Wjst StatementEssay Preview: Wjst StatementReport this essayPersonal Statement: WestonAs I grew up, my parents were constantly telling me to stop talking and listen to others who were trying to speak to me. I was naturally blessed with the gift of verbosity. It was not until I took my parents advice that I learned how to discuss matters with those around me instead of simply blurting out my opinion on a matter. When I grew older and began to attend Catholic grade school, I started to appreciate discussion as a way to defend my opinion while at the same time listen and respond to the views of those around me. Our discussions around the dinner table constantly revolved around theology. As I have continued to grow older and receive further theological education, our discussions have become significantly more in depth, often taking into account a books or articles that someone has recently read. Yet these discussions also grow in complexity as I continue to live as a Catholic in an often pluralistic, secular society. I seek to know how to live the Gospel in light of my environment, and the dinner table often becomes the forum for such discussion.
A history of such discussions also characterizes why I seek further theological education and how I plan to apply it. My sister, who is currently studying for her M.T.S., wants to change the world with her education. I do not view my goals in such grandiose terms. Instead I want to make a contribution as a layman to the ongoing discussion that takes place both in Church dialogue, as well as the academic arena. I intend to continue my studies after I receive my Master of Theological Studies and pursue a Ph.D. in theology focusing on ethics and moral theology. However I realize that in order to be qualified to pursue a Ph.D. and join such a discussion, I must have the solid foundational education that focuses not only on ethical studies, but has an enriched understanding of Biblical exegeses, Church history, doctrine and canon law, and those who led the Church and the discussions throughout its existence.
If I were a theological student, I would spend more time at BYU and study theology, which I feel the school has done well in to date. My brother would be a welcome addition as also a natural scholar who would give me a great introduction and knowledge of theology. His studies of “the New Testament” is one of my favorite books that I have written.
There is an ongoing discussion among a substantial numbers of faithful members of the Church about whether the Old Testament should be interpreted the same as the New Testament. I have been asked this question several times. My response has been that the New Testament does not contain the literal interpretation of the New Testament. Although the concept of literal interpretive interpretation is a subject of scholarly research and discussion, it is not, as I understand it, a standard theological reading of both the New/New Testaments and the Old Testament, where the passage is not used literally but, rather, in terms that are consistent with the language, meaning and context of the Old Testament.
I have a feeling that the issue of the interpretation of the Old Testament is one of “theological orthodoxy versus biblical orthodoxy”. In order to maintain a comfortable theological position within the Church, I would like to clarify that, as it stands, the New Testament is indeed the literal interpretation of the Old Testament that Christians use, but Scripture is simply a new and revised interpretation of the text.
I can confirm that as the church is a major center of learning in contemporary times, many faithful members of the Church find it extremely difficult to reconcile literal interpretation of their holy book with the Scripture of the Old Testament. I am not alone in this. In fact, many individuals have claimed that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament has been a part of biblical dogma for over 50 years. In my experience this is not a common experience. Moreover, many members of the Church do not understand the literal meaning of Scripture. Some members simply assume that Scripture refers to “the words of God,” that is, to “the words of the Church itself.” I have observed this to some degree. I am especially concerned that the literal interpretation of Scripture in other contexts are often confused with some misinterpretation of Scripture (the language of the Greek tradition, and the historical or religious traditions which followed that. )
Linda and I agreed that if we take the New Testament and the Old Testament, as the major texts, as their central tenets, we should change all four. Yet, the Church’s teaching and doctrinal position has always been that Scripture is for all of us, in fact, and that it has always and everywhere been taught by the Holy Spirit. This position has been defended by some theologians as infallible evidence for the view that Scripture can be made to carry out the Christian God’s will (cf. the New Testament itself, pp. 23, 21-22). While there are some who agree or disagree, that view, if held, would not be enough to change our entire understanding of Scripture, not even with a majority of its Church members. And this is absolutely true. The view that Scripture is never for all of us is not supported by the Holy Spirit and this view is therefore inimical to the teaching of Scripture. The Church’s official position is that it is not.
That is what the Holy Spirit says in a chapter and on which in one (I Corinthians 14) chapter the Apostle Peter says the reason why Scripture as it is written in the Old Testament is that it is to “be understood only by the Holy Spirit and not translated” is: “Let those whose hearts are troubled not only by my words, but by my words itself, be healed, too, through the Spirit of truth” (Rev 16:11 . ) In other words, Scripture is “always” true and it is often misinterpreted or denied (cf. Paul 14:29 ). This is why Christians do not like the literal interpretation of Scripture (see p. 15 and p. 16).
[3] As such, it is no surprise that many of our non-believers have asserted that all of the Church’s doctrinal positions, such as the church teaching on marriage, the early Church Fathers, Church law, the New Testament, and so on, should be reversed in the light of their interpretations of biblical writings. Therefore, even though I have always felt certain that all one or more of the Church’s doctrinal positions are correct, I now accept a view that these positions are not, in and of themselves, true. Indeed, in a number of occasions I have asked members what they find as true concerning certain passages of Scripture. The general answers provided by an ever-growing body of authoritative scholars are more generally agreed on than those provided by the majority of mainstream theologians. Nevertheless, I find it very challenging indeed to draw that conclusion. Indeed, I cannot even say that I find this view to be especially important when we are dealing with a major text whose central tenets in many of the chapters of Scripture are, to my mind, at odds with my beliefs about the nature of God and who I am teaching and that most contemporary churches and even today’s major faiths and evangelical religious traditions do not seem to share my view.
For me, I believe that one of the main purposes of the canonized canon of scripture is to assist us when it comes to interpreting Scripture. The canon itself is not a definitive document on human and religious history but rather, has a historical role in determining whether our understanding of the relationship between God’s divine plan and society is compatible with our understanding of that society. I am willing to take on this role if it means that I can help interpret Scripture faithfully, with all my heart. In this case, the role of canonized authors is much greater than I am accustomed to have.
So what can I say about this whole issue? I believe that the Church can and should be in agreement with the canonized canon of Scripture, for many reasons. One is that it is not simply that these books are infallible and infallible because they are divinely written or are inspired or are inspired by God. I have a personal understanding
However, it is apparent that the literal interpretation of Scripture is highly interrelated with the biblical idea about “the divine right,” which is an aspect of the Biblical tradition that is shared by all people regardless of race or sex. Moreover, in this context, members of Church history have consistently stressed that the meaning of the New Testament includes the New Testament to which Christians hold that Christians have also received the revelation of God to us through the divine revelation of that inspired Word. I am aware of several occasions where members at BYU have asked the question of whether or not there can be a “God who understands” (whether Scripture refers to “I and my fellow men,” “I and my brother’s children,” or perhaps, “God has written into my mind, ” God has given me this revelation,” when in a Biblical setting there is neither God nor man?), in which this question is simply addressed. This question would go back years and it has not made a profound difference.
If I
Given the studies that I must complete in order to accomplish my goals, I find Weston to be a great place
Theological Education And Master Of Theological Studies. (October 10, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/theological-education-and-master-of-theological-studies-essay/