At Fish and Cans. I’m running out the door so I haven’t had a chance to check it out yet.
Tags: christian carnival, meta-blogging
Posted in blogspotting | Comments (0)
This is probably dumb to most people but I was chuckling at someone who had written a similar post but for Orthodox Christianity; I couldn’t help responding.
Tags: evangelical, meme
Posted in metas & memes | Comments (0)
Anytime I’m in a discussion with just about any Christian outside of Protestantism, the proof text of 2 Peter 1:20 comes up. The person, hearing my explanation of a passage, claims that my interpretation of the text is not valid by itself—I need the authority of the Magisterium or the Early Fathers or Something. But is that what the verse is teaching—that any interpretation of the text is dependent on the totality of the Church (be it the historical Church or the body of teaching from the Church) over (and against) the individual?
Tags: 2 Peter 1, interpretation, sola scriptura
Posted in hermeneutics | Comments (0)
Here’s the expectation: Christ suffered; don’t expect better. Here’s the expectation: Christ came to save His own and His own knew Him not; don’t expect better. I can say it but I don’t think we really believe it. We live in a place where we go to school to be guaranteed a job. We go to doctors to be guaranteed good health. We invest in our 401K to be ensured with a retirement fund.
All these things that we do with an expectation of a return; we do it just right, we get a cosmic ‘Attaboy.
Tags: endurance, hope, suffering
Posted in christ, sin | Comments (0)
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col 2:16-17 // NASB95)
I’ve seen this passage used quite a number of times to support several conclusions: (1) that the ceremonial portion of the Law were a type that pointed to Christ (the anti-type) and therefore should not be followed anymore—whereas the moral portions should be followed; (2) that the Torah was integral to pointing to Christ so that a person currently has the freedom to keep it (yes, including the ceremonial portions) as long as they do so in respect to Christ; and (3), that all those things that belonged to Israel (law, tabernacle, priesthood) were shadows that now belong to the body of Christ, the Church, to be used by her as she sees fit. Obviously some disagreement on to what should be done with the shadows in Colossians 2—but they are in agreement that the shadows are the things from the past. I deny all three positions.
Tags: colossians, exegesis, shadow, skia, typology
Posted in apologetics, hermeneutics | Comments (0)
