Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'All Other Discussions' started by Crabtownboy, Jan 18, 2016.
Hate cannot drive out hate. Hate begats hate.
Well - the Communists hated Nazis - and helped drive them out..... just saying.....
But they did not drive out hate. Big difference.
Well, today the Germans are very good allies of the United States
I don't think David agreed, considering Psalm 139, boy.
Remember David lived in OT times. We live in NT times and by the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to "Lover your enemy."
And it was not hate that turned Germany in allies. It was the, IMHO, gently and Christian way we treated Germany that won their friendship. The same with Japan after the war.
It was the harsh, hatred of the Brits and French and the punishments they imposed on Germany that lead to hate and to the success of the rise of Hitler. Hate begated hate.
David would not have said anything different than Jesus. The "OT" would not excuse that. God is God always the same.
David would and, indeed, did say something different. Man's understanding of God has not been consistent. As God gradually revealed more and more of himself man understood God at deeper levels. The greatest revelation of God to man was in Jesus Christ. As a Baptist you surely know this. Baptist call this progressive revelation.
Read more from: http://www.atkinslightquest.com/Documents/Religion/Bible-Exegesis/ProgressiveRevelation.htm
The concept of progressive revelation is the most important principle in the entire field of biblical interpretation. It is the surest foundation for the Bible student’s quest for scriptural truth. Also, ignorance of this concept accounts for most of the bad theology in Christendom.
Progressive revelation may be defined as the gradual, chronological disclosure of divine truth in Scripture. It means that later Scriptures show a clearer view of God than do early Scriptures. It also means that ancient religious concepts are inferior to the theology of more advanced times. Progressive revelation may be understood as theological evolution. The Bible is made to come alive as an unfolding of God’s revelation of Himself. (“Unfolding” is synonymous with “evolving.” The Latin verb evolvere means “to unfold,” “to unroll,” or “to evolve.” Progressive revelation can be perceived as just another aspect of the universal law of theistic evolution.)
It is difficult for many religious persons to accept this concept, because it says that portions of the Bible are inferior to other portions. It says that there are different levels of inspiration of the Bible’s human authors,i.e., that some writers saw God more clearly than did others. This method of exegesis (interpretation) proposes that some Bible passages even contain evil teachings when compared to the high standards of Christian ethics and theology. For example, it is not difficult to prove scriptural sanction for polygamy, concubinage, slavery, divorce, inferiority of women, wholesale slaughter of foreigners, butchery of children for parental offenses, lying deception, free use of strong drink, animal sacrifice, religious taxation, clerical orders, sacerdotal hierarchy, and exclusive seventh-day sabbath observance. Neither is is hard to show where all these ideas were either modified or repudiated by other Scripture.
The prominent Baptist theologians E. Y. Mullins and W. T. Conner chose to use the term “progressive revelation,” but some have preferred “progressive comprehension.” In other words, God reveals only as much of Himself as man is able to grasp. John Milton elucidated this idea as follows: “For such is the order of God’s enlightenment of His Church, to dispense and deal out by degrees His beam, so as our earthly eyes may best sustain it.” J. R. Sampey made the unique declaration, “The Bible slopes upward!” In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus repeated several times the phrase, “You have heard that it was said (by Moses) to the men of old..., but I say to you...” He was teaching, in so many words, that the Mosaic Law had been superseded by His higher precepts.
In his discourse on the subject of progressive revelation, William W. Adams said, “Because God permitted and even commanded something at sometime in history, and it is recorded in the Bible, is it binding forever on God’s people? The Bible makes it clear that divine revelation has its beginning, its growth and development, and its maturity and consummation...In this development, earlier revelations are modified, enriched, or changed completely. In every case, the earlier and incomplete revelation finds its fulfilment and completion in that which is final...Progressive revelation is thus seen to be both reasonable and practical. It is reasonable because it harmonizes with the purpose of revelation. That purpose is to educate man with a view to his redemption and his obedience to God’s will...In any educational program, the laws of the learning process have to be observed...God gave His revelation in keeping with these laws. It is practical because it must be observed in order to interpret the Bible correctly.”
Some Scripture actually slanders the good name of God. As stated by a Methodist pastor, Gaston Foote, “Some of us have a false mental image of God. I can see the evidence of the concept of a vindictive God in the Old Testament, but I cannot see it in the life of Jesus. I keep reminding myself that the Bible is a progressive revelation of the truth of God. By progress we move from one position to another. God’s last word is not in Genesis but in Jesus.” A similar view was presented by Herschel Hobbs: “Through men who were guided by the Holy Spirit, God has progressively revealed Himself and His will to men. Progressive revelation does not refer to God’s inability to reveal, but to man’s ability to receive. Thus we find a greater picture of God in John than in Genesis.”
The Broadman Bible Commentary is also clear in this regard: “Old Testament examples of seeming conflict with the fact that God is love, it is claimed by many persons, are simply mysteries of omniscience and therefore should not be questioned. Such persons will approach any number of baffling mysteries in the Scriptures in this way and be satisfied. On the other hand, many other persons will insist that the Bible...can be rightly understood, rightly interpreted, only in the full light of the truth of Jesus Christ, the living Word, the complete and perfect revelation of God... The Scriptures are an unfolding revelation of God and hence a progressive revelation with their perfect and absolute culmination in the Word made flesh in Christ.”
Ok well we cannot use progressive revelation as an excuse to pit the OT against the NT.
In that case, boy, what you stated in your OP is not a universal truth, is it? There was a long period of time in which the concept did not hold, and such a time may come again. BTW do you really loveR your enemies?
You are correct. The OT should never be used in a way that contradicts the message of Christ.
Not at all. Your thinking is too shallow. The truth has always been there. It was only after Christ lived on earth and we received the fullest revelation of God that this truth became clear to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear and minds to understand.
I am sorry for your error but the difference is not fuller revelation but context.
Sure, boy, that must explain why God commanded the Israelites to destroy the nations in Canaan, and to utterly destroy-- man, woman, child, animal-- the Amalekytes. Now why didn't the tribes just love them out? If indeed, out they had to go, which is not exactly love... or is it?
Progressive revelation is the answer. Think on it. I believe you can figure it out.
You need to remember that crabby is a red letter Christian so he will be dug in on this no matter what.
Well I like the quote, personally. Though I can't say I'm a pacifist...there are times you need to defend yourself. Sometimes war, as bad as it is, is necessary or unpreventable. So I guess it depends on specifically what you apply this quote to. Personally I do try to live by this in general. I wouldn't be doing myself any favors by hating everyone that has hated or wronged me. I won't be showing them Christ by reflecting their hate back at them.
Thanks for your reply Quest. I appreciate it very much. There is a difference between defending yourself and hating. A person can defend themselves without hating. No question about that. You last sentence is right on.