Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza wrote a couple commentaries, and I would like to have her commentaries avaliable in the Logos format.
Amen to that. Personally I find feminist theology fasicnating. However, I am of the belief that women should be pastors/etc... so thats probably one reason I am interested in the topic. Never the less, I see Logos becoming a type of digital library but not just for Christian authorship. I would hope that my local library doesn't pick and choose what author/genre to accept based upon their own bias, rather, let me decide whether I am interested in reading the works. I am not comfortable with someone at Logos determining FOR ME what is worthwhile reading which is why I am happy that they continue to broaden their horizons with more works of different genres coming out. Let me the customer decide what I want.
The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience. It was true in the first century, it is still true today Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g., 1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv) If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon. If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23) they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us Alain Alain Maashe wrote the following post at Today 2:56 AM: Thank you, Alain. the entire post is thoughtful and well-written. If I held the view of Scripture many in this forum espouse, I would have abandoned Scripture as an authoritive guide for life long ago. Jack
The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience. It was true in the first century, it is still true today Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g., 1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv) If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon. If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23) they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us Alain
The message of the Pastoral Epistles would be discredited if the letters were found to be a mere forgery, even a pious forgery. Just like an unrepentant adulterer does not have the moral authority to preach against adultery, a habitual liar does not have the moral authority to ask people to have integrity, preach the truth, and keep a good conscience.
It was true in the first century, it is still true today
Mounce states “The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical… It is one thing to write a book and claim someone wrote it (e.g., 1 Enoch , in the name of one who had been dead for thousands of years); it is another to write a personal letter filled with personal and historical references and claim it was written by someone in the recent past” (Pastoral Epistles WBC vol 46, cxxiv)
If pious forgeries were acceptable in the earlier church, none of the church fathers seemed to have received the memo, au contraire, the authenticity of a letter and apostolicity was key for its incorporation into the Canon.
If the Pastoral Epistles are fake, the only consistent position is that of Stanley Porter: they should not be regarded as canonical because they are not Pauline (BBR 6, 105-23)
they would be pious garbage worthy of an equally pious trash can... and the joke would be on us
Alain
Thank you, Alain. the entire post is thoughtful and well-written. If I held the view of Scripture many in this forum espouse, I would have abandoned Scripture as an authoritive guide for life long ago.
I feel the same way Jack. It seems to me even if Satan the devil were tooffer an opinion in this forum he will get a fair hearing. After all noideas/point of view are out of bounds. Oh i forget ,some don't evenbelieve the devil exist and this is what they call scholarship! An excise in unbelief.
Sir T.
4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
Ted,
So are you comparing feminist theology with Satan? I am sure you are not. Many of us here differ with you and others on interpretation and Scripture. Many of us believe in its inspiration as message. Many would consider your view of Scripture to be much more liberal than theirs just as you consider many here more liberal than yours. I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation. By that I am trying to say that just because you disagree with many here on their view of Scripture and who to read or not to read doesn't mean you must question their very faith itself.
I personally find it worthwhile to read all types of authors. I think its worthwhile to read books about Mormon theology, Islamic theology, etc... Why? Not to be able to attack them if I were to have a conversation with them about God but rather to be more educated on why they believe and what it is they believe. I have been that person who would go to my local Christian book store and buy every book on every cult on how to "one up them", what I found was nothing came about except me walking away with a bigger head and them walking away feeling as though they were persecuted for their faith. Nothing good comes out of that. If I can understand feminist theology from a feminist theologian then that allows me to have more to discuss next time I speak to one of them. Perhaps some should cease trying to only use literature to find points where they can attack other religions and viewpoints they disagree with rather than actually learning about what people believe and why.
Just my 2c.
With all due respect, I don't understand this mindset. The mindset that prefers Logos DOESN'T add specific authors/works to their growing library. I would like to see commentaries on the Qu'ran, BOM, etc... It is up to each individual person whether or not they would be interested in purchasing said work. I would brather Logos has every work of every author rather than ignoring certain works of certain authors.
Oh, I don't know. I've been following this thread pretty much from the start and I don't think anybody's expressed that view, have they? Have I missed it?
Maybe you can take a post like the second one in the thread and extrapolate that meaning (intent?) from it but I don't think you can write those suspicions in stone without putting words into the poster's mouth. It's a perfectly valid opinion to express on a suggestions board, isn't it? After all, if Logos is going to consider publishing a certain work they want to weigh the interest, both positive and negative, don't they?
In fact, the topic of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza has generated so much controversy just in this one thread that it might be a signal to Logos that it would be a good work to consider. Controversy is a great seller in the publishing business.
Yours in Christ
John
Ted, So are you comparing feminist theology with Satan? I am sure you are not. Many of us here differ with you and others on interpretation and Scripture. Many of us believe in its inspiration as message. Many would consider your view of Scripture to be much more liberal than theirs just as you consider many here more liberal than yours. I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation. By that I am trying to say that just because you disagree with many here on their view of Scripture and who to read or not to read doesn't mean you must question their very faith itself. I personally find it worthwhile to read all types of authors. I think its worthwhile to read books about Mormon theology, Islamic theology, etc... Why? Not to be able to attack them if I were to have a conversation with them about God but rather to be more educated on why they believe and what it is they believe. I have been that person who would go to my local Christian book store and buy every book on every cult on how to "one up them", what I found was nothing came about except me walking away with a bigger head and them walking away feeling as though they were persecuted for their faith. Nothing good comes out of that. If I can understand feminist theology from a feminist theologian then that allows me to have more to discuss next time I speak to one of them. Perhaps some should cease trying to only use literature to find points where they can attack other religions and viewpoints they disagree with rather than actually learning about what people believe and why. Just my 2c.
"Many" doesn't constitute correct. Me thinks you have many too many's. "Broad is the way and many that enter in......" (Also, "evening & morning" constitute a day in my book, but you've gotta have a lot more faith than I do to believe it evolved.)
Perhaps we should all just have a group hug, create a more tolerant religion, promote a one-world government and hope God didn't really mean all that stuff He said about sin & judgement & salvation. I dunno 'bout you but I am engaged in Spiritual Warfare! No time for compromising.
(I had to turn off the bold text. It was blinding me![:$])
Thank you, Alain. the entire post is thoughtful and well-written. If I held the view of Scripture many in this forum espouse, I would have abandoned Scripture as an authoritive guide for life long ago. Jack
Yes, I agree with you 100%.
