This exchange begun elsewhere - as do most of these discussions, but had landed on whether ministers have to 'earn the right to be heard.'
It started with the discussion leader asking one of the more vocal combatants to step aside.
He didn't...
Christopher Aune, Certified Life Coach, Counselor and Consultant at Christopher Aune Group
Top Contributor
Robert Dallman - As the initiator and facilitator of this discussion, I point out that your comments are consistently belligerent, offensive, and are inconsistent with any point or attitude being put forward by anyone else in this thread. You are just looking for a fight and deliberately misunderstand people to that end. I have found that you copy the identical vitriolic responses into multiple discussions without regard for the flow of conversation on any of them. Therefore, I invite you to leave this thread at this time. Thank you.
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
Top Contributor
Hi Christopher Aune,
You have made comments that call into question the INTEGRITY of the Bible, God's Word. It has been you that has invited response!
As long as the Lord keeps the door open for me in this forum, I will NOT let efforts to DISCREDIT the Bible go unanswered.
I will NOT be leaving this discussion until God closes the door to me! If God closes the door, I am fine with that since He is in control.
_______________
Jude 1:3 - "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH which was once delivered unto the saints."
Romans 10:17 - "So then FAITH COMETH BY HEARING, and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD."
2 Timothy 3:16 - "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Doug Greenwold, Senior Teaching Fellow at Preserving Bible Times, Inc.
Robert,
I would commend Acts 1:1 for your consideration. There Luke characterizes Jesus pedagogy as "Do and Teach." If each word in Scripture is inspired, it has to follow that the sequence of those words is likewise inspired. There is much pastoral wisdom to be gained by looking at the sequence of words, phrases and thoughts in Scripture. Thus, Luke did not reverse those words and make it "teach and do" which seems to be the preferred Western way of doing things. Or "tell and maybe do" which seems to be the reality of Westernized teaching. In other words, from Luke's perspective, the genius of Jesus was how He taught. Do something first, then talk/teach about it later. That's exactly what happens in Luke. Jesus calls His first disciples in Luke 5 and then systematically exposes them to touching a leper, forgiving and healing a paralytic and calling of Levi. All radical acts. It isn't until Luke 8 that Jesus starts to do some teaching.
That's one of the things "wrong" about the Western evangelical church if you want to look at it that way. Our teaching pedagogy is mostly "teach (first) and maybe do" while Jesus' approach was "Do (first) and (then) teach" about the experience you just had. At least that is how Luke saw it as a pattern and captured the essence of that in Acts 1:1
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
Doug:
I am thinking it was Ravi Zacharias who identified that the Jews approach to 'truth' was unique in antiquity. Whereas the Greeks taught that truth came with education and enlightenment, the Hebrews' approach was that truth came in doing what God asks of us.
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
Top Contributor
Hi Doug Greenwold
You said quote: "Robert, I would commend Acts 1:1 for your consideration."
My response: That is one of my favorite passages. I have been "doing" and "teaching" for three decades now. I won't go into the doors that God has allowed me to serve Him in... He is my judge.
I don't believe that it is EVER acceptable to REJECT truth, no matter who or how it is delivered. If that were the case, we could each REJECT anything that we don't like, since other than Jesus, no messenger is perfect.
Doug Greenwold, Senior Teaching Fellow at Preserving Bible Times, Inc.
Robert,
The Adversary quoted Scripture to Jesus. It's a good thing Jesus rejected his use of Scripture. I only point that out from your comment "I don't believe that it is EVER acceptable to REJECT truth, no matter who or how it is delivered." More on this thought later.
Doug
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
Top Contributor
Hi Doug,
Yes, satan quoted Scripture out of context. We know that from the Bible descriptions of him (i.e. father of lies, etc) and the fact that Jesus corrected his mis-use of Scripture.
I do not believe that there is EVER a legitimate time to REJECT valid, in context, truth.
Sorry if I did not make myself clear enough.
Doug Greenwold, Senior Teaching Fellow at Preserving Bible Times, Inc.
John,
That's pretty much right. Observant Judaism in the first century was a behavioral religion. The acid test was what you did. It was not a conceptual, philosophical religion. For the observant Jew, God is what God does. Thoughts of omnipresence, transcendent, etc., where way beyond them. A biblical Jew would never ask a man if he loved his wife. He would follow him around for a couple of weeks observing the man's interactions with his wife and by closely observing dozens of interactions he would know the answer to his question. A biblical Jew knew that people had two standards - that which they live out and that which they espouse. As a result, he had no interest in what a person espoused, only in what he did. The early Quakers in America had something akin to that same notion. They would say: It matters not what a man says; just watch how he treats his dog.
That's one of the issues with these kinds of discussion forums. I have no idea whether what I read written by others is actually even lived out in any meaningful way by those who espouse them.
In Westernizing Christianity, we are much more into the conceptual. We look at the Apostles creed as if it was a menu of conceptual thoughts we need/should agree to. And if we check off enough boxes, we then conclude, "Why, I must be a Christian." These days we call that intellectual assent.
Two of the salient characteristics of a disciple of Jesus in the first century were submission and emulation. That is still true today. Those mandatory attributes tend to get lost in the intellectual assent posture we take toward the faith. Not to be misunderstood, it is crucial to believe in the Trinity, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. But as James points out, there does have to be congruence between what we espouse and what we live out. If not, we are just carnal Christians broadcasting our clanging cymbal thoughts, even if we quote Scripture from the KJV.
Just a thought.
Doug Greenwold, Senior Teaching Fellow at Preserving Bible Times, Inc.
Robert,
I'm with you on that one and you replied as I hoped you would. You see, it's a little more involved than just a blanket statement. Already you are seeing some of the qualifiers - valid, in context truth. How best to discern the difference between valid and invalid truth. When has a passage been entirely put back into its first-century contextual, original meaning, and when has it been only partially contextually restored? Paul's challenge was to "accurately handle the word of truth." Well, that suggests there certainly must be some inaccurate ways to do that. We are admonished to "bring the truth in love." So how best to respond to truth not brought in love, or truth brought in microwave, token love? Or someone's version of truth brought in anger that comes with a putdown?
I like Young Life's motto - earn the right to bring the truth. That's another way of saying be sure you invest grace time into the live of another before you bring the truth. Also implicit in that is that the Young Life person has repeatedly demonstrated that he cares for him or her, that he recognizes the importance of establishing a relationship with that person.
So when someone in a forum like this feels the need to respond to something I said, I am very much aware they have no idea who I am, what I am about, what my journey has been, what my current issues are, etc., in short they have no context for me. Furthermore, I have no sense they even care about me. They've made no investment in my life.
Luther puts this nicely into focus in his preface to Romans when he develops that a "righteous" act, one pleasing to God, is the right thing, done at the right time, in the right spirit, and for the right motivation. That means the WHAT is done is as important as the HOW it was done. Do you think that all the "truth" that comes to you and me from others meets that yardstick? Hardly. Anything less than that is not God-honoring. So how are we to approach, receive, that kind of "truth?"
As Peter Sczarro (sp?) develops, there is no spiritual maturity if there is not emotional and relational maturity. So how am I to receive someone's version of "truth," even if they quote Scripture, when it is obvious from their content that relational and emotional maturity is not their strong suit?
And when someone starts to quote Scripture verse after Scripture verse to me, I have no idea how they understand those verse whether they properly understand it. So yes, I very much factor who the person is that is bringing their version of truth to me. All of this has to be weighted, pondered and factored in as you then sit at the feet of Jesus and ask the Spirit to knit this all together in how He desires this to speak to me today. That's the issue - do you hear the voice of the Spirit in what comes your way?
When all is said and done, this is about discernment. Jesus had perfect discernment. He knew all about each person He interacted with. That's why He was always appropriate in His questions and His comments. Were that our batting averages approached His? It's why I like to have people with the Spiritual Gift of discernment in my life to help me weight what this all means for the journey.
A few thoughts...and probably too much rambling.
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
Doug:
Thank you for your 2 excellent posts. They are keepers!
I especially like your reference to 'earning the right to share the truth.'
As Jesus said: "I don’t speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to say it." The how it is said is just as important as what is said.
