OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY: The "OT" bit references historical, literary, cultural issues (the particulars), the "theology" bit references the Big Picture (and why it matters). These two poles are expressed in the title. This blog concerns everything in between.
The idea that there will be a person who embodies evil; who rallies the nations together to fight the LORD (you know Rev 13; etc.).
Phil, sorry, but you've stumbled across (or I've stumbled across you) a real life "Evangelical" --- I'm still struggling with whether or not I am premil or amil (leaning amil). My heritage is dispensational premil (that is the type of school, doctrinally, that Multnomah is --- where I attended, and where Halden currently attends).
You're at least aware of such teaching, in re. to a "personal anti-Christ," right?
Many dispensationalists would say that what Israel is doing is justifiable; these folks could be labeled "Christian Zionists," I'm not one of those.
Hi Bobby, no need to apologize for being evangelical!
I'm afraid I'm not really clued up on end times scenarios. I don't even have a stance on how to interpret the Book of Revelation, a deficiency I'd like, one day, to make up for.
I'm aware of an anti-Christ, but not a personal anit-Christ.
As for Christian Zionism, I would have labelled myself one about five years ago, so I'm aware of categories such as "Dispensationalism." However, my position was based on an intense few months in the country itself when I was 18, rather than being brought up like that. It took about six months after my return to England for the critical questions to start having enough of an effect that I didn't feel it was worth getting to involved in such debates. They are no doubt important, but I've chosen the alternative route of digging to the foundations of theological exegesis per se.
I should clarify further, beyond being "Evangelical," I would label myself Paleo Orthodox of the 'Reformed' variety (T. F. Torrance has had an tremendous affect upon me).
I did grow up as a "Classic Dispy," moved into being a "Progressive Dispy;" and now probably am Amillennial, relative to an end time perspective.
Revelation is certainly an amazing book --- in fact (I'm sure as you know) is the most prolific in quoting directly and indirectly (allusions/echoing) the OT, which might make for an nice excuse to remedy your stance on its interpretation --- sooner than later, given your love of the OT ;-).
When I said personal anti-Christ; I just mean an actual, real, person --- just to clarify.
What an honor to have lived in Israel, I would love to visit there someday . . . although I may have to wait until Jesus comes and takes me (and the rest of the Church) to the "new one" :-).
As far as theological exegesis, what role do you believe grammatical analysis (of the text that is) has to play within the broader schema that theological exegesis represents? In other words, isn't (or shouldn't) theological loci a subsequent of grammatical/literary analysis? I guess there is a dialectic at work here (some have called this a "spiral"); I'm just curious to hear how you see this process playing out (e.g. the relationship between biblical theology and systematic/historical). I'm sure you've probably written posts on this issue, if so I would be more than content to have you point me to those (since this is kind've going off topic in re. to your original posting here) :-).
On the question of my understanding theological exgesis, I'd recommend going through my thread Theological Exegesis: A Christian Approach. It is more or less a reduplication of an essay I wrote on Childs, which you can read here: http://www.princetontheologicalreview.org/issues_pdf/38.pdf. Concerning the significance of historical-grammatical exegesis, the section on The spiritual and literal sense of Scripture will be relevant. Feel free to interact however you please.
7 comments:
Phil,
It's not justifiable, but it certainly is not an simple issue.
I suppose an personal anti-Christ will be able to broker a pseudo-solution; but of course we know it won't last.
What do you mean by "personal anit-Christ"?
The idea that there will be a person who embodies evil; who rallies the nations together to fight the LORD (you know Rev 13; etc.).
Phil, sorry, but you've stumbled across (or I've stumbled across you) a real life "Evangelical" --- I'm still struggling with whether or not I am premil or amil (leaning amil). My heritage is dispensational premil (that is the type of school, doctrinally, that Multnomah is --- where I attended, and where Halden currently attends).
You're at least aware of such teaching, in re. to a "personal anti-Christ," right?
Many dispensationalists would say that what Israel is doing is justifiable; these folks could be labeled "Christian Zionists," I'm not one of those.
Hi Bobby, no need to apologize for being evangelical!
I'm afraid I'm not really clued up on end times scenarios. I don't even have a stance on how to interpret the Book of Revelation, a deficiency I'd like, one day, to make up for.
I'm aware of an anti-Christ, but not a personal anit-Christ.
As for Christian Zionism, I would have labelled myself one about five years ago, so I'm aware of categories such as "Dispensationalism." However, my position was based on an intense few months in the country itself when I was 18, rather than being brought up like that. It took about six months after my return to England for the critical questions to start having enough of an effect that I didn't feel it was worth getting to involved in such debates. They are no doubt important, but I've chosen the alternative route of digging to the foundations of theological exegesis per se.
Phil,
I should clarify further, beyond being "Evangelical," I would label myself Paleo Orthodox of the 'Reformed' variety (T. F. Torrance has had an tremendous affect upon me).
I did grow up as a "Classic Dispy," moved into being a "Progressive Dispy;" and now probably am Amillennial, relative to an end time perspective.
Revelation is certainly an amazing book --- in fact (I'm sure as you know) is the most prolific in quoting directly and indirectly (allusions/echoing) the OT, which might make for an nice excuse to remedy your stance on its interpretation --- sooner than later, given your love of the OT ;-).
When I said personal anti-Christ; I just mean an actual, real, person --- just to clarify.
What an honor to have lived in Israel, I would love to visit there someday . . . although I may have to wait until Jesus comes and takes me (and the rest of the Church) to the "new one" :-).
As far as theological exegesis, what role do you believe grammatical analysis (of the text that is) has to play within the broader schema that theological exegesis represents? In other words, isn't (or shouldn't) theological loci a subsequent of grammatical/literary analysis? I guess there is a dialectic at work here (some have called this a "spiral"); I'm just curious to hear how you see this process playing out (e.g. the relationship between biblical theology and systematic/historical). I'm sure you've probably written posts on this issue, if so I would be more than content to have you point me to those (since this is kind've going off topic in re. to your original posting here) :-).
On the question of my understanding theological exgesis, I'd recommend going through my thread Theological Exegesis: A Christian Approach. It is more or less a reduplication of an essay I wrote on Childs, which you can read here: http://www.princetontheologicalreview.org/issues_pdf/38.pdf. Concerning the significance of historical-grammatical exegesis, the section on The spiritual and literal sense of Scripture will be relevant. Feel free to interact however you please.
Thanks, Phil.
Post a Comment