Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234411 | ||
Doc, I agree that there is always a danger of things being said that are an incomplete picture. This is why such discussions are to primarilly be done in the context of the church community, an environment in which any statement is restrained by the fact that you know what that person has consistently said ongoingly. I'll just share a few thoughts though. 1.) We can't always restate all of our theological frameworks. At some point we have to leave something either unstated or assumed. 2.) I think we follow scriptural patterns when we do this. When scripture speaks of God having a strong arm. It never makes an effort to simultaneously make sure we understand that such language is metaphorical and that God in fact does not have a body like us. Rather we find such teaching elsewhere. Scripture never restrains itself in this fashion. But more to the point of what the current thread was about. We quite continually see scripture speak of God responding to our plight with love, compassion, and redemption. And usually it is in other passages that we find out that God eternally purposed to be a redeeming God and elected individuals unto salvation, the fall serving his eternal purposes to be a redeeming God. Because scripture speaks freely in these ways without theologically qualifying these statements, I do not thing we should be concerned with avoiding speaking in the same ways. Our examples could be multiplied. Do we need to make sure to verbally affirm Christ's humanity in every instance that we cry out, "My God!" Or at somepoint is it alright to assume that issue is either understood or will be covered in its own place? Is it not biblical to say that the LORD is the God of Israel without at that moment taking the time to teach the union of believing gentiles and jews into one people per ephesians four. Every wonderful statement we could cry out or truth we could proclaim at some point must be qualified by other truth. But surely there are times to just say the truth. 3.) What we should be concerned about, is that our teaching is well rounded enough that anytime somebody takes our statements to unbiblical conclusions, it is not very long before they hear the flip side of it which ought to restrain them to the correct theological framework. But as I said, this most naturally happens in the context of the church, in which God's word is being discussed continually, and with concern to the entirety of its witness being taught. In short, I think we are being too restrictive with either the implications of our theology or the guarding over our theology when we can no longer permit ourselves to speak as scripture speaks. I say this of course with all love, as I happily know that you and I agree on an overwhelmingly vast majority of doctrinal issues. And I take no offense but rather delight in your care for theological accuracy. I know that you are aware of our many agreements, but I state it for the sake of other readers knowing that they are reading a dialogue between two brothers in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | DPMartin | 234412 | ||
Beja If you noticed, theology is a house of cards maintained by the intelligent, therefore they are more righteous then others who are not as intelligent.(Rom:10 the whole chapter)You can’t control scripture, but you can create theology and manipulate how people see and read scripture. The trouble is, theology makes people ignorant of the Lord God’s Presence. The religious leaders back in the day when Jesus walked with Israel had many different theologies some more influential in the culture then others by virtue of who many have had power and influence and what theology they were associated with. For example Pharisees Sadducees. But it was the fishermen and tax collectors and thieves that understood who Jesus is. Hence the intelligent was so smart they never recognized the true Presence of God. To what good is the gainsaying of one follower of one theology and the gainsaying of another in response, when it is Jesus the Christ that is the agreement? There is no theology in Heaven, and there is no disagreement with the Lord our God in Heaven. This statement that is presumed to be by King David isn’t theology, it is his experience with the Lord his God in the Lord God’s Presence with him. Ps:18:2: The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. |
||||||
3 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234413 | ||
DPMartin, I disagree. In Christ, Beja |
||||||