Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | Reformer Joe | 36038 | ||
Jesusman: You encouraged John to look into the history and culture of the Bible to examine whether the doctrine of particular redemption is a valid one. Yet you didn't offer any concrete historical-cultural basis for concluding that it is not a biblical doctrine. I was just curious why you mention such a technique without demonstrating at all how it allegedly proves your point. One other thing...you wrote: "Remember, the original authors of the Bible weren't writing to the future Church. They were writing to a specified group in a specified time in a specified culture." You are right here to a certain extent in saying that the primary recipients of the letters were the addressees in question. However, the divine Author of the New Testament was indeed writing to us, giving us truths that pertain to all human beings in all times and all cultures. So the future church is indeed addressed by the biblical texts, and not merely indirectly. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | Jesusman | 36230 | ||
Hello, I did demonstrate how to use history and culture to study Biblical Doctrines. I just did it with a different subject. I used the subject of Eternal Security as opposed to particular redemption. Why? I have studied the history and culture behind Adoption in relation to Security more than I have the topic of Redemption and election. I am more familiar with that area. I don't know enough about Election and Redemption in the New Testament culture to comment fully. So, I chose a different subject. As for your other concerns, I never said that we should ignore the Scripture's applications to the Church of today. I am saying that we should use the meanings of then to amplify how the text means to us today. After all, terms change over the years. While a word in the Greek may say this in english, the implied meaning and history behind it has a different meaning and application all together. Take "Logos" for example. IN english, this word means "word". However, when you study the history, cultural, and implied meaings inherant within "Logos", the more accurate translation and meanings would be " the Logic or understanding behind the spoken word, the thought, and so on." Now, this doesn't change the meaning of Jesus being refered to as the "Logos" as used in John 1. The same meaning still applies. Jesus is not only the Word from God, but he is the thought, logic, and understanding behind that word as well. Do you see my point? Jesusman |
||||||