I like that way Penna writes, “The mistake of the commentators has perhaps been to try to be clearer than Paul himself…Paul does not offer dogmatic solutions but rather offers only certain suggestions, opens up certain ways of looking at the at it, confirms or excludes certain perspectives typical of the Christian faith” (Penna 232). Sometime we forget what God’s purpose for calling us as ministry, and we sole focus on academic pieces of life. We must be careful not trying to find more than what the Biblical writers were saying in what they
Calvin combats the idea that the church gives Scripture its authority because he believes that the Bible offers “as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things of their taste” (31). He was constantly searching for ways to prove the consistency of the Bible, so he could further establish how authoritative it was. Calvin and Luther did not agree on the sacraments or the use of the law, but both were very influential theological figures of the Protestant Reformation and they both claimed that Scripture, not the church, was the true
Paul depicts the character of the Christ-believer as similar to the steward who is faithful (πιστός) to his master (3.10–4.2). Those who will be saved by God are described as those who are faithful (τοὺς πιστεύοντας; 1.21).1 Moreover, the lack of manners in the assembly of Corinth is lack of faithfulness toward the have-nots, and by implication toward the true host of the supper. Thus, the problem is not the lack of belief in certain wisdoms or teachings, but the unwillingness to wait and share (11.33; 11.21). As John Chrysostom comments on the passage, “if schisms were
John Winthrop summarizes what he believes are the statutes of what Puritans should live by in, “A Model of Christian Charity.” Winthrop’s writings are based on his interpretation of bible scriptures. In a Model of Christian charity, the four focal points are love, forgiveness, mercy, and justice. The sermon Winthrop gave contradicts the actual character of the Puritans. The Puritans are remembered as extremists, not individuals who practice unconditional love under the ideals of a loving God.
I think that, while it is dangerous to wrap one’s entire atonement theology around, it is simply an easy way to grasp a particular aspect of atonement. Green would argue, and I agree, that each metaphor in the New Testament, rather than trying to encompass the whole of atonement, is merely shedding light on one aspect of it. Now, I do not think that most Christians whose beliefs are in line with the Penal Substitution Doctrine are aware of the inferences of said doctrine. For the most part I am sure that they are simply taking the analogy of the New Testament at its word and not at all pondering the consequences of said belief. I also agree with Green that we should be searching for and modeling new metaphors for our current culture.
While virtue ethics has a very similar approach to Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics focuses on more on one’s feelings instead of motives. While one may enjoy the cause he is fighting for, the torture would be for personal gain. From a Christian-principle based perspective, God can use anything, including torture, for His glory and to bring honor to His name, but torture in of itself does not reflect the image of Christ. As believers in Christ, Christians are called to show the love of Jesus to everyone around them, and torturing other people does not reflect that affection. Although the Bible does not speak specifically on the issue of torture, followers of Jesus are called to love one another.
Nestorianism, named after Nestorius, was built on the denial that Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time; his explanation was something like a split personality between the human and the divine nature. The two natures could cannot coexist at the same time, however, they can switch back and forth; although Jesus has both natures inside on him, they could not both at the same time. Eutychianism was named after Eutyches, a man who opposed Nestorianism, who believed that Jesus’ divinity and human nature combined to create a new, third thing. He taught, “Christ’s humanity was so united with his divinity that it was not the same as ours” (Quash and Ward, 41). If Jesus was not able to be both man and God at the same time, he would not have the ability to save us from our sins.
When encountered early in the book, the implication of this religious imagery is not fully apparent. However, once viewed in the context of the later Christian allusions found in A Clockwork Orange, it becomes clear that this is the proclamation of Burgess’ intent in this novel. Burgess views humanity as an organic thing, full of great potential to please God, and he sees the implication of conditioning, specifically, or more generally anything that would sap the essential ability of humans to choose, as a detriment to God’s
However, according to Christians, this may contradict certain aspects of scripture. For example, in the King James bible, James 2:10 says “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all” (King James Bible, James. 2.10). Moreover, I also read in the biblical text that God judges those according to their spiritual competence; too much is given much is required. The King James Bible in Luke 12:48 confirms “But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.
So when God uses those who are self-reliant, He uses them to show others how not to act. Just like 2 Corinthians 3:5 says, “Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God…” There is no way to accomplish anything without Christ. We are stuck in the sin we’ve created for our self and the only way out is through Christ. Ephesians 2:8 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…” The grace that God has given us is a gift, and He expects us to use it in the right way with reliance on Him as our only source.
This concept of having a buffet style (take what you want, leave the rest) Christianity is not something new. But how many of us struggle with it and don’t realize it? Sometimes, we go through the bible or we attend service, and pick and choose what exactly we desire. If the apostle Paul wasn’t afraid to proclaim the “whole counsel of God...”(Acts 20:27), then does that mean we are only expected to observe some of it and some of the time? Peter in 2 Peter 1:3 informs us as Christians we have been given by God “All things pertaining to life and godliness.” There’s nothing that God has instructed his Body, his bride, the Church, that is okay to not apply to your life.
His speech is not simply aided by the frightful connotations held with each word, but by the objective nature of his statements. Edwards speaks not from personal view, but from the view of a spiteful God forced to gaze upon the state of His creation. The omission of phrases such as “I believe” or other personal statements places the central focus upon God rather than Edwards himself. Despite his reputation as a gifted, educated minister, an audience of anxious colonists is likely to fear God in a manner which cannot be held towards a mere human being. By speaking instead for God Himself when Edwards declares, “Men’s hands cannot be strong when God rises up”, a superstitious audience is left petrified with distress.
Response to: the gospel according to barbara kingsolver: brother fowles and st. Francis of assisi in the poisonwood bible Although I did not agree with William F. Purcell’s essay about culture in The Poisonwood Bibe, I do agree with him on his view of the gospel in the book. When you hear the title of this book you automatically think, church, God, Christianity or religion. In Purcell’s essay he states tat he believes there are multiple types of christianity in this book. After reading this essay I fully agree with his stand on the gospel according to Barbara Kingsolver. Kingsolver is not a christian.
The Problem and Purpose of Pain Identifying the problem with pain is fairly simple according to Lewis, explaining the purpose of pain not so much. In chapter one Lewis tells us that the problem with pain is the fact that we as Christians have to try to make it fit into our belief system and that fact “creates, rather than solves, the problem of pain.” (C. Lewis) It also means that as Christians, we are left facing the dilemma of trying to explain how we serve an all-loving, all- powerful, benevolent God who despite His benevolence allows us to suffer. How can I do this? How can I possibly convince an unbeliever not only of the existence of a God, but of a God that allows pain, when I as believer struggle with the question? For the past
To relate this theory to the Bible, Apollinarius’ interpretation could be related to the Bible verse found in Galatians 5:17 which states, “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” He relates to this verse, but twists it to say that Jesus could not have had a human mind/spirit because it was corrupt and against the divine nature. What he missed though is that Jesus is not just partly human and partly divine, but He is one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man. The Christian belief of the incarnation of Jesus is quite different from what Apollinarius believed. Christians believe that Jesus in the flesh was not only fully man but also fully God; not half and half, not a mixed nature, not a divine mind with a human mind and soul, but all God and all man! A great Bible verse that explains this is Philippians 2:6-11 which