Comments for Storied Theology http://www.jrdkirk.com Telling the story of the story-bound God Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:04:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on No Such Thing as Christian Natural Theology by Mike Poteet http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/01/27/no-such-thing-as-christian-natural-theology/#comment-23187 Mike Poteet Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:04:28 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4567#comment-23187 Just to take a stab at that, I think it has to do with Barth's stress that Paul's starting point cannot be any revelation apart from the revelation in Christ. And (I don't know if Barth does exactly this) you could, in fact, read these verses in immediate context to refer back to v. 16: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel..." In the Gospel, and not outside of it, both the righteousness and the wrath of God are revealed. Also, as Barth has defined "what can be known about God" (v. 19) - namely, what God reveals in Christ - the idea that God could be known apart from that revelation is an impossibility. I admit, though, v. 20 is harder to make sense of within Barth's framework. Especially when later on, on p. 120, Barth says: "God was revealed to [the heathen] from the very first. The world which always surrounded them was always His creation and spoke of His great works and therefore of Himself." That seems by and large what you quote Moo as saying. It seems the one weak link in Barth's case against Christian natural theology, because I thought he did a fairy strong job of showing why the other oft-cited "proof texts" don't, in the end, support a general revelation. Just to take a stab at that, I think it has to do with Barth’s stress that Paul’s starting point cannot be any revelation apart from the revelation in Christ. And (I don’t know if Barth does exactly this) you could, in fact, read these verses in immediate context to refer back to v. 16: “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel…” In the Gospel, and not outside of it, both the righteousness and the wrath of God are revealed. Also, as Barth has defined “what can be known about God” (v. 19) – namely, what God reveals in Christ – the idea that God could be known apart from that revelation is an impossibility.

I admit, though, v. 20 is harder to make sense of within Barth’s framework. Especially when later on, on p. 120, Barth says: “God was revealed to [the heathen] from the very first. The world which always surrounded them was always His creation and spoke of His great works and therefore of Himself.” That seems by and large what you quote Moo as saying. It seems the one weak link in Barth’s case against Christian natural theology, because I thought he did a fairy strong job of showing why the other oft-cited “proof texts” don’t, in the end, support a general revelation.

]]> Comment on On Jesus’ Choosing Twelve Males by Matthew Shedd http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/03/on-jesus-choosing-twelve-males/#comment-23186 Matthew Shedd Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:32:13 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4597#comment-23186 I very much enjoyed this post from the perspective that it brought an insight into the gospel of Mark. However, the statement in no way addresses the issue raised by John Piper. While I would not call the gospel a "masculine" gospel, the underlying question is that of design. Has God created his families, his people, and his church to be overseen by men exclusively or not? I find it very hard to use the argument of "authority misused" means that Jesus never intended them to truly retain authority. I think "authority misused" should lead us to question how such authority would be properly used. To suggest that this in any way stands for egalitarianism is revisionist (just like many readings of texts to hold to 1950's culture is revisionist). I would much rather people say honestly, as to an extent Rachel Held Evans has, that they find these texts distasteful to our modern worldview. This is honest, which is much better than revising the meaning of a text. I very much enjoyed this post from the perspective that it brought an insight into the gospel of Mark. However, the statement in no way addresses the issue raised by John Piper. While I would not call the gospel a “masculine” gospel, the underlying question is that of design. Has God created his families, his people, and his church to be overseen by men exclusively or not?

I find it very hard to use the argument of “authority misused” means that Jesus never intended them to truly retain authority. I think “authority misused” should lead us to question how such authority would be properly used.

To suggest that this in any way stands for egalitarianism is revisionist (just like many readings of texts to hold to 1950′s culture is revisionist). I would much rather people say honestly, as to an extent Rachel Held Evans has, that they find these texts distasteful to our modern worldview. This is honest, which is much better than revising the meaning of a text.

]]> Comment on No Such Thing as Christian Natural Theology by Paul Lee http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/01/27/no-such-thing-as-christian-natural-theology/#comment-23184 Paul Lee Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:01:03 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4567#comment-23184 On page 102, I cannot understand his explanation of why Roman 1: 19-20 is compatible of his refutation of natural theology. His argument is very vague. In NICNT Douglas Moo's commentary, he stated:" that Paul teaches the reality of a revelation of God in nature to all people, this text is quite clear." (Moo. NICNT Romans commentary. p. 106). On page 102, I cannot understand his explanation of why Roman 1: 19-20 is compatible of his refutation of natural theology. His argument is very vague. In NICNT Douglas Moo’s commentary, he stated:” that Paul teaches the reality of a revelation of God in nature to all people, this text is quite clear.” (Moo. NICNT Romans commentary. p. 106).

]]> Comment on Humanity Ready for God by Geoff Holsclaw http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/04/humanity-ready-for-god/#comment-23183 Geoff Holsclaw Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:55:15 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4606#comment-23183 Thanks for this summary of Barth. It arms that these moves, especially the denial of anthropology and ecclesiology are common moves of Barthians, from Vanhoozer, Webster, and those connected to Princeton. While not reading Barth, whenever I read these others I often has the same critique as you, that they underplay the body of Christ as incorporation in Christ as the restoration of humanity. Ecclesiology is not sociology with another name, but humanity az it is in Christ. Thanks for this summary of Barth. It arms that these moves, especially the denial of anthropology and ecclesiology are common moves of Barthians, from Vanhoozer, Webster, and those connected to Princeton.

