<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Theo-theology 101</title>
	<atom:link href="http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/</link>
	<description>Finding an abundance of joy in generously sharing my extreme poverty.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 03:12:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: life insurance quotes</title>
		<link>http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-106</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[life insurance quotes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://responsivereiding.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;life insurance quotes&lt;/strong&gt;

Customers and expenditures unnecessary  small.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>life insurance quotes</strong></p>
<p>Customers and expenditures unnecessary  small.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel Salisbury</title>
		<link>http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-105</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joel Salisbury]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:37:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://responsivereiding.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with your criticism of contemporary theology. I too have entertained the notion of constructing a new &#8220;school&#8221; of theology using the centrality of Christ and the Atonement as the focal point through which to understand all of scripture. One of the issues I have considered in addition is the inadequacy of the three available lapsarian perspectives to handle such a theology. I envision a theology that begins with the God&#8217;s determination to show forth His Glory through the work of Christ rather than beginning and ends with the Glory of God as central to a systematic theology as it is to God. </p>
<p>21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God&#8217;s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)</p>
<p>6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2Corintians 4:6)</p>
<p>Thanks for the opportunity to share my unqualified concerns.</p>
<p>Joel Salisbury</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MomUvTen</title>
		<link>http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MomUvTen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:16:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://responsivereiding.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So there is a big difference between knowing all ABOUT God, and KNOWING God!  (I&#039;d rather NOT know ALL there is to know about God, yet KNOW Him, than know all ABOUT Him and NOT know Him! Does that make sense?)  The two are tied together, of course, for how can you KNOW anyone without knowing more ABOUT them?  But we can study the Bible and even memorize it like the atheist did, without having a relationship with God.....kind of like knowing all about someone in history like Abraham Lincoln, for instance, without ever having met him personally.  But how can this whole concept be brought into a different or new method of Bible study and preaching? (Isn&#039;t that what you mean by hermeneutics?)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So there is a big difference between knowing all ABOUT God, and KNOWING God!  (I&#8217;d rather NOT know ALL there is to know about God, yet KNOW Him, than know all ABOUT Him and NOT know Him! Does that make sense?)  The two are tied together, of course, for how can you KNOW anyone without knowing more ABOUT them?  But we can study the Bible and even memorize it like the atheist did, without having a relationship with God&#8230;..kind of like knowing all about someone in history like Abraham Lincoln, for instance, without ever having met him personally.  But how can this whole concept be brought into a different or new method of Bible study and preaching? (Isn&#8217;t that what you mean by hermeneutics?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reid</title>
		<link>http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-103</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reid]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:01:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://responsivereiding.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have no interest in diminishing the role of God&#039;s covenants, but I fear they have moved from their own context to becoming the context. This is not healthy. Since at least a part of God&#039;s stated goal in creation is self-revelation - it only seems right that we pursue that revelation as the means to understanding the rest. C. S. Lewis said he believed in the Gospel the way he believed in the rising of the sun each day. Not because he can see the sun itself, as much as by the sun&#039;s light, he can see everything else. By the revelation of God Himself, everything else is revealed. but if we only explore the revelation and not the Revelator, we will inevitably miss the goal.

