Dan and Art seem to have a difference of opinion of what it means when something is "Biblical". They both use the term, but seem to use it to mean different things. I offer this space for the purpose of allowing BOTH of them the opportunity to define "Biblical" with specificity and in detail so that their readers will know what they mean when they use the term.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As I said at Marshal's, I consider it a pretty meaningless and unhelpful term. Sometimes I'll use it when the other person is using and I'll use it in the sense that they seem to be using it. That is to say, usually when someone says something is biblical, they mean it's godly or something that God wants. If they're saying THAT, then they need to prove it is what God wants, not just that they can find some lines in the Bible that make them think it personally.
I much prefer to talk about what's reasonable, what's moral, what's good, what's observable. The human theories, and once again itthey are only human theories, that humans are born with a "sin nature" that they "inherited" from a little "Adam." ARE NOT in any sense "good" is an empty claim unless you support it. Same for the crazy theory that there are no good humans when reality disputes that.
Stan, and those before him and his little jaunt into descriptive and prescriptive is fine as far as it goes but it goes deeper than that.
Dan
So, you can't or won't define the tercem as you are using it. Got it, thanks.
Your belief that other vague and subjective terms are better is irrelevant to this post and therefore a pointless diversion. Who cares about your preferences?
Again, who cares about your vague, unproven, claims?
You answered the question, for which I thank you. Therefore there is no need for further comments on this thread. This thread was intended for one very specific purpose. You had your opportunity to do what was asked, you did what you wanted to do. So no further comments or off topic nonsense is necessary and will be aborted.
Before the comment abortion, I did manage to salvage a usable part of two.
"I'm more than glad to give a definition."
Yet, your initial response was to not "give a definition" in a comment on a post which was specifically asking for a definition. That you, later, can offer to do what you chose not to do, is irrelevant.
"I'm just explaining why I found it a less-than-useful term for you."
I don't care. I didn't ask for this, I asked for a definition which you chose not to provide.
FYI, as the post noted, this is in reference to YOU and ART using the term and what YOU and ART mean when you use the term. I was hoping for two comments with two definitions, unfortunately you chose otherwise.
In an aborted comment, Dan tries to guilt me about some alleged lack of "grace" because of his choices about not including his definition in his first comment. In a post specifically looking for a specific definition of a specific term, choosing to lead without providing the definition asked for in the post is a choice and choices have consequences.
Nice try. I specifically and clearly told you that your first comment answered the question and that you didn't need to comment further, and I told you what the consequences would be if you continued to comment. You whining about the choice you made, isn't helpful.
I'm following through on what I said I would do, you know being consistent.
Well, since you asked, and at risk of providing this definition will give Dan even more of an opening to escape his obligation at my blog, I will first remind that it was Dan who first used the term in the negative...not only about the Biblical teaching that we are each born with a sin nature, but of other concepts for which we've provide evidence that a concept is from Scripture (like PSA, the only definition of "marriage", the abomination of homosexual behavior in any context one might conjure, and that that prohibition remains universal). Thus, as I've stated, if Dan says "sin doctrine" is not "Biblical" or "not in the Bible anywhere", my response is "yes. it most certainly is and as such it is indeed 'Biblical'".
So what "Biblical" means in this context, as what it means when most people use the term in just that one word manner, is that it refers to a fact, teaching, concept, principle, doctrine which is presented in Scripture. It's a Biblical doctrine. A Biblical principle. A Biblical teaching. A factually, a truth of consequence Christians accept. It might be true that Jesus rode a donkey, but that's not a truth of consequence (except as it fulfills a prophesy...though some versions of the Bible, I believe, say he rode a colt). Or that Jesus wore sandals, or smoke Lucky Strikes. Those are not consequential to the most essential truths of the Bible. Sin nature is. It's vastly integral to the most important Good News for which Jesus was anointed to spread to the poor in spirit.
So when I say something is Biblical, I can't think of an example of anything other than that which is an important teaching or doctrine of the Christian faith.
Is this what you were looking for, or need I expound in greater detail? (Please don't tell me I do, though I will if necessary).
First, I commend you on playing along, that is much harder than I thought it would be. If you want to expand, I won't stop you, but you answered the question in the way that you chose to.
FYI, a colt is the appropriate term for a young male donkey. The fact that it fulfills a prophecy seems like a worthy reason, as well as to contrast the entrance of a victorious king or general on a war horse with the entrance of The King of Kings on an unbroken donkey colt.
Without being overly critical, and with the understanding that you are merely mirroring Dan's terminology (and usage), I do agree with his point (despite it being pedantic and woodenly literal) that the mere mention of something in the Bible renders it "Biblical" in some sense.
We're all guilty of using the same shorthand that you are, and for the same reason. My question is whether or not there is a better term that is more precise. I'm at a loss, and I understand that it's probably too late, but I remain curious.
Post a Comment