Published by Jerry Baysinger on 18 Sep 2009 at 05:06 pm
HIS MERCY ENDURETH FOREVER
It is written in 2 Chronicles 16:34, O give thanks unto the LORD; for He is good; for His mercy endureth for ever. In today’s society, everyone wants things fast, so here’s a fast description of God for you: good and merciful. If those were the only characteristics of God, those two alone would be enough to get me to run to Him and worship. Think of it: how many people do you know who can be described today as good and merciful? If you know someone like that, you want to spend as much time around them as you can. Why? Well think of the alternative: would you want to spend your time hanging out with someone wicked and ruthless?
Yet today, we have a church on almost every corner, people are staying away by the thousands. What or who are they avoiding? Are they avoiding God, who is good and merciful? Or are they avoiding the church people who say they know Him, who claim to be following God, yet are not imitators of God in being good and merciful? Let me tell you, I’ve heard many “Turn or burn” sermons in my day, and they didn’t do much to get me to fall in love with God. If anything, they turned me away from God. Why would I want to know a God who was perched upon a cloud with a giant fly swatter, just waiting to smack me like a bug if I messed up? The truth is, I didn’t see much future in that.
Many people in churches portray God as having an anger problem, who can’t wait to bring fire and indignation upon His adversaries. No wonder there are so many empty seats in the churches today. I wasn’t interested in meeting that God. So I went shopping for a god more to my liking, hoping to have Him on my terms, I will call it a “Burger King” mentality. For those who haven’t read my writings, let me explain the “Burger King” thing. You can go there and have a hamburger any way you want it, and there is no wrong way, anything you can dream up for your hamburger is the right way, even if you want clams and whipped cream on it. Of course they don’t have the clams and whipped cream, but if you wanted to bring your own and put it on your burger, that would be ok by them. Just do it your way, and they’re happy. So people go to church, desiring to have God “their way”.
Religious people dream up all these rules for God to abide by in some churches, for example, they say God will only save you if you’re a member of their denomination or church. So He’s pretty limited where He can save people. Others say God can only heal you if you jump through certain hoops first. And being a member of their church doesn’t hurt, of course. I can see why He doesn’t show up in some churches, there are too many rules for Him to obey. And some of them are misrepresenting God so badly that He wouldn’t recognize them as His church, anyway.
Now, let’s don’t get in the ditch here, God IS a God of justice, and there is going to be a judgment, and we will all appear before the Lord to give account for what we’ve done with this life. Then one of two things will happen: we will hear “Well done”, or we will BE “well-done”. Do I make myself clear? The choice is entirely up to us, and God does not determine that for us, nor will He override our will. He always gives us liberty, whether to love Him or not. God seeks those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. And if we really knew the truth about Him, we couldn’t build churches fast enough to hold them. So therefore, I know people believe lies about God, that’s why they avoid Him. And if I didn’t know the truth about Him, I would still be running from God myself. Today I’d like to introduce you to the God you may not ever have known on a personal basis.
I went to church like most people putting in my two hours a week and thinking I was doing God some kind of special favor. There was no real desire in me to know the Lord because, personally, there wasn’t much there to interest me, I’d heard enough fire and brimstone and “hook ‘em and cook ‘em” messages to last me a lifetime. Yes, God has resorted to that a few times, but only after His mercy was refused and stomped into the dirt.
God demands justice on every front, and the penalty for sin is death, and there is no escaping it. By all rights, we should be required to pay for our own sins, because we’re the ones who committed them, and the blame falls upon us entirely. But because of God’s great mercy, we are not crispy critters. Because of God’s great mercy, the payment for our sins has been made in full by the One who created us, because we could not pay it and live. One day I was preaching in Nebraska, telling the people that God the Father loves us as much as He loves His Son Jesus, and I heard the Holy Spirit tell me, Jerry, that’s not entirely correct. Wanting to rightly divide the Word of Truth, I said, Lord, I don’t understand. He said, Did I sacrifice YOU that My Son might live? I replied, No, Lord, You sacrificed Your Son so that I might live. He said, Then, whom did I place the higher value on? Tears poured down my face as I realized, perhaps for the first time in my life, the very love and mercy of God toward us. How could God love us so much? WHY would God love us so much? Then it occurred to me: O give thanks unto the LORD; for He is good; for His mercy endureth for ever.
God just can’t help it! He is good and merciful, that’s just the way He is, and He’s locked into that mode forever, ages without end. No longer do I wonder what eternity will be like with God, for it is written in Ephesians 2:7, That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. It is written in Exodus 33:19, And He said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. So what is the name of the LORD? Evidently it must translate to Grace and Mercy.
Before you get hung up with “Well, what if He doesn’t want to show Himself gracious and merciful to me?”, let me tell you something: He can only show you grace and mercy if YOU will let Him. Notice it says in that verse “to whom I will”. If you will give God His way, He will show mercy to everyone, every time. He made salvation’s payment for you thousands of years before you were ever born. So how can you think He is not willing to be gracious to you? It is written in 2 Peter 3:9, The LORD is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
What is repentance? It’s turning from the attitude that God does not love you. Once you experience His Love, you will lose the desire to sin, you will lose the desire to spend a moment out of His presence. Every area of your life will change for the good, because His mercy endureth forever. Don’t give the excuse, “I’ll come to God after I clean my life up.” Just come now, He will clean you up. He has the best stain remover in the industry, the Blood of Jesus that removes even the most stubborn sin stains, never been known to fail, and leaves you fresh and clean, shining like the sun. Doesn’t sting the eyes, either.
Because of His love and mercy, your healing is just waiting for you to say, “Thank You, my Lord, I receive it now.” The Lord Jesus bought and paid for it, so what are you waiting for? Get rid of your doubt, quit thinking one day you’re healed, and the next day you’re not, stop wavering and get it settled once and for all;. God’s mercy has not come to and end. Nor has it been used up by someone else, no, there’s plenty for YOU. Quit letting the devil feed you his lies, telling you that you can’t be healed because you don’t deserve it or that you’ve done something wrong. Healing doesn’t have anything to do with what you’ve done or not done. It has everything to do with God’s mercy and what HE has done. Healing is a gift from God, you can’t earn it; you can only let Him give it to you. And He’s giving right now. Are you receiving?
I would go so far as to say this: if you aren’t walking in the mercy and grace of God, it isn’t His fault, it’s yours. That may not be what you want to hear, but I’m not going to lie to you. God has made it abundantly clear that His mercy is available to whosoever will ask for it. Are you a “whosoever”? Sure you are! If you seek God with all your heart, He says you will find Him. I found Him and say,. O give thanks unto the LORD; for He is good; for His mercy endureth for ever. Now it’s your turn. Pray with me:
Father God in heaven, I give You thanks, for You are good, and Your mercy endures forever. Thank You for extending Your goodness and mercy to me. I joyfully receive Your love, eager to know You better, longing for Your presence every day in my life and thanking You with all my heart in Jesus’ name. Amen.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
On Christianity and sex
http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/books/book5/main.htm
Several passages in the Gospels condemn porneia. This word carried a number of different meanings. At times porneia means prostitution, at other times it refers to non-marital sex in general.[17] It is difficult to be certain, for example, whether the term applied to premarital intercourse between persons betrothed to one another or, indeed, to any type of non-commercial, heterosexual relations of the kind conventionally labeled fornication. Since neither the Torah nor rabbinical teachers contemporary with Jesus prohibited intercourse between unmarried partners as a moral offense, perhaps porneia referred primarily to sex with prostitutes, adultery, and other promiscuous relationships [18] (Brundage 1987: 58).
Regarding sexual liberties which were taken by the early Church, we know that they did have some trouble with "wild fire" in certain quarters, as indicated by Saint Paul's rebuke to the Corinthians, where reports of fornication and incest were quite common:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife ( 1 Corinthians 5:1 ).
Saint Paul subscribed marriage as a solution to such excesses:
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband ( 1 Corinthians 7:2 ).
Much of Paul's conservatism may be attributed not only to his strict Pharisaic background, but also to the fact that most of his Greek and Asian converts had come out of cultures in which male and female temple prostitution were noble professions. And, sexual excesses and orgies were a way of life amongst the pagans of the Near East. This is why many scholars interpret a number of New Testament references to "fornicators" to be specifically talking about "[male] temple prostitutes," not inclusive of all those who engage in sex with a partner to whom they are not married.
Paul's pronouncements regarding sex, as applied by sexually conservative Christians, come in direct conflict with the central theme of the Epistles. We believe that Jesus has delivered us from the old Mosaic laws and purity requirements, regarding sex between consenting adult men and women. For "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the [Mosaic] Law" ( Galatians 3:13 ), "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us [the old Law], which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross" (Colossians 2:14 ).
According to Aquinas, masturbation was a greater sin than fornication. The death of Judah's son, Onan, who "spilled his seed" (i.e., performed coitus interruptus) rather than willingly impregnate his widowed sister-in-law as custom required, is often mistakenly pointed out as the example of how displeasing to God masturbation must be.
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy [deceased] brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore He slew him ( Genesis 38:8-10 ).
Read in context, however, one quickly sees that what provoked God to slay Onan was his selfishness, greed and sexual withholding and refusing to sexually accommodate Tamar, his brother's widow, not wanting her to have any children to inherit part of the family property. In slaying Onan, God was intent that Tamar receive justice, but He also had another reason to be particularly concerned about her success in love-making; she was chosen to be an ancestor of Jesus. As a spicy epilogue, Tamar assisted God's purpose by posing as a prostitute, thereby luring Judah to fulfill his Godly duty ( Genesis 38:13-26 ).
Several passages in the Gospels condemn porneia. This word carried a number of different meanings. At times porneia means prostitution, at other times it refers to non-marital sex in general.[17] It is difficult to be certain, for example, whether the term applied to premarital intercourse between persons betrothed to one another or, indeed, to any type of non-commercial, heterosexual relations of the kind conventionally labeled fornication. Since neither the Torah nor rabbinical teachers contemporary with Jesus prohibited intercourse between unmarried partners as a moral offense, perhaps porneia referred primarily to sex with prostitutes, adultery, and other promiscuous relationships [18] (Brundage 1987: 58).
Regarding sexual liberties which were taken by the early Church, we know that they did have some trouble with "wild fire" in certain quarters, as indicated by Saint Paul's rebuke to the Corinthians, where reports of fornication and incest were quite common:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife ( 1 Corinthians 5:1 ).
Saint Paul subscribed marriage as a solution to such excesses:
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband ( 1 Corinthians 7:2 ).
Much of Paul's conservatism may be attributed not only to his strict Pharisaic background, but also to the fact that most of his Greek and Asian converts had come out of cultures in which male and female temple prostitution were noble professions. And, sexual excesses and orgies were a way of life amongst the pagans of the Near East. This is why many scholars interpret a number of New Testament references to "fornicators" to be specifically talking about "[male] temple prostitutes," not inclusive of all those who engage in sex with a partner to whom they are not married.
Paul's pronouncements regarding sex, as applied by sexually conservative Christians, come in direct conflict with the central theme of the Epistles. We believe that Jesus has delivered us from the old Mosaic laws and purity requirements, regarding sex between consenting adult men and women. For "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the [Mosaic] Law" ( Galatians 3:13 ), "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us [the old Law], which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross" (Colossians 2:14 ).
According to Aquinas, masturbation was a greater sin than fornication. The death of Judah's son, Onan, who "spilled his seed" (i.e., performed coitus interruptus) rather than willingly impregnate his widowed sister-in-law as custom required, is often mistakenly pointed out as the example of how displeasing to God masturbation must be.
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy [deceased] brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore He slew him ( Genesis 38:8-10 ).
Read in context, however, one quickly sees that what provoked God to slay Onan was his selfishness, greed and sexual withholding and refusing to sexually accommodate Tamar, his brother's widow, not wanting her to have any children to inherit part of the family property. In slaying Onan, God was intent that Tamar receive justice, but He also had another reason to be particularly concerned about her success in love-making; she was chosen to be an ancestor of Jesus. As a spicy epilogue, Tamar assisted God's purpose by posing as a prostitute, thereby luring Judah to fulfill his Godly duty ( Genesis 38:13-26 ).
http://kenbirks.com/outlines/sin4-applying-the-blood.pdf
From "Ken Birks dot com"
IV. Concluding Remarks.
Yes it is true, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Just make sure it is honest confession, a
confession that judges the sin honestly, that repents of the sin and turns from it,
and that does anything that properly can be done to undo the sin. Anything less
than that is not an honest confession of sin.
Do not fail to have the forgiveness and cleansing that you need by dealing lightly
or dishonestly with sin. This is how the blood is truly applied to the doorpost of
our hearts.
Dealing With the Sin in Our Lives.. Ken Birks, Pastor/Teacher
Sin/Foundation Page 6
May God bless you and may His blood completely cleanse you of all your sin.
This is the first step in receiving your complete victory over the sin that so easily
ensnares you.
IV. Concluding Remarks.
Yes it is true, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Just make sure it is honest confession, a
confession that judges the sin honestly, that repents of the sin and turns from it,
and that does anything that properly can be done to undo the sin. Anything less
than that is not an honest confession of sin.
Do not fail to have the forgiveness and cleansing that you need by dealing lightly
or dishonestly with sin. This is how the blood is truly applied to the doorpost of
our hearts.
Dealing With the Sin in Our Lives.. Ken Birks, Pastor/Teacher
Sin/Foundation Page 6
May God bless you and may His blood completely cleanse you of all your sin.
This is the first step in receiving your complete victory over the sin that so easily
ensnares you.
A letter by Bob Wilkin
Do Born Again People Sin?
1 John 3:9
by Bob Wilkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in Him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
This verse is often cited as teaching that "genuine" believers will not practice sin. They will not sin habitually, 1 John 3:9 is said to teach.
Notice how various versions and paraphrases translate the first part of the verse. Some suggest that habitual sin is in view. The New American Standard Version reads: "No one who is born of God practices sin." The Living Bible reads: "The person who has been born into God's family does not make a practice of sinning." The Amplified Bible has: "No one born [begotten] of God [deliberately and knowingly] habitually practices sin."
On the other hand, other translations suggest an absolute understanding--that the born of God person doesn't sin at all. The New King James Version, the one cited above, reads: "Whoever has been born of God does not sin." The New International Version has: "No one who is born of God continues to sin."
The translations and paraphrases show that there are two broad understandings of this verse: habitual and absolute.
The habitual sin view posits that John was teaching the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints here. "True" believers will not sin as a pattern of life. They will not be dominated by sin. They will be characterized by holiness and obedience. Sins for the "genuine" believer are merely occasional aberrations.
The second position has been called the new nature view. According to this view believers never sin as an expression of their born-of-God new natures. The new nature doesn't sin even occasionally. It is sinless. John is viewed as having called his readers to abide in Christ and live in keeping with their born of God new natures.
Which is right?
The habitual sin view cites for evidence the use of the present tense (poiei).
There are grave problems with this argument. For one thing, the present tense, unaided by qualifying words, does not mean what the habitual sin view suggests. In Greek when the present tense occurs it can be understood in a number of ways, one of which is the habitual present. However, the habitual present refers to events which occur over and over again repeatedly. If John was saying this about believers sinning he would be saying that believers do not sin repeatedly. If believers sin daily--as all believers do (cf. 1 John 1:8,10)--then they sin habitually in the grammatical sense. I. Howard Marshall commented concerning the tense argument:
[It] involves translators in stressing the present continuous form of the verb in a way which they do not do elsewhere in the New Testament.
(The Epistles of John, NICNT, p.180)
Similarly, C. H. Dodd writes:
All this [the idea that a believer does not sin habitually] is true. Yet it is legitimate to doubt whether the reader could be expected to grasp so subtle a doctrine simply upon the basis of a precise distinction of tenses without further guidance.
(The Johannine Epistles, p. 79)
Another difficulty with this understanding is that one wonders why God would preserve believers from being dominated by sin and yet not from sinning altogether. I. Howard Marshall writes:
If believers do not sin habitually because God's seed remains in Him (3:9b), it is hard to understand why God would preserve believers from some sins, but not from all sins. We must, therefore, wonder whether an important point of interpretation can be made to rest on what has been called a grammatical subtlety.
(The Epistles of John, p.180)
The habitual sin view is also ruled out by the context. In verse 5 John said that there is no sin in Christ. He clearly meant that there is absolutely no sin in Him. Then in the very next sentence he said that those who abide in Christ do not sin. He could hardly have meant that Christ sins not at all and those who abide in Him sin but not a lot. John's point is clearly that sin is never an expression of abiding in Christ. When we abide we do not sin at all.
Verse 9 is a further development of this point. No believer ever sins as an expression of his new nature. Insofar as the believer expresses his new nature in his experience, he will not sin because God's seed remains in him(1 John 3:9b).
Alford notes that "If the child of God falls into sin, it is an act against [his] nature" (Hebrews-Revelation, p.465). Likewise, Brooke writes:
The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character.
(The Johannine Epistles, p.89)
First John 3:9 does not teach the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Indeed, no passage does. God perseveres. Saints at best fail daily. First John 3:9 is a call to holiness. Our new natures are pure and holy. Let us live in our experience like we are in our position. Of course, there is a mystery here. John said in 1 John 1:8,10 that believers cannot attain to sinless perfection in their experience. However, we can allow our new natures to dominate our experience so that we live consistently godly lives. May we live like who we are: children of the Holy One who has saved us by His amazing, free grace.
1 John 3:9
by Bob Wilkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in Him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
This verse is often cited as teaching that "genuine" believers will not practice sin. They will not sin habitually, 1 John 3:9 is said to teach.
Notice how various versions and paraphrases translate the first part of the verse. Some suggest that habitual sin is in view. The New American Standard Version reads: "No one who is born of God practices sin." The Living Bible reads: "The person who has been born into God's family does not make a practice of sinning." The Amplified Bible has: "No one born [begotten] of God [deliberately and knowingly] habitually practices sin."
On the other hand, other translations suggest an absolute understanding--that the born of God person doesn't sin at all. The New King James Version, the one cited above, reads: "Whoever has been born of God does not sin." The New International Version has: "No one who is born of God continues to sin."
The translations and paraphrases show that there are two broad understandings of this verse: habitual and absolute.
The habitual sin view posits that John was teaching the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints here. "True" believers will not sin as a pattern of life. They will not be dominated by sin. They will be characterized by holiness and obedience. Sins for the "genuine" believer are merely occasional aberrations.
The second position has been called the new nature view. According to this view believers never sin as an expression of their born-of-God new natures. The new nature doesn't sin even occasionally. It is sinless. John is viewed as having called his readers to abide in Christ and live in keeping with their born of God new natures.
Which is right?
The habitual sin view cites for evidence the use of the present tense (poiei).
There are grave problems with this argument. For one thing, the present tense, unaided by qualifying words, does not mean what the habitual sin view suggests. In Greek when the present tense occurs it can be understood in a number of ways, one of which is the habitual present. However, the habitual present refers to events which occur over and over again repeatedly. If John was saying this about believers sinning he would be saying that believers do not sin repeatedly. If believers sin daily--as all believers do (cf. 1 John 1:8,10)--then they sin habitually in the grammatical sense. I. Howard Marshall commented concerning the tense argument:
[It] involves translators in stressing the present continuous form of the verb in a way which they do not do elsewhere in the New Testament.
(The Epistles of John, NICNT, p.180)
Similarly, C. H. Dodd writes:
All this [the idea that a believer does not sin habitually] is true. Yet it is legitimate to doubt whether the reader could be expected to grasp so subtle a doctrine simply upon the basis of a precise distinction of tenses without further guidance.
(The Johannine Epistles, p. 79)
Another difficulty with this understanding is that one wonders why God would preserve believers from being dominated by sin and yet not from sinning altogether. I. Howard Marshall writes:
If believers do not sin habitually because God's seed remains in Him (3:9b), it is hard to understand why God would preserve believers from some sins, but not from all sins. We must, therefore, wonder whether an important point of interpretation can be made to rest on what has been called a grammatical subtlety.
(The Epistles of John, p.180)
The habitual sin view is also ruled out by the context. In verse 5 John said that there is no sin in Christ. He clearly meant that there is absolutely no sin in Him. Then in the very next sentence he said that those who abide in Christ do not sin. He could hardly have meant that Christ sins not at all and those who abide in Him sin but not a lot. John's point is clearly that sin is never an expression of abiding in Christ. When we abide we do not sin at all.
Verse 9 is a further development of this point. No believer ever sins as an expression of his new nature. Insofar as the believer expresses his new nature in his experience, he will not sin because God's seed remains in him(1 John 3:9b).
Alford notes that "If the child of God falls into sin, it is an act against [his] nature" (Hebrews-Revelation, p.465). Likewise, Brooke writes:
The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character.
(The Johannine Epistles, p.89)
First John 3:9 does not teach the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Indeed, no passage does. God perseveres. Saints at best fail daily. First John 3:9 is a call to holiness. Our new natures are pure and holy. Let us live in our experience like we are in our position. Of course, there is a mystery here. John said in 1 John 1:8,10 that believers cannot attain to sinless perfection in their experience. However, we can allow our new natures to dominate our experience so that we live consistently godly lives. May we live like who we are: children of the Holy One who has saved us by His amazing, free grace.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Life or Death - God is Life - do we want it? Do we follow it - how can we live for God and break away from traditions if need be?
Finnur
September 16, 2009 8:10 AM
"There's much that Jews and Christians can argue about, but not that. The New Testament seeks to place its own understanding on the nature of this relationship with God, but the Christian interpretation, originated by Paul, is simply tendentious and implausible. It only works if you read the Bible backward, starting with the Greek scriptures, absorbing their assumptions, and then reading the Hebrew Bible in that light. But this is of course not a natural way of understanding Scripture. That, to me, is the heart of the Jewish objection to Christianity. God gave us a particular relationship with him, a modality for approaching Him. Why that one and not another? An interesting question to contemplate but the fact remains. Christianity in all its forms cancels and abrogates that relationship. God is our life. For a Jew to accept Christianity -- I'm not speaking of Gentiles here -- is therefore a kind of suicide."(I read this among other paragraphs in a text of the blog of David Klinghoffer [http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/08/when-a-jew-threatens-to-commit-spiritual-suicide.html] and feelt a sudden need to post a comment which I did).
Dear reader,
I just wanted to throw in a point - as the thought came to me strongly when reading this.
It sorts of starts with a thought that is – = when where the scriptures finalized..?.. In them there is the voice “in the wilderness” the prophet that is often alone struggling to get the nation which is betrothed to the Lord to leave her regrettably often wicked ways. There are a few lessons to be drawn from that firstly that it is altogether too human to reduce God to a concept that fits ones own comfort zone (the Prophets = a lonely voice) and second that if we follow everybody else we may be in danger (perishing with this world). Implying that we constantly have to seek God on our own (even if we respect and participate in corporate worship) as when it comes down to it we are responsible in our relationship with Him. This responsibility is in a way what makes us understand that the only way to live is death to the self. Not to live as oneself might want to but to live the best one can as God wants one to. This makes the prophetic voice extremely important. We have the written word so that we can recognize Gods character and do our best to reflect Him, also because it absolutely humbles us to the dust – who can be righteous?? Who may enter the promised land? Who has called Gods judgment upon himself and may expect to be vaporized in any moment?? We remember that God’s mercy and loving-kindness lasts for ever, while is it a danger threatening our comfort for us to recognize that He is a judge also – judging kindly for thousands – also the maker who shapes the clay His way.
On which side of Gods judgment are we? Who was the last true prophet ? Has God become silent – is He maybe dead (forgive me this – I am pointing to popular philosophy and even the new age which totally impersonalizes God).
There are a few things which every Jew must consider – why is it tough to be? Who can help me?(As indeed any person may ponder - Is it specially tough to be a Jew; what about the people of Somalia? – are we[humans] victims – can we even require there be a God – and as He is aren’t we fortunate that He is good – and then …how can He be good if we suffer? ... then..What causes suffering) And from that the central question may be what is the solution and then Who is the Messiah? Other questions might be what happened to the temple? How is it possible to be a Jew without a temple? And for anyone… How does the unseen interact with the seen?
Now, given that God is alive we may recognize that He still communicates and interacts with humans – a central question then becomes how? How do you approach God? How does He approach you? I must state that when I first read the scriptures I started from the beginning – meaning that after reading every chapter it had a bearing on my understanding of the next one. For example when I read Hosea I was very glad when I reached the point which some refer to as Hosea 14:5 – before that I was more in some sort of a state of fear. And suddenly the dawn broke through! Numerous Words show us that we are to do good or to “love”: As the chapter some refer to as Isaiah 58 – So we know God cares about people – even the foreigner – and that we are to love to reflect His character. Can we think that such a God has forsaken His people or left them only to philosophical ponderings and impossibilities??!
September 16, 2009 8:10 AM
"There's much that Jews and Christians can argue about, but not that. The New Testament seeks to place its own understanding on the nature of this relationship with God, but the Christian interpretation, originated by Paul, is simply tendentious and implausible. It only works if you read the Bible backward, starting with the Greek scriptures, absorbing their assumptions, and then reading the Hebrew Bible in that light. But this is of course not a natural way of understanding Scripture. That, to me, is the heart of the Jewish objection to Christianity. God gave us a particular relationship with him, a modality for approaching Him. Why that one and not another? An interesting question to contemplate but the fact remains. Christianity in all its forms cancels and abrogates that relationship. God is our life. For a Jew to accept Christianity -- I'm not speaking of Gentiles here -- is therefore a kind of suicide."(I read this among other paragraphs in a text of the blog of David Klinghoffer [http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/08/when-a-jew-threatens-to-commit-spiritual-suicide.html] and feelt a sudden need to post a comment which I did).
Dear reader,
I just wanted to throw in a point - as the thought came to me strongly when reading this.
It sorts of starts with a thought that is – = when where the scriptures finalized..?.. In them there is the voice “in the wilderness” the prophet that is often alone struggling to get the nation which is betrothed to the Lord to leave her regrettably often wicked ways. There are a few lessons to be drawn from that firstly that it is altogether too human to reduce God to a concept that fits ones own comfort zone (the Prophets = a lonely voice) and second that if we follow everybody else we may be in danger (perishing with this world). Implying that we constantly have to seek God on our own (even if we respect and participate in corporate worship) as when it comes down to it we are responsible in our relationship with Him. This responsibility is in a way what makes us understand that the only way to live is death to the self. Not to live as oneself might want to but to live the best one can as God wants one to. This makes the prophetic voice extremely important. We have the written word so that we can recognize Gods character and do our best to reflect Him, also because it absolutely humbles us to the dust – who can be righteous?? Who may enter the promised land? Who has called Gods judgment upon himself and may expect to be vaporized in any moment?? We remember that God’s mercy and loving-kindness lasts for ever, while is it a danger threatening our comfort for us to recognize that He is a judge also – judging kindly for thousands – also the maker who shapes the clay His way.
On which side of Gods judgment are we? Who was the last true prophet ? Has God become silent – is He maybe dead (forgive me this – I am pointing to popular philosophy and even the new age which totally impersonalizes God).