Bruce Waltke tells the sotry of when he was in Israel studying. He lived next door to a men who had trained to be a Rabbi. They would meet each day to study modern Hebrew - and when they would reach certain words in the Newspaper, his friend would say &quot;Bruce, you ought to already know that word - its in the Bible.&quot; Then, Waltke says, his friend would go one not to quote the verse where the word appeared, but the entire chapter each time. Later, in one sitting he chanted for two hours with Waltke checking the Biblical text and he never dropped a syllable. He later confessed he had memorized the entire Torah and could chant it from memory. Then Waltke mentions - the man was an atheist. Now he had given his life to studying the revelation in unimaginably fine detail - committing much of it to memory - but he had never met the Revelator. And the revelation was for nothing. This is my fear with the way we approach theology.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no interest in diminishing the role of God&#8217;s covenants, but I fear they have moved from their own context to becoming the context. This is not healthy. Since at least a part of God&#8217;s stated goal in creation is self-revelation &#8211; it only seems right that we pursue that revelation as the means to understanding the rest. C. S. Lewis said he believed in the Gospel the way he believed in the rising of the sun each day. Not because he can see the sun itself, as much as by the sun&#8217;s light, he can see everything else. By the revelation of God Himself, everything else is revealed. but if we only explore the revelation and not the Revelator, we will inevitably miss the goal.</p>
<p>Bruce Waltke tells the sotry of when he was in Israel studying. He lived next door to a men who had trained to be a Rabbi. They would meet each day to study modern Hebrew &#8211; and when they would reach certain words in the Newspaper, his friend would say &#8220;Bruce, you ought to already know that word &#8211; its in the Bible.&#8221; Then, Waltke says, his friend would go one not to quote the verse where the word appeared, but the entire chapter each time. Later, in one sitting he chanted for two hours with Waltke checking the Biblical text and he never dropped a syllable. He later confessed he had memorized the entire Torah and could chant it from memory. Then Waltke mentions &#8211; the man was an atheist. Now he had given his life to studying the revelation in unimaginably fine detail &#8211; committing much of it to memory &#8211; but he had never met the Revelator. And the revelation was for nothing. This is my fear with the way we approach theology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BC</title>
		<link>http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2005 11:19:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://responsivereiding.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting stuff...  I&#039;ll throw this out there and see what you think.  Covenant theology emphasizes covenants as God&#039;s way of relating to man.  It is &quot;a bond sovereignly administered.&quot;  The emphasis is on the way that God relates to humanity, making solemn bonds (&quot;cut&quot; covenants in blood) between Himself and His people.  You are talking (I think) about a hermeneutic that emphasizes first and foremost God revealing Himself, and secondarily how he relates to creation.  A revelatory and not relational emphasis.  This could not only fill in recognized gaps in the covenantal or dispensational structures, (i.e. &quot;the formalizing term &#039;covenant&#039; does not apear in the earlier narratives of Genesis.  The biblical exegete should be concerned to determine the reason for this omission.&quot; -The Christ of the Covenants, O. Palmer Robertson, p.18) but also function as a regulatory principle so that our understanding of how God speaks, acts, or relates to people is understood in light of WHO HE IS.  Instead of creating a theology from how God relates to people through covenants then laying that theology across the corpus of Scripture, we create a theology of who God has revealed Himself to be and subject all other understanding to that knowledge.

Sounds dangerous.  Count me in.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting stuff&#8230;  I&#8217;ll throw this out there and see what you think.  Covenant theology emphasizes covenants as God&#8217;s way of relating to man.  It is &#8220;a bond sovereignly administered.&#8221;  The emphasis is on the way that God relates to humanity, making solemn bonds (&#8220;cut&#8221; covenants in blood) between Himself and His people.  You are talking (I think) about a hermeneutic that emphasizes first and foremost God revealing Himself, and secondarily how he relates to creation.  A revelatory and not relational emphasis.  This could not only fill in recognized gaps in the covenantal or dispensational structures, (i.e. &#8220;the formalizing term &#8216;covenant&#8217; does not apear in the earlier narratives of Genesis.  The biblical exegete should be concerned to determine the reason for this omission.&#8221; -The Christ of the Covenants, O. Palmer Robertson, p.18) but also function as a regulatory principle so that our understanding of how God speaks, acts, or relates to people is understood in light of WHO HE IS.  Instead of creating a theology from how God relates to people through covenants then laying that theology across the corpus of Scripture, we create a theology of who God has revealed Himself to be and subject all other understanding to that knowledge.</p>
<p>Sounds dangerous.  Count me in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reid</title>
		<link>http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reid]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://responsivereiding.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks - it is fun to think a little outside the box at times. In this case, I really think it needs to be explored some. If I were to find a watch somehwere. I could say a couple of things about the maker with some certainty. I would know for instance that the watch itself was made for the purpose of keeping track of time. I might extraoplate something about the skill of the maker, their ability to secure certain grades of materials, maybe a few other things. But when it comes to WHY they made it - beyond the specific of being a time-keeping device, I am at a loss. Was it made to be a gift? A personal possession? Did it replace a former piece? Was it loved? Was it a prototype or the finished project? These things speak to inner issues which can only be known if I know the Maker himself. Motives and deep purposes are not avaialble through mere observation of the works he has done - no matter how finely I work at it. Personal knowledge alone will open that up. Now God has given us much of the personal knowledge in Hiw Word. He opens up many of His purposes. But the plan of redemption is not to be understood only in terms of what it does - it must be understood from the perspective of &quot;why&quot; does God want to do this? What is His motivation? This gets me knowing Him - above merely what He has done. And this is what I believe He is after. Theology ought to lead us first to God Himself - and then what He does finds its full purpose.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks &#8211; it is fun to think a little outside the box at times. In this case, I really think it needs to be explored some. If I were to find a watch somehwere. I could say a couple of things about the maker with some certainty. I would know for instance that the watch itself was made for the purpose of keeping track of time. I might extraoplate something about the skill of the maker, their ability to secure certain grades of materials, maybe a few other things. But when it comes to WHY they made it &#8211; beyond the specific of being a time-keeping device, I am at a loss. Was it made to be a gift? A personal possession? Did it replace a former piece? Was it loved? Was it a prototype or the finished project? These things speak to inner issues which can only be known if I know the Maker himself. Motives and deep purposes are not avaialble through mere observation of the works he has done &#8211; no matter how finely I work at it. Personal knowledge alone will open that up. Now God has given us much of the personal knowledge in Hiw Word. He opens up many of His purposes. But the plan of redemption is not to be understood only in terms of what it does &#8211; it must be understood from the perspective of &#8220;why&#8221; does God want to do this? What is His motivation? This gets me knowing Him &#8211; above merely what He has done. And this is what I believe He is after. Theology ought to lead us first to God Himself &#8211; and then what He does finds its full purpose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MomUvTen</title>
		<link>http://responsivereiding.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MomUvTen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://responsivereiding.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/theo-theology-101/#comment-100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I look forward to reading your blogs because you always come up with some far out and interesting ideas, including this one!

