Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
UK and Ireland
James Jacob Prasch
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MikeBigg" data-source="post: 64124609" data-attributes="member: 260752"><p>Do I? I tend to use "my opinion" in order that people don't think they have to agree with me. It gives room for friendly disagreement and discussion.</p><p></p><p>The point I am trying to make is that there is a large number of streams of Christianity - and I'm not talking just of denominations - they all will claim some Biblical basis for their beliefs/rituals/traditions.</p><p></p><p>Some of these are incompatible, yet have sincere Godly men and women who believe them and can show some Biblical basis for them. The thing John Stott was called out about does have a Biblical case. You would expect it to, because Stott was suggesting it. Stott being a significant Godly man in the evangelical arena. We can't discuss that topic here, but it can be googled and the Biblical basis found. There are man books on the subject.</p><p></p><p>I agree, church history has not had it right - that needs to be tested, too.</p><p></p><p>I struggle to know what it should be tested against, though, because all our views have a Biblical basis.</p><p></p><p>When I'm thinking on things (some may say testing things) - I always hold it up to the goodness and love of a God who wants to be like a daddy to us. (These are Bible concepts after all). And I try to imagine what Jesus would have done in a situation - after all He revealed the Father to us. As Bill Johnson says, Jesus is perfect theology.</p><p></p><p>In my view, the traditional understanding of the blind man in John 9 fails this test. When questioning people about it I get accused of "re-writing the Bible to fit my view of God", am told that "His ways are not our ways" and "how can mere humans understand the mighty mysteries of God" while they continue to claim that making someone blind from birth for no other reason than to make yourself look good later is compatible with the actions of a good, loving person.</p><p></p><p>Then I discover that the translation is likely to be bad, making the traditional view probably wrong and God is good all the time after all.</p><p></p><p>I really don't know where to go with this. There are other traditional beliefs that require some mental gymnastics in order to reconcile them with the goodness and love of God.</p><p></p><p>Are they, too, the subject of poor translation or understanding of the original text?</p><p></p><p>Well, in my studies, it does not seem to me that the translation of the Greek and Hebrew to the English word "eternal" is at all secure. I'm not saying it isn't correct, but I'm saying that there are questions to ask about it. And when you do study it, you find many other people, respected Godly people, have looked at it and have found it lacking. </p><p></p><p>I guess what I'm saying is that the whole "testing" idea is very difficult and not as easy as just checking against the Bible. That is why I think that it is imprudent to categorically throw away a theological idea just because it disagrees with tradition or your particular understanding of the Bible.</p><p></p><p>Who knows, I may be wrong. But then again, someone with a bigger audience than me may be wrong, too - for them it is much more serious. Wiser to give a little room for others. In my opinion.</p><p></p><p>Regards,</p><p></p><p>Mike</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MikeBigg, post: 64124609, member: 260752"] Do I? I tend to use "my opinion" in order that people don't think they have to agree with me. It gives room for friendly disagreement and discussion. The point I am trying to make is that there is a large number of streams of Christianity - and I'm not talking just of denominations - they all will claim some Biblical basis for their beliefs/rituals/traditions. Some of these are incompatible, yet have sincere Godly men and women who believe them and can show some Biblical basis for them. The thing John Stott was called out about does have a Biblical case. You would expect it to, because Stott was suggesting it. Stott being a significant Godly man in the evangelical arena. We can't discuss that topic here, but it can be googled and the Biblical basis found. There are man books on the subject. I agree, church history has not had it right - that needs to be tested, too. I struggle to know what it should be tested against, though, because all our views have a Biblical basis. When I'm thinking on things (some may say testing things) - I always hold it up to the goodness and love of a God who wants to be like a daddy to us. (These are Bible concepts after all). And I try to imagine what Jesus would have done in a situation - after all He revealed the Father to us. As Bill Johnson says, Jesus is perfect theology. In my view, the traditional understanding of the blind man in John 9 fails this test. When questioning people about it I get accused of "re-writing the Bible to fit my view of God", am told that "His ways are not our ways" and "how can mere humans understand the mighty mysteries of God" while they continue to claim that making someone blind from birth for no other reason than to make yourself look good later is compatible with the actions of a good, loving person. Then I discover that the translation is likely to be bad, making the traditional view probably wrong and God is good all the time after all. I really don't know where to go with this. There are other traditional beliefs that require some mental gymnastics in order to reconcile them with the goodness and love of God. Are they, too, the subject of poor translation or understanding of the original text? Well, in my studies, it does not seem to me that the translation of the Greek and Hebrew to the English word "eternal" is at all secure. I'm not saying it isn't correct, but I'm saying that there are questions to ask about it. And when you do study it, you find many other people, respected Godly people, have looked at it and have found it lacking. I guess what I'm saying is that the whole "testing" idea is very difficult and not as easy as just checking against the Bible. That is why I think that it is imprudent to categorically throw away a theological idea just because it disagrees with tradition or your particular understanding of the Bible. Who knows, I may be wrong. But then again, someone with a bigger audience than me may be wrong, too - for them it is much more serious. Wiser to give a little room for others. In my opinion. Regards, Mike [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
UK and Ireland
James Jacob Prasch
Top
Bottom