It reminds me of Ezekiel, after having had this incredible vision of God's glory, and then sent by God to confront his Jewish brethren about their rebellion against Him while in exile, being so overwhelmed with their dire condition when he catches up with them that he is speechless for 7 days. There was no way he could accurately speak God's truth to them, without his being deeply aware and overwhelmed by their circumstances. Immersed in their condition, he could then speak with authority to them.
The most radical instance of this is the 30 years Jesus waited in preparation for ministry. He became so saturated with the human condition that when he spoke he could speak to it entirely - with both blessing and woe, to its brokenness and its redemption.
As I wrote in a previous post, I believe that the incredible dissonance between what we white folk have preached to our Native Peoples and the lamentable way we've treated them has meant our losing the right to share the truth with them.
Fortunately there have been people of the Gospel among their own who have emerged to advance the Kingdom, but for the most part it has been without our help.
As others have said, more articulately and passionately than I - Kurt for example - our clinging to American values which are at great dissonance to gospel values, is undermining our right to speak to people without American values - Arabs for instance...
Hence the need for us to separate the wheat from the chaff, the whole kernel of the gospel from all the pseudo crap we come up with to make it palatable within the Empire we live.
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
Top Contributor
TRUTH is TRUTH! Feel free to justify rejecting it if you like.
_____________
Here are some of the MANY Bible examples of NOT earning the right to be heard. After I post this, I will wait for someone to provide some examples (as clear as these) of people in the Bible who DID earn the right to be heard...
_____________
* Jesus' relationship building efforts for Simon and Andrew - FOLLOW ME
Matthew 4:18-19 - "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (19) And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
_____________
* Jesus' relationship building efforts for Matthew - FOLLOW ME
Luke 5:27 - "And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me."
_____________
* Peter's relationship building efforts for the crowd on Pentecost
Acts 2:13-15 - "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. (14) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: (15) For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day."
_____________
I would really like to see a clear Bible example of this modern concept of earning the right to be heard. Does anyone have any CLEAR examples?
Norma Pastor, Author/Producer at First Stone Productions LLC/The Young Alchemists
I firmly believe that what is wrong with Christianity is that Pastors and adults in general are underestimating the fact that the future of humanity/Christianity will be in the hands of our children our future leaders. Instead of wasting the time and boring the children with dogmatic ideas, we should go back to the teachings of Jesus and teach and plant in the heart of our children the basis of Christianity. Love and respect for themselves, this planet and humanity. Christianity has become like a war of egos. I am sure if Master Jesus could come now and preach the way he use to preach and teach, it will be the very Christians who will crucify him. I am just a humble person, I have not memorized every word of the Bible but I believe in the original teaching of Jesus and those teachings had nothing to do with the type of behavior, hatred and separatism of today's Christianity. I am giving my humble opinion with much love and respect for every one. If we want Christianity to be la the Christianity of Jesus, lets educate and inspire our children and teach them Love and respect. We are what we think, if we think War, we will create War if we think love and respect for each other, (Real teachings of Jesus) we will create World Peace and a better understanding among Christians and people of other religions.
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
Top Contributor
Matthew 10:34 - "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
John 16:33 - "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
Dear Robert:
The three scriptures you give, with study, all provide example of the 'earned right to be heard.' I will comment on the first and I will leave it to you to draw similar parallels is the other scriptures you've given.
* Jesus' relationship building efforts for Simon and Andrew - FOLLOW ME
Matthew 4:18-19 - "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (19) And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
We know from reading the fist chapter of John, that the Matthew account is not the first instance that either Simon or Andrew learned about Jesus. Andrew was one of John the Baptist's disciples and had learned from him who Jesus was in advance of his first meeting him.
Pointed in Jesus direction by the Baptist, Andrew brings his brother Simon along saying 'we have found the Messiah.' Jesus earns the right to heard by both Andrew and Simon, by having his way prepared for him by the Baptist.
The mere fact that a prophet went 'to prepare the way for the Lord' stresses that 'earning the right to be heard' is not just good psychology, but fundamental to the way God works.
Not only is this principle scriptural, it is like all truths practical and integral to all meaningful relationships.
