https://blog.logos.com/2020/02/why-we-should-read-theologians-with-whom-we-disagree misses a really obvious reason: all the theologians down through the centuries who are generally recognized as great theologians, at least within their own traditions, read other theologians with whom they disagreed.
Or not. That's not a good logical connector.
When did 'theologians' show up? I just wondered, having grown up in a tradition that doesn't recognize them. My impression is they're associated with doctrines/traditions, ergo tribal as the blog-ess starts off. I prefer scribes I don't like.
I figure it’s good to be informed on what others hold in order to avoid bear false witness against them. Sometimes I will notic, “they’re not so far off from us.” Other times, I’ll have to say, “no, that’s error.”
Since I am appalled when others misrepresent what my Church teaches, The Golden Rule requires I don’t misrepresent others.
But I won’t name names, to avoid causing any denominational fights here.
My habitual goal is to be able to articulate and explain my intellectual opponents' beliefs well enough that they themselves agree with everything that I say that they hold and why. Only then am I properly prepared to respond to their position(s). This, of course, requires attending to what they have to say, whether in written or spoken form.
Since I am appalled when others misrepresent what my Church teaches, The Golden Rule requires I don’t misrepresent others. My habitual goal is to be able to articulate and explain my intellectual opponents' beliefs well enough that they themselves agree with everything that I say that they hold and why. Only then am I properly prepared to respond to their position(s). This, of course, requires attending to what they have to say, whether in written or spoken form.
That works really well in marriage and about everywhere else in life too.
SineNomine:
to the why should we read theologians with whom we disagree, I would add: or we do not know or that write about things we do not know.
The truth is that the universe in a conceptual framework cannot be had in its totality by only one tradition. Different traditions focus on different things, and when such things are common, then sometimes they see it from other angles.
So to have a well rounded view around a topic maybe is wise to read different angles proposed by different theologians.
In the article strength was taken as an element that made trichotomy hard to uphold, yet there are some other angles to the problem that have not been explored in a certain angle:
Excerpt from L9:
"Again much traditional terminology in this area needs to be carefully rethought. In many cases traditional ways of speaking lead almost unconsciously to ways of thinking that cannot be supported by consideration of either biblical or scientific data. Most common is reference to “life,” “soul,” or “spirit” as things that we as human beings have; reflection indicates that a more consistent manner of speech leads us to refer to “being alive,” “being soulful,” and “being spiritual” as expressions of what human beings are.
The human being does not have life; the human being is alive. The human being does not have a body, a soul, a spirit; the human being is a body-soul-spirit, that unique living creature made in the image of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and destined in Christ (for those who receive Him in faith) to be raised again to living experience as a whole person.
Bube, R. H. (1979–1988). Science and Christianity. In G. W. Bromiley (Ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Vol. 4, p. 354). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
We should read theologians of very different kinds to explore and gain insight into deep issues that hopefully will lead to Christlikeness and fruitfulness.
The truth is that the universe in a conceptual framework cannot be had in its totality by only one tradition.
I agree that all individuals/churches/denominations/religions vary in the amount (percentage) of truth that they present but it is more important to remember that no human can even theorectically comprehend the full truth.
When did 'theologians' show up?
When the first human began to consider the divine/ground-of-being/wholly other/ ...I suppose the first theologian for Abrahamic religions is Adam. Oops, I bet we don't have a shared definition of theologian. How do you define theologian?[8-|] Hmmm ... do I need to change "human" to "sentient being" to be accurate?
When did 'theologians' show up? . How do you define theologian?
. How do you define theologian?
Well, I'm tip-toeing dangerously near the guidelines. But thinking in terms of a mindmap, I use the Deuteronomy definition of real vs false prophets (later repeated in Jeremiah and a shortened in Isaiah, though it's pretty common sense). Then, view anything that follows under the false-prophet 'leg', as .... er .... false. That leaves the other choice.
Well, three years later, no wonder the page no longer exists. But, it does little good to read only from those who agree with us. Just look around the political world; how stupid everyone is being: You have freedom of speech and thought. As long as you agree with me.
Well, three years later, no wonder the page no longer exists.
Like nearly all places on the internet where interesting content might be stored, FL does not obey the old rule "cool URLs don't change" and reorganizes ever so often. The page now lives at https://www.logos.com/grow/why-we-should-read-theologians-with-whom-we-disagree/
Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed the redirect.
