Tuesday, November 29, 2011
And This for my Wife
Reception Photos
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2506620312302.137679.1456879198&type=1&l=85096dd6a6
Honeymoon Photos
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2622079958721.139455.1456879198&type=1&l=af66123917
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2506620312302.137679.1456879198&type=1&l=85096dd6a6
Honeymoon Photos
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2622079958721.139455.1456879198&type=1&l=af66123917
Don't Be Sloppy
I myself have been plenty sloppy in my life, and I am glad that my first sermons especially, but also many others were heard by few and not saved for others. However, a visit to an old country church and a recent radio message have prompted me to reinvigorate my concern that what we say about God and the Bible need to be well informed, and not mere cultural clichês. The very people who insult and speak against buzzwords like 'emergent' and many modern theological trends commit the same errors because of a sloppy approach to their speaking.
On Sunday, I was listening to a classic liberal application of the Sermon on the Mount, which said that Jesus has established His Kingdom on earth, and we need to keep all of the commands that He gave in the Sermon on the Mount in order to be saved. I doubt whether the teacher has heard of the debates between present scholars over this application, but as a church and school, they would certainly distance themselves from the names of those who teach the same.
I will not pretend to have clearly understood or resolved all of the issues in the debate, but much of the message of all four of the Gospels is the head to head conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Sermon on the Mount is no exception, when Jesus says that in order to inherit the Kingdom, the people needed to have more righteousness than the Pharisees. He then proceeded to show how that the heart is guilty before any actions are seen. The people must have been amazed. How could anyone inherit eternal life if even the Pharisees were not worthy. There must be no hope.
Here we see God's righteous standard unkeepable, and not something that we just have to 'do our best and hope it is good enough.'
The second thing that I was shocked and horrified to hear was a radio program in which the Bible teacher said that we need less doctrine and logic and debate and that we need more faith. He then proceeded to describe faith as a subjective feeling of relationship with God. The presentor did not use the word subjective, but he described feelings in the heart and experience as well as several sentiments that leave the hearer with the impression that faith is irrational but good.
I do not wish to be so bold, but faith is doctrine and logic and debate. 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen' (Heb 11.1). How can the writer of Hebrews say assurance and conviction? We look too often and see the 'things not seen' part and assume that it is irrational, but assurance and conviction come from a convinced person who is very sure of a truth.
'Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 3). This language that describes 'the faith' seems to describe something more specific than a religious experience. In fact, by the language that it was 'once for all delivered to the saints' I would understand that the writer is saying that faith in this context is a body of truth that Luke calls in Acts 'the apostles' doctrine.' Faith can also be trusting in God to do what He promised.
At any rate, I have been breif, and there are gaps to be filled in these subjects to fully resolve them, but they reminded me of the important need to keep our minds renewed and our communication clear so that we do not falsly understand Jesus to teach mere social issues or Christianity to be a mere moral influence that gives us a way to cope with difficulty in life.
These issues are especially important as we seek to have clarity and consistency in relation to what the gospel is and how we are to teach and express it.
On Sunday, I was listening to a classic liberal application of the Sermon on the Mount, which said that Jesus has established His Kingdom on earth, and we need to keep all of the commands that He gave in the Sermon on the Mount in order to be saved. I doubt whether the teacher has heard of the debates between present scholars over this application, but as a church and school, they would certainly distance themselves from the names of those who teach the same.
I will not pretend to have clearly understood or resolved all of the issues in the debate, but much of the message of all four of the Gospels is the head to head conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Sermon on the Mount is no exception, when Jesus says that in order to inherit the Kingdom, the people needed to have more righteousness than the Pharisees. He then proceeded to show how that the heart is guilty before any actions are seen. The people must have been amazed. How could anyone inherit eternal life if even the Pharisees were not worthy. There must be no hope.
Here we see God's righteous standard unkeepable, and not something that we just have to 'do our best and hope it is good enough.'
The second thing that I was shocked and horrified to hear was a radio program in which the Bible teacher said that we need less doctrine and logic and debate and that we need more faith. He then proceeded to describe faith as a subjective feeling of relationship with God. The presentor did not use the word subjective, but he described feelings in the heart and experience as well as several sentiments that leave the hearer with the impression that faith is irrational but good.
I do not wish to be so bold, but faith is doctrine and logic and debate. 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen' (Heb 11.1). How can the writer of Hebrews say assurance and conviction? We look too often and see the 'things not seen' part and assume that it is irrational, but assurance and conviction come from a convinced person who is very sure of a truth.
'Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 3). This language that describes 'the faith' seems to describe something more specific than a religious experience. In fact, by the language that it was 'once for all delivered to the saints' I would understand that the writer is saying that faith in this context is a body of truth that Luke calls in Acts 'the apostles' doctrine.' Faith can also be trusting in God to do what He promised.
At any rate, I have been breif, and there are gaps to be filled in these subjects to fully resolve them, but they reminded me of the important need to keep our minds renewed and our communication clear so that we do not falsly understand Jesus to teach mere social issues or Christianity to be a mere moral influence that gives us a way to cope with difficulty in life.
These issues are especially important as we seek to have clarity and consistency in relation to what the gospel is and how we are to teach and express it.