A husband earns the right to instruct his wife about housekeeping, if he also does housekeeping. A wife can question her husband's use of money, if she is the one not spending it all.
Jesus can ask that his disciples sell everything, give to the poor and follow him because he has done the same himself.
Which has me thinking Robert, that you have inadvertently landed on the answer to what's wrong with Christianity. (Aside - Ed - by Christianity I mean Christianity as evidenced by the way we as Christians live and not by the perfect and holy gospel of which you speak)...
What's wrong with it is that we think we can proclaim it without living it. That somehow the hypocrisy of our living something different than what we preach will go unnoticed.
Getting the words right is important but they become totally ineffective and inauthentic when our lives are visibly at odds with our message. The world notices, God notices and the odour is foul. Our hypocrisy robs our message of its vitality. Our salt loses its savour.
That is what is wrong with Christianity. The salt has lost its savour.
How do we regain it? Fortunately the repentance we relied on to respond to Christ in the first place is ever to be the air we breathe. We regain our first love by repentance. Day by day by day...
There is a great story Philip Yancey tells about Mahatma Gandhi that applies here.
A mother of a highly over active 12 year old son brings her son to meet Gandhi in the hope he can say something to him that will cause to change his ways.
Gandhi asks the mother what she discerns is the source of her son's hyperactivity and the mother replies by saying he eats too much sugar. 'Tell my son to stop eating sugar,' she tells Gandhi and Gandhi replies that she is to bring her boy again to see him in a week.
'But can't you speak to him now?' she pleads. To no avail. Gandhi sends the 2 of them away.
A week later the mother brings back her son, Gandhi calls her boy to speak with him and says: 'Son, I want you to stop eating sugar.'
The mother looks at Gandhi bewildered.
'Couldn't you have told him that a week ago and saved me the time and expense of coming to see you again?'
'No,' Gandhi replied, 'because until we met last week, I too was eating sugar.'
Gandhi knew, as all people of wisdom know, that in order to really teach, you can't ask of another what you aren't doing yourself. It's when you are doing what you ask of others, then you earn the right to be heard.
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
Top Contributor
Sorry John Deacon,
Your ideas are not supported by Scripture. Jesus did NOT spend a bunch of time with Andrew, Peter or Matthew BEFORE calling them to FOLLOW HIM.
Jesus spent LOTS of time with them AFTER they followed Him... NOT before!
______________
Peter did NOT spend LOTS of time earning the right to preach to the crowd on Pentecost.
______________
Philip did NOT spend LOTS of time earning the right to preach to the Samaritan or the Ethiopian eunuch.
______________
Paul did NOT spend LOTS of time earning the right to preach to Greek philosophers on Mars Hill.
______________
Steven did NOT spend LOTS of time earning the right to preach to the crowd that stoned him.
______________
What is wrong with modern Christianity is MANY HOLD THE BIBLE IN VERY LOW REGARD... and make it say what they WANT it to say, instead of what it actually says.
2 Timothy 4:3 - "For the time will come when they WILL NOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE; but WANTING TO HAVE THEIR EARS TICKLED, they will ACCUMULATE for themselves TEACHERS IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR OWN DESIRES,"
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
Robert:
I think you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
Do you honestly think that Jesus didn't earn the right to be heard? Either by God or by man? Why would Luke record in the years leading to his ministry - Jesus grew in favour with God and with people?
Hebrews 5: 7,8 insists:
"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered..."
Perhaps I need to explain why 'earning the right to be heard' means?
If I explain it right, maybe, just maybe you might be willing to concede a little...
'Earning the right' is the principle that before we can speak with authority, we must be given authority. To be given authority means experiencing what it is to be 'schooled by God.' It means there is depth in your words because like Jesus, you 'have learned obedience by the things you have suffered...'
Matthew, Simon, Andrew indeed all the first disciples said 'yes' to following Jesus:
- because of the way prepared in advance by John
- because of Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness
- because of Jesus being baptized by John
- because Jesus had found favour with God, and
- because their hearts and minds had been prepared by the Holy Spirit to receive him.
The Ethiopian eunuch heard Philip because the Spirit had the eunuch reading Isaiah 53 and miraculously brought Philip alongside him at the very moment the eunuch was reading it. Had he instead been reading the first 8 chapters of 1 Chronicles, there likely would have been no request by the eunuch to be baptized.
