7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”
-
I try to stick to the policy, whilst commenting on it.
Most of it pretty understandable/standard. But,
1.using Scripture as a weapon/quoting isolated verses. To a point I agree, but surely as well as the whole has to be understood as part of the whole, the whole is made us by parts. People misuse the Bible by taking a verse out of context, but they can easily be shown up. Otherwise we can’t use the Bible at all, other than saying – read all of it – there’s something that relates to what I’m saying.2. How does the disclaimer square with not being able to comment on PSA? Is that a given (i.e. that it’s nonsense)? Are other opinions banned? Like Roman Catholic views. Even if (highly unlikely) it’s a minority view, are other historically minority views banned (charismatics, baptists) and non-Christians and all liberals – as there views are pretty minority.
3. Likening gay people to murderers. Unpleasant I agree. Although if (if I may quote a verse – but not to prove a point), this a reference to the 2nd 1/2 of Romans 1, the list includes people who disobey parents and the greedy. Presumably they’re still fair game?
Just not sure this quite stacks. It’s why people ask, “What are you afraid of?” when it comes to PSA?
-
Darren – thank you for your interest. However. the question is not whether you think this commenting policy quite stacks but whether I do.
-
-
Kelvin,
When reading about theories of the atonement, there is a real risk of continually reading things that have been said many times over – as you point out. But can I credit you with something reasonably original? “We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it.” I have never worked out how to determine the proportions of Christians who believe the various atonement theories. Is there some research out there?-
Thanks John – I’m not aware of any research though I’d be interested in any there was. When I wrote that, I was thinking not simply of who believes what now but also of Christians through time. The history of these various ways of understanding the (or an) atonement is fairly well attested and it is clear that some have risen and fallen through time.
My presumption is that most of the people in the great blocks of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches (both now and through history) don’t believe in penal substitution – or at least, don’t believe it in the same way that a classical evangelical might believe in it as doctrine which must be personally accepted in order to lead to individual salvation. However, as you rightly point out, who believes what may not be so simple.
-
-
There are a few bits of research on this, but mostly from the context of PSA
E.g. Chapter 5 of “Pierced for our Transgressions”, by Jeffery, Ovey & Sach (IVP), which is a quite survey of theologians, east & west, a dozen of which are pre-reformation, starting with Justin Martyr.Henri Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors of the atonement”, in the journal of the evangelical theological society, 47 (2004), pp629-645
“The divine substitution: The atonement in the Bible and history” by Shaw & Edwards (Day One).I get the your blog, your rules. Just doesn’t sound like decent is welcome.
-
Bit of a PS,
Robert Letham’s, “Through Western eyes”
Looks at the differences & common ground with E-orthodoxy on lots of things, including salvation. Letham (Reformed), thinks there’s lots to get from the East re:-Trinity in worship, incarnational stuff, divination (rightly understood), but still holds that his “Reformed” -
Well, Darren, I’ve found that there are quite a number of people who do want to meet and chat without the Atonement Thought Police stepping in to correct them all the time. In fact, though I expect you’ll be surprised to hear it, to those who don’t believe that particular doctrine, comments rather like your own can appear to be quite aggressive and verging on bullying.
So, you may not feel welcome to behave exactly as you like here. You are not. And there’s a comminity of folk who like it that way.
-
Previous Posts
-
Scottish Episcopal Flickr
I’m pleased to announce the existence of a flickr group for the Scottish Episcopal Church. It is open to anyone, not just members of the church; the only criteria are that photos shared with the group are of church events or buildings or people. Tourists passing by, you’re welcome. The group’s guidelines are over here.…
-
Ecumenical Websites (Sex and Gargoyles)
Two ecumenical websites to report on and draw to people’s attention. Ecumenical websites seem to be all the rage at the moment, but like a lot of ecumenical things, it is hard to focus people’s attention on them. Firstly, www.resourcingchurches.org.uk. This one has things for Christians to do. Quite a lot of C of S…
-
Elephants are apocryphal
We are reading stories from one of the books of the Macabees at morning prayer this week. There are a lot of elephants there. Nuggats such as this are on offer: “They offered the elephants the juice of grapes and mulberries, to arouse them for battle.” So far as I’m aware, elephants only appear in…
-
In Search of the Presbyterian Sense of Humour
I’ve received a request off-blog from someone in the colonies, asking to be pointed to any Scottish bloggers writing from a presbyterian point of view who display the same kind of sense of humour as some of those linking to and posting comments on here. I don’t know the answer to this one, so my…
Leave a Reply