Melinda Cousins (Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Tabor) writes of the wonderful, less practiced ways in which we can—and should—engage with the Biblical text.
As someone who became a Christian as a teenager in the 1990s, I was taught to read the Bible in my daily “quiet time” as a private, silent, individual, and visual exercise. (And to feel quite guilty when I found this difficult or unexciting). Studying and teaching the Bible in more recent years, I have been challenged by the idea that this is not the only way to engage with God’s Word, and perhaps not even the ‘best’ way. It is certainly not the way most members of the community of faith throughout history have engaged with this text.
There’s not much to say about this post. I get this. I am this. Lord, help my stupidity.
I’m in the middle of taking an in-depth look at sex, gender, identity, and the Christian worldview. This post (and the linked articles) share some interesting—and not always obvious—implications and connections.
As always, Paul David Tripp might appear to be stating the obvious, however it’s often the simple truths that we need to be reminded of. In an age where many views have downgraded marriage to the changing belief that marriage is no longer about God’s original intent but rather a social/sexual arrangement between two people (no matter their gender), these thoughts offer a valuable reminder.
With the existence of heresies about the afterlife (such as Universalism, in all its variant forms) still prevalent today, I appreciate Cold Case Christianity compiling this post of statements from early church fathers and writings. Notwithstanding the Bible as the final authority, there is much weight to be added to the discussion from these great early believers.
Tim Keller nails it.
Once you grant the main premise of the Bible—about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation—then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed. Because of Christ, the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties. It all falls into place. However, if you reject the idea of Christ as Son of God and Savior, then, of course, the Bible is at best a mishmash containing some inspiration and wisdom, but most of it would have to be rejected as foolish or erroneous.
This was not about Lewis seeing all reporters and papers as “fake news.” It was about recognizing their (and his) limits and understanding our temptation to judge others. When you read or see a negative story about someone, how quickly do you jump from “That was bad” to “They are bad”?