 |
| Alberto Galvá albertogalvac@hotmail.com |
In the same way, theology is a timid approach of the human mind, to the edge, of the outer edge of the thought of the Omnipotent; in order to try to explain to situations that are not completely clear in the Scripture.
It is not simply a series of comments on passages chosen for the personal ego of the writer, the theology is rather an intellectual effort to structure, systematize and harmonize the teachings of the Bible and the apparent inconsistencies that are found in it.
The problem, as we have said before, is the fact that in many cases it is sought to give an explanation at all costs, from a perspective that does not always take into account certain barriers, certain limits that should not be transferred, without at least make clear, that what is exposed is a simple theory. There are cases in the Bible, in which looking for an explanation to certain phenomena, statements or actions is meaningless, since probably the divine author, the revelator, did not have the purpose of that statement, or action was understood immediately.
Let's see for example the form in E. W. Vine addresses the section of the TEMPLE entry. He himself says that jieron (one of the meanings for temple in Gr) is never used figuratively. Instead, he continues with the other meaning of the word that is naos, and cites several examples where it is shown that this word is used figuratively. Strangely, however, when it comes to dealing with the subject of the word TEMPLE in the context of II Thessalonians, the grammatical, etymological, and all the rest of the considerations seem to sink, because in his notes he says that naos, (which he already recorded has a sense as much literal as metaphorical) is by the weight of the evidence that he contributes, Dn. 11:31 and Mt. 12:11 and 24:15 must be literal, but an analysis of these passages and a more textual examination of II Ts 2. will quickly reveal the opposite. Thus this is a good case that illustrates how the theological preferences can deviate from the path of correct exegesis even to very learned men in the most rigorous biblical disciplines.
By the same token, in advance, I take the time necessary to make it clear that what you are about to read is, without a doubt, from beginning to end, a theological theory. This theory has been written in the first place for my own self-edification, in order to give me a unified model, on a series of topics all related, deep, apparently contradictory, decisive and decisive, on one of the most controversial issues of the whole Christian doctrine. I am talking about the sovereignty of God, divine providence, the decree of God, predestination, the problem of evil.
I am well aware that the revealed things are for us and for our children so that it may go well for us, but the revealed ones are of the Lord our God forever, Cf. Deuteronomy 29:29. However, we can not say that this set of topics is hidden and much less lacking in material, on the contrary, the amount of material on this subject is abundant enough to compile it and reach some kind of plausible conclusion, but at least you can not elaborate a theory, a viable model of predestination or make a general outline of the way in which God manages your universe that leaves us reasonably satisfied to everyone, that is, I speak of a more coherent and consistent explanation with the nature of God of those we have seen so far, because the authors who deal with the subject, almost always, instead of clarifying it, fall themselves into contradictions that the Bible does not reflect. In this way the way in which the issue has been addressed not only is not helpful, but it makes the confusion worse.
