tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post920565846161910950..comments2023-12-18T19:38:22.023-08:00Comments on The Good Portion: "It is finished!" ...and I am free...Laurie M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-82107936305193302742011-01-12T14:01:32.476-08:002011-01-12T14:01:32.476-08:00Thanks for your comment Kaitiaki.
As you've p...Thanks for your comment Kaitiaki.<br /><br />As you've pointed out, and I indicated in my post-script, there are uses for the Old Testament books and understanding of the Law of Moses that I have not mentioned here. This is not a book. It is only one blog post, emphasizing one important truth that has brought great clarity into my understanding of the Gospel and its relationship to the Law of Moses and legalism. As I pointed out in a previous comment, I have dealt with many of the points you bring up in other blog entries on the subject of the Law. <br /><br />As to our government, I am not here to criticize for good or ill our form of government, or how, by whom, or with what motives it was established. It is what it is and I do not discuss politics on this blog.Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-23575084946034504572011-01-12T12:45:33.795-08:002011-01-12T12:45:33.795-08:00Laura, and others,
It is interesting to see how ot...Laura, and others,<br />It is interesting to see how others have dealt with the problem of the role of the Old Testament in the New. It is interesting to me that most who do make no reference to the gathering in Acts 15 which was called to deal with the abusive use of the old Testament Law ((15:1,2,5).<br /><br />The key words here are the "it is necessary" - to circumcise and command them to keep the Law of Moses. That was the crux of argument which led to Paul's letter to Galatia. As you rightly pointed out, Laura, denominational traditions tend to add all sorts of things to the Gospel as if they are required in order to be saved. True, in many cases it is not said that way (more often it's "in order to be a good Christian").<br /><br />So, your post was a refreshing argument for learning to live in the freedom with which Christ has made us free. Nothing said from here on is intended to take away from that truth. <br /><br />Yet, like one of your respondents I felt a lack. While we are not obliged to keep the Law in order to be saved, how do we show our love for God - in our detailed day-by-day living. You see though the "council at Jerusalem" said they had not given commandment to those Judaizers (15:24) they did include some necessary things. "abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and sexual immorality," (15:28,29).<br /><br />It may be argued that these are the spiritual/moral aspects of the ten commandments - but, in order to understand them in the way the 1st Century Christians did, we have to remember the Old Testament teaching on these matters. The Old Testament Law was not done away with, it was fulfilled.<br /><br />Which brings me to my main point. We are not ever going to be judged by the Old Testament Law - in Christ, we have fulfilled it. But, where shall I find guidance as to what is meant by "loving my neighbor as myself" (in detail) if I neglect the Old Testament? That Jesus used it to inform his teaching means we should be allowed to do so as well. So far I have gone no further than one of your previous writers.<br /><br />Then, let us put ourselves back into the shoes of the Pilgrims who arrived on these shores in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Were they wrong to go to the Old Testament for guidance in law making when they were setting up a new society? I understand the difficulty of trying to sort through what is applicable and what not but should we throw the principle out altogether? <br /><br />Do we (for example) require restitution of those found guilty of theft? And how do we decide how much. Do we cut off their hand (as was common in some societies) or physically mark them so all may know forever they are thieves? Are these things irrelevant for us today? How do we decide who to support in elections? Do we choose because we like them or because they are trying to make laws which produce a fairer society?<br /><br />One thing for you to ponder (in the detail). Do our present laws reflect a Biblical view of law or a humanist one? If there are only two verdicts (guilty or not-guilty) do we not give the impression we can know for certain in all cases? Should we not follow Scotland (for example) and include a "not proven" verdict as well?Kaitiakihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04091541905130901357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-61899093632506823552011-01-09T07:40:22.356-08:002011-01-09T07:40:22.356-08:00Yes Laurie, it's for his tolerance if occasion...Yes Laurie, it's for his tolerance if occasionally contradictory, along with his meditations on Faith and Hope and Charity that makes R.M. a perennial spiritual classic.<br /><br />I like' I borrow not the rules of my Religion from Rome or Geneva but the rules of my reason'. -1:5<br /><br />To my horror i realise i too have misquoted.