Posted on 22/11/2009 03:14:53
Hi, Ralph.
Well, if you went and ordered Bob Mounce's NICNT volume on Revelation then you've done well! It's the volume that I recommend to non-Greek capable Christians, as being the "best" general purpose commentary on the Apocalypse currently in print.
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 21/11/2009 22:58:30
Hi, Ralph.
Beale's commentary is very good, but it's well beyond the scope of most untrained Christians. It requires a fairly comprehensive skill set to understand (not the least of which is a developed capacity in Greek).
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 19/11/2009 16:32:35
Good morning, RDP.
Scripture has quite a bit to say on the subject of faith (and faithfulness), so I'm somewhat loathe to be providing a list of "proof-texts". I'm all too conscious of the fact that there are a range of Hebrew and Greek words that intersects with the theme, but which aren't necessarily translated into English as "faith". Consequently, I'd rather point you back to the earlier discussions that we had on the subject of "salvation in Luke", where "faith", and it's development, featured prominently. The contexts of those passages that we corporately exegeted, should help to inform the current discussion. However, given that you've asked about nurturing faith, I'll suggest that you reflect afresh on Romans 10:14-17:
"How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they to hear without someone preaching to them? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How timely is the arrival of those who proclaim the good news.” But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ."
The key point in our passage is the gradual unfolding and developing of faith that directly results from hearing the word of Christ preached faithfully. Faith develops from being receptive to preaching that extols Christ's teaching. Contrast this with what passed as "preaching" in Revivalism. In Revivalism, enduring faith was not nurtured because the "diet" was altogether unsuitable to the task, being wholly deficient in Christ's word. In your previous RF context, people were incorrectly, and arrogantly "preached at"; they were told that if they weren't healed, for example, that it was because they lacked faith! How ironic that Romans 10 places the emphasis for the nurturing of peoples' faith, and its outcomes (such as healing, according to Revivalist atheology at any rate), on the very ones who destroyed any possibility for such a development taking place to begin with: the "preachers"!
Of course this is one of the reasons that I "bang-on" so much about the absolute need for people to be fellowshipping in orthodox Christian churches, places where they will be fed on Christ's word, and then by men and women who take the preaching task very seriously, and who have received the preparation needed to do it justice.
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 19/11/2009 15:39:19
Good morning, STE.
Indeed. The published literature on this subject is extensive enough, and is more than adequate for those who aren't so lazy as to eschew a little reading in order to become acquainted with the broad contours of the debate. I've not read the book you referred us to, but I would like to make a recommendation or two of my own.
I found "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins an entertaining read, not because I found him convincing, but because he was so passionate for his cause. And completely ill-informed on matters of philosophy and theology, which was, by-and-large, the intellectual basis and substance underpinning the book. "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath was also highly entertaining (and educational), and a convincing rejoinder to the former, written by a scholar with earned Oxford doctorates in both Molecular Biophysics and Theology. What McGrath did very well, was to demonstrate Dawkins' logical, philosophical and theological misunderstandings and fallacies in a way that the average person could readily grasp. McGrath has also written, "Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life", "A Fine-tuned Universe: A Quest for God in Science and Theology" and "Glimpsing the Face of God", all aimed at the "popular" market. However, he has published several far meatier volumes: "The Science of God", which serves as an introduction to McGrath's scholarly work in the field; and his three-volume opus, "Scientific Theology". Anyone capable of second and third-order thinking, and who isn't afraid of slowly digesting and pondering significant technical discussions, will find the latter trilogy to be very rewarding, and often confronting, reading!
Works that I thoroughly enjoyed and can recommend which are pro-evolution include: "Science, Evolution and Creationism" by the American National Academy of Sciences and Medicine; "Evolution" by Barton, Briggs et al; "Your Inner Fish" by Shubin, and "Relics of Eden: the Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA" by Fairbanks. Most of these would probably fit the "for well-educated readers" category.
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 19/11/2009 14:59:57
Good morning, John.
Well, the last time that I checked, Brisbane was in the Australian state of Queensland, not the American state of Alabama 
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 18/11/2009 23:06:49
Tim,
First, I'm glad that you found "PleaseConsider" someways useful. Drew and I created the site with that very hope in mind. Second, feel free to contact me if you'd like to discuss any of the issues or concerns that you raised, above. My email address appears in the footer to each of my posts.
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 18/11/2009 19:37:30
Good afternoon, all.
There are several issues relating to the current discussion that I find amusing and ironic. To begin with, we have a couple of former Revivalists who, one imagines, were once equally as passionate for the Revivalist cause as they now appear to be for the evolutionist cause! They were passionate, but wrong, once before ...
Second, all that's been offered thus far, the only thing that has been offered thus far, and then from both sides; are points-of-departure which relate to philosophical differences of opinion more than they have to do with the presentation and defending of established "facts". Throw away lines such as "overwhelming evidence" seemingly abound, but when all is said and done, rhetoric remains naught but rhetoric.
In closing, it's refreshing to see that one of our correspondents has apparently overcome his professed penchant for laziness, to the extent that he seeks to mount an argument for what he truly believe in. I wish that more of the people who approach me were as transparent as he is with respect to their "true colours", when given an appropriate "nudge".
Ian
Posted on 18/11/2009 16:28:52
Good morning, "Gloss".
Appearance of design is not proof of design. Does the sun orbit the Earth? Who is responsible for the "bad design"?
I could just as easily suggest to you that the appearance of "transitional forms" is not proof of "transitional forms". But what, precisely, constitutes "bad design" by your estimation? In other words, such is "bad" according to whom?
By plucking out a few paleontological Ken-Ham-isms you are overlooking comparative anatomy, DNA sequencing, embryonic development, island and continental biogeography, geographical distribution, genetics and the rather embarrassing fact that artificial and natural selection are observable facts of life!
I personally don't subscribe to Ken Ham's theories myself, but you might want to be careful of accusing John of the very same failing that he could quite rightly accuse you of: "plucking out a few" examples, and extrapolating the data well beyond what the scant/minimal evidence actually supports.
Anyone who does not accept evolution has either not looked in to it or has deliberately chosen not to 'believe' it due to a conflict of interests.
To begin with, such is naught but a silly, emotive and altogether uninformed statement. Consider the obvious rejoinder: anyone who does not accept Christianity has either not looked into it or has deliberately chosen not to "believe" due to a conflict of interests. You no doubt would agree that simply saying so doesn't necessarily make it so. Ergo, why should your claim be viewed any differently?
Your suggestion that the fossil record isn't extensive enough surely overlooks the transitional fossils that do exist - given the Bible specifies species reproduce "after their own kind" (Genesis 1:20-25) Why are there intermediate species at all? Is God testing us?
See my earlier comment. Who says that such are "intermediate" species to begin with? Faith-based supposition doesn't automatically equal concrete truth. And neither does a misunderstanding of what Genesis purports to teach.
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 18/11/2009 03:24:12
Riddler,
Sorry, but I'm not beholden to answering the questions of all and sundry; certainly not those from people who are self-professedly too lazy to do any research for themselves And given that you've stated that you believe me to be more self-righteous and arrogant than the Revivalists, I do wonder why it is that you (a) sought me out for advice and/or teaching to begin with, and (b) why you've thrown a little "tanty" because I've decided that I've better things to do with my time than respond to you? On my part, your latest mini-rant is "proof positive" that I was correct in my initial estimation of you and your motives.
There you go, I guess we can both rest content in our assessments of each other.
Goose.
Ian
Posted on 17/11/2009 22:09:30
Hi, RDP.