Matthew,
Notice that I didn't say the many were correct or incorrect. The assumption of correct was put forward by the individual questioning the faith of those of us who he disagrees with. And to your second point, let me guess, every time you meet someone who is of another faith, you are involved in "spiritual warfare". Personally, I am thankful that I don't see a friend of mine who isn't Christian as an opportunity for "warfare". Also, your dramatization and misrepresentation of my statement portrays you as assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is incorrect which is unfortunate but not surprising with many in the Church today. After all, for many it's if you aren't with me you are against me. The only individual who could truly say this was Jesus....
In fact, the topic of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza has generated so much controversy just in this one thread that it might be a signal to Logos that it would be a good work to consider. Controversy is a great seller in the publishing business. Yours in Christ John
I still wouldn't pay much for it [:P] but I sure wouldn't get upset if it does get published. I thought Liberation Theology had falllen off the oxcart in the early 80's. I imagine Fiorenza is as good a spokesperson as any for the Feminist agenda in modern day Christianity. I'd give $10 for it in Community Pricing. Then I'd put it next to my JW, Mormon, SDA and Baha'i literature.
I still wouldn't pay much for it but I sure wouldn't get upset if it does get published. I thought Liberation Theology had falllen off the oxcart in the early 80's. I imagine Fiorenza is as good a spokesperson as any for the Feminist agenda in modern day Christianity. I'd give $10 for it in Community Pricing. Then I'd put it next to my JW, Mormon, SDA and Baha'i literature.
Yea, that would work [:)]
Matthew, Notice that I didn't say the many were correct or incorrect. The assumption of correct was put forward by the individual questioning the faith of those of us who he disagrees with. And to your second point, let me guess, every time you meet someone who is of another faith, you are involved in "spiritual warfare". Personally, I am thankful that I don't see a friend of mine who isn't Christian as an opportunity for "warfare". Also, your dramatization and misrepresentation of my statement portrays you as assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is incorrect which is unfortunate but not surprising with many in the Church today. After all, for many it's if you aren't with me you are against me. The only individual who could truly say this was Jesus....
Fair enough Alan, you did not say many makes for right. But I did not say I look at people as the enemy either. It is the false doctrine & wrong thinking that comes from, Yes, Satan. That is the enemy.
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV
In fact, the topic of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza has generated so much controversy just in this one thread that it might be a signal to Logos that it would be a good work to consider. Controversy is a great seller in the publishing business. Yours in Christ John I still wouldn't pay much for it but I sure wouldn't get upset if it does get published. I thought Liberation Theology had falllen off the oxcart in the early 80's. I imagine Fiorenza is as good a spokesperson as any for the Feminist agenda in modern day Christianity. I'd give $10 for it in Community Pricing. Then I'd put it next to my JW, Mormon, SDA and Baha'i literature.
When I expressed the opinion that the kooks out there would love Bullinger's Companion Bible, it raised all sorts of controversy with many seeming to think that I was calling them kooks because they wanted it (Note that I didn't say that ONLY kooks would be interested in it nor did I call anyone in this group a kook since I was referring to a particular group headquartered in Gravette, AR). Now when the pendulum has swung from the ultra-conservative to the ultra-left wing at least we arent' getting everyone saying, "Is it me." I suppose that's some progress.
I don't think it is possible to remain unaffected by what you read but we must agree to disagree. I believe all the biblical injunctions to stay away from false teachers and their teaching should be heeded - with the exception of course of wanting to refute their errors so that others will not be misled. Sincere Christians do differ on some issues like Calvinism and Arminianism but on the fundamentals they speak with one voice.
Mine is a sincere attempt to understand scripture i do not sit in judgment on scripture. I wish this was a matter of interpretation but this goes beyond that & finds fault with scripture. Logos are entitle to publish what they want & i as a buyer am entitled to voice my opinion. There is always the option of not buying such a resource if one finds it objectionable.
It will not surprise me if requests for books on the occult, witchcraft etc find their way into Logos. After all the bible speaks of these practices, how can we understand the nature of these practices which we are to avoid & how can we refute it successfully without a true understanding of what it means.[;)]
I am not attacking you as a person, or your faith, just that I disagree with you on the choice of authors / ideologies that you want Logos to publish. You are entitle to want them, Logos is entitle to publish what it wants, my issue is with the ideology! I disagree with the ideology.
I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation.
I am not sure i have made such a claim if so point me to it. What i have said is "I do not make one's view on creation atest of orthodoxy", that Evolution is incompatible with our faith. I do believe in a literal six days creation but not on scientific grounds. If you read me well you will find i said this is "not a scientific question but a theological question". So you have misunderstood my point & charged me falsely. See what i wrote below
Ted HansReplied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 12:35 PM
"Okay MJ, i hear what you are saying & in all honesty i cannotprovide you with the logical questions or answers that arise from a 624 hour days position. The Biblical author did not think inscientific categories and having read all the various views i came tothe conclusion that Moses meant a 24 hour day. That is how those in histime would have understood it and i believe the church'shistoric confession understood it that way. I know many will disagreewith this but to me this is not a scientific question but a theologicalquestion. I am happy that God created the universe - how this fit withscientific discoveries i am not bothered. Though i do rule out any form of evolutionary theoryas incompatible with our faith, I do not make one's view on creation atest of orthodoxy. I may allow for the day age view and the frameworkview but that is how far i will go in my thinking. To me this is atheological and hermeneutical question as opposed to a scientificquestion, nevertheless the scientific evidence can actually go eitherway - evolution certainly has not been 'proved' by science & evenmany non-religious scientists have doubts about evolutionary theory.Sorry Mj the 24hrs view seems persuasive to me if one leaves outscientific question, modern questions of science would not have beenraised when Moses wrote Genesis."
I wish i could be of more help, Kind Regards
Sir T
I still wouldn't pay much for it but I sure wouldn't get upset if it does get published. I thought Liberation Theology had falllen off the oxcart in the early 80's. I imagine Fiorenza is as good a spokesperson as any for the Feminist agenda in modern day Christianity. I'd give $10 for it in Community Pricing. Then I'd put it next to my JW, Mormon, SDA and Baha'i literature. Yea, that would work
Yea, that would work
Agree.
Ted
Now when the pendulum has swung from the ultra-conservative to the ultra-left wing at least we arent' getting everyone saying, "Is it me." I suppose that's some progress.
Yes Dear George,
We have made some progress. Thanks for being patient with us.
