Well after my last post I had a feeling that some heavy questions were going to be coming my way...as well as some extra defining!! So I decided that instead of making a huge comment I would write my response in a blog format.
I'll start off with defining (to the best of my ability) the difference between a saint and a theologian.
A theologian is one who contemplates matters of the spiritual realm. Such as the Law and Gospel, Faith, Predestination ect. Theology is a very important aspect of the Christian faith and certainly not something that should be neglected. If Christianity is what I believe, then surely I need to learn what exactly it is. However, what my point was in my last post (which I did not make clear enough) was the fact that theology is often taken aside as if it is something all by its self. When really it is meant to be a part or piece of the puzzle to the Christian life. To set it aside and make it ones sole focus is to no longer be a "whole soul". Merely using ones head and forgetting about the heart and hands not only leads to an unbalance but to a distorted view of Christianity. The same mistake can be made with the heart and hands as well.
A Saint however, is one who encompasses the head, heart and hands. Thus being a whole soul. The title "Saint" is much bigger than the title of "Theologian". Because it means that a person not only has the head knowledge but also is about their Father's business (just as Christ was). Christ did not merely preach theology or sit around talking about the mysteries of God with the disciples but simultaneously He was about His Father's buisness. This is not to say that Jesus did not talk about the mysteries of the spiritual realm -"Eat my flesh, and drink my blood" - but it is to say that He understood the "balance". The balance of equal extremes. Of knowing theology inside and out, of being about His Father's buisness, and the emotion that goes along with all of that. Of not having His eye's on the Law and trying so hard to fulfill it, but on the Father. Because if one has their eye's solely on the law, then naturally they are going to sin. However, if their eyes are on God then naturally they are going to fulfill the Law.
Christ came and died so that our fulfilling the Law was no longer required if we were to get into heaven. It is through our communion with Him that the Law is satisfied. Not because we are consciously trying to appease the Law, but because it is what comes natural through our communion with the Father. Christ became our mediator granting us instant access to God, making communion with Him possible.
All this to say…if we are in communion with God then everything else will fall into place. Becoming hyper focused on theology, or ministry only leads to utter bewilderment (or separate denominations).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I hope this clarified a little more of what I have been trying to articulate. :~/
Nice job. Sorry to bombard you :~/
I think I understand what you mean by a theologian and I think I agree. I agree with the idea that conversion effects the head, heart and hands (nice little Reynolds touch :o), and that to consider any one of these on there own as the only aspect effected by the Spirit would be incomplete.
To make another clarification: would you say that all of God’s children are “Saints”, or are “Saints” a particularly “balanced” sect of Christians? (‘balance’…I still haven’t gotten over my hang-ups with that word :~p)
Not wanting to be nit picky, but just trying to analyze in detail, I was a little confused on your description of Christ's example being "Not having His eye's on the Law and trying so hard to fulfill it, but on the Father. Because if one has their eye's solely on the law, then naturally they are going to sin. However, if their eyes are on God then naturally they are going to fulfill the Law"; I think I know what you meant with regards to what our mindset ought to be, but since Christ carried the weight of the Law, I don't see Him as being under the same type of mindset as we are. Christ fulfilling the Law, I should think that He was under no obligation to ignore it or not focus on it. Also, I don't think that by communion with Christ we are "equipped" to naturally fulfill the Law (maybe that’s not what you were meaning), we may bear fruit that is in accordance with the Law, but we are not going to be "Law abiding" in our flesh; but that the righteous requirements of the Law are fully met in us through Christ's appeasement of the Law. This made the statement "It is through our communion with Him that the Law is satisfied" a little foggy to me. I would agree that it is THROUGH FAITH in Christ that we are accredited with Christ's righteousness, but I would rather say that it is BY CHRIST’S SACRIFICE that "the Law is satisfied". Maybe I'm being obnoxious and word picky, but since words are all we have here, I wanted to clarify if we meant the same things.
Btw, all CAPS doesn’t mean that I’m yelling at you, I just can’t make italics work on blog comments so I’m confined to primitive type-writer techniques of showing emphasis.
To conclude, I agree with you that what you’re describing as the behavioral alterations of the hands is a fruit and not an effort; also that if we confine Christianity to being merely an intellectual theology, or an emotionally driven ministry, then we are yet putting Christ in a box.
Grrrr…..DARN BALANCE!!! (…o.k. so maybe that was a little more than a slight “emphasis” :~p )
I think that I may have added a little confusion to this topic by using Christ as an example and His fulfilling the law. It appears that I have created two topics all in one! However, seeing as this is a worthy topic to discuss (Christ and the fulfillment of the law) I shall continue on with this little tangent in later posts (you never know when that might be! Hopefully sooner than later!). Therefore before I get to much off point and say something that was not intended I will attempt to summarize the real point of what I was getting at.
Sainthood is much broader (in the better sense of the word) than theology. It is much bigger than an emotional feeling towards God, it is also more than just mere ministry. In the church you see people who over emphasize or specialize (funny how that word makes it seem better) in certain areas than others. People are naturally more inclined towards certain areas and tend to do that which comes easiest. However, in doing what comes easiest they forget about the other necessities for living a “balanced” Christian life. A balance of equal extremes not a balance of mediocrity.
In regards to “Are all Christians consider saints?” I would say yes. Yes in the sense that they have accepted the gift of salvation however, do not receive the kind of reverence that is denoted when we talk about the apostles. Does this make them any more or less saved, I do not think so.
I think I might know what you’re getting at.
Would you say that you’re speaking of the differences between the vocation of a Saint and the vocation of a Theologian? The vocation of Sainthood encompassing theology, whereas the vocation of a Theologian not necessarily encompassing all that a Saint is called to do? This would support your statement that all believers are Saints, and wouldn’t minimize the importance of theology and ministry, but yet says that if our agenda is concerned with just being a theologian, then that doesn’t mean that we will love our neighbor as well. The point being that a Saint’s vocation is more than just the study of God.
If this is along the lines of what you were saying, then I totally agree. I find myself throwing myself into theology so much that I tend to think that “they’ll know you are my disciples by your worldview” when in fact there are things as equally important as my worldview, for example, what I actually do with it.
Let me know if I’m getting your concept, if not then feel free to set me straight. :~)
On a side note, would you say that the “reverence” we denote to the apostles is appropriate?
Post a Comment