tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post7405485464849490931..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: God's Boss 1Ken Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-31438214794286831532010-09-24T15:01:44.863-04:002010-09-24T15:01:44.863-04:00This is just the beginning of the chapter. :-)This is just the beginning of the chapter. :-)Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-71299466687721455062010-09-24T14:56:37.707-04:002010-09-24T14:56:37.707-04:00Ken,
I didn't find your threefold conclusion ...Ken,<br /><br />I didn't find your threefold conclusion for understanding Romans 9-11 compelling. I agree that interpretation requires us to situate this unit of thought within Paul's overall flow of thought. But isn't that the very same process and interpretive posture being employed by Reformed Theologians/Pastors who confess predestination? Don’t they reach their conclusions because of, not in spite of, the overall theme and flow of thought in Romans? And I am not persuaded by your appeal to a “cultural dimension.” I agree, again, that it is important to understand the ethos of thought of the original culture, but it is sheer conjecture to say that this is the reason Paul sounds like he is advocating predestination in these “naughty verses,” and therefore we can disregard predestination upon that basis. (How can you appeal to some form of accommodation on the behalf of Paul to the “fatalism/determinism” of the age? I have not uncovered that in the text. And something is not “false” simply because “that is the way they thought back then.” Perhaps you are not saying that, and if so please clarify and set me straight.) Also, the “language game” argument is very weak—the doctrine of predestination does function primarily on a literal level, because that doctrine is intimately tied and constructed upon the doctrine of the knowledge of God. (It is God, after all, who said “yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.”) To conclude, “naughty verses” need to be handled in a manner that does not delineate from or over-simply the “messiness” of being a human. Doctrine, like life, is not as precise or clean as we would all like it to be. So, I believe in predestination but I don’t understand every facet of it. Why? I confess the doctrine of predestination because I really, really believe that it echoes the voice of Christ in the Scriptures, however I don’t understand every facet of it, and I don’t need to, because God really doesn’t appear to say much on that topic. So, if God is silent about that…then I suppose I too should be silent. If what I am saying isn’t echoing the voice of Christ, then I probably shouldn’t be saying it. <br /><br />Also, regarding the messiness of Christian living and Christendom…Wesleyans read Scripture and they hear a certain tune, and Calvinists read Scripture and they hear a certain tune. But when the two groups get together this idea is constantly scrolling across their brains: “That [Wesleyan or Calvinist] knows all the words to the song, but, boy oh boy, they got the tune all wrong!” I suppose that is why we attend different churches and are part of different denominations, etc. But both parties are producing real fruit -- baptizing in the Triune formula, providing discipleship to the nations -- so, in that respect, they definitely are singing the same song and are in tune with one another at the same time for certain parts of the song!Christopher C. Schrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14649459385162811269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-44102860448512598862010-09-24T01:14:50.093-04:002010-09-24T01:14:50.093-04:00We also have to note the chasm of difference betwe...We also have to note the chasm of difference between "pottery for common use" and "humans for hellfire". We tend to see hell in all sorts of places (like 3:23) where it isn't mentioned.Marchttp://criticalBelief.comnoreply@blogger.com