Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 203965 | ||
I am late catching on how this site works and did not see this note you left me, sorry for the delay writing back. I have actualy had the priveldge of working for an SDA who was a very good person and have had the pleasure of talking about this concept with a number of SDA. What they all like to ignore is that the Bible both OT and NT use the word sleep as a euphimism for death and this is not news, this is old. Just becuase one says that a particular verse is being taken out of context and someone does not like it does not mean that it isn't. Ok Solomon seemed to have no concept of an afterlife, but Job did - after my flesh is gone and I die I will see my Redeemer, and David did - my soul shall not see decay, and so did others in the OT. All of the passages in the NT like Jesus talking about Jairus daughter being asleep and Lazarus being asleep prove that this was just a familiar phrase of speech meaning death in the time of Jesus... I think we do others a discervice if we aren't willing to defend the faith and there are people who don't like it because they disagree on some of the minor and major points about what Christians believe. We should be willing as Christians to talk about the hard passages and the easy passages in order to get at what scripture has to say. Let me ask you something, is showing what a text means in the language the people were speaking at the time shooting down someone else's theology? Or is it bringing out something that is there to be seen in the text if one is willing to remain open to a new view? And if something truly has no basis in scripture as to what the author's intent was or what the particulars of his audience is, is pointing that out shooting down theology, or clarifying it? I am not going to touch the works bit with a ten foot pole becuase you don't seem willing to discuss it for real yourself and I am not here to judge anyone, that is not the point of doing theology or talking about theology. The point of discussing theology is to clarify what one believes about God as theology is the study of God. I am and have been engaged and so is everyone esle in here, including you, been having discussions about God, and that is part of doing theology, not tearing down theology. Why shouldn't you be willing to defend the works position if that is what you believe? There is nothing wrong in taking a stance, we are adults here and should be able to discuss things honestly and without reserve as Christians who love one another. I can be tolerant of your differing beliefs and love you at the same time as disagreeing strongly with you, that is one facet of Christian love. Don't assume that just because someone has a strong opinion on something that they haven't talked to people who believe that other view or that they are being intolorant of others. There is a warning in here against being deviceve with one another, I don't think that stating what we believe is the truth should be seen as deviceve. I think deviceveness comes in when we say things that are purposefuly harmful or hurtful to another Christian about what they believe, not pointing out a difference or saying we find no basis in scripture for this or that or that something is out of context. God bless, Tamara | ||||||
2 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 204183 | ||
Hello Tamara, First, I don't plan on debating any of the soul sleep stuff. It isn't that important to me. Nor am I am not against shooting down anyone's theology. What is more important to me (and maybe only to me) is first how we Christians tend to trivialize the beliefs of others, even other Christians, and second how we often look for our answers within the realm of those who believe like us anyway. In my opinion, you have trivialized the concept of soul sleep by saying it comes from one verse taken out of context. While soul sleep may not be true, it comes from much more than one verse; and while there is only one CORRECT context, we all tend to read and decide the context based off our current theology. You have, however, mentioned that you have discussed the idea with many SDAers, so you have at least been willing to listen to their points. That is strong. Anyway, it probably wasn't any of my business. I probably read more into than necessary. Should have just kept quite. jamison |
||||||
3 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 204185 | ||
So, you're trivializing Tamara's beliefs? :-) You know Jamison, holding to some teaching or other despite all reason, may, in one sense, represent an admirable persistence. But, God has gone to great lengths to show us the importance of doctrine. Now, the world teaches that whole plurality thing. But as Christians, we know that two contradicting assertions can't both be right. We understand that doctrine divides. It divides light from darkness, sheep from goats, wheat from tares, children of the Lord from children of the devil, etc. Remember, a high estimation of sound doctrine, doesn't necessarily correspond with a high estimation of the people who hold to such. On the other hand, a low estimation of heresy, error, or fantasy, does not necessarily correspond with a low estimation of the people who hold to those ideas. We have no direction from Scripture to respect folly in ourselves or in others. Don't confuse people with ideas. Your post reminded me of something written by Professor D. A. Carson: "In a relatively free and open society, the best forms of tolerance are those that are open to and tolerant of people, even when there are strong disagreements with their ideas. This robust toleration for people, if not always for their ideas, engenders a measure of civility in public discourse while still fostering spirited debate over the relative merits of this or that idea. Today, however, tolerance in many Western societies increasingly focuses on ideas, not on people. The result of adopting this new brand of tolerance is less discussion of the merits of competing ideas -- and less civility. There is less discussion because toleration of diverse ideas demands that we avoid criticizing the opinions of others… Exclusiveness is the one religious idea that cannot be tolerated. Correspondingly, proselytism is a dirty word. One cannot fail to observe a crushing irony: the gospel of relativistic tolerance is perhaps the most 'evangelistic' movement in Western culture at the moment, demanding assent and brooking no rivals." |
||||||