Thank you, Jeff. I hear you. Growing up in a trauma-infused home, no one had to tell me I was 'bad'. I knew it to my bones. Having church and church community reinforce that led me to many decades of trying to perform my goodness, value and worth. When we start with Original Love rather than Original Sin, we create a more stable foundation...in my opinion.
Very well, said Jeff! In Christianity, it should not be Us and “Them” it’s Us (Humanity)and God! The Great news is God has saved Humanity,God is saving Humanity and will ultimately save us All! as much as I love augustinian theology his theory of original sin truly “misses the mark” when the Bible is read correctly The overarching team is redemption .Jesus told us to invite all humanity to commune with him.Thank you Jeff!!
So…OK…understanding is evolutionary. And always changing. And it is a conundrum to determine if proof texting is highlighting a global truth or selected to emphasize one’s own perspective. I just wonder, if all is good and love (and, honestly, I’m really not disagreeing) what, indeed, was the world to be saved from?🧐
You've touched on two things I think about A LOT- proof texting and just "what" are we saved from? The following are the words of Pete Enns, a current Christian historian and theologian. They were part of a discussion in the comments of one of his recent Substack articles.
"The history of Judaism and [Christianity] have been engaged in creative use of the Bible, and the big difference as I see it between that and prooftexting is that they are not claiming to be following the plain meaning of the text, but are self-consciously digging deep beneath the surface (esp. true of Medieval [Christ]ian exegesis). Prooftexting is quite lazy by comparison. But what they both do have in common is the drive to connect the Bible with what is happening in their moment."
As you said, proof texting - something we've all done - typically involves finding scripture to back up a position we might hold, or simply look for an easy scripture which might inform a particular position. There's not much depth to it. "The Bible said it, so I believe it," type of thing. But when we look to understand the Bible from the perspective of the person who wrote the words and the people who would have heard the words, some of the meaning of the scripture might change. Then, how we'd understand that wisdom might change how we apply it to our situation today.
As for, "what was the world to be saved from?" My simple answer is death by shame. You deserve a better answer with more depth, but that's what I have at the moment. I'll say this though, I've long dropped the notion that I'm simply saved from the wrath of an angry God.
Thank you, Jeff. I hear you. Growing up in a trauma-infused home, no one had to tell me I was 'bad'. I knew it to my bones. Having church and church community reinforce that led me to many decades of trying to perform my goodness, value and worth. When we start with Original Love rather than Original Sin, we create a more stable foundation...in my opinion.
Original love, or original “Blessing” as I’ve come to understand it, has helped me in so many ways.
Very well, said Jeff! In Christianity, it should not be Us and “Them” it’s Us (Humanity)and God! The Great news is God has saved Humanity,God is saving Humanity and will ultimately save us All! as much as I love augustinian theology his theory of original sin truly “misses the mark” when the Bible is read correctly The overarching team is redemption .Jesus told us to invite all humanity to commune with him.Thank you Jeff!!
So…OK…understanding is evolutionary. And always changing. And it is a conundrum to determine if proof texting is highlighting a global truth or selected to emphasize one’s own perspective. I just wonder, if all is good and love (and, honestly, I’m really not disagreeing) what, indeed, was the world to be saved from?🧐
You've touched on two things I think about A LOT- proof texting and just "what" are we saved from? The following are the words of Pete Enns, a current Christian historian and theologian. They were part of a discussion in the comments of one of his recent Substack articles.
"The history of Judaism and [Christianity] have been engaged in creative use of the Bible, and the big difference as I see it between that and prooftexting is that they are not claiming to be following the plain meaning of the text, but are self-consciously digging deep beneath the surface (esp. true of Medieval [Christ]ian exegesis). Prooftexting is quite lazy by comparison. But what they both do have in common is the drive to connect the Bible with what is happening in their moment."
As you said, proof texting - something we've all done - typically involves finding scripture to back up a position we might hold, or simply look for an easy scripture which might inform a particular position. There's not much depth to it. "The Bible said it, so I believe it," type of thing. But when we look to understand the Bible from the perspective of the person who wrote the words and the people who would have heard the words, some of the meaning of the scripture might change. Then, how we'd understand that wisdom might change how we apply it to our situation today.
As for, "what was the world to be saved from?" My simple answer is death by shame. You deserve a better answer with more depth, but that's what I have at the moment. I'll say this though, I've long dropped the notion that I'm simply saved from the wrath of an angry God.
As much as anything…likely saved from ourselves. 🤷🏼♀️
💯… and each other.
Haley Williams?