Featured Our Undergirding

You have to use some prudence when using the "H" word. When dealing with eschatology and a view is presented other than one's own it does not warrant the severity of the term heresy. It is a secondary matter. Or don't you believe that certain doctrines are of a lesser degree of importance?

 

No problem with what you just stated because it shows correction, but I had a problem with what you wrote earlier. Doctrine is not a smorgasbord and it is not subjective to what "the Lord led me to believe" as though I have all the answers and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong or not spiritual. It is from God and not what I think God thinks. It is not to be clouded by what I think I believe. All scripture is to be interpreted in light of its historical context not my point of view of in light of my beliefs and culture. The vast majority of scripture was written by Jews who thought very differently than we do as Greek/American thinkers.

For example the background of Mt. 18:20, " For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." is how disciples of a rabbi learned and helped others to learn from each other.

Another would be when Jesus taught Mt. 28:19,20 that was already in place in Judaism in rabbi schools. It was not something new that Jesus came up with.

The disciples Jesus called understood John 15:16, You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." They understood how disciples of a rabbi were chosen and so they fully understood what Jesus told them.

None of those are subject to what "I" believe but what scripture teaches.

When I discuss doctrine with someone I do not discuss what I believe versus what he believes but what scripture teaches.

For example a few years ago I had a neighbor who was a Lutheran pastor. We began to get to know each other rather well and then one day I asked him about what he believed about baptism. I took him to scripture where the word baptism is used and we discussed what baptism meant. He started baptizing by immersion. We had to go further than just what he or I believed.

 

Look at the qualifications of a pastor (bishop) in 1Timothy 3:1ff. The pastor is to be a pastor-teacher. He can't fulfill his office if he doesn't know what he is teaching. Nicodemus was a Rabbi, a teacher (master) in Jerusalem. He was an authority at what he taught. The pastor must be an authority of that which he teaches. I suggest that if he is not sure of that which he is about to preach then he shouldn't preach it until he is sure. He should be able to say: "Thus saith the Lord," before his congregation. It is not necessary to put before them every controversial doctrine for the purpose of confusion. For example the Pope is said to believe in "Liberation Theology." If a preacher doesn't know what "Liberation Theology" is, then leave it alone. It isn't necessary to preach on it. It is not in the Bible any way.

That is up to the pastor to do proper study which involves historical context as well as the context of the passage he is expounding. It is up to him to put the hours of study in that the message requires.

There may be an aspect of that in rabbi schools, but why is that necessary? The fact is that it is the last command that Jesus left them, and he personalized it to the disciples, and consequently to the church and to all believers. It wasn't given to the "rabbis," but to us. Such historical information might be interesting but not needful.

Again, Jesus was making a personal application and directing this to them.
It is helpful information that would make the message more interesting, but not absolutely necessary in one's message.

No, but they neither add nor detract from "truth" presented.

But the truth is still presented. And I believe we still agree on the truth.

I understand the Presbyterian position on baptism. My wife used to be one. I may or may not mention it in a message--depending on my audience, the time I have, the detail I am going into, etc. But most of the time I would not mention it. I would simply go into the Biblical facts concerning baptism as the Bible teaches it, not as another religion teaches it.

 

I don't know if that was an unintentional slip of your keystrokes or not but another denomination should not be termed "another religion" DHK. Another religion would be the Mormons,Islam or what-have-you. I doubt you would actually refer to the Evangelical Free Church or Plymouth Brethren as other religions. Just because some Christians have different ideas about baptism which they believe can be supported by the Scripture --doesn't give you as a fellow-believer the right to call their churches another religion. They have the Gospel down rather well and may in fact have more biblical truth than you have in other areas.

 

semantics...

 

Jesus gave the command to make disciples. How many would you estimate are an authority on that?

I would agree with you and that is all the more reason why he should have some around him for correction when he needs it. The pastor who never needs correction is saying he has the handle on all truth. The problem is that scripture teaches something much different. Proverbs 12:1, "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, But he who hates reproof is stupid."
For over 40 years I have had men whom I know who I regularly communicate with who will correct me and are open to correction. I also have kept in contact with some friends and professors from seminary for that same reason. They are men with whom I can share my heart and things I struggle with.

You are right. That is all the more reason for one who is mature and can teach well. That preparation is not done and proven in a day. It may start with theological school but takes time to mature in both teaching and leading others.

