it often stays so because they are employees or members of groups that have positions that they expect to maintain. This is true of many seminary professors, preachers, writers, etc. Oddly, at the level of local pastor/preacher, the dogmas often are less severe. They learned from a particular school of thought, but they deal with the Bible with reference to the lives of their flock rather than the theological bent of their group. They acknowledge that there are many thoughts on various topics. And they admit that they have an opinion on the subjects, but are more likely to admit they could be wrong.
Yes, those Bible commentators are generally good spirit-filled people. But they are too often studied in a closed system and are unfamiliar with the idea that theology is a philosophical study, not a scientific study based on past "proofs" that are not questioned. Science doesn't even work that way. But theology too often does. Just as you assert every time you trot out any particular commentator that said something you agree with. No matter his pedigree, he is not the final arbiter of truth. Just a voice stating (and often fighting for) a particular version of what could be true. It is a position to be considered. As are other positions. There is no rule that says certain sources are more acceptable. An evangelical theologian v a Catholic theologian. Both should be studied and considered. Either, neither, or both could be right.
That goes for everyone outside of the actual scripture.
|