Is there anyway we can have a History board-- just to talk general history?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Just keep it in politics or general discussions for now. And make sure it somehow relates to Reformed theology and practice.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by SRoper
You mean just Civil War history.
That was my presumption also when I saw the title. General history, my foot...not on this board.

Agree, stick with politics.
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Ryan,

If you have to relate your history somehow to reformed theology and practice, remember God ordains whatsoever comes to pass and governs all things. Also any man is either a covenant keeper or a breaker and all history is in the redemptive plan. So now you can talk about anything you want to and it's covered. :p
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by crhoades
Ryan,

If you have to relate your history somehow to reformed theology and practice, remember God ordains whatsoever comes to pass and governs all things. Also any man is either a covenant keeper or a breaker and all history is in the redemptive plan. So now you can talk about anything you want to and it's covered. :p
Ditto, all facts are interpteted in a theological worldview. Therefore...
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Jacob, were you making a generalization in your last post? I'm confused by your use of the words "all" and "theological." Are naturalists theological? Anti-metaphysicians?
 

Puritanhead

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by crhoades
Ryan,

If you have to relate your history somehow to reformed theology and practice, remember God ordains whatsoever comes to pass and governs all things. Also any man is either a covenant keeper or a breaker and all history is in the redemptive plan. So now you can talk about anything you want to and it's covered. :p
I like that above statement...

Onto general statements-- Why is it everyone thinks that my history would only revolve only the around Civil War. Seriously?;)

I've used stories from history in Sunday School to teach lessons before... like a soldier giving an enemy drink, and then tying into Scripture. There are moral lessons offered from history. Why is the relevance to politics in that?

Politics is like a dirty closet for the Puritanboard where the moderators insist all of the rubbish goes-- to be kept out of the limelight...
:p

Also, I think we shouldn't follow the way of the Roman Catholics and reduce it to church history, and make that sacred-secular dichotomy. God works in history to fulfill his purposes.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Puritanhead]
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I was saying that all facts were interpreted within a worldview. Yes, it was a generalization for the sake of time. If I were writing a report or something I would have gone into more detail.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I was saying that all facts were interpreted within a worldview. Yes, it was a generalization for the sake of time. If I were writing a report or something I would have gone into more detail.
But not a theological worldview, right? Do you retract that?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I was saying that all facts were interpreted within a worldview. Yes, it was a generalization for the sake of time. If I were writing a report or something I would have gone into more detail.
But not a theological worldview, right? Do you retract that?
Sure, why not? I was using religious and theological as roughly synonymous for this case. I am not committed one way or another to a certain definiens.

Ultimately, however, I don't think you can separate religious from theological. But if theological upsets you then yes, I retract it.

[Edited on 3--9-06 by Draught Horse]
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Jacob, were you making a generalization in your last post? I'm confused by your use of the words "all" and "theological." Are naturalists theological? Anti-metaphysicians?
Just to spare Jacob the embarrasment of retracting such a small point, we can certainly argue that these atheistic folk are in fact interpreting through a theological worldview. You may disagree with their "theology" but it's still theological in it's foundation.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Thanks Patrick. I really didn't care one way or another which term someone wanted to use. I was just saying that neutrality is impossible with regard to historical data. Therefore, if one isn't interpreting facts with reference to God, then one is being disobedient to him. Either way, a religious position has been taken.
 

SRoper

Puritan Board Graduate
"The War of Northern Aggression, you mean. "

Huh? The War of Southern Insurrection, you say?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
No, an atheist is not interpreting facts through a theological worldview. That's absurd, in my opinion. *shrug*
Sure he is. He believes in God and is rebelling against God by attempting to interpret all facts without reference to God. Since he believes in God, he has a theology of sorts. Granted, it is a very bad one.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Doesnt all men have the law written on their hearts?
Aye, as Paul Manata was fond of saying, "I am an a-atheist. The burden of proof is on you. The bible says that all men believe in God. They are self-decevied and fools in the sense that they know the truth, and work very hard to convince themselves otherwise."
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
This is what Michael Butler wrote on the issue:

It is apparent tha the natural man is engaged in some form of self-deception. He believes in God but then suppresses this belief in order to allow himself not to believe in God. In other words, the unbeliever lies to himself and then believes the lie he tells. It appears that the natural man believes p and believes ~p. How do we resolve the contradiction?

The natural man believes that God exist (a first-order belief) and yet can deceive himself that God doesn´t exist (a second-order belief). Thus, the natural man does not believe both p and ~p, but rather he believes p and also believes (falsely) that he doesn´t believe p.
p. 71-72 in The Standard Bearer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top