Last story if and if you still disagree I will leave you to bicker on your own.
I knew this woman who tragically lost her 21 year old son suddenly in a car accident that also killed two others.
I was speaking to her 4 months after and asked her if there was someone she had met who had been able to really speak into her life given the depth of her loss.
'Funny you should ask,' she responded. 'I have grown up in the church, know at least 2 dozen pastors really well and although what they've said was well intentioned, I never had the sense any of them understood what I was going through.'
'So have you found anyone?' I asked.
'Of all people, a Dominican priest,' she replied. 'I'm not even Catholic, but I met him in the neighbourhood library and he could immediately sense how hurting I was.'
'I can't remember all he told me,' she recounted, 'but the words he shared were mixed with such depth of understanding and anguish, I immediately thought, finally, my agony is now shared.'
'I learned later that the priest fasts and prays a lot,' she continued, 'that he visits the elderly who have no other visitors and volunteers at the local AIDS hospice.'
The priest had earned the right to speak into her life by how he had been prepared in advance. He was truly a disciple. He had learned obedience by the things he had suffered and 'earned the right' to speak deeply into her condition. Knowing a life of sacrifice, he understood what was being asked of her.
It was Henri Nouwen who coined the phrase 'the Wounded Healer' to describe Jesus.
He's right.
It is when we speak out of our wounds, that we begin to touch the heart of human brokenness and pain.
Peter spoke at Pentecost from the wounds of his own betrayal and desertion. He could finger his fellow countrymen for having crucified the Prince and Author of life not because he was an innocent by-stander, but as one who had shared in their crime.
The way to 'earning the right to be heard' ironically is two-fold. We can be heard because we authentically live what we preach and we can be heard because we are implicated with those we are preaching to, regardless of their crime.
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
John Deacon,
Please give some Bible references that validate what is commonly called "Friendship Evangelism" today... or "earning the right to be heard".
Did you read any of what I posted from the Scriptures?
Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by "earning the right to be heard"?
All of your examples are God working in people's lives preparing them to hear the message (or not hear it and stone people). None of this is the preacher spending time getting to know someone FIRST BEFORE they preached the message.
If you want to spend time "earning the right to be heard"... go for it. Just don't tell me its all over the Bible when I cannot see EVEN ONE CLEAR instance of what is proposed by modern Christians.
You take time... I plan to...
Mark 16:15 - "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
Robert:
Thanks for your toned down response.
It helps that you interpret 'earning the right to be heard' with friendship evangelism. It is not my interpretation. As has come up before: sola scriptura does not mean sola understanding - a frequent flaw when communication is something less than face to face.
When Ezekiel spent 7 days with his people in exile before reprimanding them on God's behalf for their disobedience, he was in my vernacular 'earning the right to be heard.'
See Ezekiel 3:15.
When Jesus asked the woman at the well for a glass of water he was 'earning the right' to speak with her about real thirst.
When a pastor meets in advance with a family he has never met before, because their son has just tragically died of an overdose, he is 'earning the right' to be present to the family through their excruciating period of loss. It's not about friendship, it is about becoming acquainted with another's struggle in advance of real ministry.
No doubt there are moments, rare moments - where we are asked to speak to people in advance of knowing what they are going through. We must rely on the Holy Spirit to inform us and speak accordingly. There are certainly instances in the Bible when this occurs, but it is rare.
Thinking of Peter in advance of his message to Cornelius...can you imagine what he might have shared if he hadn't had the vision? The vision gave Peter the right to speak with authority to Cornelius. But even with the vision, Peter's message begins first with a 'getting to know you exchange' between his people and Cornelius' people since customarily Jews had no dealings with Gentiles concerning matters of faith.
And so too on most occasions when we are asked to speak, we are required as part of our preparation to know our audience. Otherwise we may find ourselves speaking King James English to people who don't know the language.
As St. Francis so aptly prayed:
'O Master, Grant that I may never seek
So much to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love...'
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
Again John Deacon,
I am looking for Bible examples of what most people mean today when they say we must "earn the right to be heard"...
