Results 1 - 20 of 281
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180513 | ||
Not only the Spirit's actions, but also those of Mary, who said "May it be to me as you have said." Luke 1:38 |
||||||
2 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180540 | ||
Excellent citation! Thank you! | ||||||
3 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180541 | ||
Thanks, Steve. I'm not assuming anything about God, or trying to box Him in. I'm just testing the logic that seems apparent and working to apply biblical principals to a fair question put to me by a sincere seeker. I get many questions like this working at a university as I do. |
||||||
4 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180542 | ||
I don't disagree with anything you have said, but you have not provided any scriptural references that support your points 1-5, which without specific scriptural support, appear to be conjecture or speculation. | ||||||
5 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180585 | ||
Of course it was a miracle. That wasn't the question. Please bear with my process, there is a point to it, and its maybe not to "logically explain it away." Legalistically, since Mary was still a virgin, no sex act occurred, so technically it can't have been adultery. Yet, there are many broken people who have experienced the pain of a spouse who was for all practical purposes unfaithful, but perhaps not sexually, rather emotionally with someone else. This is perhaps even more of a betrayal than the physical. For them, the question of what constitutes infidelity is not just about whether or not intercourse occurred. Certainly what happened between Mary and the Holy Spirit was intimate. In other words, does it not qualify as adultery by virture of the fact it was God who was involved, or that it was not sexual? (I think perhaps both, and seek scriptural support for the former aspect of that.) That is, if it were possible for a man to impregnate Mary without having sex with her, or even physical contact, how would it be seen and more importantly, would Joseph feel betrayed? I think we would have a problem with that scenario, and would expect no less from Joseph. So, my purpose is to illuminate why it may be different because it was God, not man. Scripture tells that Joseph, a righteous man, considered divorcing Mary because she was pregnant not by him. The angel told him not to do so because the child she carried was from God. Either this means that what happened was somehow not was not adultery, or if it was, it was somehow justified, like not all killing is murder, e.g. self-defense or execution by the state. This is exegesis, not an attempt to disparage God. |
||||||
6 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180591 | ||
I'm not trying to prove anything, so I don't see how I can have failed. My purpose is not to convict God of wrongdoing, but rather elucidate the scriptures or biblical principles that satisfy the question. If your argument is that this question is logically incoherent, then explain on the basis of scripture or orthodox theology. If your argument is that its not adultery because it wasn't sexual, or that the law does not apply to God, then cite the scriptures that support this. If there is another way to understand this event such that the question, although fairly asked does not apply, then please be specific in your references. In Peace, Parable |
||||||
7 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180592 | ||
Your conclusions may have merit, but upon what do you base them, specifically? As for my hypothetical situation, it was to get at the point of whether the issue centers on who was involved, and perhaps not on the means by which it was done. So there was a point in mentioning it. As for it not being adultery if there was no intercourse, that's understood. However, my purpose was to consider the deeper question of what constitutes infidelity. For example, in Jeremiah 28:8, God says "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." If physical intercourse is necessary, this can only mean that the nation of Israel had physical intercourse with someone besides God, when most understand this to refer to Israel's idolatry with other religions. |
||||||
8 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180593 | ||
correction, make that Jer 3:8, not 28:8. | ||||||
9 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180606 | ||
Much appreciated. Thank you for your thoughtful response! I think you are on point. | ||||||
10 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191807 | ||
Regarding your son's question about evil, here's my summary of Boyd's explanation, as found in "Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy". Boyd's development of this is heavily referenced with extensive scripture, so I refer you to the book for his support. Basically, Boyd suggests evil is a necessary possibility in a world in which the following realities make love possible: 1. Love entails freedom. Freedom to choose otherwise is what gives meaning to choosing love. 2. Freedom entails risk. The risk is that someone may actually choose not to love. 3. Risk entails moral responsibility. People are responsible for their choices because of the consequences they bring. Choices other than love often lead to evil. 4. Moral responsibility is proportionate to the power to influence others. If you are powerful, you have more responsibility than someone who is inconsequential. In Christian theology, Satan was the most powerful agent, so he carries the most responsibility for rebelling against God. 5. The power to influence is irrevocable. God's gifts are genuine, not taken back if abused. 6. The power to influence is finite. God has established boundaries within which we operate, so the consequences of our poor decisions are not infinitely bad for everyone everywhere. Thus, if you experience evil, it is because someone, including possibly yourself, chose to follow something other than God, and that choice was close enough to you that the consequences were within your sphere of influence. Parable |