Revivalists (and Pentes) often proclaim that healing results from an act of faith: no healing = inadequate/insufficient faith. Such a position is simplistic at the very least, and completely naive, insofar that (a) the responsibility for the miraculous is transfered from God to human beings; (b) faith becomes naught but a "commodity" to be wielded rather than an attribute to be nurtured; and (c) it altogether fails to grapple with the biblical principles of "strength in weakness", and the clear theology of suffering that's enshrined within Scripture.
The issue, in a nutshell, is a skewed approach to, and (mis)understanding of, "Christian triumphalism". Instead of appreciating the "present/future" or "now/not yet" aspects to the irrupting Kingdom of God, Revivalists (along with a good slice of the Pente crowd), mistakenly assumes that the Kingdom is here in all of its fullness! Such a position certainly makes for a nice, abstract sort of a belief system. But it clearly fails the all-too-crucial "reality" test! And when the "healing" doesn't come as anticipated/expected, the "name-it-and-claim-it" atheology subscribed to by such people inevitably leads to a crushing sense of doubt and self-condemnation.
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 17/11/2009 18:11:51
Hi, Mole.
'Nope', I was discussing Christian baptism, not the un-Christian Revivalist equivalent
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 16/11/2009 16:40:21
Hi, Mole.
The youngest ever baptism? Naaah. The youngest person that I personally know who was bapstised was but a scant week old
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 16/11/2009 15:17:24
Good morning, Talmid.
I wonder that you even bothered responding to our "Riddler" Thus far he's used the following terms to describe himself, and his state, here: "MASS confusion and terror", "lazy", and "spineless". I suppose the adjective that he thinks describes me (and perhaps you, too) is "gullible"?
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 15/11/2009 23:35:50
Riddler,
Given your obvious antipathy, I don't think I'm the right person to be helping you. Best of luck.
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 15/11/2009 22:49:09
Galien,
Are you still here?!
Ian
Posted on 15/11/2009 22:04:59
Hi, Riddler.
A couple of thoughts in response to your post: First, it's not my problem if you're too lazy to expend a bit of time and energy checking "things" out in order to make sense of what you believe or don't believe. Perhaps you were content being spoon-fed during your years in Revivalism? Well, look where it got you
Second, I try to tailor my approach to the situation at hand. Consequently, if a discussion centres on establishing (or considering the merits of competing) philosophical "truth-claims", then my approach will lean towards being analytical and logical. However, if someone asks a question relating to issues of conscience, or points of personal doubt, then my approach will be more pastoral. It's a case of "horses for courses".
Third, theology simply defines "God-talk". If you think about God, then you are theologising whether you realise it or not. Your Revivalist past has given you a heaped tablespoon of bad theology. But the response/answer to bad theology isn't no theology; it's good theology. And it's a fact of life that one doesn't undo lazy/bad thinking by simply ignoring it. One has to engage in active/good thinking, which takes a modicum of effort. In summary, you don't need to be able to theologise at a professional level, but some of us in the Church do.
Fourth, from what you've shared I get the distinct impression that you aren't a part of a worshiping community of believers. If this is the case, then how on earth do you expect to learn anything about God? If you're too lazy to pick up some fairly simple books, and if you're too lazy to go to church, then how is that anyone's problem but yours? 
Blessings,
Ian
Posted on 15/11/2009 19:51:16
Galien,
I note that you still read into my comments what you want to hear, rather than what I actually say. For example how did you misconstrue you going from Baptist to Revivalism to Pentecostalism (i.e. "orthodox" to heretical to heterodox); with others going from Revivalism to Pentecostalism (i.e. heretical to heterodox)?! How could you misconstrue so badly given that the context of the point was your claim to having learned what was involved in being a Christian during your time in the "Baps"? If you had learned, as you claimed, then how on earth is it possible that you later got hoodwinked by Revivalism? Sorry, but your ability to comprehend the written word seems almost as loose as is your grasp of "truth".
Goose.