I cannot find ANY!
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
For whatever reason, I find myself reflecting on the most unbiblical of statements:
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
a phrase made famous by Tom Cruise in the movie, 'Jerry Maquire.'
I suppose the scriptural equivalent is:
'I am looking for Bible examples' - a phrase we readily associate with Robert Dallmann, but in fact a phrase most of us rely on to validate right or wrong, true or false, 'of God' or 'not of God.'
As well we should.
But there are limitations.
Imagine if you would, if the criteria had been applied to any one of Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, Ruth.
We would have found no bible verse to validate a thief being one of the patriarchs, a murderer to lead God's people out of Egypt, a prostitute to help bring down the walls of Jericho, a coward to overcome the hordes of Midian, a strongman given to riddles and prostitutes to bring down the Philistine's temple on their heads, the son of a prostitute to again rescue God's people from their oppressors, and a Moabite to be great-grandmother to Israel's greatest warrior king.
When you think of it, God rarely does the same thing twice. He told Noah to build an ark and told Moses to build an ark but clearly the two arks were not one and the same.
He told Moses when his people were complaining of thirst to strike the rock. But 40 years later when his people were grumbling for the same reason, He told Moses to speak to the same rock. God's response to the same sin of his people so differed that even Moses didn't get it!
In a single question what I am getting at is:
'When God does something new, will we know if our only criteria is biblical precedent?'
Remembering how divided the religious were about Jesus: (from John 7:40-43)
When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This is really the prophet.” Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Is the Christ to come from Galilee?
Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?”
So there was a division among the people over him...
It begs the question for those of us who insist on chapter and verse: Will we know it when His Spirit moves in our time?
Or will we like the Pharisees miss it because we are so pre-occupied with the 'gnat'tering' refrain of 'I am looking for Bible examples...'
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
John Deacon,
You said quote: "Imagine if you would, if the criteria had been applied to any one of Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, Ruth.
We would have found no bible verse to validate a thief being one of the patriarchs, a murderer to lead God's people out of Egypt, a prostitute to help bring down the walls of Jericho, a coward to overcome the hordes of Midian, a strongman given to riddles and prostitutes to bring down the Philistine's temple on their heads, the son of a prostitute to again rescue God's people from their oppressors, and a Moabite to be great-grandmother to Israel's greatest warrior king"
My response: Sorry, wrong again. All those people (at least the ones that God speaks well of) were repentant. We can find LOTS of Scripture about how God deals with repentance.
_______________
Acts 17:10-11
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
A statement was made that says "we must earn the right to be heard".
According to the passage above... we are supposed to SEARCH the SCRIPTURES to validate any preaching or teaching.
I will adhere to what the Bible says and search the Bible. Since I CANNOT find any examples to validate this claim... I am asking you and others to provide such examples.
If none exist, which is my belief... I will HOLD to the Word of God.
Sorry if my adherence to the Bible is problematic... but if it is... the problem will not go away.
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
Robert:
You can only judge because you have the advantage of looking backward, of hearing the story after it's been told.
But imagine any of God's leaders at the time they emerged whose example and portrait was without biblical precedent.
It would be like the next Billy Graham being someone who is gay!
We might discover after the fact that he was repentant. But that would be too late, like the Pharisees learning after crucifying Jesus that he had actually been born in Bethlehem and not in Nazareth as they had thought.
Biblical verification works well when we get to judge people after they're gone, after they've made their way into our history books.
But from Stephen onwards, church history is strewn with the corpses of godly men and women who we don't revere until well after the fact!
We who know our Bibles from cover to cover, have tragically a repeated pre-disposition to kill God's messengers when we can't find their look-a-like in the Bible!.
Christopher Aune, Certified Life Coach, Counselor and Consultant at Christopher Aune Group
Top Contributor
John -- I thought this comment of yours was so to the point that I'd post it again....
I have found the past day's exchange quite thought provoking.
There is Jesus, the Word of God and there is the Bible, the word of God - some contending they are one and the same and others insisting that Jesus takes precedence over the Bible, and because he does we best not make the Bible an idol.