||||||
11 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191820 | ||
Azure, Great questions. When Boyd uses the term "necessary", he is distinguishing it from the term "sufficient". In the parlance of logic, "necessary" means "must be at least", while "sufficient" means "is enough to establish". So, no, I don't mean that without evil, love is somehow a lesser possibility. Rather the contrary, for it is through love that we overcome evil, for love is the ultimate good and we are to "overcome evil with good" Romans 12:21. That is, the outcome of love is to restore a reality "without evil". The necessity of evil is not in evil per se, but rather the POSSIBILITY for evil. This allows for a reality in which there is no evil, yet the possibility for evil exists as an alternative to love, so the choice to love is not the only choice available, which would make it no choice at all, which would make it something other than love. Love is not love if it is coerced, or is the only option available. That love is chosen freely, often at great personal cost, is what makes it meaningful. And I agree, for those who choose to be obedient to God, to love is not optional, while the option lies in where we exercise that love. |
||||||
12 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191825 | ||
I guess I should have qualified that remark by saying "the only option available TO US". Clearly, evil is not compatible with the glorious presence or divine nature of God. This is why it is often said that evil is what you get when God is rejected or denied. In 1John4:8 and 4:16 the bible teaches "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" and "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him". Each of these verses necessarily imply that to not choose love is to not choose God. The choice is real, so love cannot be the only option, and if this is true, it can't be love if there is no real choice. |
||||||
13 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191827 | ||
yes, of course. Boyd's views are not universally accepted. However, he does justify his positions with abundant references to scripture and quite conservative interpretations thereof. Have you read any of his works? |
||||||
14 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191828 | ||
Another examination of open theism may be found in John Piper's book "Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity" John Piper is well known for his most excellent little book, "The Passion of Jesus Christ: Fifty Reasons Why He Came to Die". My understanding of Boyd's version of open theism is not that God does not know the future exactly as it is, but rather the question is, what is the nature of that future that God has created? Did God in fact create it such that it is already fully determined in every detail or is it that the future is not determined until it happens, and in that sense, God understands all the possible ways it may unfold, which by necessity must fall within his plan, but he has created it such that we may influence how that future unfolds in the details that are derived from the decisions we make, i.e. our will to choose love or not. For Boyd, our freedom to choose is fundamental to his theodicy. I note that in theodicies that hold the future is fully determined in every detail, our free will is often considered an illusion. I don't mean to start any threads on Calvinism or Arminianism, so lets not go there. My comment is merely to note Boyd's perspective for the benefit of those who may wonder what he stands for. |
||||||
15 | 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 |
||||||
16 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191836 | ||
Knowing how to love is not the issue for Boyd. For him, it is choosing to love when not loving is a real option. | ||||||
17 | 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? |
||||||
18 | 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 |
||||||
19 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191863 | ||
Perhaps it would help if you would articulate, in a nutshell, what you mean by "orthodox", with maybe just one verse to support each point you suggest. I agree that the authors you have listed are indeed not just unorthodox, but perhaps even heretical. (for Eddy and Smith, there is no doubt) Do you mean to suggest that Open Theism in general and/or Boyd in particular are heretical? Peace, Parable |
||||||
20 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191864 | ||
Hi BradK, My support for Boyd's work comes from the fact that in his book "Satan and the Problem of Evil", Boyd has resolved to my satisfaction the issues highlighted by the penetrating questions of an adolescent boy to his father who struggles to provide meaningful answers. The problem of evil has long been an intractable conundrum, yet I feel of all the treatments I have read, Boyd's is the most cogent, and he painstakingly builds his arguement from the sole authority of scripture. The bible teaches that we should test everything and keep what is good. If you read that book, I expect you might agree with me that it offers something of value to consider. I note that in rabban's thoughtful responses to the boy's questions, there are some sentiments that parallel what Boyd might say, yet no one objects to statements such as: "No one can change God's overall plan. It is arrogant to expect Him to do so. What they can do is seek adjustments within it." Adjustments? "No prayer can change God's divine plan. It can only cause changes within it." changes? I also note that many of the boy's questions remain conveniently ignored, except in the books I suggested. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |