cheapham April 24th, 2008
I heard an interesting quote the other day that I found interesting. I think I’ll present it without any context or commentary and see what sort of comments/responses in evokes. I have my own thoughts, but I think this quote could provoke very interesting (and hopefully fruitful) discussion. It’s short, so here it goes:
I’d rather do violence to a text than violence to a person.
Discuss.
Honzo April 2nd, 2008
The 218th Christian Carnival is up over at Kiwi and an Emu.
Some highlights:
The Melchizedek Tradition from the Bible Archive
Cherishing Fidelity is an examination of Proverbs 3:3 over at Light Along the Journey
Why are people so anti-1 Corinthians 14:26-33? looks at why we can’t seem to apply what Paul writes here to the church today from carnival hostee Kiwi and an Emu.
cheapham March 3rd, 2008
“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2
Does the Bible, specifically Genesis 1:1-2, support a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)? Would such a doctrine have made sense to ancient Israelites/early Christians? How does Gen. 1:1-2 fit into the schema of it’s contemporary ancient mediterranean understandings of the creation of the world? If something was there, then what was/is it? Further, what is really at stake in the answers to these questions?
I’m currently reading a lot about this in one of my classes and have some thoughts…but I’d like to see what you guys have. Certainly, those familiar with Hebrew could contribute much to our understanding of what the text itself (may) say(s).
Honzo December 14th, 2007
Given the shift in the way the Bible portrays Satan from a member of God’s royal court in Job to leader of the rebellion against the Kingdom of God with Paul, how do we, as Christians, construct our concept of Satan?
I think this is a great question on two levels, i) what the heck is Satan and how does it function? and ii) how do we interpret scriptures that have varying views on religious phenomena?
I have some suggestions, but I have a couple of hours to iron out a paper proposal, a panel proposal, and have lunch with Meredith, so I will leave mine later.
Honzo October 10th, 2007
Ok, so the play on early 90’s rap did not work so well. However, I think that on the surface, this quiz encapsulates my current ways of thinking about Christ, theology and the Bible.
You scored as Neo orthodox
You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God’s most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.
| What’s your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
|
Neo orthodox |
|
79% | |
|
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan |
|
68% | |
|
Emergent/Postmodern |
|
68% | |
|
Reformed Evangelical |
|
61% | |
|
Modern Liberal |
|
46% | |
|
Fundamentalist |
|
39% | |
|
Charismatic/Pentecostal |
|
32% | |
|
Classical Liberal |
|
29% | |
|
Roman Catholic |
|
21% |
Andrew Pflaum October 6th, 2007
It is interesting, and also very frustrating, to read how people justify actions. This seems to be the most posh argument that people use nowadays, “Jesus didn’t talk about it, so it must not be important.” The people who make this argument seem to use it as a magic wand to wave away people calling certain actions sin. This is the one of the most horrible arguments, ever. The people who use this argument the most are the people who say that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable behavior. However, when this argument is used to justify that behavior, what other behaviors are being justified at the same time? They also manage to create a rift in the Bible between what Jesus says and what everyone else says. Lastly this thinking degrades scripture to only mean what a person wants it to mean and fails to recognize the cohesiveness of all scripture.
People fail to realize the types of things Jesus never talked about. While they know the things he did not talk about that justified their own behavior, or behavior they believe is proper, they fail to see what else Jesus never mentions. As mentioned before, the people who use this argument the most are those who accept homosexuality as an acceptable behavior. They justify this by saying that Jesus never calls it sin and the only other time it is mentioned is in Leviticus, which is not true, in a section called purity laws. Leviticus has been abrogated, therefore homosexuality is OK. What other behavior is justified by the same reasoning? There is an easy answer to this. It is also mentioned in the same chapter of Leviticus, however no one seems to want to justify this behavior. The behavior is incest. Does Jesus ever mention it? No. It is in the same chapters of Leviticus that homosexuality is mentioned that being Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. However it is unlikely you will find incest pride parades on weekends or find churches hiring ministers that are actively involved in a sexual relationship with their sister. Clearly most “higher thinking” Christians would object to incest but accept homosexuality. Usually their reasoning is how Jesus never talked about it.
This thinking also creates a rift in scripture between what Jesus says and what the rest of the Bible says. First what would the Bible say about itself here. 2 Timothy 3:16 says how ALL scripture is inspired by God. So anything in the Bible is the word of God. Many times in the Bible when it reads “scripture says” it is equated with “God says”. So scripture, no matter who it was written by, can be equated with being the word of God. Jesus himself claimed to be God, John 10:30. So, if scripture is the Word of God, everything that is written, and Jesus is God, one could say that when Paul writes in Romans 1 about men and women giving up natural relations it is something that Jesus would have been in full agreement with and would have said himself.
