 |
| 
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/27/2005 12:07 AM (GMT -6) |   | | It seems like the Psalms which make reference to the Exodus narrative are praising God because they believed it was a real event performed by a wonderful God.
From what little I know (which isn't much) many scholars are angry and have an axe to grind. Ever since the Reformation and Enlightenment, much of theology was written and dominated by lawyers and overly modernistic, rationalistic, black and white thinkers. So modern fundamental/evangelical thinking has reducted itself to a pile of lifeless propositions. I can see why many scholars are angry, frankly, I am a bit angry too. However, I think the scholars go too far, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I don't claim all the answers and I am sure I'll be in for a real re-education once in the pearly gates. It is just that since I believe in a real supernatural God, I have no problem believing that the same God does supernatually act from time to time.
I know some scholar doubt virtually everything in the scriptures, whether they are right is another story.\
So....yah....what were we talking about .....natural evil.... 
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
 |
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/27/2005 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi AtTheWell.
I think we were trying to discuss 'natural evil' as things which happen outside of human agent causation. While surely much and perhaps most evil in the world can be attributable to human's individual and corporate and cumulative sin, it still seems like tsunamis and volcanos are not our fault.
To bring it full circle: I think the tsunami could be a) God acting, b) demons acting, c) purely nature, chance, physics, and in some way the result of the current state of the creation post-fall, or d) any combo. Some would argue against A, some against B, still some against C. Personally I don't think we can rule out any with absolute certainty.
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/30/2005 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | |
... they just didn't think or live out their religious beliefs back then as we do today. Not, at least, in our traditional evangelical thinking about how God speaks.
Hello Starkman,
Disregarding the arguement of historicity in scripture, what value does your theology place on historical "tradition"?
Thanks,
Mark Post Edited (sparknheart) : 4/30/2005 9:54:43 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/30/2005 1:49 PM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
... they just didn't think or live out their religious beliefs back then as we do today. Not, at least, in our traditional evangelical thinking about how God speaks.
Hello Starkman,
Disregarding the arguement of historicity in scripture, what value does your theology place on historical "tradition"?
Thanks,
Mark
Hello Sparknheart,
Tradition plays an essential role as long as today's interpreter takes into consideration the cultural milue and theological framework of the time period in consideration.
For instance, if it is clear that ancient man believed the world to be flat, or Sheba to be the most southern part of all the world's inhabitants, I need to consider that this thinking is what prevails in one's theological interpretation of, say, the Creation account. So, we today must keep in mind how God moves along the vein of history by speaking culturally to people in a way with which they handle His word.
Hope that helps,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/4/2005 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings in Christ.
Have any of you read any books by David W. Bercot? He promotes the idea that when seeking to understand the scripture all Christians should take into serious consideration the writings of the early Christian writers between the time of the New Testament and the Council of Nicea (the Ante-Nicene Christian writers) - especially those of the 2nd century.
I've recently read a couple of his books:
"Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look At Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity".
"Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding scripture."
But his crowning achievement is a topical index of the early Christian writings titled "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs." This only costs $20 and I believe it to be an invaluable addition to every Christian's collection.
Bercot's argument is that, since the early Christian writers were so close to the apostles (not only in time, but in culture and language [plus, a few actually personally knew one or more apostles]), that their writings should take priority over all later Christian writings as a source of commentary on the scripture. He doesn't say that the early Christian writers were inspired, nor that their writings are authoritative, but simply that they can help us understand how the earliest Christians understood the scripture and apostolic teaching, and that this is far preferable as a source of teaching than classic Christian writings after Nicea (such as Luther, Calvin, Augustine).
I've taken his challenge seriously, and I'm prayerfully re-examining my life and my beliefs in light of the early Christian writers. I already knew that they strongly taught Freewill-Theism and Premillennialism, both of which I strongly believe scripture teaches; but what's genuinely challenging is when they are expressing a belief that I would normally have disregarded offhandedly if it had come from any contemporary Christian. But I feel I'm learning a lot which will help me grow as a Christian and know God and His word better.
Bercot's books are mostly published by this company: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/
If any of you have read anything by him (or, if you haven't yet, after you've read something), please share your thoughts.
The grace of Christ be with you | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/4/2005 4:11 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
Tradition plays an essential role as long as today's interpreter takes into consideration the cultural milue and theological framework of the time period in consideration.
For instance, if it is clear that ancient man believed the world to be flat, or Sheba to be the most southern part of all the world's inhabitants, I need to consider that this thinking is what prevails in one's theological interpretation of, say, the Creation account. So, we today must keep in mind how God moves along the vein of history by speaking culturally to people in a way with which they handle His word.
Hello Stakman,
What theological value do you find in ancient man's belief that the world was flat? Does their scientific ignorance play some important role in your own theology?
Personally, I’m trying to show the relationship sin has with sickness, decay, death, entropy and natural disorders.
I’m trying to lay some ground work before I plunge deeper into this topic. The levels of acceptances you grant to the early church father’s traditions are imperative to my argument. It’s even more difficult, if you’re going to reject the traditional beliefs of Biblical writers, not for the scientific value (I don’t care) but for the theological value.
Thanks,
Mark
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 5/4/2005 9:26:25 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/4/2005 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
Starkman said...
Tradition plays an essential role as long as today's interpreter takes into consideration the cultural milue and theological framework of the time period in consideration.
For instance, if it is clear that ancient man believed the world to be flat, or Sheba to be the most southern part of all the world's inhabitants, I need to consider that this thinking is what prevails in one's theological interpretation of, say, the Creation account. So, we today must keep in mind how God moves along the vein of history by speaking culturally to people in a way with which they handle His word.
Hello Stakman,
What theological value do we find in the lack of the historicity in regards to ancient man's belief in the world being flat? Do you find this to be a good example, one that plays an important role in your own theology? I’m looking for sickness, decay, death, entropy and natural disorder of some kind and how it relates to sin.
I’m trying to lay some ground work before I plunge deeper into this topic. The levels of acceptances you grant to the early church father’s traditions are imperative to my argument. It’s even more difficult, if you’re going to reject the traditional beliefs of Biblical writers, not for the scientific value (I don’t care) but for the theological value.
Thanks,
Mark
Hey Mark,
I'm not sure I understand the first paragraph. Would you mind rephrasing it for me. Thanks.
And as to the second paragraph...I think I understand the question, but I'm not sure. Here's what I can say at the moment.
An interesting occurance takes place in the Gospel of John chapter 21 that should catch our attention as to the future of the church fathers. Here's the account from the ESV (underlined my emphasis).
20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” 23 So the saying spread abroad among the brothersthat this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
Amazing! First thing, right off the bat, is that the disciple's eschatology gets twisted; they misunderstood OR interpreted things the way they thought they should be: Jesus was coming back really, really soon, and one of the disciples wasn't even going to die. Well, they were wrong, BUT the saying spread around, obviously for a period of time.
Next, but not quite as drastic: Acts 1...
6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.
The disciples are still in the "Dude, it's going to happen any moment! Woo hoo!" mode. No...it wasn't. And, apparently, it wasn't going to happen for a long time. Much longer than any of them figured. As a matter of fact, they had things really messed up: the Kingdom of Israel wasn't going to be restored; it was going to be demolished (of course the spiritual kingdom of Israel would florish)! So, they really had their eschatology in peices.
So, do we automatically think that the church fathers were dead on in everything they said? No way. We know they weren't. Further, we know that they adjusted their thinking as time went on, and rightly so. Does this take away from their place in history and of their value to the church's history? Oh, heavens no. WE AREA ALL WORKING OUT OUR THEOLOGY...even as we speak. It took many, many years (indeed several centuries) before just the basics were worked out: The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, etc. The church fathers had to do what you and I are doing, even today: working out our theology. Again, they are to be valued for all the hammering out they did which set the course of theologies on their way, but they by no means had ALL of it it down pat.
Finally, I do not care one wit whether the creation took place in six days or six trillion. The basic and core theology...and I stress this emphatically...does not change (in my opinion) because of either the Ancients' or our present day worldview. Theodicy is up for grabs and an understanding of hamartiology—how do we deal with Paul's concept of original and transferable sin if he believed in a literal Adam and Eve but there was no such people—becomes difficult to manage, but the basic theology that drives the Christ Event: man is in opposition to God; he is a sinner and rebellious. He needs to be saved from himself and restored unto relationship with God. (This, too, by the way, was not so simple for the church fathers to work through, but they did.)
So, I don't define my theology by either a pre- or post-modern (not "postmodern") approach. I try to first interpret from the pre-modern thinking in which the Ancients lived, but the outcome, I believe, is the same were I to base it on a modern rationalistic approach. Most certainly I want to avoid heretical teachings of which the fathers worked through early on in order to arrive at "orthodox" Christianity, but considering Agustine was a predestinationalist and I an Open Theist...well, I'm afraid ol' Augustine hadn't been enlightened enough to catch the truth on this subject!!! :) So, I disagree with Augustine. But that's healthy and not a bad thing.
Well, time's run out for me...
For working out our salvation...with some serious trembling and fear!
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/4/2005 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
I'm not sure I understand the first paragraph. Would you mind rephrasing it for me. Thanks.
Sorry If I was a little incoherent in the haste of my last post, I since edited it. Any ways, it looks like you answered my questions in your last post.
Thanks,
Mark
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 5/6/2005 10:23:32 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/5/2005 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
So, do we automatically think that the church fathers were dead on in everything they said? No way. We know they weren't. Further, we know that they adjusted their thinking as time went on, and rightly so. Does this take away from their place in history and of their value to the church's history? Oh, heavens no. WE AREA ALL WORKING OUT OUR THEOLOGY...even as we speak. It took many, many years (indeed several centuries) before just the basics were worked out: The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, etc. The church fathers had to do what you and I are doing, even today: working out our theology. Again, they are to be valued for all the hammering out they did which set the course of theologies on their way, but they by no means had ALL of it it down pat.
Hey Stark,
A quick response to your point about the early church father’s being wrong in much of their thinking, I agree with you. Thanks for the reminder of how man screws up Christianity, no new discovery here, ha Stark. The errors of men might often be an oversight, but the Gospels are full of Jesus correcting, clarifying and explaining his teachings to his disciples. Over and over again we see Jesus not only exposing the errors of his disciples, but even His frustration with them.
A man in process,
Mark Post Edited (sparknheart) : 5/6/2005 10:18:34 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/8/2005 9:24 PM (GMT -6) | |
- God created a perfect world (Genesis 1).
-
Humans were created perfect and in the image of God (Genesis 1:26f).
-
Humans were given freewill.
-
God told humans not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden.
-
Humans were tempted by the serpent (Devil/Satan) to disobey God and as result they ate the forbidden fruit.
-
When 'their eyes were opened' relationships between God, humanity and the world changed forever.
-
God cursed the serpent, the woman and the ground as a result of their disobedience (Genesis 3:14-19).
-
Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden symbolising a broken relationship between humans and God which has lasted today, as have the escalating effects of their disobedience ('For the creation was subject to frustration... We know the whole creation has been groaning... right up to the present time' (Romans 8:20f).
- God did not create anything evil. Evil is a lack of goodness in something.
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 5/10/2005 3:48:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/10/2005 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | | OK, well I confess to not having read the entirety of this thread, I skimmed most of it, but here's my thoughts on natural evil...
- I think the mystery idea is probably a good one to go with, especially given God's reply at the end of Job - we ultimately really don't have much of a clue.
ok....so given that, there seem to be a number of possible reasons
- it's all a freewill thing as Doc suggests, demons are behind it all
- it's still all a freewill thing, but not in quite the same way - the problem of evil exists really only in relation to humans, and initially if there had been no fall then God might have been a lot more intimately involved in their lives shielding them from any natural evil (that's the closest to the creationist picture you're gonna get me coming)
- it's about natural laws and an environment in which mankind can have significant freedom (or in which the creation as a whole can have significant freedom) as Mephi thinks, behind this environment which we encounter here on earth God has some bigger purpose which is totally good and morally sufficient for the conditions which we encounter, perhaps to do with deliberate hiddenness. I guess the environment also must be one in which we can seek after and grown in relationship with God without him being directly there.
- it's more of a calvinist type thing with God wishing us to experience this kind of environment and conditions in order that we may appreciate in reality a different aspect of his character as we see one thing set against something else - maybe combined with a more ahistorical view of the fall (I stick this one in just because I like to cover all my bases and want something to retreat to in case LFW for some reason turns out to be false)
Now, I have no idea whatsoever whether any of these explanations is really entirely satisfactory, which is why I really do think the mystery thing is incredibly important - it's about trusting God, trusting his wisdom and knowing that even if this stuff seems totally unexplainable and weird to us that our minds are nothing in comparison to his, that only he has the wisdom which resulted in creating the earth the way it is, and that he is good.Post Edited (markporter) : 5/10/2005 4:01:14 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 87 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|