tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post116480806158540121..comments2023-11-02T07:47:10.433-04:00Comments on Vindicated: Just ThingsKylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164865092687926102006-11-30T00:38:00.000-05:002006-11-30T00:38:00.000-05:00Byron, you're my new hero! I agree whole-heartedly...Byron, you're my new hero! I agree whole-heartedly.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01335230963150372489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164848943600745242006-11-29T20:09:00.000-05:002006-11-29T20:09:00.000-05:00Thanks for your input, guys. I did find it interes...Thanks for your input, guys. I did find it interesting that in the book of Acts first usage of <I>oikoumene</I>, the NIV translates it as "the whole roman world" or something like that. <BR/><BR/>I'm tempted just to say that, no, it's not as cut-and-dry as all that. But I can't read Romans and imagine that God's not going to redeem his Creation. I'm not a Gnostic.<BR/><BR/>Welcome to the blog, <B>Cameron</B>. <BR/><BR/>I'll read your articles, <B>Byron</B>. <BR/><BR/><B>Simon</B>, adherence to Tradition and the willingness to critique and adopt the various traditions of the Church as they seem faithful to Scripture and the ancient apostolic proclamation doesn't mean being swayed by every wind of doctrine, which is what the Rapture is all about. It was invited by some American a hundred and fifty years ago, and then popularised by Scofield. It doesn't pass any reasonable test of reception that I could imagine. It doesn't make more scriptures make more sense, and it doesn't flow from any historically sensitive reading.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164842931722584022006-11-29T18:28:00.000-05:002006-11-29T18:28:00.000-05:00Here is my take on the 2 Peter 3 passage, and see ...<A HREF="http://nothing-new-under-the-sun.blogspot.com/2006/10/heaven-not-end-of-world-xi.html" REL="nofollow">Here</A> is my take on the 2 Peter 3 passage, and see <A HREF="http://nothing-new-under-the-sun.blogspot.com/2006/09/heaven-not-end-of-world-vii.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> on Revelation 21-22 and <A HREF="http://nothing-new-under-the-sun.blogspot.com/2006/09/heaven-not-end-of-world-viii.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> for 'new heavens and new earth'. Since you've read all those, why not read <A HREF="http://nothing-new-under-the-sun.blogspot.com/2006/11/heaven-in-rear-view-mirror-links.html" REL="nofollow">the whole series</A>?byron smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17938334606675769903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164836169411172922006-11-29T16:36:00.000-05:002006-11-29T16:36:00.000-05:00Rossing's argument seems a bit weak to me, but I d...Rossing's argument seems a bit weak to me, but I do like the principle of looking at the greek and re-evaluating whether we have got it right. Interesting that although you would normally understand scripture through tradition, you are quite happy to adopt this approach when it seems to support your casue {what, me? provocative? I shall run and hide before you shoot me back}<BR/><BR/>That megachurches thing sounds very sinister - it's not a deal that i would sign up for! Thank you for exposing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164832216915166912006-11-29T15:30:00.000-05:002006-11-29T15:30:00.000-05:00Some nice references here. The review of Wright ha...Some nice references here. The review of Wright has convinced me to buy (and possibly read :)) those two volumes. And I tend to have similar feelings about C.S. Lewis as the reviewer, with the exception of his one redeeming virtue: <A HREF="http://www.theopedia.com/Image:Cslsmoking2.png" REL="nofollow">he smoked a pipe</A>. Ha ha ha! Does Wright smoke!?<BR/><BR/>Also, I appreciate the eschatological point made here, but I don't think a new gloss of <I>oikoumene</I> is sufficient to attenuate the theme of the destruction of the earth. Contra Rossing, both the "destruction of ungodly <I>men</I>" and that "the heavens and <I>earth</I> (<I>g?</I>)" are being "stored up for fire until the day of judgment" are mentioned together in a single sentence in 2 Pet 3:7. But I've long struggled to understand how both, on the one hand, the earth (<I>g?</I>), along with the heavens, will be burned (2 Pet 3:10), and, on the other hand, how "the glory and honor of the nations" (a possible reference to redeemed aspects of all cultures?) will be brought into the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:26). I think the dilemma remains.<BR/><BR/>Finally, thanks for including a link to my ramblings; I appreciate the 'ditto'. I was being uncharacteristically bold. :)<BR/><BR/>CheersDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01335230963150372489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164830725534797742006-11-29T15:05:00.000-05:002006-11-29T15:05:00.000-05:00"...the megachurch was willing to buy out their pr..."...the megachurch was willing to buy out their property and give them a full-time minister, so long as they dissolved their governing board, let their deacons go, didn't baptize anyone."<BR/><BR/>so what, hostile church takeovers? shocking. absolutely shocking.<BR/><BR/>p.s. nice site.Cameron Lawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10266534691791569337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164819439128654182006-11-29T11:57:00.000-05:002006-11-29T11:57:00.000-05:00Plus, there is a definite distinction between ge, ...Plus, there is a definite distinction between <I>ge, kosmos, and oikoumene</I>. For example, I tend to render <I>kosmos</I> as the "created order" and <I>ge</I> as the "earth." <I>Kosmos</I> seems to have a broader scope than <I>ge</I>.<BR/><BR/>So, there are definite distinctions in the meanings of these words but you have to be very careful in teasing them out.JHearnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14938224568383367403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164819189165255142006-11-29T11:53:00.000-05:002006-11-29T11:53:00.000-05:00I agree that Rossing's translation of oikoumene is...I agree that Rossing's translation of <I>oikoumene</I> is loose. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps an argument can be made that this is a legitimate translation but I'd want to read it. I fear that this translation might have an agenda behind it beacuse it does work very well to argue her position. I don't mean to say that she has done this intentionally, though.<BR/><BR/>If it's any interest, I find that <I>oikoumene</I> is a very difficult word to translate.JHearnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14938224568383367403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4009348.post-1164818605399960252006-11-29T11:43:00.000-05:002006-11-29T11:43:00.000-05:00Good point about eschatology. I do not disagree, b...Good point about eschatology. I do not disagree, but here are some things to consider: <I>oikoumene</I> actually means <I>inhabited</I> world. the stress is not on the Roman aspect. <BR/>it tends to mean the known world. <BR/><BR/>have a look at 2 peter 3, which uses the word <I>ge</I>. I think that the crux of all Christian Eschatology lies in verse 13, but the violence against the <I>ge</I> is unrefutable. <BR/><BR/>well, i hope this makes sense. I was up super late writing a paper.Stephen Lawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941887773760643060noreply@blogger.com