<br /><br />Browne says of it - That allegorical description of Hermes, pleaseth me beyond all the Metaphysicall definitions of Divines; R.M. 1:10<br /><br /><br />but also the imaginative dreaming artist in him peeps out with the following line-<br /><br />...Divines; where I cannot satisfy my reason , I love to humour my fancy; -R'M.1:10<br /><br /> <br />Browne is referring to the now corrected description which C.A.Patrides says is a time-honoured commonplace frequently quoted during the Renaissance and certainly much favoured by Browne -<br /><br />God as a sphere whose centre is everyhere, and circumference nowhere.Kevin Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15482886706239506749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-9694861302318886592011-01-08T11:23:11.948-08:002011-01-08T11:23:11.948-08:00Well, I did think of Sir Thomas Browne as I penned...Well, I did think of Sir Thomas Browne as I penned that comment. But it was already plenty long so I restrained myself!<br /><br />What I thought of was this passage in particular where he discusses his relationship (as an Anglican) to the Roman Catholic Church:<br /><br />"We have reformed from them, not against them: for, ommitting those improperations and terms of scurrility betwixt us, which only difference our affections, and not our cause, there is between us one common name and apellation, one faith and necessary body of principles common to us both; and therefore I am not scrupulous to converse and live with them, to enter their churches in defect of ours, and either pray with them or for them..."<br /><br />And on he continues in like manner expressing regard, understanding and some compassion for fellow Christians with which he disagrees on several matters.Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-28944557354296447932011-01-08T11:01:57.915-08:002011-01-08T11:01:57.915-08:00That's scrupulous attentiveness to correct a s...That's scrupulous attentiveness to correct a small detail for the reader!<br /><br />Still reading, still thinking trying to find a Sir T.B. response . As for theological 'models' well that is the whole world of archetypal, Platonic 'eternal forms' analogies so many mystically-inclined theologians were so fond of i.e. 'God is a circle whose centre is nowhere and circumference everywhere' .Kevin Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15482886706239506749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-2282984474389152152011-01-08T10:53:56.653-08:002011-01-08T10:53:56.653-08:00Where above I discussed Jonathan Edwards' pict...Where above I discussed Jonathan Edwards' picture of the Trinity I stated "wouldn't run too far from it," it should be read "wouldn't run too far <i>with</i> it. Sorry.Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-67567012579967766812011-01-08T10:47:50.586-08:002011-01-08T10:47:50.586-08:00Now to the matter of doctrine dividing....well, fi...Now to the matter of doctrine dividing....well, first I'll say that doctrine is necessary. Doctrine means teaching, and we must be taught. The apostles taught and they taught much of what we call "doctrine". It becomes a matter for us to determine what teachings we will accept. This requires discernment and Christian discernment must ultimately rely on the teaching of Christ and his apostles. Now, all that said, I can say that it is not ultimately doctrine which divides, sometimes it is false doctrine which divides, and sometimes it is people who divide over false applications of what it true...and often it is from lack of charity and humility. <br /><br />There are also different kinds of division. Not all are bad. It is not, per se, wrong to prefer to worship in the Anglican tradition (assuming you agree that they are of the Christian faith) so long as you understand many of the other traditions which exist also contain sincere Christians. We can't all go to all churches of all traditions. There are vibrant and true, living Christian churches in many different cultures who honor God in ways which seem foreign to us, because they are. Yet they, too, or, I should say, the true Christians that are in them are also part of Christ's body. We all need one another, and will need to understand and bear with some differences, in love, if we are reveal Christ rightly in this world. As Christ prayed on the eve of His betrayal: <br /><br />"I do not ask for these only, but for those who will believe in me <i>through their word</i>, that they may all be one, just as you Father are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, <i>so that the world may believe that you have sent me.</i> The glory that you have given me I have given to them that they may be one even as we are one. I in them and you in me, <i>that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and love them even as you loved me."</i> John 17:20-23<br /><br />Our clear and obvious love for one another is necessary to the furtherance of the Gospel.<br /><br />What we all have in common is Christ and His doctrine, as put forth by Himself and His apostles. Just as we cannot know another person unless we listen to the thoughts of their hearts, we would not and can not know Christ without the Word He has left us. It is through the Scriptures and the direction and gifts of His Holy Spirit that we know Him. (By gifts I do not only mean "spiritual gifts", but also pastors, teachers, deacons, and the like, which are also given to the Church for her edification.<br /><br />Now, it's time to see if I entered my html codes correctly....Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-2515037273382361212011-01-08T10:46:15.362-08:002011-01-08T10:46:15.362-08:00Well, this discussion certainly has taken on a lif...Well, this discussion certainly has taken on a life of its own.<br /><br />Let me begin by saying I'm not sure whether I can agree with Bell's statement or not, removed as it is from the context of a book I've not read. My first reaction is that true Christian doctrine will, like Christ, be <b>both</b> servant and leader.<br /><br />Doctrine merely means "teaching" and Bell and as such the Author of the Shack (sorry,I can't recall his name off the top of my head) are doing their share of doctrine formulation. As I've said elsewhere, I've not read either book and so it would not be fair of me to comment on their merits or demerits. My rule has become not to rate books automatically based on their proponents or detractors, but to measure it myself carefully against the plumb-line of Scripture, trying to factor in as I can what the authors themselves relate to be their influences and motivating factors. I've been blown about so often in the past that I will never again place too much weight on any one book, or teacher, or movement, but rather on a prayerful comparison with the authoritative writings of the Apostles (Scripture).<br /><br />As for the Trinity, I hold carefully to the historic orthodox understanding. I am not troubled by my inability to comprehend it any more than I am troubled by my inability to really understand what it is to live as an eternal being, perfect and without beginning or end. I believe it is supported by Scripture and I've seen what tampering with it can lead to in practice. A brief for-instance is the fairly recent tweaking which states that it is Christ's role always to obey the Father - that there is an eternal <i>functional</i> hierarchy. This little twist was trotted out to support the teaching that women are by nature and from creation to be subject to men. <br /><br />I adore the Trinity and find it a source of frequent rich contemplation partly because it is so unfathomable. This is not to say that trying to picture it this way or that, by way of thought experiment, cannot be helpful, but this sort of thing has also led to great disservice. My favorite picture thus far has come from Jonathan Edwards who likens the Trinity to the Father looking at His reflection in the mirror, but this reflection is so REAL that it is truly it's own person, and that the Holy Spirit is the love which flows between these two, a love that is so REAL that it is its own person. Now, lovely, but, really, I can't understand this either and wouldn't run too far from it. I would say that it is the most helpful and Scripturally- based model I've come across. But it is still just that - a model.Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-82269047476183999912011-01-08T04:46:59.364-08:002011-01-08T04:46:59.364-08:00In essence I completly agree with Rob Bell author ...In essence I completly agree with Rob Bell author of 'Velvet Elvis' on repainting the christian faith that-<br /><br />'Doctrine is a good servant but a poor master.'<br /><br />It is centuries of man-made doctrine which sadly divides Christians from each other. Where would the world be with one Church, one Faith, one belief!Kevin Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15482886706239506749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-28531847212357363362011-01-08T03:28:28.914-08:002011-01-08T03:28:28.914-08:00With hindsight I can see that my ‘faith’ was based...With hindsight I can see that my ‘faith’ was based on a lot of ‘head knowledge’ and very little ‘heart awareness’ (I now know that Aspergers Syndrome may have some part in this).<br /><br />It was in 2003 that I was first led to really question the real meaning of ‘church’ or the ‘ekklesia’. Over the last 7-8 years (and bear in mind I am retired) I have been drawn to the emerging / emergent / house church scene without being part of it. I have been learning so much about why people believe what they believe, often as a result of divisive, denominational theology.<br /><br />I was gradually becoming aware of two very different groups of committed Christians. I know this is a real over simplification but there are the WARRIORS who want to preach the gospel from the roof tops who see the BIBLE as the Word of God and there are the GARDENERS who want to share the love of God who see JESUS as the Word of God.<br /><br />Simple Mann says on his blog that he is one of those people who wrote a critique of “The Shack” on Amazon without even reading the book – obviously because he felt it contradicted his own beliefs – his own doctrines – his own understanding of what it means to be a Christian.<br /><br />I am one of those people whose understanding of the Christian faith was finally confirmed when I read the book a second time within two weeks – and the second time really lived that weekend with Mack. It was shortly after this experience that I found myself wondering why it had taken 57 years for someone to give me a picture of the ‘trinity’ that BEGAN to make sense.<br /><br />I consider myself to have been very privileged to have read the book when it was first published (just 11,000 copies). I had known about the book for some time before – and knew quite a lot of the background of the author and why he had written the book. Even while reading the book I found myself disagreeing with some of the ‘implied’ theology – and I have since learned something of how his beliefs had changed somewhat over the preceding years.<br /><br />All of this to say that when the book was published nationally I had the time to read many of the reviews of the book (maybe as many as 500), both positive and negative. I learned so much especially from the negative ones – which convinced me that I was not an evangelical Christian – I was not a warrior. But at the same time, as a Brit with a reasonable knowledge of the history of the 1800’s and early 1900’s, I couldn’t get away from the incredible work that the Salvation Army and other evangelical groups had done in the work houses and hospitals and other institutions at that time.<br /><br />I know what it is like to have commented on “The Shack” on the web and to have had a response from an evangelical Christian to the effect that “if you believe that rubbish, you can’t possibly be a Christian”. I would never have said that when I was a member of the Worldwide Church of God – but I did believe that other Christians had a limited understanding because they were not keeping the Sabbath and biblical Holy Days.<br /><br />I have expressed just a few of my thoughts on Laurie’s blog – I’d be very interested in any comments you might both have (and anyone else of course).Old Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09905782212383969049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-40421553518429439092011-01-08T03:27:24.314-08:002011-01-08T03:27:24.314-08:00Laurie
You said, “I don’t think this is an either ...Laurie<br />You said, “I don’t think this is an either / or proposition” and I agree entirely. Life is full of mystery and paradox!<br /><br />I knew nothing of the story of Simple Mann when I suggested that one meaning of sin could be “missing the mark of what we were created to be” (but I had also sensed that this comment would not have been helpful in isolation).<br /><br />I have just been reading Simple Mann’s story. I have read a number of similar stories and I have no problem relating to what are obviously genuine experiences. But my story is so VERY different! I cannot recall ever doubting the existence of ‘God’ although I rejected the explanation of the trinity that I was given at the age of 14. I had nothing to do with ‘church’ until I was 24 and 4 years later I was treasurer of an Anglican Church. Later I was a member of a church for nearly 20 years that just KNEW it was the one and only TRUE CHURCH – how wrong can you be?Old Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09905782212383969049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-23801697277645493922011-01-07T16:05:24.109-08:002011-01-07T16:05:24.109-08:00Good point Simple Mann. You know what a lover of d...Good point Simple Mann. You know what a lover of doctrine I am, but I would say there are at least two dangers associated with it: not handling it rightly (as we've been discussing), or not handling it all. Well, let's make that three great dangers, perhaps the worst danger of all is the pride that can grow in the human heart when it becomes convinced it has it all figured out.<br /><br />Thank you for bringing in love. I meant bring that up in my remark to Old Pete, but it was late and I was tired of writing. <br /><br />I had a friend recently mention in passing the immaturity of the Corinthian church and how it was because of their emphasis on spiritual gifts. (I know you weren't making this point, but your comment reminded me of it.) Anyway, as I reflected on the comment later I thought, "Wait a minute, that's not what Paul called immature." No, the reason Paul gave for calling them immature was not that they were too focused on gifts (that was a different discussion). It was because they were factious and lining up behind their favorite teachers and puffing up with pride in their choice. Divisiveness was the evidence of immaturity.<br /><br />Ok, Paul's awaiting....gotta run!Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-17361134210505130342011-01-07T08:35:27.496-08:002011-01-07T08:35:27.496-08:00Just a quick thought on "pet doctrines"....Just a quick thought on "pet doctrines"... the problem is not that we take them out on a leash to do their business so much as make them the leash with which we take out others.<br /><br />That is not to imply that doctrine is bad; it was vitally important to the apostles, the church fathers, and indeed to every believer (whether they realize it or not). But I agree, that over-emphasizing one to the demise of others is not beneficial to the body (or to the individual believer). In that regard, I would say it's very similar to the way the Corinthian church was over-emphasizing the spiritual gifts. The core essence of Christian doctrine (i.e., the gospel) should always be faith, hope, and love, these three...<br /><br />Oh that it were only so.<br /><br />Peace and grace,<br />Simple MannSimple Mannhttp://simplemann.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-40505752510181512872011-01-07T00:45:14.539-08:002011-01-07T00:45:14.539-08:00Old Pete,
In response to your question, I think w...Old Pete,<br /><br />In response to your question, I think we need to do our best to place the same importance on particular doctrines that Scripture does. So, if there is a heavy emphasis on idolatry, for instance, we must acknowledge the importance of this.<br /><br />You ask, "Why for example is so much theology based on the Fall of Adam? If Jesus is described as the Redeemer before creation, doesn't this suggest that God knew that Adam would miss the mark of what he had created to be?"<br /><br />I don't think this is an either/or proposition.<br /><br />It's clear that God knew man would fall and had made provision before he ever did, but it's also clear in the reading of Scripture that the fall of man is a foundational teaching that is referred to again and again, most particularly in the New Testament.<br /><br />God certainly intended to redeem sinners from the outset of creation. I can give at least one clearly Scriptural explanation as to why He would create a world in which to die...a tree on which to be tortured to death for the sake of many who would reject Him and with the reward of saving some. The Scripture is clear that God wished to "bring many sons to glory". His love for His Son is such that He wishes to have more sons with the self-sacrificial heart of Christ Himself. He apparently also desires to bestow His glory on others. This is why the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Adoption.<br /><br />What a thought, to be sons of God and recipients of His glory, so like Christ that we are considered His Body!<br /><br />But I think I've gotten carried away from the point. <br /><br />It's a constant struggle not to be batted about like a pinball by doctrines, attracted by them on the one hand, repelled by abuses of them on the other, bouncing as far as possible in the other direction, only to be battered yet again. It's happened to me time and again and I'm determined, by the grace of God to accept all of what God says about Himself and about life (what I find easy to swallow as well as what I find difficult), and place the same degree of importance on teachings as He does. <br /><br />That is my heart's desire and goal, to be sure-footed, anchored in Christ, not batted about by every wind of doctrine. <br /><br />As far as reaching "something deeper that cannot be reached within a denominational environment with it's doctrines, rituals, beliefs and traditions...." I would say that "something deeper" is Christ Himself. There is no perfect Christian tradition, just as there is no perfect Christian. Each is only a part of the body of Christ. We will only be completely whole when we are together with him. <br /><br />For now, you will find deeply devoted followers of Christ within every tradition, as well as Christians in name only and wolves in sheep's clothing. This is as Christ foretold in the parables of the tares and the drag net. The true and false will all ultimately not be separated out until judgment day.Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-73609447333184389632011-01-06T23:53:39.360-08:002011-01-06T23:53:39.360-08:00As I was reading through the comments of Simple Ma...As I was reading through the comments of Simple Mann I found myself wanting to suggest that if we can put aside what we have always been taught about the meaning of sin, and think "missing the mark of what we were created to be", we end up with a very different picture. But I knew that such a comment in isolation would not be helpful.<br /><br />Then I read Laurie's comment about denominations having their own pet doctrines that distort the truth. This is something that I have become very aware of over the last 7-8 years. It's always interesting when people suggest that one of the most important verses in the Bible is ... They always build a theology around that, and ignore any paradox that might come from reading other scriptures.<br /><br />After observing the Anglican Church calendar for several years and then the Old Testament biblical Holy Days and the Sabbath for nearly 20 years, I can see great value in them, BUT there is something deeper that cannot be reached within a denominational environment with it's doctrines, rituals, beliefs and traditions.<br /><br />I have what I consider to be an uneducated faith and I enjoy asking questions. Why for example is so much theology based on the Fall of Adam? If Jesus is described as the Redeemer before creation, doesn't this suggest that God knew that Adam would miss the mark of what he had created to be?<br /><br />[I'm not suggesting that missing the mark is always an appropriate meaning of sin].Old Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09905782212383969049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-38670437379993145332011-01-06T20:37:39.909-08:002011-01-06T20:37:39.909-08:00You know Simple Mann, your last comment, and Kevin...You know Simple Mann, your last comment, and Kevin's, have gotten me thinking all day, and may, assuming I ever find time, lead to any number of posts here. What you got me thinking about is how often the divisions, difficulties, and horrible dangers the Church of Jesus Christ often finds herself in stem from an unhealthy emphasis of one doctrine or set of doctrines over others. It seems like each "denomination" or sect has its own pet doctrines which they gather together to admire and in excluding others they begin to inflate these pet teachings up into distortions. They lose the sense of beauty and balance that comes from holding on to all the Scripture's truths dear, even the ones that feel like they cannot possibly both be true - the paradoxes. We need to accept whatever God reveals about Himself, even if we can't reconcile it all to our sense of reason. (This coming from a natural-born rationalist.) And so, we accept His miracles, His message, His death, His resurrection (in my opinion another highly neglected emphasis!), His life, His ministry, His Church/Body, His sacraments, His Holy Spirit, etc.<br /><br />This is one of the reasons I appreciate the old custom among many Christiantraditions of observing the Church calendar. This ensures that all the significant events and doctrines of the Church are covered yearly. I don't attend such a church, but that can't stop me from respecting the heart behind the traditions.Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-145157898448368822011-01-06T07:22:35.686-08:002011-01-06T07:22:35.686-08:00Hydriotaphia - Everything I just said to Laurie I ...Hydriotaphia - Everything I just said to Laurie I can also say to you. No offense, no worries. Apology not necessary, but certainly accepted!<br /><br />I agree with you; I think the miracles are so important to understand who Jesus was and should probably be emphasized much more. I remember when I first read through the gospels as a new believer and reading about Jesus calming the wind and the waves. Who can do such a thing but God? The feeding of the five thousand also demonstrates His divine nature, and for me it also underscores the value of the Old Testament. Although we are not bound by its covenants, the New Covenant we enjoy is with the same God. <br /><br />I appreciated this miracle so much more when I read about how God fed His people with manna (bread from heaven) in the wilderness (and also the foreshadowing of Christ with Elisha). And I understood so much better Jesus own words, that these people were not seeking him because they saw the signs (i.e., they witnessed the miracle), but because their bellies were filled. Their immediate, temporal needs were satisfied by the miracle He had performed, and they were seeking after Him for temporal things; they did not worship Him because of who He was, but instead sought after Him for what He could do. The parallels to the Israelites in the wilderness are unmistakable. At first, they were happy to receive the manna God miraculously provided them to feed them, to meet their temporal needs. But how quick they were to turn back to complaining and ingratitude even while He continued to provide for their needs. <br /><br />What I have found is that people in the Old Testament are really not so different from people today. The human heart is basically the same. And the God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament. I have really grown in my appreciation and understanding of God over just the last couple of years as I have studied through some of the historical literature in the Old Testament. I would recommend a set of commentaries written by Dale Ralph Davis to anyone interested in studying the Old Testament history books from Joshua through Kings. He is a great commentator and not only breathes life into those stories, but also does a fantastic job (when appropriate) of showing how they point to Christ.<br /><br />Blessings, brother ~<br /><br />Simple MannSimple Mannhttp://httpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-26097920268052571132011-01-06T06:52:02.699-08:002011-01-06T06:52:02.699-08:00No offense. No worries! ALL grace. And full agr...No offense. No worries! ALL grace. And full agreement about the coffee and the kitchen table... misunderstandings in these Comment tables are way too common, but rare face to face. I think there are many that participate in the blogosphere who could echo the words of Paul, saying "I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away! (2 Cor 10:1b)" <br /><br />Or perhaps, for those of us who bumble around each other in this world striving for grace each step of the way: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 1 Cor 13:12)"<br /><br />Peace, dear sister. It's all good!<br /><br />Grace and peace in Christ our King,<br /><br />Simple MannSimple Mannhttp://simplemann.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-54379845382917190622011-01-06T06:28:07.091-08:002011-01-06T06:28:07.091-08:00'Simple Mann' my sincere apologies to you....'Simple Mann' my sincere apologies to you. I was simply suggesting that certain verses in John's gospel have been a source of a gross misinterpretation of God's word as regards antisemitism throughout history, especially in the 20th century.<br /><br />Christ dying on the cross though a very important part of Christian faith is not the whole story of the Ministry and teaching of Jesus. Maybe the present age needs a stronger emphasis on His Miracles, such as the feeding of the five thousand and calming of the storm as well to convert unbelievers.Kevin Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15482886706239506749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-14637823701040916032011-01-05T21:33:55.702-08:002011-01-05T21:33:55.702-08:00Simple Mann,
You are such a dear brother to me. T...Simple Mann,<br /><br />You are such a dear brother to me. Thank you for your clarification. I'm relieved to know that my points were comprehensible. I always put the best construct on your words because I have so much respect for you and because you are my friend. That said, I fear I may have responded a tad defensively, based not upon my regard for you, but on how accustomed I've become to being disputed with on this matter - not that I felt particularly disputed with by you just now - and not that you and I have any history of disagreements, which, thank God we don't. I mostly just had the sense that we weren't understanding one another fully, which was apparently the case only on my part. I apologize. Kitchen tables over cups of coffee are decidedly better venues for conversations of this nature - but we don't have that luxury. And so we bumble all around each other, hopefully showing grace every step of the way.Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-91762434476775484692011-01-05T21:15:09.562-08:002011-01-05T21:15:09.562-08:00Hydriotaphia - I did not forget that Jesus was a J...Hydriotaphia - I did not forget that Jesus was a Jew, nor that all of His disciples were as well. I am not and hope I did not come off as anti-Semitic. I believe God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son to all who would believe. And how much must God love the Jewish people to become the Word incarnate--Immanuel, "God with us"--as a Jew... bringing "salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." I think that (quite understandably) all of the apostles and early disciples, just like Jesus, greatly desired to see their fellow Jewish brothers and sisters receive the gift of God's grace by believing in Him. Indeed Jesus wept over the people of Jerusalem and later asked His heavenly Father to forgive them as He hung on the cross. Stephen spoke similar words when he was stoned to death. <br /><br />As for the gospels and the epistles, I do not mistake the tactics of these faithful disciples as they sought to press upon their fellow Jews--especially the more religious and ostentatious among them--their own great need for Christ and not the Law. I do not see the New Testmaent as anti-Semitic; indeed with the exception of Luke, all of the New Testament canon was written by Jews! I know that, especially in the gospels, there were often times when Jesus own words were shocking and seemingly harsh. However, I can also attest from my own experience that attempting to share the great news of Jesus Christ with "lost legalists" in our own culture are the most challenging people to reach with the gospel. They tend to be hardest to convince of their need for the grace that is only found in Him. Convicted sinners, the diseased and wounded, the weak and needy come so much more quickly and easily to Christ than the convinced moralist who trusts in his (or her) own goodness. And that is true as much today as it was two thousand years ago. <br /><br />We do need to be able to see our own ugliness of our own sin and our desperate need for a Savior before we will repent and believe, but we also need to see the beauty and glory of Christ. And how gracious that our Lord not only saves Jewish tax-collectors like Matthew and Samaritan prostitutes from their sin, but religious zealots like Paul from the Law. Incredibly, he even saved me! His grace is truly amazing!Simple Mannhttp://simplemann.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-88938886492932623222011-01-05T20:56:01.074-08:002011-01-05T20:56:01.074-08:00"... the New Covenant is truly new. It is an ..."... the New Covenant is truly new. It is an entirely different way to live. Under Christ we do not seek to live by externally imposed commands but by love from a transformed heart full of the Holy Spirit of Christ - ever transforming us into His image. Love does from the heart what no law could ever do. We no longer live by law but by grace and take our cues for Christian living not from Moses but from Christ."<br /><br />I agree completely. I wasn't trying to argue against anything you said at all, or even amend it, so please forgive me if you took it that way. I was greatly blessed by this post, and was just sharing some thoughts that were inspired by it. What you wrote really challenged me to think about the Law in the Covenant of Grace, as well as the tendency so many of us "Gentile believers" have to enslave ourselves to the Law instead of to sin when the Son has set us free. I haven't gotten much sleep this week and didn't really deliberate over what I said this morning. It just sort of spilled out and I was already feeling like I was saying too much. <br /><br />You are spot-on, by the way, about our motivation. When we receive a new heart through God's gift of grace, when we are grafted into the vine that is Christ, what flows out of us is no longer rooted in compunction (for and from the fear of the Law), but in compassion (for and from the love of Christ). I realize that this was the important--the essential--piece I left out of my comments earlier. Under grace, our actions are no longer shaped by conforming to the Law, but we ourselves are conformed to the very image of love. Our motivation no longer begins and ends with what is good or desirable for me, but through grace and in Christ our focus shifts to what is good and needful for someone else. The sacrificial law is done away with because Christ is our perfect sacrifice, and when we are in Him, our hearts begin to be transformed to love sacrificially, too.Simple Mannhttp://simplemann.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-10631256163373793952011-01-05T10:24:16.570-08:002011-01-05T10:24:16.570-08:00Don't forget 'simple Mann' that Jesus ...Don't forget 'simple Mann' that Jesus was himself of the Jewish Faith! John's Gospel of all 4 gospels at times reads almost as if anti-Semitic.Kevin Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15482886706239506749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-65027512009560103002011-01-05T09:17:37.458-08:002011-01-05T09:17:37.458-08:00Simple Mann,