I see Logos becoming a type of digital library but not just for Christian authorship. I would hope that my local library doesn't pick and choose what author/genre to accept based upon their own bias, rather, let me decide whether I am interested in reading the works. I am not comfortable with someone at Logos determining FOR ME what is worthwhile reading which is why I am happy that they continue to broaden their horizons with more works of different genres coming out. Let me the customer decide what I want.
Alan, I understad what you are saying but I don't believe Logos should become just another Amazon or Barnes & Noble. The old saying "Dance with the one that brought you." would have Logos company resources dedicated to the furtherance of Biblical studies. There is a finite number of products that can be processed by Logos. It stands to reason supplying the larger customer base of Bible students would be the focus of those resources. While there is definitely profitability in publishig the Harry Potter series it would be a sad use of company resources and put some other title on the back burner. I do see a value ($10) of having Fiorenza's writings. I don't object to their publication. I doubt it makes enough money for Logos to break even. Logos doesn't owe it to minority ideologies (or any group) to publish at a loss.
For the record: I don't use a person's views on creation as a litmus test for fellowship. I don't hold it against you if you have different views. My wife and I don't agree on everything either. [8-)] I do wonder why bother reading a Bible if it is full of fraudulent biased writings.
Ted, So are you comparing feminist theology with Satan? I am sure you are not. Many of us here differ with you and others on interpretation and Scripture. Many of us believe in its inspiration as message. Many would consider your view of Scripture to be much more liberal than theirs just as you consider many here more liberal than yours. I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation. By that I am trying to say that just because you disagree with many here on their view of Scripture and who to read or not to read doesn't mean you must question their very faith itself. I personally find it worthwhile to read all types of authors. I think its worthwhile to read books about Mormon theology, Islamic theology, etc... Why? Not to be able to attack them if I were to have a conversation with them about God but rather to be more educated on why they believe and what it is they believe. I have been that person who would go to my local Christian book store and buy every book on every cult on how to "one up them", what I found was nothing came about except me walking away with a bigger head and them walking away feeling as though they were persecuted for their faith. Nothing good comes out of that. If I can understand feminist theology from a feminist theologian then that allows me to have more to discuss next time I speak to one of them. Perhaps some should cease trying to only use literature to find points where they can attack other religions and viewpoints they disagree with rather than actually learning about what people believe and why. Just my 2c. I don't think it is possible to remain unaffected by what you read but we must agree to disagree. I believe all the biblical injunctions to stay away from false teachers and their teaching should be heeded - with the exception of course of wanting to refute their errors so that others will not be misled. Sincere Christians do differ on some issues like Calvinism and Arminianism but on the fundamentals they speak with one voice. Mine is a sincere attempt to understand scripture i do not sit in judgment on scripture. I wish this was a matter of interpretation but this goes beyond that & finds fault with scripture. Logos are entitle to publish what they want & i as a buyer am entitled to voice my opinion. There is always the option of not buying such a resource if one finds it objectionable. It will not surprise me if requests for books on the occult, witchcraft etc find their way into Logos. After all the bible speaks of these practices, how can we understand the nature of these practices which we are to avoid & how can we refute it successfully without a true understanding of what it means. I am not attacking you as a person, or your faith, just that I disagree with you on the choice of authors / ideologies that you want Logos to publish. You are entitle to want them, Logos is entitle to publish what it wants, my issue is with the ideology! I disagree with the ideology. I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation. I am not sure i have made such a claim if so point me to it. What i have said is "I do not make one's view on creation a test of orthodoxy", that Evolution is incompatible with our faith. I do believe in a literal six days creation but not on scientific grounds. If you read me well you will find i said this is "not a scientific question but a theological question". So you have misunderstood my point & charged me falsely. See what i wrote below Ted Hans Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 12:35 PM "Okay MJ, i hear what you are saying & in all honesty i cannot provide you with the logical questions or answers that arise from a 6 24 hour days position. The Biblical author did not think in scientific categories and having read all the various views i came to the conclusion that Moses meant a 24 hour day. That is how those in his time would have understood it and i believe the church's historic confession understood it that way. I know many will disagree with this but to me this is not a scientific question but a theological question. I am happy that God created the universe - how this fit with scientific discoveries i am not bothered. Though i do rule out any form of evolutionary theory as incompatible with our faith, I do not make one's view on creation a test of orthodoxy. I may allow for the day age view and the framework view but that is how far i will go in my thinking. To me this is a theological and hermeneutical question as opposed to a scientific question, nevertheless the scientific evidence can actually go either way - evolution certainly has not been 'proved' by science & even many non-religious scientists have doubts about evolutionary theory. Sorry Mj the 24hrs view seems persuasive to me if one leaves out scientific question, modern questions of science would not have been raised when Moses wrote Genesis." I wish i could be of more help, Kind Regards Sir T
It will not surprise me if requests for books on the occult, witchcraft etc find their way into Logos. After all the bible speaks of these practices, how can we understand the nature of these practices which we are to avoid & how can we refute it successfully without a true understanding of what it means.
I am not sure i have made such a claim if so point me to it. What i have said is "I do not make one's view on creation a test of orthodoxy", that Evolution is incompatible with our faith. I do believe in a literal six days creation but not on scientific grounds. If you read me well you will find i said this is "not a scientific question but a theological question". So you have misunderstood my point & charged me falsely. See what i wrote below
Ted Hans Replied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 12:35 PM
"Okay MJ, i hear what you are saying & in all honesty i cannot provide you with the logical questions or answers that arise from a 6 24 hour days position. The Biblical author did not think in scientific categories and having read all the various views i came to the conclusion that Moses meant a 24 hour day. That is how those in his time would have understood it and i believe the church's historic confession understood it that way. I know many will disagree with this but to me this is not a scientific question but a theological question. I am happy that God created the universe - how this fit with scientific discoveries i am not bothered. Though i do rule out any form of evolutionary theory as incompatible with our faith, I do not make one's view on creation a test of orthodoxy. I may allow for the day age view and the framework view but that is how far i will go in my thinking. To me this is a theological and hermeneutical question as opposed to a scientific question, nevertheless the scientific evidence can actually go either way - evolution certainly has not been 'proved' by science & even many non-religious scientists have doubts about evolutionary theory. Sorry Mj the 24hrs view seems persuasive to me if one leaves out scientific question, modern questions of science would not have been raised when Moses wrote Genesis."
If I was about to accuse you of shameless mind reading [:D], your post is exactly what I wanted t say on the issues. I guess I will just "blame" the Holy Spirit who forms His will in our hearts and leads us to the knowledge of the truth
Very good point of the fact that we are affected one way or the other by what we read, it is not just an academic/intellectual exercise, it is a spiritual matter and many have met their ruin by carelessly venturing in the “deep things of Satan” that often masquerade as scholarly knowledge.
I cannot image Paul asking believers to learn from the neighbourhood heretic in order to be intellectually enriched or stimulated
Nice to see a fellow “young earther” on the preponderance of the exegetical evidence, I too agree that is not a theological Silobeth (not to say that the doctrine does not have important theological ramifications in both testaments)
It is already refreshing to read from you, now if only I could have your patience with George …[;)]
It is already refreshing to read from you, now if only I could have your patience with George …
I don't want your patience. I want your mind and heart.
Now, you will agree, you will agree. Say, "Yes, George." [:D]
"Okay MJ, i hear what you are saying & in all honesty i cannot provide you with the logical questions or answers that arise from a 6 24 hour days position. The Biblical author did not think in scientific categories and having read all the various views i came to the conclusion that Moses meant a 24 hour day.
Sir T, Sir.
I hope I didn't misrepresent myself as one who does not believe in the literal 6 day creation. I DO believe God is perfectly capable of creating anything He chooses in any time span He so desires. His word says 6 days so I accept that. If I am wrong about my understanding, it wouldn't be the first time. I just think God means what He says and says what He means.
Matthew, Notice that I didn't say the many were correct or incorrect. The assumption of correct was put forward by the individual questioning the faith of those of us who he disagrees with. And to your second point, let me guess, every time you meet someone who is of another faith, you are involved in "spiritual warfare". Personally, I am thankful that I don't see a friend of mine who isn't Christian as an opportunity for "warfare". Also, your dramatization and misrepresentation of my statement portrays you as assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is incorrect which is unfortunate but not surprising with many in the Church today. After all, for many it's if you aren't with me you are against me. The only individual who could truly say this was Jesus.... Fair enough Alan, you did not say many makes for right. But I did not say I look at people as the enemy either. It is the false doctrine & wrong thinking that comes from, Yes, Satan. That is the enemy. "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV
Greetings Matthew,
Correct, you didn't say that you see people as enemies, however, from my own experience the thinking that we are constantly 24/7 in spiritual warefare with everyone, that is basically a "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality. While that is true for many, I have seen some who use that mentality as an excuse to throw stones rather than to truly love the person. Again, not saying that you do that, rather its just something that I have experienced in my own life.
Ted, So are you comparing feminist theology with Satan? I am sure you are not. Many of us here differ with you and others on interpretation and Scripture. Many of us believe in its inspiration as message. Many would consider your view of Scripture to be much more liberal than theirs just as you consider many here more liberal than yours. I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation. By that I am trying to say that just because you disagree with many here on their view of Scripture and who to read or not to read doesn't mean you must question their very faith itself. I personally find it worthwhile to read all types of authors. I think its worthwhile to read books about Mormon theology, Islamic theology, etc... Why? Not to be able to attack them if I were to have a conversation with them about God but rather to be more educated on why they believe and what it is they believe. I have been that person who would go to my local Christian book store and buy every book on every cult on how to "one up them", what I found was nothing came about except me walking away with a bigger head and them walking away feeling as though they were persecuted for their faith. Nothing good comes out of that. If I can understand feminist theology from a feminist theologian then that allows me to have more to discuss next time I speak to one of them. Perhaps some should cease trying to only use literature to find points where they can attack other religions and viewpoints they disagree with rather than actually learning about what people believe and why. Just my 2c. I don't think it is possible to remain unaffected by what you read but we must agree to disagree. I believe all the biblical injunctions to stay away from false teachers and their teaching should be heeded - with the exception of course of wanting to refute their errors so that others will not be misled. Sincere Christians do differ on some issues like Calvinism and Arminianism but on the fundamentals they speak with one voice. Mine is a sincere attempt to understand scripture i do not sit in judgment on scripture. I wish this was a matter of interpretation but this goes beyond that & finds fault with scripture. Logos are entitle to publish what they want & i as a buyer am entitled to voice my opinion. There is always the option of not buying such a resource if one finds it objectionable. It will not surprise me if requests for books on the occult, witchcraft etc find their way into Logos. After all the bible speaks of these practices, how can we understand the nature of these practices which we are to avoid & how can we refute it successfully without a true understanding of what it means. I am not attacking you as a person, or your faith, just that I disagree with you on the choice of authors / ideologies that you want Logos to publish. You are entitle to want them, Logos is entitle to publish what it wants, my issue is with the ideology! I disagree with the ideology. I personally don't believe that one must believe in a literal seven day creation in order for the scripture itself to be true. Why? I don't see the author as trying to explain a scientific point by point diseration on how we came about. Many would differ with me, however, I would hope that my faith in Christ wouldn't be questioned just because I question the seven day theory of creation. I am not sure i have made such a claim if so point me to it. What i have said is "I do not make one's view on creation atest of orthodoxy", that Evolution is incompatible with our faith. I do believe in a literal six days creation but not on scientific grounds. If you read me well you will find i said this is "not a scientific question but a theological question". So you have misunderstood my point & charged me falsely. See what i wrote below Ted HansReplied: Mon, Jul 6 2009 12:35 PM "Okay MJ, i hear what you are saying & in all honesty i cannotprovide you with the logical questions or answers that arise from a 624 hour days position. The Biblical author did not think inscientific categories and having read all the various views i came tothe conclusion that Moses meant a 24 hour day. That is how those in histime would have understood it and i believe the church'shistoric confession understood it that way. I know many will disagreewith this but to me this is not a scientific question but a theologicalquestion. I am happy that God created the universe - how this fit withscientific discoveries i am not bothered. Though i do rule out any form of evolutionary theoryas incompatible with our faith, I do not make one's view on creation atest of orthodoxy. I may allow for the day age view and the frameworkview but that is how far i will go in my thinking. To me this is atheological and hermeneutical question as opposed to a scientificquestion, nevertheless the scientific evidence can actually go eitherway - evolution certainly has not been 'proved' by science & evenmany non-religious scientists have doubts about evolutionary theory.Sorry Mj the 24hrs view seems persuasive to me if one leaves outscientific question, modern questions of science would not have beenraised when Moses wrote Genesis." I wish i could be of more help, Kind Regards Sir T
Interesting that you bring up the point about disagreeing on such issues as Calvinism and Arminiasm and then state "on the fundamentals they speak with one voice", For many the question of Calvinism and Arminiasm are fundamental to whether one is truly saved or not. Which goes to the heart of my statement. For you issues on Calvinism and Arminiasm are not essential for salvation, while for others they are. For me, issues on whether one believes in theistic evolution or a 6 day literal creation isn't essential for salvation but for others it is. Regarding the creation account, I wasn't trying to infer anything about you but was rather just using it as an example. I apologize if I wasn't more clear on that.
