Results 41 - 60 of 281
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | 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 |
||||||
42 | 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 |
||||||
43 | 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? |
||||||
44 | 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. | ||||||
45 | 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 |
||||||
46 | 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. |
||||||
47 | 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? |
||||||
48 | 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. |
||||||
49 | 1 Peter 3:21-24 what is this meaning..? | 1 Pet 3:22 | Parable | 191822 | ||
Goto to any message in the thread and open it. Go to the bottome of the screen to find the outline of messages on the tree structured directory. Select the message you want to identify. When you read it from there, it should have the ID number at the top, highlighted in yellow. | ||||||
50 | Masterbation in the Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 191821 | ||
The bible doesn't expressly mention masturbation. For more on this topic, see my post #191656. Copy this number into the search box to the right. Parable |
||||||
51 | 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. |
||||||
52 | 1 Peter 3:21-24 what is this meaning..? | 1 Pet 3:22 | Parable | 191809 | ||
rabban, rather than advise to "scroll back", perhaps it would be helpful if you could provide the ID# of the post to which you refer, then suggest using the search utility? a simple select/copy of that ID number from your note and paste in the search box would be all that is necessary to find your other note. Peace, Parable |
||||||
53 | 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 |
||||||
54 | What about this teaching? | Eccl 3:21 | Parable | 191620 | ||
My concern is about diversity of opinion within the boundaries of propriety and the exercise of discretionary authority, both of which are highly relevent bible topics. If I have exceeded those boundaries, fine, I will recant. If not, perhaps there is a need for more humility in how my posts are interpreted. |
||||||
55 | What about this teaching? | Eccl 3:21 | Parable | 191618 | ||
sorry for the duplicate post, a data error. | ||||||
56 | What about this teaching? | Eccl 3:21 | Parable | 191617 | ||
Doc, One would hope that the moderation process was as you say. However, it has yet to be shown that this is the case. I eagerly await a response from both the Study Bible Forum Team, and now their corporate sponsors at Lockman, for an explanation of how I have deviated from their guidelines. I do this not to be adversarial, but rather so I may understand their complaint. This is because I believe my posts were interpreted in a way that is not justified, but rather reactionary. If I am in need of correction, I am open to that, yet to date, no one has extended me the grace necessary to describe how my posts are not consistent with forum guidelines, especially when compared to my other posts or those of others who determine to explore those questions that call for application of biblical principles in addition to merely citing relevant verses. |
||||||
57 | What about this teaching? | Eccl 3:21 | Parable | 191616 | ||
Doc, One would hope that the moderation process was as you say. However, it has yet to be shown that this is the case. I eagerly await a response from both the Study Bible Forum Team, and now their corporate sponsors at Lockman, for an explanation of how I have deviated from their guidelines. I do this not to be adversarial, but rather so I may understand their complaint. This is because I believe my posts were interpreted in a way that is not justified, but rather reactionary. If I am in need of correction, I am open to that, yet to date, no one has extended me the grace necessary to describe how my posts are not consistent with forum guidelines, especially when compared to my other posts or those of others who determine to explore those questions that call for application of biblical principles in addition to merely citing relevant verses. |
||||||
58 | What about this teaching? | Eccl 3:21 | Parable | 191613 | ||
My question related specifically to the question you raised, Hank. That is, in response to rabban's post, you asked if we are to discard previous teachings. The teaching I presented demonstrates that in some cases, we already have. Given this clarification, do you still feel my post was "out of line"? If yes, why? For those interested in my concern, I note that my post has been erased. |
||||||
59 | What is hatred? When is it ok to hate? | Matt 5:44 | Parable | 191441 | ||
Thank you for your thoughtful exposition on the variations in meaning for the word hate. With regard to hate as abhorrence, what are the attributes or characteristics of that biblical, godly hatred? |
||||||
60 | forgiveness | Matt 18:1 | Parable | 191426 | ||
So you are saying that scripture teaches that to forgive is to "not remember"? I don't disagree, yet also note that this "not remembering" means much the same as what I proposed, does it not? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |