“For we know in part and we prophesy in part.” -1 Cor. 13.9
It was Smith Wigglesworth who stated:
Most people seem to have discernment, or think they have, and if they would turn it on themselves for twelve months they would never want to discern again. The gift of discernment is not criticism. I am satisfied that our paramount need is more perfect love.
One thing that still seems prevalent in the Church today is an “either it’s God or it’s not” mentality. Truth is, all of us see in part, and every movement, ministry, and individual believer is in the process of growth in the knowledge of God. The easiest thing to do in this process is to recognize the gaps and inconsistencies in other saints, and to write them off on account of those gaps.
This is terribly antithetical to the Pauline view of the Church. Do we know of anyone besides Jesus Himself who was more jealous than Paul for the salvation of Israel, the maturation of the Church, and the glorification of God in the earth? Paul is, aside from Christ, the great NT prototype for foundational leadership, and his disposition toward the churches (even the most immature communities) was quite the opposite as that of the critical soul who sees himself as superior those who are in need of doctrinal or ethical correction.
The situation at Corinth was the clearest example of this. Paul was dealing with a community of believers who had immorality in their midst, who were fraught with jealousies, divisions and schisms, who had very disorderly gatherings, whose meetings were doing “more harm than good,” who were questioning his own apostleship, and who were spreading confusion and doubts regarding the reality of the resurrection. Have you ever run into a community of believers in that rough of a condition?
In Chapter 11 of 1 Cor. Paul even states that sickness and premature death have broken out in their midst as a judgment from the Father for their lack of value for the Body in the context of the meal of the Lord. Divine chastisement is breaking out in their midst, and yet, Paul has the audacity (or should it be called an apostolic faith and sight?) to address them as “saints” and “holy ones” in the opening of the epistle.
I often hear comments along these lines with regard to certain movements within the Church:
“I have not taken the time to listen or read any of the teachings for myself, but I’ve heard all about them, so I just categorize them with the other counterfeits and all the hype that is out there.”
Often the sharpest criticisms come from those who have taken little time to hear from those they are criticizing. Yet it doesn’t matter how much certain expressions of Christendom “get under our skin”, even those that bear true issues of concern. If we cannot go to the cross in intercession, even on behalf of those who are “deceivers” and “white-washed tombs”, we are not expressing the wisdom of Christ. We are called to express the same reality in the present that Jesus revealed at the cross.
Indeed, there are radical mixtures out there, and those mixtures need to be addressed with the clear word of the Lord. Still, it must be asked of the critical soul, “Is your life not a mixture? Is there nothing to be addressed in your own life? If your secret life was to be examined as you are examining others, what would be revealed in that examination?”
Along those lines, is there any denominational, missionary, revival, or seminary history that can be recounted without a mixture? The fellowship that you are a part of, is it pristine and clear in every way? Is there any church or work that is expressing the fullness of Jesus Christ?
“Aren’t these movements polluted wells, though?” you ask.
Indeed, there are issues that could greatly harm the believer’s heart within certain movements. In the right spirit and context they need to be addressed. But the question must still be asked, ‘Was Corinth a polluted well?’ It was full of error and even sin, yet Paul never doubted the validity of their spiritual gifts, did he? He never questioned their salvation either. Instead, he challenged them to get things in order before the Lord, and I believe they were missing the mark in a lot more ways than many of the movements that are often criticized.
I want to look at all of the saints through the lens of Paul in the context of Corinth. Did he address issues that needed challenging? Yes, as one sent to them, he did. He addressed those with whom he had immediate responsibility and relationship as an apostle, and aside from that he was occupied with seeing the Gospel revealed to hearts who were bound in darkness.
Does this mean we have to be an apostle to raise concerns? Certainly not. But to categorize other believers (no matter how immature, or incomplete in doctrine or practice) as mere counterfeits is simply the opposite of what the apostle demonstrated.
The Body of Jesus is mangled at present, and there is not much in that Body that we may look upon with a sense of completion. We need the sight of Joseph of Arimathea, a man of “high-position” who was able to go against the tide of bitterness, self-righteousness, and unbelief which flowed so powerfully through his religious colleagues. He was able to look upon the Body of Jesus, mangled though it was, and to value it, though it had not yet appeared in resurrection glory, and despite the fact that the masses had no anticipation of that resurrection.
“It takes half a man to criticize,” said Sankey, who was Moody’s worship leader. It takes the resurrection life within to look upon the Body of Christ with merciful identification, as Jesus presently is from the right hand of the Father.
Shall we be jealous for the fullness of God in the Church? For a purging of bad teachings and doctrines? For a maturity to come to the Church again? Most assuredly. We must. But the only way for that maturity and depth to be restored in the last analysis is for us to go to the cross ourselves. To walk out the reality of the Gospel is the chief thing. To give ourselves to intercession on behalf of the Church is the central calling with regard to moving toward the corporate reality He is jealous for.
The mystery of Israel is the revelation that God is a God of mercy, and that His people are simply those who have received the grace to come under the rod of His Fatherhood and governance. When we think we’ve earned anything, we’ve removed ourselves from the grounds of the Gospel. If I realize that I haven’t earned anything (including insight into Scriptures or maturity of vision), I have the grace to look at the Church- in all of its various deficiencies- and to thank God for it, while crying out for mercy on Her behalf.
“Then how shall I know when these heresies need to be addressed? Didn’t Paul call out heretics and correct false doctrines?!”
You will know in the same way that Jesus did: When you are willing to go to the cross on their behalf. You will know in the same way that Paul did: When you have given yourself in prayer and intercession for their souls, and any correction you deliver will flow mercifully and boldly out of that place, when you have dwelt in the counsel of the Lord. It will not come in a reactionary manner, or as a result of fellowshipping with vulturous, gossiping men. We need to abide in the most holy place, to be jealous chiefly for His glory, and to come into His own truth and love for men.
I want to be found in the counsel of the Lord, friends. He’s more jealous for the fullness of Christ than any of us. He’s wanting to raise up foundational servants, who will proclaim His heart to Israel and the nations. The Church does need to be called to repentance. The Church does need a higher vision of the standards of God. Ultimately, we need “the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God” Himself. That Word will only come from broken-hearted vessels who have been united with Him in the Holy Place.
Jesus Himself is the ultimate revelation of this. There is no one more jealous for truth, purity, reality, and fullness than Him. And the way He set out to establish that was by laying His own life down for the very ones who were crucifying Him. He continues to demonstrate that today, interceding from the right hand of Majesty. Shall we follow Him, or shall we strut around with a presumptuous and embittered collection of opinions and ideals?
When I stand before the judgment seat of Christ, what will be His assessment of the thoughts I have carried and the words I have spoken about others? Will they be seen as pure, true, and merciful as He Himself is, or will they be revealed as arrogant, spiteful, and serving my own exaltation? “Every idle word” shall be examined in that great day.
Oh, for the Spirit and nature of Christ Himself to permeate our lives today.
Possibly Related Posts:
Strange. I feel like I’ve read this article once or twice before…almost like I got to proof read it a few years ago.
Good word Brian, just like it was back in the day…
You have a sharp memory, brother. :)
B. P.,
You wrote….Shall we be jealous for the fullness of God in the Church? For a purging of bad teachings and doctrines? For a maturity to come to the Church again? Most assuredly. We must. But the only way for that maturity and depth to be restored in the last analysis is for us to go to the cross ourselves. To walk out the reality of the Gospel is the chief thing. To give ourselves to intercession on behalf of the Church is the central calling with regard to moving toward the corporate reality He is jealous for.
It is somewhat unclear in your article that criticism has been adequately defined and contrasted with the light of the separate advocated practice permeating the letters and instruction of the Messiah directly describing practices of dealings over inevitable differences among us, and so over false teaching and false teachers. These would not represent criticism at all, yet where a supposed leader was advocating false assumptions or outright evil, such must be named, identified, and addressed to not by gossip and innuendo negatively affect our fellowship.
We read also in Acts of certain confrontations with some with guile in heart attempting to use power and manipulate in the name of the Holy spirit, or to brand the messengers of the message as evildoers. Where and when does this occur today among those claiming to move in the Spirit and what are we to do in response?
We read too of II Peter and Jude and John’s admonitions in this regard, of those participating in love feasts, with hearts full of predatory lust, or attempting to advance other agenda than God’s will and simple Gospel message by predisposition to questionable doctrinal interpretations regarding the work of Christ and what it means. We read in the Kingdom parables of Jesus about the wheat and tares coexisting until that Day, one being true the other false. We soberly regard Jesus’ words on who He will accept on that Day. These occupations of scripture would not exist if they were not vital to a dedication for God’s use being based on the kind of self examination of heart in the prayer closet you also write of, AND the application of discernment through a knowledge of scripture and what is written.
Hank H. wrote Christianity in Crises for a good reason, which, in the final analysis is not about criticism, but about what is demonstrated as to discernment and taking to task false doctrine, religious confusion, and evil practices in the churches and movements being addressed. Does this mean some of those taken to task are not believers? James gave us discernment tools in contrasting the Wisdom from Above with worldly practices, Paul wrote of the more Excellent Way, and the Fruit of the Spirit; Peter of how to add to faith in self applied increasing measures of maturity. John took on the assumptions of the Gnostics and others of the first century with direct comment and measuring sticks of discernment. Jesus and Paul gave considerable details on how the Holy Spirit works so that we might not be duped by someone claiming its workings without other checks and balances on that someone. Further, a word of knowledge, or a rebuke can be administered among those claiming a mutual fellowship, as is both scriptural and timely in certain instances. We have elders for good reasons. And we have Jesus instruction on how to go to one another with issues.
It is unclear that what you stated that “…the only way for that maturity and depth to be restored in the last analysis is for us to go to the cross ourselves”, is the given instruction on the matter of maturity by Jesus. Mt. 18 in its entirety would be advised as to how to approach issues, lost sheep, the binding of one to sound doctrine and sound practices of care in the Way of Christ, and gives the mind of Christ on the step by step processes of approach one to another and thereafter if not heard when naming and dealing with inevitable person to person issues among those of the churches.
Perhaps it would help increase understanding of what you are driving at to have criticism given with some descriptive examples, for, it seems to not apply to the nature and direct approach of later Mt. 18, more as to what to do prior to giving one’s gift at the altar in Mt. 5. These are clear instructions on how to approach issues and heart regard of them over agape love, in what spirit, and as to a desired outcome of reconciliation over issues, offenses, and scriptural concerns. To he who much is given much is expected in these examples of approach to communication among us. Criticism may be out of balance where these paths to inclusion and outworking of differences have not been honored by leaders in churches.
It is unclear from what you wrote exactly what circumstances, conditions, and examples you are alluding to, and how these would become problematic if the above are cultivated and active in churches following the Way.
Not that I can speak for Brian…
But I think you can encapsulate what he’s driving at by simply saying “watch your attitude in how you judge. Is it out of love for God and the Body of Christ, or in the irritation of having seen much wrong? Are you watching your life as closely as everyone else’s, more so even?”
I he’s getting at the whole heart and attitude of judgment in the mind of a Christian. He wrote the sum of this article in an email to me once because I clearly needed its instruction. And I can tell you it made a difference in every way imaginable.
I guess we just need to make sure that we are nailed to the same cross that we want false ministry nailed to. Equal judgment. Make sure we don’t use unequal weights and measures.
*I think he’s getting at…*
OK, however, my concern as a result of all Bryan stated was over a statement he made on maturity; I looked to what the NT stated instead, regarding the relational aspect of growing together in love, in reconciliation, and in mutual regard of what the NT advocates on the matter.
Brian,
I really enjoyed this message! Thanks for sharing!
Daniel
My joy, Daniel. Hope all’s well with you…
Hello to All,
I am just reflecting on the environment in which the Apostles first spread the Gospel. That the “body of Christ”, the “Church”, even survived at all considering the gross idolatry and debauchery that was rampant during it’s conception is only by the Will of God. In the entirety of the New Covenant (Testament), there is nothing much said concerning the, then governing body of the Roman Empire. They truly were “of this world”, yet, living for the next, living as already in the Kingdom of God. The Lord, Himself said, “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and render unto God what is God’s”. I think we, today, are living too much for this world, in this world, and according to the rules of this world, rather than living as already sons of the Kingdom of Heaven, which we are by adoption. The prince of this world knows that he has but a short while, so, he is hard at work dividing the Nation, the Church and the individuals who make up both. We know a house, or nation, or body divided against itself cannot stand. We make too much of our nation moving away from God, we need to focus on ourselves moving closer to God, our Lord and our Savior. The Church survived Rome, we can survive anything as joint heirs of the Kingdom, for we are not “of this world.” An excellent book, though somewhat repetitive, is “Why the Right gets it Wrong, and the Left doesn’t Get it”. I’ve lent it out and can’t remember the author’s name, but, find it and read it, it will help unite us under Christ’s Banner, rather than the Stars and Stripes. For we, in America, are a narcissictic lot, feeling a sense of superiority within the Body of Christ; we act as though everything revolves around us. We forget that Christians encompass the globe and that God is still on His throne, directing all things according to His Will, not yours, not mine. Do not fear terrorists who can kill your body, but, regain a healthy fear for Him who is able to divide asunder both soul and spirit, bones and marrow, and who holds eternity in His hands. I believe that the event of 9/11 was a wake up call to ready ourselves. A lot of what I am hearing today is driven by fear. I have none, for I have the Peace that the Lord left for me. We need to get back to basics; “following peace with all men”; “praying for those who hate us, persecute us and dispitefully use us, that we may be called the Sons of our Father in Heaven.” We need to unite under one standard-the Lord’s Cross; for no man can serve two masters.
Your Sister in Yeshua,
Sheila
Sheila, In the Revelation given to John there is certainly something stated indeed about first century Roman preoccupations and their Empire leaders’ false claims of deity. Much of this was later interpreted to apply to the Roman (Catholic) Church, by other Christian groups, which is doubtful, as it clearly applied to the Rome John and Jesus declared as false and of the enemy of His Kingdom in John’s time (“which now is”).
Hi Jabez,
I just happened to stumble across this recent posting, as it began with my name. I was surprised as I am new to this experience of posting on line. Although, I did jump into the discussion on the Glenn Beck rally. I saw where you joined in as well. I suppose I didn’t expound on my comment sufficiently. My endeavor is to show the vast difference in living for the Kingdom of God as opposed to living under which ever governing body you find yourself living in. Neither the Lord, nor, the Disciples of the Gospel, tried to “usurp” the Roman Empire. They were spreading the good news that there is “another” Kingdom, not of this world, that we should strive to enter in to. It was a “revolutionary” truth, to be sure, but, it was not their intention to “overthrow” the Roman Empire, but, it was rather, that the Kingdom of God had come near to those in first century Galilee because the “King” of the Heavenly Kingdom was now “dwelling” among them. It was not the “chief corner stone”, nor, as yet, the “Mountain of the Lord” that fell on the citizens of the Roman Empire; it was, instead, the “mustard seed” which would take root at that time and spread by “re-seeding itself” until it eventually came to encompass the globe. The Empire that Rome built was not “clobbered” by the Gospel, it was quietly infiltrated with the Truth. The Lord never gave us a commission to take over any country or political system of “this world”. Why would He? His Kingdom has nothing in common with the things of this world. In fact, in His temptation in the desert, when offered the kingdoms of this world, He never disputed that they were Satan’s to give. We know, of course, that all kingdoms will ultimately serve the Lord’s Will, regardless of how proud we are of any one of them, including our own. The prince of this world, and the King of the Whole Earth, have nothing in common. Why would we of the Lord’s Kingdom, choose our earthly empire as our heart’s desire, instead of looking to the Heavenly, the City whose maker and builder is God?
Again, in your mentioning the Roman Empire as, indirectly referrenced by John, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which I believe to be the “sixth” king, which leaves two more, the last and the “eighth” being the “beast” which will emcompass all the previous empires territories, there is no commission given to the “Children of the Kingdom” to do anything other than “pray that we may be found worthy to escape all these things which are coming on the earth and to stand before the Son of Man” What is stated is “Come out of her, My People”. No taking of the world systems by force, no overthrow of governments or the body politic and no setting up of anything on this earth that even remotely resembles the Kingdom to come. That Kingdom only comes when the King brings it.
Did I explain my position any better for your consideration? I believe we look to the kingdoms of this world to govern us when we should be looking to the author and finisher of our faith. One of my favorite verses in the Bible is this, “Be still and know that I am God.” I say, “one of my favorites” because I have thousands of them!
Sheila
S. Sure, you offer greater clarification of your assertion, which seems accurate about the Kingdom. How do you interpret Bonhoeffer in the light of history and his “confessing church”, and personal violent opposition to his nation’s then leader? The Revelation, it seems, since the claims of Augustus, in part, assurred believers of their status in the Messiah, when the world system had become oppositional to their devotion to He who was, and is, and is to come. If, in Daniel 7:25 a little king “wears out the saints of the most High”, are we to do anything at all about it? From what you say, above, are we to ignore the social structures of law and order, and their maintenace to stand alone for the Kingdom? Does Dr. Brown allude to other actions regarding taking on the evil in our day?To what degree is the Revelation stating that the iron of Rome’s enforcements aided Western Civilzation, and to what degree is it stating that its ways persecuted the lives of those of the seven churches in the western third of today’s Turkey, then Rome’s Asia?
Has the prophet of the Beast now shown his lying wonders, making the Beast less the beast? Where power, culture, and wickedness become one shall we lay our bodies on his alter, or lay our lives down for the King of our Kingdom? What does that look like in this world?
Hi Jabez,
I’m not at all certain that we should go into indepth discussions on the “comments” section of the various articles on Dr. Brown’s site. I don’t mind giving my personal testimony on the various dilemmas that we, as professing Christians, face; however, until I’ve gotten a reply as to whether this is the approprate place, I will answer, in short, as many of your questions the best that I am able until I get verification on the appropriateness of doing so. I am not a scholar, but, I have endeavored to learn, by way of Christ’s example and words and by His teaching of truth, as He is “the way, the truth and the life”, to reconcile my personal walk with Him and my world view. My idea is that the one should not conflict with the other. And if I find myself in a position where I have to choose, I would err ( although that is a misnomer in this instance) on the side of His teachings than to get waylaid to the right or the left. While keeping in mind the words of Messiah and His message, I will say that we all, at various times, often get tangled up with various prevelant world views that are absolutely contradictory to the Lord’s commandments. I would never presume to judge anyone else on their walk and the decisions they make. Being on this side of eternity we are all still under the “curse” and are clothed in sin. Everyone of us walking in the flesh are prone to all the ills of society as a whole. Our spirits are in constant battle with our desires. The only righteousness I own is that given me by the sacrifice of Messiah for my sins. For, while we were yet sinners, He died for us.
Concerning Bonhoeffer, I can only say that it is sometimes more than difficult to leave vengeance to the Lord. In our final analysis, if we are the last one to commit the sin of murder, then we become the murderer. The nonviolence taught by Christ cannot be subject to one’s personal justification as to whether something is “right or wrong” in what someone else is doing. In Bonhoeffer’s example, you might say, as many do, “that the end justifies the means”. If, however, the end of those things is death, or, eternal separation from God, would you be justified in the eyes of the Lord? Only the Lord knows the hearts and minds of each and every one of us, the Spirit bearing us witness. He left a commandment to love one another, to forgive those who persecute us, and if need be to lay down our life that we may keep it.
You stated the following above: “are we to ignore the social structures of law and order, and their maintenace to stand alone for the Kingdom?” I am certain I did not even imply that we are to “ignore law and order”. The only time that would be necessary is when those laws directly conflict with Christ’s teachings. Thank the Lord, truly, that in America we have the power of “redress” and of “civil disobedience” to gain “redress”. I presume by “their maintenance” you are referring to police to enforce those laws and of standing armies, which every country maintains. If so, I can only speak to civil laws as those given for the good of society as a whole. And I do believe we should obey the laws. Does God speak about unjust laws, weights and measures? Certainly He does. If we can influence unjust laws in a peaceful way, I personally think we should. We should come to the aid of those working for justice in as much as it is in accordance with those outlined in the New Covenant. There is a fine message along those lines in “being fully persuaded in our own minds” as to our individual walk with God. Concerning standing armies, those are matters too high for me. For I do not know God’s work from beginning to end apart from the work of Messiah. I do know that God’s will is the ultimate determining factor. That’s as far as I can personally go with that discussion.
You also asked me this: “Does Dr. Brown allude to other actions regarding taking on the evil in our day?” Again, I can’t speak for Dr. Brown, nor, am I knowledgeable concerning his writings. As I stated before, this is all new to me. I’ve not had time enough to peruse his website even a little bit. But, since you mentioned it, I will search and see what he has to say.
Concerning the antichrist of the Revelation, you asked: “Where power, culture, and wickedness become one shall we lay our bodies on his alter, or lay our lives down for the King of our Kingdom?” Certainly you know, Jabez, that to worship anyone other than God is blasphemy and will result in eternal separation from God. That, then, is the choice we may all face. Satan wants to be worshipped as God and it is each person’s decision as to what they will do. In the Roman Empire, that was where Christians drew the line. They would not worship the image of a man. I feel certain they would have obeyed every day laws which were for their benefit and where they did not conflict with the words of Christ.
I will leave the other questions until I receive permission for us to continue our discussion. They are beyond the scope of casual chatting.
Be well,
Sheila
Hi Jabez,
I haven’t heard back yet about their comments section, but, after re-reading their policy, I don’t know that they would mind, as long as we’re not hogging a particular conversation. This being the place of an older article, I would think it was alright. What do you think? Their policy reads like this:
We value community here on VOR, thus we encourage everyone to participate by leaving comments on the articles we publish. Whether in agreement or disagreement, you are invited to share your thoughts and opinions.
Three Simple Rules To Abide By When Commenting
1. No Profanity
2. No Attacks on an Individual
3. No Attacks on a Group of People
S.,
Thanks for your follow-up. However, the whole attrition of the term and concept of “appropriateness” into our thought lives is concerning. We are ruled by law, principles, and boundaries on behavior as believers, not on the often subjective analysis with instant application of labeling any considered action as to “appropriateness”. This notion of an on call subjective/normative application term covering what one likes or dislikes or feels about this or that can become in use a social tyranny in itself: depending on who is raising its applied label, as such. It seems to have been introduced in the last quarter of the twentieth century as a relative/correlative normalizing by verbal implication concept-on-call. This is as it seems often used in application conversationally by someone for manipulation of desired outcomes according to their own sensitive feelings–which may or may not account for those of others (e.g., as can be used by liberal educators and therapists to attempt to replace the freedom of speech, applied convictions, logical choices of mental origin, and the right of assembly on many occasions with a subtle intimidation by its applied and inferred contempt of asserting feeling states as most vital). I must not buy into its easily achieved tyranny achieved of its misuse, if attempting by other actions or means than how another labels appropriateness to otherwise uphold decency and order as being a common value of society. It seems to me that writing in a forum format does allow sufficiency to uphold decency and order.
Good you looked up the after Article forum comment rules, but this may tell in degree of regard of a soul needing “permission” to follow through in arenas where a conscious needful assertion of convictions may be about overcoming in the sense of Jesus’ usage in the Revelation of the term, over and above any need of permission. Think about this statement just made as a probe into whether an equipping courage–where needed in application of actions over permission, may be in the future stifled by personal protocol. And this is not presented as an attack, but as to consideration.
And, please reread what I implied about an altar, by the play on words of “alter”. We alter our behavior, and its permissions, indeed by moment by moment choices most usually assumed as in play in a consumer culture. No American can say this has no influence upon their conscience of choice, whether a believer or not in Jesus.
As for Bonhoeffer, I personally go back and forth on whether his cadre group’s conspiring actions were murderous or lawful: as stemming from a more legitimate form of government than the one which took over Germany for a long season of darkness and hate. When any supposed government outlaws being born a Jew it becomes totally illegitimate based on scripture alone. So, the group’s choices were in some sense made of a government of a German leadership cadre formed for needful justice by a higher mutual and eternal conscience. This shows too the need for situational ethics to be seated in Biblical life-affirming principles of in the best need of life choices jurisprudence.
Who then really had legitimate authority? To negate the person of Hitler by such actions as planned, and as did not succeed, though orchestrated, would have been far less costly of lives, property, and the chaos of warfare as were of Ten Commandment enforcement need conducted by governments opposing Germany’s aggression and insistence. Even if one justifies Bonhoeffer as an agent of those governments, rather than a usurper of his own secular Government, it becomes so.
So, Sheila, enlarging one’s personal permissions through outlooks to become overcomers is forged in this reply. Ever read Bonhoeffer’s book on Ethics, compiled by his friend after his untimely death?
for greater clarity, I offer some editing of my first paragraph, above.
Here is what I will alter: First, “…(e.g., as can be used by liberal educators and therapists to attempt to replace the freedom of speech, applied convictions, logical choices of mental origin, and the right of assembly on many occasions with a subtle intimidation by its applied and inferred contempt of asserting feeling states as most vital). I must not buy into its easily achieved tyranny achieved of its misuse, if attempting by other actions or means than how another labels appropriateness to otherwise uphold decency and order as being a common value of society”.
Edited: “…(e.g., as can be used by liberal educators and therapists to attempt to replace the freedom of speech, applied convictions, logical choices of mental origin, and the right of assembly on many occasions with a subtle intimidation by its applied and inferred contempt BY [not of] asserting feeling states as most vital). I must not buy into its easily ASSERTED [not achieved] tyranny achieved of its misuse, if attempting by other actions or means than how another labels appropriateness to otherwise uphold decency and order as being a common value of society”.
I hope this is clearer for a reader of my comments.
Hi Jabez,
I am somewhat baffled by some of your comments. I was only thinking to be respectful of this website as a place for Christians to hold each other up in their faith. I don’t know in what way I offended you. I truly did not mean to offend at all. As I said before, I am new to these forums and don’t know my way around them very well. Please forgive any misunderstandings in my sometimes too formal style of writing. I probably need to lighten up my writing style. (?) I also don’t know, sometimes, when others have made a “typo” or a diliberate alteration resulting in a duplicity with words.
Perhaps I should just fade into the background again.
Sheila
Sheila, Fade not. There was no offense whatsoever. Consider one’s approach to all watering holes, and, by all means, get your fill here before going on in this world’s desserts. Separation of permission from Child of God conviction and a related expression as was modeled by our Lord is liberating for any soul “in Christ”. We are in Christ, as covered by his affirming gaze, when achieving mutual discussion. We do not need permission nor “appropriateness” to engage here. By any and all means, consider Jesus in the Temple Courts of Jerusalem, how he behaved, and engage in lively discussion in this section, and in the forums of Line of Fire radio. You have much to offer, so engage. My commenting on the whole notion of the delicate dance of “appropriateness” is indeed focused, but at the notion of its necessity being not needful, not at thee. Engage, engage, engage.
After all, this is the magazine where instead of titles simply stating their subject matter, they are often couched in late Elizabethan English usage. We find, for example, “essentiality, Pauline, Danelic, and Especial” as examples of how we are to write to one another, instead of essential, Paul’s, Daniel’s, and unique. We may be equally baffled here, Sheila.
In other words high pious sounding words usage and honoring delicate feeling states at other costs of connection and meaning may not achieve the linkage of truth and grace which we all desire when dialoguing in Christ.
Jabez,
Thank you for your kind words. I read a good many “old books” and I like the flowery language. People took the time to be precise in their choice of words and most of the Christian writers were somewhat ecstatic in their commentaries and such. Like Matthew Henry and Spurgeon. Not Luther, as much. I found his writing too curt or something. I can’t put my finger on it. Of course his latter attitude of anti-semitism completely turned me off reading anymore of his works. So, yes, I’m a student of the oldies. And of precision. And of the ecstatic at times. Much like the prophets of old.
Thanks,
Sheila
…not to mention–the Psalms!
Didn’t Jesus state that plain speech was his desire? This would include all the reasons the NAS and NIV introductory scholarship comments apply to our interchanges.
Of course, Jesus spoke with an economy of words that goes unappreciated in these days when words are bandied about with not much thought behind them. And while His words were “gracious” they were forceful because of their simplicity. I don’t care for the NIV. We used it in our class at USC on “Old Testament Studies”. Too many translation errors in it. They went so far as to give Satan a title designated for Christ only. I was weened on the AKJV and my mind automatically translates it into modern English. In fact, when I’m studying I sometimes forget to revert back to the “thees and thou’s” when searching for a particular verse. There are so many translations these days. I’ve yet to find one that translates the AKJV by just simply leaving the “olde English” out and adding just enough information to make the reader aware of the Hebraism’s that we don’t understand today. I like one called the MLB which came with some software I use. It’s probably available at Christianbook.com and I think it’s the best for witnessing to others. If they can’t understand by reading the Bible after you’ve peaked their interest, you may have just lost them. I’m all for modern translations, as long as they get it right and if the “flavor” of Christ’s words are not lost in translation.
Have a good weekend.
When Ken Taylor worked on the MLB/LB/NLB he lost his voice for almost a year, and attributed that to adding to the Word of God (his take on it, as a judgement, not my own). FYI the NIV is now undergoing a new revision. Please pray for its outcome. There is a delicate balancing act, between depicting literal translations of words and phrases and extended thoughts and relative transliterated idiom usage into currently used languages.
Maybe someone from jesuswordsonly.com will read this.
The website looks very dangerous to me and discredits Paul’s writings.
The English word “”scripture” is a translation of the Greek word graphei, which literally means “writings.” It is used of both secular writings and sacred writings. Particularly in the Bible, the word is used of books which were regarded as sacred; books that were regarded as uniquely inspired by God. For example, in Romans 3:4, the term grapho is used specifically of the Old Testament when Paul says: as it is written and then goes on to quote Psalm 51:4. In II Timothy 3:16, it is used again of the Old Testament. In II Peter 3:16, the very same word, graphei or “scripture,” which is used of the Old Testament, is also used of Paul’s writings. What we should carefully note here is that Peter, who had a dispute with Paul in Galatians 2, in the course of time began to realize that the writings of Paul were Scripture. The very fact that he used the same term that the Jews used to refer to the Old Testament shows us that Peter considered the writings of Paul of equal inspiration as the Old Testament itself.