Here is what it comes down to for me. I use to attend a congregation that doesn't beleive in instrumental music, miraculous gifts of the spirit as taking place today, etc... The elders of the congregation made it clear to us that in their opinion if one used instruments in worship then they believed that person was going to hell. For many, that would be crazy and offensive. The same goes with many evangelicals belief that one cannot believe that homosexuality isn't sinful, that evolution is correct, and still be considered a true Christian. That somehow a belief in these ideas is truly anathema. I am not saying to accept everyone and everything as true but rather my goal is to speak with those that I disagree with not for the sole purpose to "convert them" but rather to truly have dialogue, listen to them, get to know them. I have friends who are atheists, agnostic, jewish, etc... If I was to simply tell them everything that I believe, ask them to read books regarding my faith and not be open to read about their belief or lack there of, how is that fair? I personally believe that it would do many Christians good to read books on atheism, why? Not to destroy their faith or to use as amunition but to truly understand why a person accepts atheism. I am not saying an individual who just came to the faith should do this but those who are more experienced in the faith? Yes.
I personally believe that it would do many Christians good to read books on atheism, why? Not to destroy their faith or to use as amunition but to truly understand why a person accepts atheism. I am not saying an individual who just came to the faith should do this but those who are more experienced in the faith? Yes.
Socrates drank his hemlock to his demise. Many Christians take in poison to their own hurt. Even King Solomon suffered for taking pagan wives. I agree new Christians should not entertain false teachings. Even mature Christians should handle it as a dangerous thing. Study for the sake of amusement can have a bad result. Study for the recognition of falsehood may be worthwhile. Still, the Secret Service & banks tell us the best way to recognize counterfeit currency is to become intimately familiar with the real thing. If we know God's Word, we won't fall for the lies.
Sir T, Sir. I hope I didn't misrepresent myself as one who does not believe in the literal 6 day creation. I DO believe God is perfectly capable of creating anything He chooses in any time span He so desires. His word says 6 days so I accept that. If I am wrong about my understanding, it wouldn't be the first time. I just think God means what He says and says what He means.
Hi Matthew,
My post was referencing my exchange with MJ Eshelman-smith (MJ. Smith) on Mon, Jul 6 2009 12:35 PM. Sorry for the confusion i should have made that much clearer.
I see it now, you are also MJ not that you would want for yourself or advocate that Logos should have some dancing shoes[8] (I hope you are not offended i am aware of your condition)
I do believe as you do, in the 24hrs literal days of Genesis one and i never have been convinced by the various views "day age" or "framework view". I am no trained scientist so i cannot comment on the merit of the science or the scientific evidence but i am with you wholeheartedly in your stance.
PS sorry could not respond much earlier because of the time gap between the US & UK(London)
Hello Ted, I really appreciate your way of reasoning. On the 6 day creation I am not dogmatic however, although I have no problem with it. What is your opinion on the lecture in Logos Lecture series http://www.logos.com/lecture of Dr. John Walton, Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology? To me it looks as a really good point of view and right approach. On the other hand it is true God means what He says and can do what He says. There is no question about that. The question to me is, if He really wanted us to know a scientific course of creation from that chapter or other things (what is the argument of Dr. Walton). I really do not have a strong opinion on that. I used to have however [:)]
I do believe as you do, in the 24hrs literal days of Genesis one and i never have been convinced by the various views "day age" or "framework view". I am no trained scientist so i cannot comment on the merit of the science or the scientific evidence but i am with you wholeheartedly in your stance. Hello Ted, I really appreciate your way of reasoning. On the 6 day creation I am not dogmatic however, although I have no problem with it. What is your opinion on the lecture in Logos Lecture series http://www.logos.com/lecture of Dr. John Walton, Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology? To me it looks as a really good point of view and right approach. On the other hand it is true God means what He says and can do what He says. There is no question about that. The question to me is, if He really wanted us to know a scientific course of creation from that chapter or other things (what is the argument of Dr. Walton). I really do not have a strong opinion on that. I used to have however
Hello Ted, I really appreciate your way of reasoning. On the 6 day creation I am not dogmatic however, although I have no problem with it. What is your opinion on the lecture in Logos Lecture series http://www.logos.com/lecture of Dr. John Walton, Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology? To me it looks as a really good point of view and right approach. On the other hand it is true God means what He says and can do what He says. There is no question about that. The question to me is, if He really wanted us to know a scientific course of creation from that chapter or other things (what is the argument of Dr. Walton). I really do not have a strong opinion on that. I used to have however
From one European to another who both love George. I appreciate some of his(Dr. John Walton) insights, using his understanding of Ancient Near Eastern religion as background he makes some very interesting points. However my good friend, i remain unconvinced by his overall proposal. On my book list to read, is his new book called "The lost world of Genesis one" which has good points on how to reconcile light being present before the creation of the sun on day four.( I am sure George will love this book, a lot of Ancient Near Eastern stuff)
My view leaving the science to one side is represented well by my favourite living preacher John Macarthur The Battles for the beginning. Sorry can't write much, work calls upon me.
PS My Charismatic friend can we have some interpretation to the tongue speaking in your website? I tried visiting your website and it was in a foreign tongue & i am sure Paul the Apostle spoke of the need of interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14[:D]
From one European to another who both love George. I appreciate some of his(Dr. John Walton) insights, using his understanding of Ancient Near Eastern religion as background he makes some very interesting points. However my good friend, i remain unconvinced by his overall proposal. On my book list to read, is his new book called "The lost world of Genesis one" which has good points on how to reconcile light being present before the creation of the sun on day four.( I am sure George will love this book, a lot of Ancient Near Eastern stuff) My view leaving the science to one side is represented well by my favourite living preacher John Macarthur The Battles for the beginning. Sorry can't write much, work calls upon me. Ted PS My Charismatic friend can we have some interpretation to the tongue speaking in your website? I tried visiting your website and it was in a foreign tongue & i am sure Paul the Apostle spoke of the need of interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14
PS My Charismatic friend can we have some interpretation to the tongue speaking in your website? I tried visiting your website and it was in a foreign tongue & i am sure Paul the Apostle spoke of the need of interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14
Thank you Ted for your well balanced answer. I need to study the subject more, I think.
