Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 191832 | ||
Dear Parable, Recently, in discussions with others, an old aphorism came to mind: "If it is true, it probably isn't new; if it is new, it probably isn't true." It does not raise the respectability of heterodoxy, by appealing to a debate within the bounds of orthodoxy. Despite the implications, orthodoxy does not have its feet planted firmly in mid air. It reflects the careful scrutiny of many centuries of Bible Scholars -- men far more learned and Godly than we will ever hope to be, in this life. Their work, founded on the sole authority of Scripture, are openly available to us all. A prudent course of action -- one that would be far more edifying for everyone involved -- would be skirting Open Theism altogether. Thank you for your efforts to that end, helping us to respect the wishes of our gracious host, and honor the character and purposes of our Lord. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191835 | ||
Doc, You said “Their work, founded on the sole authority of Scripture, are openly available to us all.” While their work was founded on the sole authority of Scripture, each of those bible scholars was a product of their times. For example, consider this observation from the book Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture, by Jaroslav Pelikan, Sterling Professor of History Emeritus at Yale: “During the past two thousand years, few issues if any have so persistently brought out the fundamental assumptions of each epoch as has the attempt to come to terms with the meaning of the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.” My point is that Boyd contends that he has rigorously observed the sole authority of scripture, as does Piper, as do all the other bible scholars of good repute. As I read both Piper and Boyd, I believe this to be true, i.e. I can find no instances of invoking authority outside scripture in their derivations. Neither of these authors is heretical, for they uphold the fundamental tenets of our faith. Yet, on matters that do not fundamentally affect our relationship with Jesus, i.e. His divinity, etc, on those matters that reasonably can and should be explored within the context of the core truths about Jesus, these two most respected bible scholars hold mutually exclusive views. This does not imply that one or the other has erred, but rather the truth about the positions they hold cannot be established with absolute certainty. This is why these questions are not part of the orthodox canon. Because of this, I agree that Open Theism is not of great important for this forum, except it does represent an attempt to understand issues such as were raised by an adolescent boy to his father who struggles to respond from a strictly orthodox perspective. If you disagree with Boyd’s conclusions, that is your right, but to imply on that basis that Boyd has not respected the sole authority of scripture is unfounded. If you can cite one specific instance in which Boyd has erred by invoking authority other than scripture to justify his position, I would be most interested. Peace, Parable |
||||||
3 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 191837 | ||
Dear Parable, No doubt your theology colors your every approach to the study of the Scriptures. Moreover, I am sure that such tenacity is rooted in such virtues as stalwart, unwavering loyalty. So, perhaps there is a Study Boyd Forum out there somewhere, or maybe a Study Open Theism Forum. Rather than seek to vindicate Boyd and his doctrine, may we, please, repair to the study of that for which this forum was created? In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191839 | ||
Hi Doc, This is not MY theology, but Boyd's, I thought that was clear. My apologies if I did not express that sufficiently to satisfy your sensibilities. My approach is my best effort to maintain high standards of academic rigor, as is consistent with the culture of a university, where I have spent my career for the past 25 years, as well as obedience to the Lord's instruction to love God with all my mind. That you assail my character is probably why this thread has been restricted, not because I have attempted to objectively discuss a topic of scriptural hermeneutics and practical application. So, in line with your request to "repair to the study of that for which this forum was created", how does your invective toward me serve that purpose? |
||||||
5 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191841 | ||
Hi Speaking as a neutral may I say that I do not agree that Doc has assailed your character or used invective. I think if you look back and see how many times you have mentioned Boyle in your postings you might be surprised. I think that what Doc is trying to say is that the purpose of the forum is not in order to promote Boyle's theology but in order to expound the Scriptures. I have no doubt that that was not your intention but that is how it has turned out. May I lovingly suggest that if you have a point to make from Scripture please do so. But we are really not interested in Boyle's Law. :-))) In Him . |
||||||
6 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191860 | ||
rabban, thank you for your kind attempt to mediate and be a peacemaker. It is true, I have mentioned Boyd in my posts because, in the tradition of academic discourse, one should cite one's sources. However, if I cite Boyd, rather than scripture, it is because Boyd has already cited scripture in his work. Boyd has dedicated himself to the purpose of this forum, to expound scripture, and rather than repeat his work, I merely refer to it. I am not "promoting" Boyd's theology, just attempting to demonstrate that where the bible is clear, we stand firm, and where the bible leaves room for diversity of opinion, our intercourse with each other should be guided by godly principles. In more than one case I have been rebuked by those who merely disagree on highly debatable issues. Rather than defend their view, speaking the truth in love with gentleness and respect, i get comments like this: "No doubt your theology colors your every approach to the study of the Scriptures. Moreover, I am sure that such tenacity is rooted in such virtues as stalwart, unwavering loyalty." (implying my "stalwart unwavering loyalty" is to Boyd, not the Lord.) or this comment about me to another subscriber "The question you responded to was out of line..." (not because I violated any terms of the forum, but merely because that person disagrees) and "How easily we all of us can get caught in the trap of our own cherished opinion and stumble along the way" (implying that an objective discourse must necessarily involve only one's own views to be defended at all costs, and that I idolize my own opinion and should be seen as having stumbled, again merely because that person disagrees with the topic of the discourse) On the other hand, I commend Morant61 for his thoughtful and well-considered post #191852. Here is an opportunity for meaningful exposition. So, the point is not Boyd, Piper, Calvin or Arminius, bur rather how we respond when faced with an opinion that differs from our own "cherished" positions. Peace, Parable |
||||||