At whatever point “Philosophy” is referenced, pictures of the theological school, thick theological books, Greek and Hebrew terms, and other highfalutin articulations would come up to one’s psyche. It appears as though “Philosophy” is held for the “blessed ones”, the “divinely selected individuals”, and the intelligent people. On the off chance that you are familiar with the compositions of Karl Barth, Martin Luther, Augustine, and the preferences, you are near internal near the inward hover of scriptural researchers.
Substantially more in the event that you can communicate in their language and can create a scholastically acknowledged theological work. I have been an understudy of a Bible School and biblical theological seminary. The two establishments have helped me to have further knowledge of Church History, Systematic Theology and Biblical foundations. However even in the middle the exercises and homeroom conversations, questions actually meander in my brain. Are for the most part these valid? Kindly don’t misconstrue me. I am a firm adherent that the Bible is the sole authority over life. I accept that the Bible is the Word of God. Yet, being a standard human, I am gotten between the domain of the real world and confidence, and overcoming any barrier from one to the next is a significant mental and otherworldly accomplishment. However, I accept, too, that God’s Spirit and beauty is grinding away to show us past what the psyche can not fathom.
Philosophy is characterized as the study of God, from the Greek word “Theos” (God) and “logos” (study of). In view of such, does it imply that Theology be found out? Would god be able to be gotten a handle on by the human psyche? Would god be able to be portrayed essentially by words? In the event that one has a doctorate qualification in Theology, would that imply that the individual in question has effectively a firm gotten a handle on God Himself?
I have met educators of different degrees, and I have met straightforward people with basic considerations. However, contrasting on how they see God and express who God is to them, the previous (most, yet not all) would have a significant piece of language of articulations from the books… a Greek word there… a Hebrew expression there… leaving their audience members at misfortune in space. Then again, the last mentioned, the straightforward ones, would discuss useful things they have encountered of God’s character. On the off chance that for them God is acceptable, at that point they affirm how God has accommodated them or has given them beneficial things.
From whom would I listen more, to the academician or to one who has the functional experience? It is a typical saying that “Experience is the best educator.” Theory would just stay a hypothesis except if it is demonstrated valid by tests or by genuine experience. As such, Theology would just be a simple thought of God, except if one has a genuine encounter of that fact about God.
God is surely genuine, yet except if that reality rises above the brain and is knowledgeable about regular circumstances, the conviction of such truth could never dive deep in one’s central core, and neither the person could persuade others to have faith in such truth.