P.S. To categorize our denomination properly, you would not call it Charismatic, but Classical Pentecostal [H] By the way, although we are part of the Assemblies of God World Fellowship, our denomination exists since 1910 (AoG since 1914) so we are older and it started as a revival in the Lutheran church. The revival had two streams from the beginning. One was more traditional evangelical and the other one have had more Pentecostal experience. We have very good relationships these days.
I am sorry for you not being blessed with the gift of the interpretation to understand our web site [:)] But seriously, we plan to have also English site, but I estimate, the Millennium might start earlier that our English web site (if you believe in the Millennium, I rather am not asking our mutual Friend George, just to make sure we do not start a new controversy here [:)] )
It is nice by the way to know, that not all of you guys are on the other side of the ocean. God bless you Ted and have a great day.
I personally believe that it would do many Christians good to read books on atheism, why? Not to destroy their faith or to use as amunition but to truly understand why a person accepts atheism. I am not saying an individual who just came to the faith should do this but those who are more experienced in the faith? Yes. Socrates drank his hemlock to his demise. Many Christians take in poison to their own hurt. Even King Solomon suffered for taking pagan wives. I agree new Christians should not entertain false teachings. Even mature Christians should handle it as a dangerous thing. Study for the sake of amusement can have a bad result. Study for the recognition of falsehood may be worthwhile. Still, the Secret Service & banks tell us the best way to recognize counterfeit currency is to become intimately familiar with the real thing. If we know God's Word, we won't fall for the lies.
Well said Matthew, a thousand times well said!
Every Blessings,
Regarding your comment about "which has good points on how to reconcile light being present before the creation of the sun on day four": Have you considered that the statement in Genesis 1:3 may not be speaking of literal light but that this statement is actually a theological declaration of primary importance? With all due respect to those who trend toward the hyperliteral interpretation of Scripture, "light" has often been used as a metaphor for knowledge/understanding (even in English) and may possibly be the intent here. Think about it for a second. The first act of the Creation (Framework hypothesis aside) was the pronouncement that there would be light. Was God stumbling around in the dark and **needed** to turn some lights on so he could see? Of course not. Then why would light necessarily be the first act of creation? Perhaps the statement is loaded with far greater meaning. If so, then the first pronouncement is that He has declared that He will be known/understood by those whom He is about to create. In other words, He will NOT be a God who is unknowable or cannot be found by His people. I leave it to any interested readers to study the concept of "knowledge" in the Scriptures in order to see how preeminent it is. God is very concerned that His people learn, know, and understand Him (correctly, I might add). "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me" "And they shall be taught of God" "I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, that you may know ..." etc.
In fact, just to add the final touch to my interpretation of Gen 1:3, isn't this exactly the way that the Apostle interprets the verse when he says, "For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."?
Sorry (sort of) for the off topic.
Oh, pitty me ! I'm so insecure in my beliefs that I dare not look at anything which doesn't agree with my position (BTW: How did I come to this position in the first place?). Geesh ! What a bunch of namby pambies that you can't read anything which differs from your own position for fear of being contaminated. What you're really saying is that you don't want to think, you only want to be indoctrinated. Grow up !
Ted, Regarding your comment about "which has good points on how to reconcile light being present before the creation of the sun on day four": Have you considered that the statement in Genesis 1:3 may not be speaking of literal light but that this statement is actually a theological declaration of primary importance? With all due respect to those who trend toward the hyperliteral interpretation of Scripture, "light" has often been used as a metaphor for knowledge/understanding (even in English) and may possibly be the intent here. Think about it for a second. The first act of the Creation (Framework hypothesis aside) was the pronouncement that there would be light. Was God stumbling around in the dark and **needed** to turn some lights on so he could see? Of course not. Then why would light necessarily be the first act of creation? Perhaps the statement is loaded with far greater meaning. If so, then the first pronouncement is that He has declared that He will be known/understood by those whom He is about to create. In other words, He will NOT be a God who is unknowable or cannot be found by His people. I leave it to any interested readers to study the concept of "knowledge" in the Scriptures in order to see how preeminent it is. God is very concerned that His people learn, know, and understand Him (correctly, I might add). "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me" "And they shall be taught of God" "I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, that you may know ..." etc. In fact, just to add the final touch to my interpretation of Gen 1:3, isn't this exactly the way that the Apostle interprets the verse when he says, "For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."? Sorry (sort of) for the off topic.
It was not my intention to begin a conversation on creation but to correct what i thought was a misrepresentation of my position on the matter. I have considered what you & others have said on the subject. I respectfully remain unconvinced. Good Christian who believe the bible to be the inerrant/infallible word of God differ on this, so the reason for my earlier statement that i do not consider one's view on creation a test of orthodoxy. I do believe that Genesis one refers to six literal days but others do not, like "the day age view" or the "Framework view" but evolution i think is in a different category, i do not believe it is a valid Christian option.
I can see the potential of this conversation getting out of hand b/cos of my comments that i do rule out all forms of evolution but i appreciate you raising the above question with me on "lights". I shall bow out from the Creation debate, in the end we must agree to disagree on this. It was not my intention to start a creation debate.
Oh, pitty me ! I'm so insecure in my beliefs that I dare not look at anything which doesn't agree with my position
George
Maybe you should have a strict diet for the next six months, no red wine and only read the KJV [H]
But seriously no matter how wrong we believe some views are we should not ask or encourage Logos to become censors and limit what is available. Logos should endeavour to publish as much Bible related material as they can so that we can have as big or small a library as we want with a vast array of views available for those who want it.
Anyway keeping it out of Logos does not keep it out of the bookshops so we are actually discussing material that is already out there and available.
No objection here to Logos publishing it. But it would be a shame to underwrite a non-profitable proposition at the expense of something worth having. Anybody want to raise the price of NICOT/ICNT so we can start a charity division to cover alternative viewpoints? I have clamoured for a few years as to the lack of Japanese Bible texts in Logos. Would anyone pay more for your preferred titles to help underwrite my wish list? Nobody is asking for Logos to censor our reading. They apparently already cover same-sex marriage in two chapters of a resource. (You gotta find it yourself, I'm not promoting it.[:|] I am sure Logos has a mission statement somewhere. I imagine it is a little more Bible-centric than the Libronix mission statement.
it would be a shame to underwrite a non-profitable proposition at the expense of something worth having.
No danger of that as Logos' policy is not to publish anything until the costs are covered by the pre publication commitments. I know that some of the publishers also produce resources for Logos but I doubt that any of them would want to heavily subsidise anything.
They apparently already cover same-sex marriage in two chapters of a resource.
Well Paul covered same sex relationships in his letters based on your context though I get the impression that the chapter that you refer to proposes something that differs from Paul's teaching on the subject.
I personally believe that it would do many Christians good to read books on atheism, why? Not to destroy their faith or to use as amunition but to truly understand why a person accepts atheism. I am not saying an individual who just came to the faith should do this but those who are more experienced in the faith? Yes. Socrates drank his hemlock to his demise. Many Christians take in poison to their own hurt. Even King Solomon suffered for taking pagan wives. I agree new Christians should not entertain false teachings. Even mature Christians should handle it as a dangerous thing. Study for the sake of amusement can have a bad result. Study for the recognition of falsehood may be worthwhile. Still, the Secret Service & banks tell us the best way to recognize counterfeit currency is to become intimately familiar with the real thing. If we know God's Word, we won't fall for the lies. Oh, pitty me ! I'm so insecure in my beliefs that I dare not look at anything which doesn't agree with my position (BTW: How did I come to this position in the first place?). Geesh ! What a bunch of namby pambies that you can't read anything which differs from your own position for fear of being contaminated. What you're really saying is that you don't want to think, you only want to be indoctrinated. Grow up !
Exactly. Its this mindset that exists in the Jehovah's Witnesses. They tell their flock to ONLY read what the faithful and discreet slave puts out. Don't read anything that conflicts with their teachings or that might challenge their beliefs. I am not saying Matthew that you are doing this. What I am saying is that Paul was well aware of what his peers believed regarding Greco Roman religion, mystery cults, etc... He also used that during his preaching. We live in a country in which atheism is becoming more prominent and I believe we do ourselves and the church a disservice when we choose to ignore what atheists believe and why they believe it. It is hypocritical for us to ask others to read our material and we refuse to read theirs. As George said, are we so insequre in what we believe that we cannot handle reading challenges to our faith? God forbid.
Oh, pitty me ! I'm so insecure in my beliefs that I dare not look at anything which doesn't agree with my position (BTW: How did I come to this position in the first place?). Geesh ! What a bunch of namby pambies that you can't read anything which differs from your own position for fear of being contaminated. What you're really saying is that you don't want to think, you only want to be indoctrinated. Grow up ! George, i have asked this previously on this thread why don't you take you own advice? Read books from the Evangelical perspective! No one has said on this thread one should not read "anything" which differs from one's own position? There are different view on baptism, Lord's table, eschatology, creation, AV only, divorce, Rapture, millennium, Women in ministry, Arminian/Calvinism etc. Which we should all read, just thought we should not be misrepresented.Sir T.
Not to hijack this question Ted but I assume that George has already read many books on the Evangelical perspect as he use to be one if I am correct. Same with me. I spent a few years with the Church of Christ and then went on to non denominational churches who considered themselves evangelical. I attended an evangelical seminary for my MDiv. You assume that just because a few of us support reading books on other religions/viewpoints that we don't read books on evangelical viewpoints. I personally think its important for many in the evangelical community to read books on the homosexuality question, on women in ministry, the person of God, not to mention second temple literature, and many other topics. However this doesn't mean that one cannot also spend time reading about what Islam truly believes, why atheists deny the existence of God (and not doing so from a Christian viewpoint), etc...
Hi Alan,
George understands what i am getting at and i am not making any assumptions about anyone. I know what George has written in the Newsgroup, and my brotherly/friendly dialogue with him on this matter previously. I would not say that to you, even if it were true b/cos of possible misunderstanding (i have not built a history with you) .George does not suffer fools gladly so i would no dare to make such a remark if i thought he would take it the wrong way. This is private between George & myself. I am sure he is laughing at this, seeing me having to defend my challenge to him to read Evangelical stuff. You just spoilt my good plan Alan, i may never get another chance
However i must say this of you, you do put across you point of view in a gracious manner much appreciated. No harm was intended in my exchange so no should be taken.
I am not afraid of golf either but wouldn't give a minute of my time or your sack of donut holes to play a round. Some things, like soka gakkai, are not worth my time or attention. If I decide it is, I pursue it. The lion doesn't chase every zebra on the Serengeti, just the one he's interested in.
Oh, btw George, Did you notice you DID change your views? Now would you have done that without reading anything? I'm not saying you shouldn't read. I am saying keep on reading. You may some day come to see it my way.[<:o)] I have adjusted my course over the years. and will continue to do so as needed.
Not to hijack this question Ted but I assume that George has already read many books on the Evangelical perspect as he use to be one if I am correct. Same with me. I spent a few years with the Church of Christ and then went on to non denominational churches who considered themselves evangelical. I attended an evangelical seminary for my MDiv. You assume that just because a few of us support reading books on other religions/viewpoints that we don't read books on evangelical viewpoints. I personally think its important for many in the evangelical community to read books on the homosexuality question, on women in ministry, the person of God, not to mention second temple literature, and many other topics. However this doesn't mean that one cannot also spend time reading about what Islam truly believes, why atheists deny the existence of God (and not doing so from a Christian viewpoint), etc... Hi Alan, George understands what i am getting at and i am not making any assumptions about anyone. I know what George has written in the Newsgroup, and my brotherly/friendly dialogue with him on this matter previously. I would not say that to you, even if it were true b/cos of possible misunderstanding (i have not built a history with you) .George does not suffer fools gladly so i would no dare to make such a remark if i thought he would take it the wrong way. This is private between George & myself. I am sure he is laughing at this, seeing me having to defend my challenge to him to read Evangelical stuff. You just spoilt my good plan Alan, i may never get another chance However i must say this of you, you do put across you point of view in a gracious manner much appreciated. No harm was intended in my exchange so no should be taken. Sir T.
Darn, I always seem to be spoiling ones plans! Well, perhaps you and I can discuss off the group a way to create another opportunity to dig a trap for George and then string him up lol. BTW, I truly enjoy these discussions so I never take anything offensively and hope that I don't offend anyone with my words. If I have or do please accept my apologies in advance.
But it would be a shame to underwrite a non-profitable proposition at the expense of something worth having. Anybody want to raise the price of NICOT/ICNT so we can start a charity division to cover alternative viewpoints?
I believe Logos operates on a case by case basis -- meaning that each offering must at least show that it can break even or preferably make a profit. Your question regarding opening a charity division for unprofitable offerings is thus a straw man. You should refrain from making arguments you know to be untrue.
George, i have asked this previously on this thread why don't you take you own advice? Read books from the Evangelical perspective!
What precisely makes you think that I don't? Been there, done that.
George, i have asked this previously on this thread why don't you take you own advice? Read books from the Evangelical perspective! What precisely makes you think that I don't? Been there, done that.
You caught me out on this one, this time - thanks to Alan. I am not speaking of the past i mean presently - read an Evangelical book now[;)]
I'm not saying you shouldn't read. I am saying keep on reading. You may some day come to see it my way.
I might say that I'll do that when that proverbial warm place gets icy, but there is a town by that name in Michigan so that won't work. You still get the idea.
I'm not saying you shouldn't read. I am saying keep on reading. You may some day come to see it my way. I might say that I'll do that when that proverbial warm place gets icy, but there is a town by that name in Michigan so that won't work. You still get the idea.
Ha,ha,ha i knew you would come up with such a line. Thanks, i shall chat to you on another front later.
I am not speaking of the past i mean presently - read an Evangelical book now
Then I might need to disinfect my eyeballs. [;)] Besides, I read your posts, don't I? [:D]
Well said Matthew. Thank you. I really like your lion - zebra example [Y] That is exactly my point in the matter. It is the thing of priority, not being afraid of being poisoned, although I am grown up enough to know you can burn your fingers... so we have to be alert. I believe Bible teaches there are false spirits behind some teachings so we should be cautious. If I need to read something, I do. But I usually don't encourage others to do that without any reservation. I am pastor, I have seen some guys go astray. I believe by the way, there is a margin in the Religion, there is a margin in the Christianity itself. It looks to me sometimes some guys would like to put everything and anything together. Yes, I study Second Temple Judaism and world. It is very vital for me to understand the central teachings of Jesus and Apostles. Yes, I study about Islam to understand current situation, we have had some great conferences on the subject with the top speakers. But after being in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. you do not need to be Einstein to figure out the basic and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. It is not 2 ways the same direction to heaven, it is not.
We live very short lives on this earth and we have to make sure we use it properly, also in reading. Also Logos has a limited time and there are so many good things to be published. It is a matter of priority. Nobody needs to be afraid also about our contact with the atheists. We have a few of them here in Czech [:)] and you have a few of them in the US also. There was a period in my life I had really many discussions with them. What helped me really well was to know God and his dealing with men. Some time ago I preached the sermon with 2 points: (1) Those know the purposes of God who walk closely with God. (2) Those know the purposes of Satan who walk closely with... God. You don't need to walk closely with Satan to know him well. Thank you again Matthew for your great comment and also to Ted and many others. I respect the opposite opinion, even given with that typical "spicy" way of George. I think it makes this forum interesting and also very educative. Have a great day.
I am not speaking of the past i mean presently - read an Evangelical book now Then I might need to disinfect my eyeballs. Besides, I read your posts, don't I?
Then I might need to disinfect my eyeballs. Besides, I read your posts, don't I?
Now George when did you become Moses?[:D] Soon you will be parting the red sea in this forum[6]
No, George, I do not fear that I will be contaminated by reading someone whose beliefs differ from mine. I am more concerned with wasting valuable time. Beside, many of their arguments actually bore me.
However, I do read other viewpoints when I believe there is some benefit there. As far as the original post that started this thread, I do not care if Logos publishes material from such viewpoints. I do not have to buy them.
Jack
Some time ago I preached the sermon with 2 points: (1) Those know the purposes of God who walk closely with God. (2) Those know the purposes of Satan who walk closely with... God. You don't need to walk closely with Satan to know him well.
Bohuslav,
Tsk, tsk. Didn't anyone ever tell you that every sermon should have 3 points? [;)] Also, don't forget that you're supposed to 1) tell them what you're going to tell them 2) tell them 3) tell them what you told them. [:D]
We live very short lives on this earth and we have to make sure we use it properly, also in reading. Also Logos has a limited time and there are so many good things to be published. It is a matter of priority. Nobody needs to be afraid also about our contact with the atheists. We have a few of them here in Czech and you have a few of them in the US also. There was a period in my life I had really many discussions with them. What helped me really well was to know God and his dealing with men. Some time ago I preached the sermon with 2 points: (1) Those know the purposes of God who walk closely with God. (2) Those know the purposes of Satan who walk closely with... God. You don't need to walk closely with Satan to know him well. Thank you again Matthew for your great comment and also to Ted and many others. I respect the opposite opinion, even given with that typical "spicy" way of George. I think it makes this forum interesting and also very educative. Have a great day.
Good post Bohuslav, have you noticed that our friend has changed his Avatar to Moses?[H]
I did a "Speed Search" in Logos and here are the results (I did not post every scripture returned, feel free to rerun the search and correct any oversights):
The searches:
1. Seek good:
1 Chronicles 28:88 Now therefore in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of the Lord, and in the hearing of our God, observe and seek out all the commandments of the Lord your God, that you may possess this good land and leave it for an inheritance to your children after you forever.
Ezra 8:22, 2322 For I was ashamed to ask the king for a band of soldiers and horsemen to protect us against the enemy on our way, since we had told the king, "The hand of our God is for good on all who seek him, and the power of his wrath is against all who forsake him." 23 So we fasted and implored our God for this, and he listened to our entreaty.
Psalm 34:1010 The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing.
Psalm 34:1414 Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.
Proverbs 11:2727Whoever diligently seeks good seeks favor, but evil comes to him who searches for it.
Lamentations 3:2525The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
Amos 5:1414 Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said. 15 Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice ?in the gate; ?it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
2. What is good
Psalm 52:33 You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right. Selah
Isaiah 55:22 Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Matthew 13:2323 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."
Matthew 19:1717 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. ?If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
1 Thessalonians 5:21, 2221 but ?test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
1 Peter 3:1313 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?
3. Seek Evil:
2 Chronicles 12:1414 And he did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord.
Psalm 34:1414 Turn away from evil and do good;seek peace and ?pursue it.
Proverbs 17:1111An evil man seeks only rebellion, and ?a cruel messenger will be sent against him.
Proverbs 28:55Evil men ?do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord ?understand it completely.
God bless you and keep youKen
