Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132146 | ||
I agree, Brother Kalos. Those are the rules of thumb that I follow, and are well defined in our tradition. Faced with others who do not apply those principles when deriving doctrine, I was curious to know what rules they do apply. Based on the answers I am getting back, it appears that either they do not have any rules, they are unable to articulate them, or they simply do not know how their doctrines were derived. I was not asking as a point of contention, but more out of curiosity. I think this might be a good time to post some of the principles of proper textual interpretation. The funny thing about those rules, is that they are not unique to Biblical hermeneutics. They are used every day in our legal system for the interpretation of any given document. Of course, the lawyers -- having once received a seminary degree in the early days of our country -- may well have borrowed these techniques. Sorry... too many rabbit trails here! |
||||||
2 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | EdB | 132158 | ||
Doc Of course correct and proper exegesis and hermeneutics must be the sole basis for establishing doctrine. However some of us prefer to consider the total flow of the Bible to shape our conclusions while others prefer to limit their focus to the passages that seem to prove their conviction. This is where the difference lies, one seeks for reconciliation with the whole of God’s word, while the other chooses to focus only that, that bears their conviction and explain away any seeming contradictions. We use many words in an attempt to authentic our position a favorite being “tradition.” However for most “tradition” started less than 500 years ago for others that tradition started with Genesis 1:1. I might add that since I was only one responding to your question this statement must be focused at me and I find it offensive. “Faced with others who do not apply those principles when deriving doctrine, I was curious to know what rules they do apply. Based on the answers I am getting back, it appears that either they do not have any rules, they are unable to articulate them, or they simply do not know how their doctrines were derived.” Sir you have accused many of ad hominem attacks upon you or people you support let me say this in no uncertain terms “This sir is a cheap shot” and one that should not go unnoticed by all on this forum. Good day to you! EdB |
||||||
3 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132251 | ||
Constructing doctrine is a very serious business. I understood your comments to indicate that extrapolating doctrine from Biblical narratives was a valid method for you in your tradition. It is not acceptable within the context of my own tradition. (Kalos knows very well the principles of which I am speaking.) Thus, when I wrote to him I started thinking about presuppositional and hermeneutic differences. Hence the phrase "faced with others who do not apply those principles." Ed, you have pastored in many churches: Don't you find that a lot of people just don't think about such things? Or they don't know how to talk about them? Or they believe things without knowing why? Sir, my feet are clay. I have probably sinned more in my lifetime than you have imagined doing in your own. There is absolutely nothing good in me that wasn't specifically put there by a God, Who, in spite of my worthlessness, chose to show mercy on me. There are so many logs in my own eyes that I would never even imagine the few motes in your own. My roots grow out of a long line of God haters; men who studiously and strenuously -- and I mean that quite literally -- sought to do all possible damage to Christianity. I am quite certain that you -- personally and professionally -- have done far more for the kingdom of God than I could have done in twice as many lifetimes. Furthermore, the doctrines of grace, if they teach us nothing else, are so incredibly humbling that they brook nothing in the way of self righteousness. If I now know anything of God and His Word, it has grown out of a walk through fire, and God's boundless mercy and grace. Sir, I do not know the root cause of your sensitivity toward me. Perhaps it comes from my inability to happily accept heresy and apostasy as suitable bed-fellows with the truth. Perhaps it comes from my screen name. Perhaps it is something else entirely. I do not know. But I do know this: your sensitivity is causing you to feel offense when none is intended. I have prayed and searched my conscience as I composed this post. In summation, therefore, let me say without ranchor or umbrage of any kind: Our struggle with sin is difficult at best. Sir, I respectfully submit that the Kingdom of Heaven is not furthered by the manufacture of more sin. |
||||||
4 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Morant61 | 132253 | ||
Greetings Doc! You wrote: "Perhaps it comes from my inability to happily accept heresy and apostasy as suitable bed-fellows with the truth." To what heresy and apostasy are you referring? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132397 | ||