While not reading Barth, whenever I read these others I often has the same critique as you, that they underplay the body of Christ as incorporation in Christ as the restoration of humanity. Ecclesiology is not sociology with another name, but humanity az it is in Christ.

]]> Comment on Imaging the Biblical God by slacktivist » Little boys worship a little boy http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/02/imaging-the-biblical-god/#comment-23181 slacktivist » Little boys worship a little boy Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:36:36 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4589#comment-23181 [...] is a boy, so John Piper wants God to be a boy.Silly, silly boy.J.R. Daniel Kirk points out that the Bible does not let Christians claim that God is a boy.Sarah Moon notes that folks like Piper don’t seem to know much about women.Paul at [...] [...] is a boy, so John Piper wants God to be a boy.Silly, silly boy.J.R. Daniel Kirk points out that the Bible does not let Christians claim that God is a boy.Sarah Moon notes that folks like Piper don’t seem to know much about women.Paul at [...]

]]> Comment on On Jesus’ Choosing Twelve Males by Apostles to the apostles « Ben Irwin's blog http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/03/on-jesus-choosing-twelve-males/#comment-23180 Apostles to the apostles « Ben Irwin's blog Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:42:07 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4597#comment-23180 [...] well known the 12 disciples were men. Piper makes much of this point, though J.R. Daniel Kirk has shown how Piper obscures a vital element of the gospel by doing [...] [...] well known the 12 disciples were men. Piper makes much of this point, though J.R. Daniel Kirk has shown how Piper obscures a vital element of the gospel by doing [...]

]]> Comment on Homosexuality: Silence and Story by Frank http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/01/24/homosexuality-silence-and-story/#comment-23179 Frank Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:58:37 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4561#comment-23179 Aric that is a misstatement. I said and say that sin distorted God's perfect creation because that's what the bible says. Sin is defined in the bible as lawlessness. 1 John 3:4 Lawlessness is the opposite of law which is the opposite of Gods will. Lawlessness is a lie where God is truth. Titus 1:2 Hebrews 6:18 The bible says sin came through man not God: Romans 5:12 The bible says there is no sin in God: 2 Corinthians 5:21 Aric that is a misstatement. I said and say that sin distorted God’s perfect creation because that’s what the bible says.

Sin is defined in the bible as lawlessness. 1 John 3:4

Lawlessness is the opposite of law which is the opposite of Gods will. Lawlessness is a lie where God is truth. Titus 1:2
Hebrews 6:18

The bible says sin came through man not God: Romans 5:12

The bible says there is no sin in God: 2 Corinthians 5:21

]]> Comment on Homosexuality: Silence and Story by Ty Buckle http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/01/24/homosexuality-silence-and-story/#comment-23178 Ty Buckle Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:49:15 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4561#comment-23178 My main point was that equality with God is not founded on our roles or positions. Each of us has been employed and had to submit to another at some point and yet we are equal in God's eyes. Applying a "trajectory hermenuetic" to roles in a family, especially when New Testament texts are grounded in the creation story, seems dangerous. Furthermore, it can conveniently override what used to be thought of as clear biblical teaching. I don't see Jesus' submission to the Father as contradictory. He had a different role but was equal in His substance and status. Interestingly, with Jesus we find that submitting, or serving another, is "greater" in the kingdom but much of the feminist evangelical influence rejects this. I propose that there are differing roles but equal standing and I would caution the believers about applying secular views of "submission" and "equality" to Scripture. My main point was that equality with God is not founded on our roles or positions. Each of us has been employed and had to submit to another at some point and yet we are equal in God’s eyes. Applying a “trajectory hermenuetic” to roles in a family, especially when New Testament texts are grounded in the creation story, seems dangerous. Furthermore, it can conveniently override what used to be thought of as clear biblical teaching. I don’t see Jesus’ submission to the Father as contradictory. He had a different role but was equal in His substance and status. Interestingly, with Jesus we find that submitting, or serving another, is “greater” in the kingdom but much of the feminist evangelical influence rejects this. I propose that there are differing roles but equal standing and I would caution the believers about applying secular views of “submission” and “equality” to Scripture.

]]> Comment on Homosexuality: Silence and Story by Aric Clark http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/01/24/homosexuality-silence-and-story/#comment-23177 Aric Clark Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:41:56 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4561#comment-23177 Frank, you have repeatedly in this comment thread imputed the power of creation to sin, which is novel to say the least: <i>"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." - John 1:3</i> Frank, you have repeatedly in this comment thread imputed the power of creation to sin, which is novel to say the least:

“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” – John 1:3

]]> Comment on Homosexuality: Silence and Story by Frank http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/01/24/homosexuality-silence-and-story/#comment-23176 Frank Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:30:18 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=4561#comment-23176 Seth the true transformation and proof of the Spirit would be "I have homosexual feelings but I choose to follow Gods plan for my life not my own." Seth the true transformation and proof of the Spirit would be “I have homosexual feelings but I choose to follow Gods plan for my life not my own.”

]]>