Studying God
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
I recently read a short article written by Sarah Sumner, PhD, professor of Theology and ministry at Haggard School of Theology at Asuza Pacific University. The article begins:
“The word theology literally means “the study of God.” But if you think about it, no one can study God per se. We can study God’s words. We can study God’s actions. But we can’t study God himself [sic]. All we can study is God’s revelation of himself. So a better definition of theology would be ‘the study of the revelation of God.’”
She goes on to say that God is personally known despite our inability to study Him: we pray and hear, we praise, interact with His Spirit, are even comforted by Him--”we would never know him if he did not reveal himself to us.”
Initially, Sumner correctly defines the word theology in its literal sense; however, she suggests further thought on the matter, concluding that God alone cannot be studied. We can only study the evidence He gives of Himself through general (or natural) revelation and special revelation. How is the suggested definition better?
If one thinks about (and we should follower her suggestion), God intends to be studied as evidenced by the fact that He is personally known; converses through prayer; makes praise glorious; guides, convicts and regenerates through His Spirit and so on. Sumner admits that God can be known--but the study of Him is not possible? Once the Christian searches through general and special revelation, what then does he or she do with what is found? These are the means He gives us to think theologically! How are we to enjoy Him if He cannot be studied?
If all that can be studied is evidence, then creation is reduced to residue and the Bible becomes a block of paper, prayer is empty and praise is expressive noise.
I take Dr. Sumner’s words as an encouragement to use creation and the Bible to turn my eyes further up, to find Him who is personal. Yes, He is huge; yes, His thoughts are far above mine; but, He can be and must be studied.
When we “do” theology, we meet a person with attributes that He shares and some He does not share. We find THE individual with character and a specific nature. We “do” theology because He reconciled us through His accomplished purpose of redemption--we are reconciled for a reason.
Creation and the Bible should be studied, but the goal is to know Him. If we remain focused on lower things, our worship is skewed.
“The word theology literally means “the study of God.” But if you think about it, no one can study God per se. We can study God’s words. We can study God’s actions. But we can’t study God himself [sic]. All we can study is God’s revelation of himself. So a better definition of theology would be ‘the study of the revelation of God.’”
She goes on to say that God is personally known despite our inability to study Him: we pray and hear, we praise, interact with His Spirit, are even comforted by Him--”we would never know him if he did not reveal himself to us.”
Initially, Sumner correctly defines the word theology in its literal sense; however, she suggests further thought on the matter, concluding that God alone cannot be studied. We can only study the evidence He gives of Himself through general (or natural) revelation and special revelation. How is the suggested definition better?
If one thinks about (and we should follower her suggestion), God intends to be studied as evidenced by the fact that He is personally known; converses through prayer; makes praise glorious; guides, convicts and regenerates through His Spirit and so on. Sumner admits that God can be known--but the study of Him is not possible? Once the Christian searches through general and special revelation, what then does he or she do with what is found? These are the means He gives us to think theologically! How are we to enjoy Him if He cannot be studied?
If all that can be studied is evidence, then creation is reduced to residue and the Bible becomes a block of paper, prayer is empty and praise is expressive noise.
I take Dr. Sumner’s words as an encouragement to use creation and the Bible to turn my eyes further up, to find Him who is personal. Yes, He is huge; yes, His thoughts are far above mine; but, He can be and must be studied.
When we “do” theology, we meet a person with attributes that He shares and some He does not share. We find THE individual with character and a specific nature. We “do” theology because He reconciled us through His accomplished purpose of redemption--we are reconciled for a reason.
Creation and the Bible should be studied, but the goal is to know Him. If we remain focused on lower things, our worship is skewed.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Popular posts from this blog
The Smooth-flowing Life
Legend has it that the astronomer Ptolemy (1st century A.D.) suggested that falling stars were caused by the gods moving in the heavens, thus knocking stars out of their places. Somehow people reasoned that that if the gods were moving, they must be getting close to earth so they would lift their "prayers" or "wishes" (literally, "desires") whenever they saw the stars falling in hopes the gods would notice and grant a favorable answer. But how does one wish on falling star? Once you see it, it's gone before the wish or prayer can be made! The answer is simple: meteor shower. That's how to get your wish. Mrs. Ann Hodges had a wish fall right into her lap. Sort of. In 1954 Mrs. Hodges was sleeping on the couch when a 8 1/2 pound meteorite fell through her house and into her living room where it bounced off the radio and struck her left hip leaving her with a bruise. Not sure what she was wishing, but that's not how to do it. Epictetus hel
A Reflection in Plato’s “Republic” Book 2
Early in Book 2 of Plato’s “Republic,” the discussion turns into the story of a man named Gyges who finds a ring that makes him invisible. Using the powers of the ring, he reports to the court of his king, seduces the queen “and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom.” What would happen if there were two rings, one worn by an unjust man and the other by a just man? The story attempts to make the case that a just man will act unjustly if given the opportunity to think he is doing right, if only by himself. But what if he doesn’t? What if there was no ring, and what if there was a perfectly unjust man and a perfectly just man and both had everything they needed in life? The unjust man must cover his steps in order to be distinguished and succeed. In the eyes of others, he appears to be just. But what about the just man, who appears to be unjust? “They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound-will have hi