I went to a series of classes in the summer on the doctrine of GOD, (called &quot;Getting to Know God Like You&#039;ve Never Known Him Before&quot;) during which the teacher went through the names by which God revealed Himself to mankind, from creation on through history.  For example, it wasn&#039;t until Moses met Him at the burning bush that He revealed Himself as &quot;YaHWeH&quot; (I Am)  Why is that?  What did this name reveal about God that He hadn&#039;t revealed to man before that moment in time? And why didn&#039;t He reveal Himself using this name until then?  His names throughout the Scriptures sometimes revealed a new aspect of God&#039;s character that wasn&#039;t known or emphasized before that point in history.  Perhaps a study of theology could be based on the names by which God revealed Himself to man (and the different aspects of His character as they were revealed through those names)....like Jehovah-jireh, Jehovan-nissi, Jehovah-rapha, and Jehovah-tsidkenu (my favorite because it sounds neat and teaches a great truth about God and salvation).....culminating in the incarnation, resurrection, ascention of Christ (including the names Jesus even gave to Himself while on earth...the Way, the LIFE, the TRUTH, the DOOR, the Good Shepherd, etc.).

I have even LESS gray matter between my ears, so I hesitate to share my thoughts, but it might be something to think about.  

P. S. I sure hope the hair growing from ears thing only happens to MEN when they reach 50!!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I look forward to reading your blogs because you always come up with some far out and interesting ideas, including this one!</p>
<p>I went to a series of classes in the summer on the doctrine of GOD, (called &#8220;Getting to Know God Like You&#8217;ve Never Known Him Before&#8221;) during which the teacher went through the names by which God revealed Himself to mankind, from creation on through history.  For example, it wasn&#8217;t until Moses met Him at the burning bush that He revealed Himself as &#8220;YaHWeH&#8221; (I Am)  Why is that?  What did this name reveal about God that He hadn&#8217;t revealed to man before that moment in time? And why didn&#8217;t He reveal Himself using this name until then?  His names throughout the Scriptures sometimes revealed a new aspect of God&#8217;s character that wasn&#8217;t known or emphasized before that point in history.  Perhaps a study of theology could be based on the names by which God revealed Himself to man (and the different aspects of His character as they were revealed through those names)&#8230;.like Jehovah-jireh, Jehovan-nissi, Jehovah-rapha, and Jehovah-tsidkenu (my favorite because it sounds neat and teaches a great truth about God and salvation)&#8230;..culminating in the incarnation, resurrection, ascention of Christ (including the names Jesus even gave to Himself while on earth&#8230;the Way, the LIFE, the TRUTH, the DOOR, the Good Shepherd, etc.).</p>
<p>I have even LESS gray matter between my ears, so I hesitate to share my thoughts, but it might be something to think about.  </p>
<p>P. S. I sure hope the hair growing from ears thing only happens to MEN when they reach 50!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