Ian
Posted on 15/11/2009 18:04:19
Galien,
I see. So we all get to invent our own little slice of reality, in which to "...live, move and have our being." Nice 
Well seeing I learned what being a
christian was from the bible itself and Caringbah Baptist Church
perhaps you should take the issue up with god and said church. The
"wrong" things? My point exactly.
'Yes'. Given that in spite of you "learning" what "being" a Christian "was" from the Bible and Caringbah Baptist, you then went on to get sucked into Revivalism, and later, Pentecostalism! I guess you "learned" well, huh?
In closing, you really should try responding to what I actually say, rather than your interpretations of the same. Just a thought.
Goose.
Ian
Posted on 15/11/2009 15:51:33
Galien,
Curiouser and curiouser. So you subscribe to the very same materialist view of reality as does the atheist crowd, huh?
Me subscribe to the idea of a crowd of any kind? Unlikely.
Interesting. I could've sworn that you said, "... unless you can bring it to me in the bottom of a bucket where I can poke at it ..." etcetera, which is a materialist view of reality.
I am more interested in differences in perception. I am fascinated by the way we are socialised into believing certain things have certain meanings. I often find upon questioning others about why they think what they think, they often have no idea why they think it, or who taught them to think that way in in the first place. I get a lot of "everyone knows that", and "that is just the way it is". Well surely everything had to start somewhere. Where did it start, who started it, what keeps it that way?
I see. So because you don't like reality as it is, you feel the need to "perceive" it differently to everyone else? Such an admission goes a long way to explaining why you've sought to re-create Christianity in your own image. Don't like the biblical product ...
Athiests are entited to their opinion like everyone else.
If an opinion is presented as a statement of fact, i.e. as a "truth-claim", then it must be true in order to have merit or intrinsic worth. Atheists, Christians and Galiens don't have the right to be holding to, and promoting, opinions which are patently false. The English words used to describe such a situation are either "deception" or "delusion", depending on whether the person is simply ignorant, or willfully ignorant.
I live my life in abstract concepts, but I accept they are perceptions, philosophies and concepts.
I doubt it. You live your life just as "concretely" as does everyone else. If you didn't, if you lived your life in "abstract concepts" as you falsely claim, then you wouldn't rant and rave and disparage everyone who has the temerity to tell you that you're wrong Furthermore, you wouldn't live your life being bound to the "concrete" realities which surround you: the need to work, the need to pay your bills, etc.
Gone (forever I hope) are the days when I stood there with THE christian truth wrapped up in a pretty little bow making others feel like dirt if they didn't believe it the way I did.
But you never had the Christian truth. You were a Revivalist and then a Pente; consequently, your beliefs were as wide of the "truth" mark as are "Lukie's". It almost presents as being the case that believing in the "wrong" things fairly defines your entire life. And that's sad, the truth be told.
For most of my christian experience I thought the way you think a christian "should". Life experience has taught me not everything is as it seems. I can no longer live my life based on the experiences and perceptions of people who see life through a hole the size of a 20c piece. Referring there to the writers and time period in which the bible was written.
Given what you've shared of your past, if there is one lesson that your life's experiences should've taught you, it would be this: you are not a particularly "good" judge of what is "truth". In point of fact, your "truth barometer" needs serious calibrating! Next, your comment regarding the context of the biblical writers simply reinforces my decidedly low opinion of your capacity to understand, analyse, and contextualise the biblical witness to proper effect.
One of the most important parts of who I am is complete honesty which I believe to be the cornerstone of a real connection with god.
Except for the many times when you lie, of course
That means I have to tell the truth about how I see things, even though it wins me SO many friends, and attracts SO much goodwill and support.
A closing thought for you to ponder: has the possibility ever crossed your mind that your perception simply ain't reality?
Goose.
Ian
Posted on 15/11/2009 05:44:47
Galien,
Curiouser and curiouser. So you subscribe to the very same materialist view of reality as does the atheist crowd, huh?
How very interesting
Ian
|
