I don't think that particular wording is as important as the broader hermeneutic used to interpret either participial phrase. If one is using moralistic-therapeutic deism then "for" and "about" mean the same, consumeristic/therapeutic thing. I'd rather comport the phrases under the hermeneutic of confessional Reformed orthodoxy and get a Christian understanding.
Aren't you glad you asked? It's hard being an exacting Calvinist, isn't it?
If it's not about me, then why is there a book named after me? And don't say it's about a different Joshua, cause that's just... uh... I mean... I uh... I could have time traveled or something... so how do you know it's not about me. Yeah that's it!
Actually the Bible is kinda about me. As Pratt always says, you can't be Christocentric without being Faris-pocentric.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me started on that!
ReplyDeleteCareful, Josh. I'm no fan of therapeutic-moralistic deism either. But if I have no stake in the biblical narrative then what's the point?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is about us, just not the way we think it is.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIt seems better to me to say that the Bible is for us, instead of about us. Right?
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that particular wording is as important as the broader hermeneutic used to interpret either participial phrase. If one is using moralistic-therapeutic deism then "for" and "about" mean the same, consumeristic/therapeutic thing. I'd rather comport the phrases under the hermeneutic of confessional Reformed orthodoxy and get a Christian understanding.
Aren't you glad you asked? It's hard being an exacting Calvinist, isn't it?
If it's not about me, then why is there a book named after me? And don't say it's about a different Joshua, cause that's just... uh... I mean... I uh... I could have time traveled or something... so how do you know it's not about me. Yeah that's it!
ReplyDelete