Relevance?

F Whittenburg

AMEN!

F Whittenburg

Now that you mention it, I remember his saying things along those lines… I understand the draw of it though, if you say all we need to do is read the Scriptures and do what they say, without the burden of context or authorial intent – you a freer to make it say what you want it to say.

We all read into things from time to time, but abandoning the context makes it a lot easier.

I guess that is the difference between approaching some with love and humility and just hating others because they are different than you.

iggy

Chris P is affronted by the hermeneutic we often use here (and even Johnny Mac uses) which says that we must first ascertain what scripture meant to the people it was first written to so that we can understand the underlying intent for exegesis. Since this sometimes includes reviewing Josephus and other sources outside of scripture (for context), Hillel and other Jewish sources sometimes get mentioned.

The “preterism” piece is a shot at my general acceptance of a partial-preterist view of eschatology which says that much of what premillennial dispensationalism interprets as unfulfilled prophecy was actually fulfilled in the first century. (For example, the archaeological proof that Caesar worship during Domitian required that you burn incense to Caesar and accept his mark on your goods and on your body to buy and sell in the marketplace per Rev 13:17). I suppose it could loosely be called a “system”, but PP doesn’t insist that once-fulfilled prophecy cannot be fulfilled a second time, while at the same time avoiding expectant “date setting”…

As to what it has to do with this article? Pretty much nothing. Just a rant…

Let’s face it, that chronology and all the mystery surrounding when a sinner believes et. al. will never fully be know this side of eternity. Relevancy is explaining the gospel in understandable terms enhanced by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit does the rest. Otherwise we should just print verses and hand them out, period.

I agree – abuse is alway the issue… whether it’s alcohol, sex, or attempts to be relevant.

The 19th Century liberal who denied the virgin birth in an attempt to be relevant to a modernist mind is as guilty as the 20th Century Emergent who denies the uniqueness of Christ in attempt to be relevant to a postmodernist.

ODM’s and Chris P. just seem to be unable to discern the difference between the “thing” and the “thing abused.”

I’m just not sure what Chris P. meant.

minimalist – not sure what you mean, or what I am guilty of. But the rest of you comment pretty much minimizes the incarnation significantly.

praxis driven doctrine – you know not what what drives my doctrine…and application follow interpretation

preterism – irrelevant to the discussion, but since you bring it up, I am not a preterist and it has no bearing on this topic

hillelian – not sure the point here