I posted this a year ago. I fear there remains today a lot of shallow theology:
--------
In a conversation I had with an online acquaintance about theologians, I wrote the following response. I share it again with my online communities because it remains distressing to me that such a prominent theologian would be so shallow in his understanding of theology:
As I was preparing for a Bible study during the 2018 Advent season, I reviewed the Ryrie Study Bible of the New American Standard Bible. Charles Ryrie, Th.D., Ph.D., wrote this footnote at Luke 1:43: "The phrase 'Mother of God' is nowhere in Scripture."
My mouth dropped open.
OF COURSE that phrase is not in the Bible. But neither is the word 'Trinity' in the Bible. And neither did the Holy Spirit place anywhere in the Bible what the Table of Contents should be of what we call the 'canon' of Scripture.
I would expect such a disingenuous and specious argument from a lay person, but certainly not from such a well-respected theologian. SURELY he knows of the dialogue that went on up to and culminating with the Third Ecumenical Council in 431 at Ephesus. Just like the earlier Ecumenical Councils at Nicea and later at Constantinople which affirmed the deity of Jesus, the third council also reiterated the deity of Jesus. AND since Mary was His mother, the council concluded that Mary was the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. In other words: Mary was the Mother of God. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Is it because Catholics believe it and so, therefore by default it cannot be true? Is THAT a reason to reject a clear and unequivocal doctrinal truth? Sheeesh! No wonder there is such theological ignorance out here when respected and well-lettered theologians are unwilling to teach as simple a truth as that! While I was studying for my theological degree at the Assemblies of God seminary, one of my professors said something every Christian -- including Th.Ds and Ph.Ds -- would do well if they practiced it: "Truth, if it is truth, does not need to be held in a tightly clenched fist. If it is truth, it can be held in an open palm for all the world to see and to examine."
I would expect such a disingenuous and specious argument from a lay person, but certainly not from such a well-respected theologian. SURELY he knows of the dialogue that went on up to and culminating with the Third Ecumenical Council in 431 at Ephesus. Just like the earlier Ecumenical Councils at Nicea and later at Constantinople which affirmed the deity of Jesus, the third council also reiterated the deity of Jesus. AND since Mary was His mother, the council concluded that Mary was the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. In other words: Mary was the Mother of God. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Is it because Catholics believe it and so, therefore by default it cannot be true? Is THAT a reason to reject a clear and unequivocal doctrinal truth? Sheeesh! No wonder there is such theological ignorance out here when respected and well-lettered theologians are unwilling to teach as simple a truth as that! While I was studying for my theological degree at the Assemblies of God seminary, one of my professors said something every Christian -- including Th.Ds and Ph.Ds -- would do well if they practiced it: "Truth, if it is truth, does not need to be held in a tightly clenched fist. If it is truth, it can be held in an open palm for all the world to see and to examine."
No comments:
Post a Comment