|
|
| |
 - 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
|
|
| A Quick Truth |
I said as much yesterday in a Twitter tweet, but it bears much repeating.
Yet before I reiterate, I should provide the briefest of context: I have said before, and maintain to this day that there is NOTHING spiritual, noble, or rational (for that matter) about simultaneously believing two (or more) doctrines that seemingly contradict one another. I do not think there is anything humble about willfully clinging to ones own ignorance, and I find it pretty near offensive when someone presents this flaw as a virtue.
Given this context, I will restate yesterday's tweet: Whenever we should find ourselves believing two (or more) theological ideas in such a way that they cannot logically or rationally be reconciled to one another, we demonstrate to ourselves that our understanding of at least one of the ideas is either flawed or naïve.
When this happens we should not be content with our doctrine, but press on in our understanding until the light of harmony comes. Doctrinal slothiness doesn't befit a child of God. Ignorance is seldom innocent, usually we hold onto falsehood or naïve notions because we prefer these to what the bible teaches.
-- Post From My iPhone
Labels: Quickie |
posted by Daniel @
6:04 AM
 
|
|
| 10 Comments: |
-
Well said. (See, you just can't "tweet" a complete thought, can you?) Apparent contradictions are not profound mysteries to be accepted "by faith," they are indications that we don't yet understand the texts involved.
-
"Apparent contradictions are not profound mysteries to be accepted "by faith," they are indications that we don't yet understand the texts involved."
That's like 145 characters or so. If you got rid of the punctuation, you could have tweeted that.
Nevertheless, it is bang on the money and exactly what I intended to convey.
Frankly, someone like yourself, who thinks clearly and can briefly articulate a full truth without having to truncate it - would make a fine tweeter, nay, a noteworthy and remarkable one.
-
Just to be a smart alek I tweeted your summary with a citation. (see the tweet box)
-
Removing the punctuation turns you into one of those illiterate denizens of the internet. Anyway, my summary is only that--a summary. It's only good as an introduction or conclusion to a fuller explanation, like yours. It only works as a stand-alone statement for those, like you, who already get it.
It might please you to know that I am considering using Twitter, not to actually say anything, but simply as a promotional tool.
-
A "fine tweeter." That sounds like one of those double-edged compliments.
-
I don't tweet. Isn't that sweet?
"..press on in our understanding until the light of harmony comes."
Are you saying harmony for our own conviction? For there are paradoxes in the Holy Writ, are there not?
For instance: I am convinced there is no such thing as a "Rapture' in the Bible. But there are scholars, who can preach me out of the ball park really, who say there is a "Rapture".
I have looked and looked, and cannot see it. I am convinced there's no such thing, however, I appreciate a John MacArthur, and bow to his convictions as well.
Does that make sense?
-
Don,
In the context of my post, the argument is that it is irrational to simultaneously hold two opinions that contradict one another. The harmony I speak of, therefore, is a harmonizing of those two (previously disparate) opinions. So yes, I am saying that concerning our own convictions.
In truth, I haven't found a single paradox in scripture, though there are some things that have no parallel in this creation (the Trinity for instance - there is no "perfect" three in one model to look at and say, "yeah, it's just like this thing here...")
Like yourself I have yet to find the rapture in the bible. I respect John MacArthur however, and know that he has not come to his opinions lightly - nevertheless, I do not answer to or for his conscience but can only answer to and for my own. I am not talking about comparing the success of John MacArthur in understanding the light he has been given and my own understanding of the light I have received - for I don't think it is wise to measure ourselves against one another when it comes to matters that needn't be divisive. I am only talking about an internal consistency - that my doctrine agrees with itself.
Does that help explain it?
-
-
Go ahead and tweet all you want, I am holding out for the big woofers.
-
Jim - I was going to make a audio reference, but I forgot to.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
Well said. (See, you just can't "tweet" a complete thought, can you?) Apparent contradictions are not profound mysteries to be accepted "by faith," they are indications that we don't yet understand the texts involved.