Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | must be theologians? | Numbers | Aixen7z4 | 103718 | ||
Brother Steve, your point is well taken. To be true to Scripture, I will not quibble over the words. I believe you have given a good description of the difference between “search” and “study”. I explains in part why I prefer the word “search”, but the important thing is not the word we use but the activity that we engage in. I do believe we should read the Bible to find the answers to specific questions. Let me be clear. I think we should read the Bible to see what God is saying to us. A question then can be, “What is God saying to us?” We can read any portion of Scripture with that question in mind. We might even read it with the prayer, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law”, as in Psalm 119:18. I think we should read whole portions of Scripture, a story, a letter, a psalm, all the way through. It puts particular statements in context and makes them meaningful. If you are looking for answers to a specific question you may find indeed that “the Bible is a very disorganized book in some ways”. That is why you need to search, and Jesus encouraged that activity (John 5:39). The Bereans were commended for that activity (Acts 17:11). This is where concordances, and chain references are so useful. We should use them. I personally know of no better Bible searching tool than the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. It simply points you from where you are to other places where the same topic is touched on and I treasure it and recommend it. BTW, I think the word "sanctification" is in the Bible. (You may need to try a different translation. And it is to be recommended that we read one passage in different translations). The problem with "invented" words such as “Trinity” is that we have to define them. As we do so we are really teaching, and we have to be very careful. If we define “Trinity” as “God in three persons - ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost’”, I think that would be an accurate encapsulation of a Bible fact. If “Trinity” presents “God as one single being”, I think it would not be accurate teaching. Teaching is needed. Teachers are needed. If teachers find the need to “study” or to ask their students to “study” so be it. But we should “search the Scriptures” and do so with a goal beyond knowing facts. The goal should be to know the Lord and his will and to respond to him by doing his will. The problem, again, is not with the term we use but rather with the goal of the activity. Teaching should be defined in terms of imparting skills and learning should be defined in terms of acquiring skills. The skill should not be limited to handling the word but it should be deployed, putting the word into practice. Let the teachers teach us how to witness, how to bear one another’s burdens, how to worship, how to love. And let us do those things. “Identifying eternal principles and trying to understand how to apply them to the here and now” is a noble goal. If that is what theologians do, then I support them. One eternal principle is that man was created for relationship with God. The Bible reveals that. As we see it, let us actively respond to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Brother Steve, I do not know you very well, but I have tried to respond to you here. I think that I am responding to you in body (the things your fingers put on my screen) soul, (the emotions you expressed) and spirit (your self). So let it be with God. Let us accept him as he presents himself and let us respond to him. Let us respond, for example, to his love, and his grace. Let us act on what we know. We thank him for the grace Descending from above That overflows our widest guilt The eternal Father’s love Love of the father’s everlasting Son Love of the Holy Ghost Jehovah, Three in One. |
||||||
2 | must be theologians? | Numbers | stjones | 103757 | ||
Greetings again; Thanks for both of your replies. I don't disagree with most of the substance of what you've said, though I might quibble with some words. So I'll reply to both here. I think the Trinity concept is confusing because terms such as "person", "being", and so on are not well-defined or are not well-suited to describing God. I assume that's the reason the term "Godhead" exists. The essential truth of the Trinity is the concept of three-in-one - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - one God. Conventional speech seems to generally refer to the three as "persons"; they are, after all, distinct entities with their own characteristics. Whether one uses "being" or "Godhead" to refer to the one God seems to me to be not terribly important. I suspect that parts of this thread are about terminology, not doctrine. On the one hand, I think it may be disingenuous to suggest "What is God saying to us?" as a question one might seek to answer in the Bible. The question is so open-ended that the only realistic way to find an answer is to study the Bible! But on the other hand, you have identified the key qualifier for whether a Bible scholar is worth paying attention to. Modern Bible scholars (and theologians) are faced with three powerful incentives to not approach the Bible with that question in mind - "What is God saying to us?" First there ia a century-old tradition of studying the Bible in the same way one would study any other text. By seeking the motives and underlying thoughts of the authors of the text, the question becomes irrelevant, since the real author is not taken into account. Second, the more modern acadmeic cancer of deconstructionism encourages the scholar to approach the Bible with a different question in mind - "What can I find in here to support my position?" Finally, there is the problem of tenure. God may not provide the insight in time to get some articles written and published before the Tenure Committee meets. And no one ever got tenure by publishing an article that said "With regard to faith and works, Luther had it right". Finally, I don't think teaching stops at imparting skills. In my years as a teacher (computer science), I tried to develop my students' skills but I also tried to impart principles, higher-level abstractions, and even wisdom. "Abstraction" has gotten a bad name recently, even been equated to "irrelevance". But is only through the process of abstracting themes and principles in the Bible that we can understand what God's will might be for today's world. That's what a good theologian or teacher does. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