I was not referring to anything specific, Brother Tim. Today there is a tendency to compromise truth for peace or unity. I can broadly describe some of these false teachings that are too frequently tolerated. Fundamentally they would include anything contrary to the following: 1. The Bible (66 books of the canon) alone is the ultimate authority, fully containing the will of God, and are fully sufficient to a man for salvific purposes. That all writings of men are inferior to the divine scriptures. That neither custom, multitudes, antiquity, succession of times or persons, theories, councils, decrees, or statutes are always of inferior value to the Word of God. (Psalm 119:18; 138:2; II Timothy 3:14-17) 2. That all of life is to be lived under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Every activity of the Christian is to be sanctified to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31; 1 Peter 4:11; Revelation 1:6; 7:12; 2 Peter 3:1; Ephesians 3:21; Romans 11:36) 3. That Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man. Christ having stepped in and taken the punishment and judgment that was due sinners. With His own blood He expiated the sins that made these sinners enemies of God, fully satisfying Him. Christ alone is the source of divine favor and fatherly love. (1 Timothy 2:5-6; Colossians 1:13-18) 4. The regenerate's righteous standing before God is imputed by grace because of the work of Christ Jesus our Lord and not by any self-merit. Christ's sacrifice for them made a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice on their behalf. That justification is only of free grace to and for God's great glory. (Ephesians 1:3-8) 5. That this salvific faith, resting wholly on Christ and His righteousness, is the sole instrument of justification. It is not alone in the regenerate, but is accompanied by good works done in love (though these deeds do not justify). (Galatians 3:6-11) I'd also include any doctrine contrary to the Nicene Creed. |
||||||
6 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | EdB | 132431 | ||
Doc That is a nice and long worded explanation. However it does not address the issue of your usage of heresy and apostasy as possible reasons for why I may be sensitive to you. Now you made the charge that possibly one of the reasons I was sensitive to you was your refusal to accept heresy or apostasy. Where does that leave me in your eyes or in the eyes of the readers of this forum? That I accept heresy or apostasy and the fact you don’t puts animosity between us? Or possibly you meant I was trying to get you to accept heresy and/or apostasy and since you won’t I have singled you out to pick on? Or I’m so bound in heresy or apostasy to the point of I’m darkness and you being light can have no fellowship? Before we go one step further show me where anything I said, hold to be true, have expressed in anyway contradicts, conflicts or derides the five points you list or the Nicene Creed. You talk about respect but you make remarks like this and when asked for an explanation you give no reason for their usage. You used the words now explain what you meant and don’t run around town with your explanation. EdB |
||||||
7 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132489 | ||
Brother Ed, I was answering Tim's request for expansion on what I thought of as heresy and apostasy. Are you going to see yourself in every single post I make? I think highly of you, sir, but honestly, I do not think of you to the exclusion of all else. | ||||||
8 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | EdB | 132507 | ||
Doc Your artful at dodging a question and not giving a direct answer. Here is your statement made to me. Please explain you usage of heresy and apostasy in that statement. "Sir, I do not know the root cause of your sensitivity toward me. Perhaps it comes from my inability to happily accept heresy and apostasy as suitable bed-fellows with the truth. Perhaps it comes from my screen name. Perhaps it is something else entirely. I do not know. But I do know this: your sensitivity is causing you to feel offense when none is intended. I have prayed and searched my conscience as I composed this post.” This isn't something directed at Tim this is word for word what you said to me. Secondly you said, "I understood your comments to indicate that extrapolating doctrine from Biblical narratives was a valid method for you in your tradition." Let me ask you came to that conclusion when I never even hinted at that. What I said was " Doctrines derived by exegesis and hermeneutic if done properly will never conflict with the whole of scripture but rather will stand in complete agreement with the whole of scripture. And further it will do so without the need to reinvent definitions or explain away conflicting words or situations." Again your response wasn't to Tim it was directed at me. Incidently Tim responded your you post to me asking you what you meant. So yes I think I do see myself in it. EdB |
||||||