Lastly, people who only want to believe what Jesus said directly in the Gospels fail to realize the importance of all scripture and only wish to believe certain parts of scripture. This part may be the most troubling. This is where people can be misled and completely led away from God. One can make scripture say whatever they want it to say if it is not taken as a whole. While this debate could rage on with possibilities about who is actually being misled and who is doing the misleading, once again the example should be taken from scripture to when scripture can be used to try and lead people astray. In Matthew 4 Jesus is tempted by the Devil himself. First Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread. Jesus answered with scripture saying “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God,” Deuteronomy 8:3. Next Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and tells Jesus to throw himself off telling him, as Psalm 91:11-12 says, that Angels will protect him. Here Satan is making an argument from scripture. Odd how the Devil is saying, “See what scripture says.” It says this is good. Act in this way. Its OK. God wants you to. Jesus, knowing the totality of scripture, responds with scripture saying “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test,’” Deuteronomy 6:16. Lastly Jesus is tempted to worship Satan and once again Jesus uses scripture and says “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only,’” Deuteronomy 6:13. Once again Jesus fends off temptation with scripture. The most intriguing part of this passage is when Satan uses scripture as a justification for wrong action. However Jesus, knowing all scripture, was able to know how to correctly behave. He knew what every passage meant and knew how it all worked together. So when he was tempted by a bad argument based in the word of God, he was able to do what was right. All of scripture in its totality speaks on how one should act, not just a small portion.
The “Jesus never said it” fallacy is a mere justification for sin. It justifies wrong actions with a thin veil that appears to be from God. It makes most scripture to be nothing more than the words of man. It denies that all scripture is from God. It perverts scripture to be whatever one wants it to be instead of being totally the inspired word of God which is to show everyone who God is and what He requires.
Honzo September 13th, 2007
A while ago, the BBB had a poll running on headship and submission. Right now they are unpacking the poll and the issues surrounding the headship/submission issues. See part 1 and part 2. I really liked what Wyane had to say in the following quote. I think it is good to reflect how we view our Christianity especially in what parts were emphasize over other parts.
Better Bibles Blog :: head and submission poll results - post #3
From my own point of view, not enough biblical teaching has occurred on what it means for Christians to mutually submit to each other in comparison with how much teaching there has been on wives submitting to their husbands. The larger amount of teaching devoted to wives submitting to their husbands does not align with the fact that the first relationship Paul addresses in this section on submission is that of Christians to each other. That relationship is explicitly stated in Greek. It seems to me that other relationships of submission flow out of the teaching that mutual submission is God’s design for his children. I think that much of scripture tells us, in one way or another, how to submit to each other, and such submission would define what a wife’s submission to her husband should look like. Mutual submission surely involves love (John 13:35), honor, respect, deference, being like-minded, and being one in spirit (Phil. 2:2).
After I read that, I read his conclusions on chapter 5 of Ephesians:
So what does it mean for a man to be the head of his wife? Here is what the Bible explicitly says about this matter. In the Ephesians (chapter 5) context of teaching about the husband as head of his wife, the husband head is to love his wife. The husband head is to love his wife sacrificially, “giving himself for her” as Christ gave himself (died) for the church. As far as I know, this is all that the Bible explicitly teaches about what the husband head does for his wife. Everything else which is said on the matter is, I suggest, application or theological extrapolation. Is the husband to lead his wife? Perhaps, but the Bible does not explicitly say so. Does he have authority over her? Perhaps, but the Bible does not explicitly say so, other than when it refers to authority of one kind, mentioned in one passage which we will discuss below, concerning the statement “A husband has authority over his wife”. Is the husband a priest for his wife? The Bible does not teach this. Does a husband mediate between his wife and God. The Bible does not teach this either.
Update The Better Bibles Blog has now posted their fourth post in the series: head and submission poll results - post #4. The post sums up my thoughts on the subject quite well. Wayne looks at the difference between ὑποτασσω (a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden) in Eph 5:21-22 and Rom. 13:1 and contrasts it with ἐξουσιάζω (to have power or authority, use power) in such places as 1 Cor. 7:4.
Wayne then goes on to look at the Genesis account and comes to much the same conclusions that Dave and I did a while back.
Bad Behavior has blocked 797 access attempts in the last 7 days.