We began this course in a discussion of theological method and the ways in which we do (and, perhaps more importantly, the ways we should) move beyond the Bible to form doctrine surrounding theological issues. Over the course of the class we discussed four primary views on the subject: Principlizing, Redemptive-Historical, Drama of Redemption, and Redemptive Movement. Principlizing uses the “principles” given in scripture, removes them from their context, and place them in the modern context in which the doctrine is necessarily applied. The Redemptive-Historical model, quite different from Principlizing, values patterns over principles. This model assumes that all of history is a love story. God romances his people, and it is within this
…show more content…
Principlizing sounds very simple and is easy to apply, but it is not always the best method. It assumes that whatever the principle in question is not dependent upon the context of the original passage. On the opposite extreme, I think that the redemptive movement is far too extra-biblical. To assume that the theology of the New Testament is not what we should be striving to achieve seems to be over-complicating the matter. In the end, both the Redemptive-Historical model and the Drama of Redemption model resonate with me, but the emphasis on personal engagement and involvement is of the utmost importance to me as well. His emphasis on action highlights the believers’ responsibility and place in the …show more content…
I do think that Paul is denouncing all homosexual acts, not just the generally immoral acts such as lust and rape. Even many people (including Loader) who affirm homosexuality cede the fact that Paul deems it to be sinful. From there, in order to find homosexuality to be acceptable, one must find Paul to be wrong. Thus, homosexuality is unacceptable to me in the church. Further, with this in mind I must, in order to be consistent, I must also believe that homosexual marriage cannot be biblical or satisfy God’s intentions for marriage. What I will say about the purposes of marriage is that they are multi-faceted. I do not think that the purpose of marriage is singular in nature, but rather that it involves everything from reflecting Christ’s relationship with the church to procreation. Overall, due to my traditional view of Paul’s message, I do not think that homosexuality can be a true fulfillment of the marriage
Principlizing sounds very simple and is easy to apply, but it is not always the best method. It assumes that whatever the principle in question is not dependent upon the context of the original passage. On the opposite extreme, I think that the redemptive movement is far too extra-biblical. To assume that the theology of the New Testament is not what we should be striving to achieve seems to be over-complicating the matter. In the end, both the Redemptive-Historical model and the Drama of Redemption model resonate with me, but the emphasis on personal engagement and involvement is of the utmost importance to me as well. His emphasis on action highlights the believers’ responsibility and place in the …show more content…
I do think that Paul is denouncing all homosexual acts, not just the generally immoral acts such as lust and rape. Even many people (including Loader) who affirm homosexuality cede the fact that Paul deems it to be sinful. From there, in order to find homosexuality to be acceptable, one must find Paul to be wrong. Thus, homosexuality is unacceptable to me in the church. Further, with this in mind I must, in order to be consistent, I must also believe that homosexual marriage cannot be biblical or satisfy God’s intentions for marriage. What I will say about the purposes of marriage is that they are multi-faceted. I do not think that the purpose of marriage is singular in nature, but rather that it involves everything from reflecting Christ’s relationship with the church to procreation. Overall, due to my traditional view of Paul’s message, I do not think that homosexuality can be a true fulfillment of the marriage