Its necessity may be debatable. I would not want to not mislead people into thinking that discipleship originated with Jesus. There are many parallels to what Jesus did and what was tradition in Judaism. That gives the background of what Jesus did and what he said. What Jesus did and said was not done in isolation and apart from their culture. In studying historical Judaism it helps to know the tradition that Jesus drew on. It also helps to know where and why he chose the disciples he did. The disciple of a rabbi learned the OT, the traditions, and the sayings of the rabbi he studied under. Once he finished his studies he was examined by a board of rabbis before he was ordained to be a rabbi. When the disciples studied under a rabbi they had one or two partners in which each would take turns expounding on a passage while the other one or two listened and asked questions of the person expounding on scripture. The disciples were taught the life of a rabbi and devotion to God. Compare that to what is typically taught in seminaries today. If we followed that pattern in seminaries we would have students who did more than listen to lectures and pas tests. If we understand discipleship in light of historical Judaism then we would understand what Jesus meant when he said, ""You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." The disciples Jesus chose understood exactly what Jesus meant because they knew that those who wanted to study under a particular rabbi decided on him and then he chose the best, brightest, and most promising.

In the Gospels when we read the about that people immediately followed they did not come from ignorance. They knew what it meant to follow already out of tradition and what they knew.

I agree. If one shows how the word was used in the OT, in secular society, and what the Jews practiced traditionally then it is easy for the listener to understand the truth and that is not just your opinion. They quickly learn that baptism was not just a Christian word but present in society too and in Judaism.

I have always thought that I should never teach my opinion as truth. I tell the people it is my opinion and why I believe what I do.

If one studies the history of pre, post, and amillenialimsm there are good people who have disagreed and had good reasons. If I do not respect the conclusions of others then I am not demonstrating grace toward others to the congregation. While I can teach what I believe I also need to let them know when it is my opinion.

Someone comes to you and asking for the truth about the length of a day before and after Genesis 1:6-8 what would you tell the person? I could only give my opinion and tell them what Genesis says a day is. Anyone who has heard about the length of a day knows it varies from day to day if we used the definition Genesis gives. We would need to go onto explain what a day was in light of its historical context. The problem is that too many have said that a day is 24 hours and then try to interpret Genesis on that basis. They have been misled about what Genesis teaches.

 

On the basis of 2Tim.2:2 every faithful believer ought to be a disciple and to disciple others.

I have no disagreement. That is not always possible for everyone.
There are some missionaries who work in relative isolation. Read some missionary biographies. See what they endured.

That may or may not be true.
I contend that your historical information would only add interest to a message, not valuable information. We know why people followed Christ, or even stopped following Christ because of what the Bible says about those people, not because of historical information outside of the Bible.
Andrew realized who Christ was. He immediately went to Peter and said: "Come, we have found the Messiah."
Levi also recognized something different about Christ for "he left all and followed Christ."
However some followed him for the miracles he did.
Some followed him for the food he provided.
Some turned back when they heard his doctrine.
--Not everyone's response was the same.
Remember that Judas also followed Christ.

Is it your opinion or is it the best possible interpretation of the passage given the facts you have?

Here are the facts.
The days are 24 hour days just as they are today.
On the third day the plants were created, and on the fourth day, the sun, moon and stars.
Plants cannot exist without daylight. They cannot exist through a thousand years of darkness. It obviously was a 24 hour day. Furthermore, the "creeping things" or insects were not created until the sixth day, the same day as Adam. That is three days removed from the plants. Flowering plants need insects like bees to pollinate them. The day/age theory is impossible here. They were 24 hour days--a day and night cycle. It had to be, otherwise these ecosystems could not have survived. The plants needed the bees, and they needed them soon, not three thousand years hence.
Science requires them to be 24 hour days.

 

You have no right to carelessly use words as is your fashion. You remind me of a Lewis Carroll character in Through The Looking Glass.

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by glory,' "Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't --till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --neither more nor less."
The question is," said Alice, "whther you can make words mean so many different things."
The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to master --that's all."

 

You are right. The evidence speaks for itself.

If they disciple others they have built in accountability.

Many people are being deceived today on the basis of wrong information and deceit.

It is a historical fact based on how the word was used in documents at the time.

Compare that to what Genesis defines as a day. That is what the readers of Genesis today need to know to correctly interpret Genesis and compare it to science of today. Christians need to understand Genesis in light of its historical context not what Bible critics say as truth and claim the Bible is full or errors. They need to understand what the Bible means when it makes the claim as God's word. The message was written to and for the readers at the time. We have jets and have gone to the moon. They did not understand what one second was but they did understand light and dark. When a child asks where babies come from I would assume you do not tell them something they do not understand, but rather give them the message worded so they understand with their limited understanding.

If we compare science of 200 years ago on the basis of science today we could say science was not true then. Nobody does that but the critics do that with scripture.

Bart Ehrman rejects the Bible because of the many textual variants. The idea being that how would God who should have created a perfect Bible ever have a Bible with so many variants. His argument is flawed but why?