Thanks for your thoughts, as always....Simple Mann,<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughts, as always. Most of what you've written falls under the heading of my little post-script, as well as previous articles I've written about the Law. Although I would mention that you've done some interchanging of "the Law" with "laws" in the more general sense. I'm quite sure you aren't suggesting that we impose the Law of Moses as the rule of law for secular civil society.<br /><br />My main point here is that the New Covenant is truly new. It is an entirely different way to live. Under Christ we do not seek to live by externally imposed commands but by love from a transformed heart full of the Holy Spirit of Christ - ever transforming us into His image. Love does from the heart what no law could ever do. We no longer live by law but by grace and take our cues for Christian living not from Moses but from Christ. <br /><br />Generations living under the Law of Moses can also teach us that law does not necessarily predispose people to grace. Jesus was overwhelmingly rejected by most of those most devoted to the Law. My point in saying this is that formulas of beating people down with the Law so that they can lift them up with grace are not to be relied upon. (I am not criticizing here the method of evangelism some use which begins with the 10 Commandments. I think this can be helpful in the right circumstance. But we live by the Spirit, not by formulas.) This is not the method Paul used with the Gentiles, and he sought to protect them from being battered by the Law, which so many love to do.<br /><br />I think of Christ's rejection by the people under the Law and acceptance by sinners, publicans, Samaritans, and Canaanites. Even those not under the Law knew they needed mercy from God and recognized love and grace when it came to them.<br /><br />So, as we both agree, there are places for rule of law, in general - and a richness from understanding the way God has worked among people for all time. But it is important to be a part of the way He is working in our lives in this time, to remember, as Christians which covenant we are a part of, and what covenant we are seeking to draw the lost sheep into.Laurie M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15840896949617719814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441908040982501903.post-55533219317485891432011-01-05T07:18:35.754-08:002011-01-05T07:18:35.754-08:00The Law is necessary in a fallen world to maintain...The Law is necessary in a fallen world to maintain social order. There are many who will be kept from *some* sins because of its application, but none will be kept from *all* sin because of it. As Paul writes in Romans, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." He also says, "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Later on he talks about how the Law exposed his own sinful heart by the commandment forbidding covetousness. <br /><br />To put it in a poor analogy, how would anyone know that speeding is law-breaking if there were no laws, no signs, and no fines to impress the limits imposed on us by the law? But because we have been taught in order to obtain our license (our legal right to drive), and because signs have been posted in plain view, and all of our vehicles are equipped with odometers, we cannot claim ignorance when we are found to be guilty of disregarding and breaking this law. The signs point to that which we have been taught--they are not the law itself, but they serve to draw our attention to it. The odometer is like our conscience--we can see clearly if we are being obedient or disobedient to the law that is referred to by the signs that are posted. The policeman and the ticket is the "external" (or objective) enforcer; since often times we just disregard the law and our conscience ("this doesn't apply to me or to this situation right now"), the outside enforcement is necessary for those who are prone to disobey. How often do people persist in sin until they get "caught" because their conscience is seared? And then there is the judge, who has the final word on those who break the law?<br /><br />"So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36)<br /><br />How glorious is this good news, the gospel? There is "now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"! Paul writes in Romans 8:1-4:<br /><br />1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.<br />2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.<br />3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,<br />4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.<br /><br />God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. <br /><br />Here's the Catch-22. The law is *good*! It was given by God, it was given for our good and for His glory. But it is not the ultimate good. It cannot save us. It can help us to understand God's character, His holiness, His worthiness, and His absolute perfection. And although we are called to be holy as He is holy, we cannot seek our own justification by our adherence to the law, because we are the ones who weaken the law with our own flesh. We must look to the one who can save us not only from the corruption of our own sin, but from the justice and the demands of the legal system that exposes it. The only way to be made free is IN Jesus Christ. Reliance on our own moral performance within our own interpretation of the legal system as we have chosen to apply it will not do. It is Christ and Christ alone that saves. And "if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." <br /><br />Blessings,<br />Simple MannSimple Mannhttp://simplemann.netnoreply@blogger.com