Are you implying we are all just robots or puppets?
Well, I tend to think that the works of the flesh in Pauls time might be a bit different than the works of the flesh here in 2018.
Well, do we not see EXACTLY the same things in the 21st century - and worse? I’m having real difficulty (not unusual for me :-)) thinking that anyone would not see that.
But perhaps that’s just my inability…
Well, in Fuller’s quite regimented curriculum of the 60’s, Biblical theology meant introductory courses to all the parts of Scripture, with courses in hermeneutics and the unity of the Bible, highlighted by two stimulating courses in NT Biblical Theology with George Ladd.
Also a summer fulltime working on Greek (though I’d taken previous courses at UCLA) and another with Hebrew, follow by at least 12 Biblical courses that included sections devoted to translating and exegeting specific texts. Dan Fuller’s hermeneutics requires us to diagram every sentence in the Greek of Philippians, and then what he called “arcing” every phrase to show the relationship of each one. For the doctoral programs we were required to be handed a NT chapter and an OT one and be able to translate it correctly.
But in truth, while I’m grateful for that exposure, and it helps e.g. a lot in understanding commentators’ remarks about the original text, etc, I wouldn’t trust my grasp of Greek and Hebrew at all, and I sense a number of participants here are sharper. My sense is also that even at a relatively progressive school, we were given a more dogmatic impression of how clearly things could be interpreted than I now sense is that easy.
We WERE rightly told that to keep the Biblical languages sharp, we needed to use it and translate every day, which I can assure you most pastors don’t come close to having the time to do. So mine has definitely suffered. Don’t be intimidated because someone has had more formal background in these languages. Folk like that can disagree about most anything. My sincere sense is that I have learned far more since seminary through my own independent study and ability to read a diversity of views without having someone telling me what the ‘right’ view is, and then testing to see if I can regurgitate it back.
Latin was not required, although I needed to show ability to read theological French or German, yet we barely got by in French Switzerland this month, though I do remember enough of that to say “Merci” back to you
NOPE! That concept is a Satanic deception in order to cast the blame on God.
God didn’t create Adam and Eve as sinners. Genesis tells us that everything He created, he saw as GOOD! Rather Eve was led into sin by the Serpent (that old devil) and Adam was led into it by Eve. They were created with the ability to choose, and they chose to disobey God.
So God didn’t MAKE us the way we are. We CHOSE to be the way we are. That’s why we need to repent (have a change of heart and mind concerning how we have been living) and begin to live in accordance with God’s will.
And I think it’s still true in the 21st century. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but we’ve got to ‘own’ our choices, and not blame God.
The century in which we live, or whether its pre or post A.D. 70 is irrelevant.
No Bob… it’s not that I think you’re lying at all. The frustration, not resentment, is in repeating that my apparent non-answers confirms your doubts as being correct with regards to my proposals or position — ostensibly they are not correct.
I have absolutely NO issue at all that you either challenge, query or plainly not believe my position… that is par for the course, no problem. I always welcome genuine enquiry though I’m coming to loathe some of the stupid ill-thought through assertions some make as to what my position actually says; again Bob NOT saying you’re doing that.
Bob and DaveB… it’s surprising you think THAT’S what I’ve said… it’s no small claim against me so I’d be interested in seeing a quote garnishing such a notion from me, or at least your rationale for claiming that of me. And Bob… I’m likewise unconvinced that in making the claim you then seek to duck being responsible for answering it.
I don’t know if you said it or not. Someone wrote that perhaps Jesus repented for us, so I took a wee bit of umbrage. But I did not mention your name.
Yeah ok… but Bob did AND you readily agreed
So? I don’t see any convincing basis, but I did not say that you had tried to give such a basis.
Let’s move on - this is a nothingburger…
So what relevance is your reference to the denomination ‘Church of Christ’ to me, in the UK, asking for you to engage in why you think Christ has repented for us when the apostles call on everyone to repent? I’m genuinely puzzled Chad.
It’s called smoke and mirrors. It’s the magician diverting the audience, away from the trick…or in this case, the topic at hand.
it’s like me presenting this question.
If a Liberal Catholic Church priest presented Esoteric Christianity
And a Christian Science practitioner presented Christian Science
And Davo presented Pantelism.
And each created a solid Biblical presentation. And God made only one of them true. How is an outsider to know - which one?
Chad used the smoke and mirrors, to ask about my theological orientation. And I replied to his question.
I always ask this question. Assume the committees of scholars…from the different Bible translations…did their job correctly. And a professor was giving a class…on the Bible as literature. And there were Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Baptists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and Agnostics in the class. And they were reading a particular passage on repentance. How would the class as a whole - understand it - from a literary perspective?
If I were applying theological filters:
I see theology as the Eastern Orthodox see it - for the most part.
Contemplation as the Franciscans see it.
And receiving the goodness of God, as Joel Osteen sees it.
We all bring to the table here, something that is “non-traditional”. Like me promoting the Zombie Apocalypse…as the most probable, end-times tribulation model.
Well, I have some guests for dinner.
moved post to the right thread
On the contrary, I think that was a very meaningful and concise explanation, one I agree with as well.
This has been the ‘sticking point’ that I hoped someone would clarify - and you’ve done it, though no doubt there will be some need for further clarification.
So kudos and thanks. Davo!
Bob… I’m unconvinced that in making the claim you then seek to duck being responsible for answering it.
I’m confused as to what “claim” you feel I duck. I replied to Chad’s statement that maybe most people don’t need to repent because of Jesus’ sacrifice, and since he often says you argue for his view better than he, I responded to him, that I saw neither of you make an exegetical case for that. I wasn’t claiming that you had affirmed what he argued.
I found an interesting article, in today’s Patheos Evangelical email newsletter.
Let me quote a bit - from the author.
For one, we should take note that God is not casual. God does not take lightly casual faith. It is one thing to struggle with doubts; it is another thing to revel in doubts about God or the Christian faith. It is one thing to be tolerant of various faith perspectives in society at large; it is quite another to put up with other views of Jesus or different spirits or different gospels than those handed down to us from the apostolic community and accept them into our faith communities. Still, some of us might not struggle with reveling in or tolerating everything other than biblical faith. Our problem might be more subtle. We might struggle with honoring God with our minds and devoting our hearts to various gods of prosperity in the present day—such as the worship of wonderful, high-achieving families, globally advancing nation states, or our individual financial and social security. What leads those of us who are Christians to turn away from what Paul called “sincere and pure devotion to Christ” and bite the serpent’s apple like Eve and Adam?
I’m curious how folks would respond, to the author and his article?
Another article I’ll just share in passing, came from today’s Patheos Catholic email newsletter.
Hmmmm…I wouldn’t have thought this thread for this topic? A good topic nonetheless, but not under the OP perhaps?