[asa] I can't take it any more (was (Re: Where are the dear departed? (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation))

All this agreement has just got to stop before this list degenerates into a respectful and constructive exchange of views.

COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE START A FLAME WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Hi Pastor Murray- I probably agree with most of what you say. I also find the letter to the 7 churches very insightful and beneficial for reflection.
>
> You say:
> " I have no doubt that Paul means EXACTLY what he says - and, if I read NT Wright right (right?), even he says as much in his discussion on Phil 1 in "The Resurrection of the Son of God". But Wright points out that in Philippians Paul ALSO discusses the resurrection as a future event - which just leaves me scratching my head, I have to say. I guess that one MIGHT make the point that one could, for instance, "depart and be with my parents" without suggesting an instantaneous relocation. But this wouldn't work here, would it?"
>
> Maybe Paul was confused like the rest of us. Maybe if they (disciples) knew exactly what was to happen, they would have wrote about it. Instead they just give glimpses of some aspect here or there... so instead, they write on weightier issues- like right-living and right-thinking... reform from sin. That part is easier to understand!
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:26 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: Where are the dear departed? (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation)
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> Well, much in the below we DO agree on. One of my acquaintances here likes to speak of "simplicity this side of complexity" as opposed to "simplicity the other side of complexity". He basically means that the Bible (more to the point _GOD_) is complex, and that most people are turned off by that complexity, prefering instead to plumb for a simple explanation. But he also wants to suggest that if one DOES tackle the complexities then at some point one breaks through to an understanding that it isn't really all that difficult to grasp. I think he's sort of right, except that every time I think I've broken through the complexity to find simplicity I then find that there's MORE complexity to deal with.
>
> It's fortunate God's grace is simple (in a complex kinda way)!
>
> I have no doubt that Paul means EXACTLY what he says - and, if I read NT Wright right (right?), even he says as much in his discussion on Phil 1 in "The Resurrection of the Son of God". But Wright points out that in Philippians Paul ALSO discusses the resurrection as a future event - which just leaves me scratching my head, I have to say. I guess that one MIGHT make the point that one could, for instance, "depart and be with my parents" without suggesting an instantaneous relocation. But this wouldn't work here, would it? I'll have to give it a bit more reflection.
>
> My acquaintance, by the way, is ALSO keen on talking about "complexity this side of simplicity" - meaning that sometimes we make thinks more complex than they really are.
>
> Just one brief remark on Revelations, I largely agree with what you say but with one additional observation: have you ever noticed how the opening of the book speaks of the blessedness of the one who "keeps the words of this book" (1:3)? I think it very helpful to remember that Revelations is asking us to DO something - which point is often lost. And I suspect this is why the seven letters to the seven churches are so often overlooked in favor of end-time speculations. With this in mind, I'd suggest that one CAN build theology on revelation - but the primary theme ought to be Christian faithfulness in the face of the temptations of this world (whether the temptation to pursue riches or escape suffering by abandoning faith) rather than drawing a "road map" of end-time events. Other than that, I agree that not a few aspects of Revelations should be very cautiously appropriated. For me the 1000 year reign of Christ is, indeed, one of these and I wonder if you've reflected on
 
th
>
>
>
> e way Paul introduces biblical principle of "by two or three witnesses let every word be established" in this connection - see 1 Cor 13:1? Personally, I think building major doctrines on one passage of Scripture is, at the least, risky!
>
> I'll only add that while I like to emphasize that we're called to "keep" the teachings of Revelation, thinking of it as a book of devotion and encouragement - well, that works for me too!
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> Pastor Murray said:
>> " I'll close by merely reiterating - and I here direct this remark to Merv more than Bernie: it's all well and good throwing out a bunch of passages as a challenge to MY position - but please think of what you're actually asserting in doing so."
>>
>> I think it is like a lot of things in the Bible- contradictory and unclear. Usually to have a strong position in an theological argument, you have to throw out some verses one way or the other. The other option is to keep all verses and twist the "hell" out of them, so to speak ;-)
>>
>> When Paul says that if he departs he will be with Christ, I think that he really means that. As soon as he dies on Earth, he will immediately be at the side of Christ- not waiting for a resurrection or waiting for anything (as it appears in revelation with the souls under the alter waiting for their time). Also in Revelation- the only mention of a 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth. If that were true, you'd think it would be in the gospels or epistles somewhere, too. Seems pretty major of an idea. That's why I'm amillenial. I think it's dangerous to get theology from Revelation, a book of visions. I see Revelation more as a book of devotion and encouragement, that God will overcome.
>>
>> ...Bernie--
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 20 15:03:31 2008