|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| Λόγος Ἐσχατου |
 By now most of you know that logos is the Greek word for word, message, or statement, and that eschatos is the Greek word for "last" - and you have probably figured out that the word "eschatology" probably comes from these two Greek words and that is why it has come to refer to the Christian study of the end times.
I once sat down and tried to get all my eschatological ducks in a row, but not in the standard way (I suppose) that most who have an eschatological opinion do - that is, I didn't open up a book to find out how someone else thinks it is all going to fall out in some detailed "this means that" sort of way. I say, I tried, to understand it in the same way I tried to understand the rest of scripture. I read it, and asked God to teach me in it. This method has helped me greatly in most other aspects of theology, but it has failed to give me a detailed, conclusive, eschatological framework.
It isn't that I failed to comprehend many things with regards to eschatology, but rather that I failed to come up with some air-tight "This is how it works, I am sure of it" sort of end times plan, and certainly nothing that would warrant a garish illustration complete with little cherubs, a cross, some clouds, a throne, and a small multitude of multi coloured divisions and arrows, detailing to the tenth of a second when exactly everything that was going to happen would happen, and to whom. Nor does my understanding remain so vague that I toss my hands in the air, and limit my opinion to the nigh-vacuous (by virtue of its self evidency) obligatory "Christ will return, and everything will work itself out in the end" sort of "no-brainer" conclusion.
I confess, my first concern for the church is not that it has a well mapped out eschatological framework to generate tertiary theological speculations from, but rather that God's Spirit would be manifest in believers through the overcoming of rebellion (sin) in their lives - so that the church might be a light set on a hill in this world, and not one that is under a basket of sin.
So I always feel somewhat at a loss when a conversation turns to eschatology. I know what things I find highly unlikely, or questionable, but that is hardly welcome in most conversations of this nature. And frankly, I have no passion to debate things that are more often than not, conclusions derived from a host of speculations or assumptions built upon other speculations or assumptions.
That sort of framework is what we call building a precept upon a precept - a line upon a line - and scripture used that very kind of language to describe why men were failing to understand God's word correctly - because God's word to them was line upon line, precept upon precept - they were using God's word like a child uses Lego - taking a pile of red blocks and using them to build the word "Green" - then arguing from the "green" instead of the red. I cringe whenever I hear someone using the "line upon line, precept upon precept" as though it were an admirable thing to do.
So when it comes to eschatology, I try to keep it simple and biblical. Whatever I understand, I understand, and whatever confuses me, I give to the Lord. I don't make it a matter of exclusion or inclusion, and while I find it interesting to hear what some people think - I try to stay out of the conversations when I can. I don't suggest that we ignore it, for it is in the bible for a reason, and we would be fools indeed to ignore anything that God has given to the church. Yet as fascinating as I might find it, I feel there are more important things for me to focus on as a believer - at least for the moment.Labels: eschatology, lego |
posted by Daniel @
1:03 PM
 
|
|
| 3 Comments: |
-
That guy must be filtering by certain words...everytime someone discusses endtimes.
Thanks for the bit on "line by line". I too have felt uncomfortable with the way many were using that phrase.
While it is admirable to avoid contentious debates over eschatology, it takes up a large portion of the Bible and therefore is obviously important.
We would be foolish to ignore what we do not understand...I do respect your desire for a biblical understanding of this matter. Would that more of God's people looked to scriptures alone for their answers.
-
Jim, I don't normally delete a post, but that guys stuff is not something I want to have linked on my blog.
So for those of you who are wondering what Jim was on about - there was a comment there with a link, but the content at the link was just trash.
I regard "understanding prophesy" in precisely the same way I regard the rest of scripture - I study it, giving it no extra attention, but at the same time making certain not to ignore it - trusting God to teach me whatever I need to know whenever I need to know it. That is just what works with me I guess. ;-)
-
I love the old saints' answer to the question "What would you do differently if you knew you were going to die tomorrow?" the answer being "Nothing different. I want him to find me striving to live exactly as he told me to."
Sometimes eschatology seems to be a "religion" of its own given the way people focus on it.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
That guy must be filtering by certain words...everytime someone discusses endtimes.
Thanks for the bit on "line by line". I too have felt uncomfortable with the way many were using that phrase.
While it is admirable to avoid contentious debates over eschatology, it takes up a large portion of the Bible and therefore is obviously important.
We would be foolish to ignore what we do not understand...I do respect your desire for a biblical understanding of this matter. Would that more of God's people looked to scriptures alone for their answers.