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

I don't agree Murray, Anyone with a brain can see that agreement is better
than flaming. I think you need to go back to school to learn something
about etiquette.

So there.

;-)

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>wrote:

> 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.
>

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 15:41:04 2008