Clearly when Jesus said 'But I say unto you...' and overruled the laws of Moses particular to retribution, how deals with one's enemies, the Sabbath etc - he was insisting a pre-eminence over what we'd call 'sola scriptura.'
So how does Christ speak to us today?
For those insisting 'sola' scriptura' is the only way, problems arise when sola scriptura isn't complemented by 'sola exegesis.' We can agree that the Bible is the word of God, but what good is that if our interpretations of what the Bible means are anything but 'sola?'
Ed Considine -Trinity College Graduate-Jerusalem University-
Robert,
Let me jump in. You will never convert John. Do you see how well organized he is in his obvious unbelief. He shows no faith in the God inspired literal interpretation of God's word. He does not believe that almighty God is able to give a record of His Only begotten Son. This is called The doctrine of Jesus of which he claims to be a disciple. But Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds
The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. 2 Jn 9-11
I am talking to you Robert, John will not nor can he hear what I just posted.
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
Thanks Ed!
I always feel affirmed when you jump in.
Ed Considine -Trinity College Graduate-Jerusalem University-
John,
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Is 53:1
Christopher Aune, Certified Life Coach, Counselor and Consultant at Christopher Aune Group
Top Contributor
Hmmm... I can understand why Jesus wrote nothing down, and why he left it open to "let those who have ears, hear."
Some have great faith, but no substance. Some have great substance, but are caught in the world, and have little practice. Indeed, it is hard for anyone to enter in with the Pharisees standing at the door and turning us away, and the world happy to have us fully engaged.
In case anyone is interested, here is a more deeply presented version of my perspective: http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Way-Jesus-Christopher-Aune/dp/1491214627/
Robert Dallmann, Director at ChristLife, Inc.
Top Contributor
SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES...
Acts 17:10-11
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
God says test preachers by searching the Scriptures...
...people say, Look around you...
I fully intend to stick with the Word of God!
John Deacon, VP at Deacon Insurance Agencies Limited
It was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who would encourage his students to locate themselves in God's story rather than to try and squeeze God into their own.
Imagine yourself to be in attendance at the stoning of Stephen. All you have heard about him is that he's been 'heard speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God...saying that this 'Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs delivered to them by Moses.' (Acts 6:11,14)
Presiding over the stoning is an up and coming biblical scholar named Saul who has been schooled at the feet of Gamaliel and is known everywhere as 'a Pharisee of the Pharisees', 'without fault in his observance of the law.'
Stephen has preached a biblically based message, even though Saul has been shaking his head in disgust with his every word.
But then everything turns against Stephen when he blames his audience for being "stiff-necked people," "uncircumcised in heart and ears," "always resisting the Holy Spirit."
As the crowd picks up stones to kill him he utters what the scriptures decry as blasphemy "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God." There had been a man only months before who had been crucified for making a similar statement and now it was Stephen's turn.
Since there would have been more scriptural substantiation for stoning Stephen, than for accepting his message, I ask you: whose side would you have been on?
On the side of those who knew every 'jot and tittle of the law' or with the renegade preacher whose only allies that day were a bunch of former hookers and simpletons unschooled in the law?
I can't see myself on Stephen's side, anymore than I can see myself as the publican in the parable Jesus told about the publican and the Pharisee.
I am the elder brother in the story of the prodigal, the one who has stuck by his father's side for years, sacrificing my own agenda for his and never wasting a dime of his hard earned money. I haven't cavorted with the promiscuous or the druggies, I've been a good husband, a good father and most of all, a devoted son of my father.
But when the prodigal comes home to be welcomed with open arms by my dad who I have slaved for, where am I? Missing the party! Missing my dad doing his redemption thing!
Here's the thing that not one of us is immune from, even if we have memorized every word of the Bible.
We can miss Him no matter how well schooled we are. Saul missed him and but for a blinding encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, he would have missed him entirely had he relied only on the scriptures. To see Him, to not miss Him, knowing his word is not enough. It helps, but it can just as easily blind. But for the Holy Spirit and great humility we miss him.
Draw a line in the sand and more often than not, God is on the other side.
That's why the scripture constantly insists on humility - 'humble yourself and draw near to God' - which means among things we are never right, if we can only see God on our side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment