Removing Our Theological Terms?

The difference is that your medical manuals are intended for doctors, but the Bible is intended for everyone. The rankest beginning Christian can learn from the Word of God, and the most erudite theologian can. But if you dumb the whole thing down, what is the theologian going to learn? The technical terms bring in a subtlety that the new Christian can't understand. And if you dumb things down to try to help him understand it, then the mature, intelligent Christian will be led astray by missing the subtleties.

But my point is that the new Christian does not need to understand the difficulties of the Bible. He needs to understand baptism, prayer, assurance of salvation, inspiration, etc, all things which are taught clearly in the Bible with no need for subtlety or nuance.

The Bible itself distinguishes different levels of learning for Christians as types of food, as I'm sure you remember: milk for babies, meat for mature Christians, etc. If you make it all milk, what happens to the meat eaters?

The key phrase here is "further education." That to me means a lifetime of learning from the Word of God. But that becomes difficult to a person saved decades ago if they has to use a dumbed down Bible.

As for those who are just too thick headed to ever understand, I've known some of those. They aren't the brightest bulbs, but they have the Christian life right. In fact, the most faithful guy in my church, my usher and the only guy who goes out on dendo (evangelism) with me, probably could not ever figure out what I meant by sanctification no matter how I dumbed it down. But I wouldn't trade him for ten typical American intellectual Christians who can explain the TULIP flawlessly. :saint:

But these words and concepts are not so important for the new believer as for the mature Christian. In fact, it would be confusing him to try to teach them even in a dumbed down form to the new guy. He needs milk, not meat.

I completely disagree that not understanding these terms early on opens the door for heresy. How long has it been since you tried to disciple a new believer who knew nothing? Do you seriously mean you would try to teach him about justification and sanctification? Man, I'd give the guy quite a while before teaching those things. They are not milk.

I challenge you, look through the book of Acts, and do a study about what was taught the new believers in the early church. You might be surprised. Again, check out Heb. 5:12 to 6:2 for a clear explanation of what a new believer needs to know, the milk as it were. Or, another approach is to study what the Bible says is essential to the faith: the doctrine of Christ in 2 John 9-11, the Gospel in Gal. 1, etc. :type:

 

How come we have 40 replys but ZERO views for this thread???

I’m learning as I explore this subject with you. I appreciate the comments/criticisms. I'll have to look over those verses when I get home.

I think we've all met a person of humble understanding that displays superior Christian character.
It’s knowing our Lord that really matters after all; studying his word is just a means to that end.

The concepts are quite basic and simple, it’s those words that sometimes form a barrier and make it seem so difficult.
Why even the Bill Bright’s “Four Spiritual Laws” cover basic concepts relating to substitutionary atonement and redemption.

Rob

 

It's not just this thread - I've found it happening on several, and I posted a query about it on the Tech Support forum.

 

Without discussing specifics, I want to comment on the "big words" idea. Something that I was always taught was, "Never use a $50 word when a 25 cent (where's the cent symbol?) word will do. But, sometimes you need that $50 word." So many people forget that last part.

I was reading a 1200 page physics textbook a couple of years back that was "dumbed down" for the layman. But, there are some things that can't be dumbed down, so the book would have to spend time explaining some terms so the average person could use that $50 word.

The average person can understand it, but the knowledge must be instilled: He must first learn letters, then learn to read, then learn certain terms, then certain ideas, etc. No matter the subject, you have to build line upon line and precept upon precept.

BTW, try explaining to someone why we would all bake to death in an instant if not for the speed of light without having to explain some advanced concepts. It can't be done. But, you can explain one concept upon another upon another until that individual has enough foundational understanding that you can then explain why we would all bake to death if not for the speed of light.

The same holds true of the Bible. Anyone can understand the milk. "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." But, the meat of the Word takes work! "By the sweat of your face, so shall you eat."

 

What's an "erudite theologian"?:laugh:

 

The desire for sincere milk is to never be relinquished else it would read "milk" all alone without the adjective "sincere".

The KJB is precise.

 

You mean like when it uses five words in I Cor. 6:9 ("abusers of themselves with mankind") and six words in I Tim 1:10 ("them that defile themselves with mankind") to render the Greek word "αρσενοκοιτης", (arsenokoitEs) vesus 'the less precise'?? NKJV, which renders it in both places as "sodomite(s)"??

Almost sounds to me like some NIV "stylistic consultant" somehow was around even in 1611 A. D., no?? Or am I in the wrong thread, here?

Ed

 

Well, you got one! John of Japan just used "erudite theologian" in his last post before yours! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

It's a great technical term I invented that I'd rather not dumb down. :smilewinkgrin:

 

That one's not worth more than $20. Maybe $25.

How about a $50 sentence?

[FONT=&quot]And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "What?"[/FONT]

 

How much in yen?

 

Give it a couple of days then average out the exchange rate.

 

Hmmm, so being rude makes for "great technologies"?

Does this also mean that rudeness is now coupled with being learned in Bible theology?

 

I believe you just qualified a new version for the erudites! (exclusively)

 

"Sodomites" doesn't fit the entire definition, now does it? Be honest.

I believe necromancy also fits into the context and that is not necessarilly sodomy, though just as sick.

Also there are those who might defile themselves, or even abuse themselves, with mankind in a plethora of sins which also don't determine the sin to be limited to sodomy. Therefore the NKJV is limited in expressing the full meaning.

 

Please, by all means find your sense of humor. It was a joke!