Formation

Albert Outler was a 20th century theologian, and a long time professor at Southern Methodist Unniversity. Many experts would credit Outler as the very first United Methodist theologian. He was among the first theologians I was exposed to, and his writing has served to form a great deal of my personal theology about God. In fact he would come in a very significant third place (after John Wesley, and Thomas Oden) for my personal tope 10 theologians. I have been engrossed by a number of other writers, philosophers, and theologians for quite some time, and had not revisited his works until today. I was reading an excerpt by John Wesley, an 18th century theologian and founder of the Methodist movement, and Outler was cited.
My understanding of where his notoriety comes from is in his systemization of John Wesley’s theology forming process. One of the most profound ideals of theology is that it is meant to bring God into our understading. A deep current that I have noticed in scripture is that of God nudging us into a hunger for understanding of Him and His character. Theology has moved to this awful place of high cerebral pretentiousness in so many circles. God wants people to strive for a deeper understanding of Him, and theology, at its best, is the avenue to do so.

Outler was asked to provide the introduction to a publishing of John Wesley’s works, given his status as one of the greatest Wesley scholars of all history. He published a set of four principles that show how Wesley formed his theology. Its funny I don’t think John Wesley even knew that this was how he operated, but it is very congruent when one looks at the progression of his theology. It was great for me to see that Albert reallly did want everyone to understand God, he wanted us to have our apetites wet for knowledge. Outler contested that Wesley had four parts to the process of his theology forming.

Canonical Scripture (a.k.a. the Holy Bible)
Christian Tradition (the general consensus of the Christian Church)
Third Person Reason (unbiased, and objective logic)
Personal Experience (the individual interpretation based on first person history)

One of the many things, aside from his theological prowess, that I love about Outler was his compartmentalization of his own life. He broke his life down into every category possible, and worked with great diligence to make each sub-category excel. He was devoted to Christ, and to methodology, and his intellect served to further the understanding of so many. It is my opinion that if theology is to matter, in the grand scope of time, it will be more for its work to make God accessible than anything else.

Election

While Karl Barth has received more than widespread revocation from Calvinist theologians the world over, it is my humble opinion that his writings on the subject of election, as I have read them from his work Church Dogmatics, have great influence over the entire subject.
It is my understanding that the debate was begun by John Calvin, a mid to late 16th century theologian, and arguably one of the most important to date. Calvin believed that God chose some humans for salvation through Christ. This statement by all means would then logically imply that God also chose some to not receive salvation through Christ, or more directly, to chose some for eternal damnation. This has become known as “double predestination (see Westminster Confession of Faith).” I don’t want to get into the idea and theology of absolute decree, but it is my opinion that Calvin’s absolute decree takes away the fundamental Christian concept of human independence, the idea that God gave us the ability to chose, independent of external, divine, force.
Barth believed that the idea of absolute decree, as explained by Calvin, undermined God’s sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Pointing instead to His decree being the willful sacrifice of His son on the cross, an act that beckons human response. Barth maintains the doctrine of double predestination that is core to the Reformed teachings, but moves the center of absolute decree to be over the person of Jesus Christ, and salvation through Him. Thus, Jesus is the vessel for both dietous election, and divine reprobation.
As I have explored the heart of this debate, I have begun to realize something about theology as whole. It is not so much that there is two sides to every debate. That there is a line in the sand that one must stand on one or the other side, poised for attack of the other. It is much more that there are forces, pulling in dissimilar directions that keep the debate in tension. I like this analogy more because it doesn’t cause static. It keeps a great almost anxious heart to explore either direction. More deeply spurring the Christian mind to investigate these concepts. I am so deeply thankful for Barth dusting off this tired old theology, and giving it some new depth. While I do not claim to be so wise as to be able to make a decision on this, I believe that Barth’s understanding more closely matches the heart of God. That by giving people more choice, it more clearly shows His greatness.

Philipians Realization

I was reading a commentary by Ralph P. Martin, Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at Fuller Theological Seminary, today. I have come to the conclusion, after some heavy cross referencing, that Paul wrote the letter to the church at Philippi during an imprisonment in Ephesus. It is documented in Acts 20:18, and in 2 Corinthians 1:8 that Paul suffered hardships in Asia, the region Ephisus would be most logically belonging to.

In 1 Corinthians 15:32 Paul is explaining his reason for daily ascribing to the gospel, dying daily in his words. He says of his struggles "If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus." Upon first look, and for most of my Christian life I believed this meant that he was in true Roman fashion in a fight with wild beasts. But Martin points toward a more likely explanation. The 'beasts' as I understood them are a fate Paul, by his Roman citizenship, would have been exempt from, the literal 'ad bestias.' Martin points to the fact that Paul does not list beasts in his list of hardships in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. A figurative statement is cited that draws a better parallel to this phrase. Ignatious writes that "from Syria to Rome I am fighting with wild beasts... bound to ten leopards, that is, a company of soldiers." When I look at scriptures there are seven imprisonments Paul endured. Three of them are accounted four, which I am calling named imprisonments. These are Jerusalem,Caesarea, and Rome. Leaving room for four unnamed imprisonments, which I would, and others with me, say may be Ephesus.

This Ephesus imprisonment would line up swimmingly with the missionary plans and travels described by Acts, and enforced by history.

Also, one final note is that there are five journeys Paul speaks of during this letter.

-Timothy's journey to Paul's side (Philippians 1:1)

-A message's journey from the place of Paul's imprisonment to Philippi to say Paul was both in prison, and in need (Philippians 4:14)

-Epaphroditus' journey to Paul's side with a love offering from Philippi (Philippians 4:18)

-A message's journey from the place of Paul's imprisonment to Philippi saying Epaphroditis had fallen ill (Philippians 2:26)

-A message's journey from Philippi to Paul saying the Philippians had heard of Epaphroditis' illness (Philippians 2:26)

The journey from Philippi to Rome, is very simply too long to have happened that many times during Paul's imprisonment at Rome. It is much more likely that these trips would have been shorter, such as a trip from Philippi to Ephesus.

Also there is the subject matter of the Pratorian Paul speaks of. A sect of guard which the numbers Paul describes would be more logically found in Ephisus, as opposed to Rome.

It was unclear what the convictions of R.P. Martin were, but from these facts, this was my conclusion.