3 | How would you apply Deuteronomy 29:29? | Numbers | Aixen7z4 | 103820 | ||
Brother Steve: Will you quibble over words even after you have been reminded that God says we should not quibble over words? (See 2 Timothy 2:14). Or would you say it is sometimes profitable to quibble over words? Brother Steve: Will you quibble over words even after someone has set the example for you by declining an opportunity to quibble over words? (See 1 Timothy 4:12). I cannot imagine how you will respond to this one. I find it very helpful to think of the hindrances to seeking the will of God in his word, as you have noted. Can it be that we study the Bible as we would any other book? Can it be that we go to the Bible looking for support for our preconceived ideas? Can it be that we research and publish religious ideas without inspiration or conviction in order to satisfy a deadline? And yet I am sure you have witnessed all three. To me it is like handling the sword by the blade, and we should be all cut up over it. Is it because you have seen so much “Bible study” for those three reasons that you think it may be disingenuous to suggest "What is God saying to us?" as a question one might seek to answer in the Bible. Do you not think it possible that some of us open our Bibles with a prayer like Psalm 119:18 in our hearts? Psalm 119:18. Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Disingenuous? I am impressed to think of your own motives in teaching. I would have thought of Computer Science as a very practical field. Those 1s and 0s need to do something for us. But even in that field you aim to impart principles, higher-level abstractions, and even wisdom? When I taught philosophy, I dearly hoped that some of the students would learn enough to want to get saved. So I think I understand. I would not be surprised, then, if theologians and Bible teachers do the same. It was my impression that theologians deal in principles and higher-level abstractions rather than to urge obedience. But I have been led in this discussion to change my mind on that. I do not want to revert to that former impression. We realize, I am sure, that the Bible is not like any other book. We are dealing here with a message from God. How would you apply Deuteronomy 29:29? Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. |
||||||
4 | How would you apply Deuteronomy 29:29? | Numbers | Searcher56 | 103822 | ||
Can it be that we study the Bible as we would any other book? ... You are correct "We realize, I am sure, that the Bible is not like any other book. We are dealing here with a message from God." Can it be that we go to the Bible looking for support for our preconceived ideas? ... This is eisegesis, which leads to error. Rather we need to apply exegesis, leeting the Bible speak to us. Can it be that we research and publish religious ideas without inspiration or conviction in order to satisfy a deadline? ... Yes, many seek what others have written, and depend on that more than their own Bible study. Is it because you have seen so much “Bible study” for those three reasons that you think it may be disingenuous to suggest "What is God saying to us?" as a question one might seek to answer in the Bible. Do you not think it possible that some of us open our Bibles with a prayer like Psalm 119:18 in our hearts? Psalm 119:18. Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Disingenuous? ... When we take any passage out of context. Deuteronomy 29 is about the renewal of God's covenant with Israel (Deu 5:2 ff). The secret things are not revealed to us (Israel). For them they were the blessings and curses, depending on their actions. God has (had) revealed the Law and past blessings and curses. |
||||||
5 | How would you apply Deuteronomy 29:29? | Numbers | Aixen7z4 | 103842 | ||
Deuteronomy 29:29 is a statement of truth that stands wholly and meaningfully beside the context. Like some others in Scripture (1 Samuel 15:22; Habakkuk 2:4; John 3:16; Romans 11:33; 1 Timothy 1:17) it could have been placed anywhere and had the same import and meaning. We should not miss it. Matthew Henry’s commentary on it is worth hearing: “1. Though God has kept much of his counsel secret, yet there is enough revealed to satisfy and save us. He has kept back nothing that is profitable for us, but that only which it is good for us to be ignorant of. 2. We ought to acquaint ourselves, and our children too, with the things of God that are revealed. We are not only allowed to search into them, but are concerned (encouraged) to do so. They are things which we and ours are nearly (to be) interested in. They are the rules we are to live by, the grants we are to live upon; and therefore we are to learn them diligently ourselves, and to teach them diligently to our children. 3. All our knowledge must be in order to practice, for this is the end of all divine revelation, not to furnish us with curious subjects of speculation and discourse, with which to entertain ourselves and our friends, but that we may do all the words of this law, and be blessed in our deed”. All our knowledge must be in order to practice, for this is the end (the purpose) of all divine revelation. |
||||||