There are a few things which every Jew must consider – why is it tough to be? Who can help me?(As indeed any person may ponder - Is it specially tough to be a Jew; what about the people of Somalia? – are we[humans] victims – can we even require there be a God – and as He is aren’t we fortunate that He is good – and then …how can He be good if we suffer? ... then..What causes suffering) And from that the central question may be what is the solution and then Who is the Messiah? Other questions might be what happened to the temple? How is it possible to be a Jew without a temple? And for anyone… How does the unseen interact with the seen?
Now, given that God is alive we may recognize that He still communicates and interacts with humans – a central question then becomes how? How do you approach God? How does He approach you? I must state that when I first read the scriptures I started from the beginning – meaning that after reading every chapter it had a bearing on my understanding of the next one. For example when I read Hosea I was very glad when I reached the point which some refer to as Hosea 14:5 – before that I was more in some sort of a state of fear. And suddenly the dawn broke through! Numerous Words show us that we are to do good or to “love”: As the chapter some refer to as Isaiah 58 – So we know God cares about people – even the foreigner – and that we are to love to reflect His character. Can we think that such a God has forsaken His people or left them only to philosophical ponderings and impossibilities??!
On interreligious dialogue
A NOTE FROM DAVID BRICKNER: The Limitations of Dialogue
by David Brickner
September 16, 2009
Two bits of news from the "dog days of summer" shed interesting light on the challenges of sharing the gospel with Jewish people, and the limitations of dialogue as a means to accomplish this priority.
The first is a serious dust up between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and several Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the National Council of Synagogues.
Seven years ago the USCCB's Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs—in coordination with the National Council of Synagogues—released a document titled, "Reflections on Covenant and Mission."* This document categorically stated that, "targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity is no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church."
Jews for Jesus referred to this document, among others, as we described what we see as an ongoing "War on Jewish Evangelism."
This summer, the USCCB made a surprising retraction of their theological error by releasing another document titled, "A Note On Ambiguities Contained In Reflections On Covenant And Mission." The new document unequivocally repudiates much of the original, declaring that it was never authoritative or representative of the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It further affirms that,
"Jesus Christ in himself fulfills God's revelation begun with Abraham and that proclaiming this good news to all the world is at the heart of her mission. Reflections on Covenant and Mission, however, lacks such an affirmation and thus presents a diminished notion of evangelization. The long story of God's intervention in the history of Israel comes to its unsurpassable culmination in Jesus Christ, who is God become man…. we also believe that the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God's promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ."
Jewish community leadership reacted swiftly with a letter and press relase to express "serious concern." The Anti-Defamation League stated that the new document "engendered both uncertainty and considerable disappointment with respect to the position maintained by the Church and its spokespersons," with "invitations" to become Christian making Jewish participation in dialogue with the Church "untenable".
In other words, a Catholic "yes" to evangelism led to a Jewish "no" to dialogue.
The second bit of news came from Berlin, Germany, where the annual meeting of the International Council of Christians and Jews released a twelve-point document titled, "A Time for Recommitment: The Twelve Points of Berlin- A Call to Christian and Jewish Communities Worldwide."
It is notable that this conference was held in the same city where, just one year ago, the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) issued the statement,"The Berlin Declaration on the Uniqueness of Christ and Jewish Evangelism in Europe Today 2008.".
Whereas the WEA statement was positive and supportive of Jewish evangelism, the "Time for Recommitment" document is just the opposite. Point 2 calls for a commitment "to promote interreligious dialogue … by understanding dialogue as requiring trust and equality among all participants and rejecting any notion of convincing others to accept one's own beliefs." And under point 3, "…by opposing organized efforts at the conversion of Jews."
A Christian "no" to evangelism was accompanied by a Jewish "yes" to dialogue.
It is quite clear, to those who are willing to see, that Jewish community leaders only engage in "dialogue" when their partners agree to abstain from direct evangelism. The simple belief that Jewish people, like all people, need Jesus is enough to offend. Any and all efforts to tell the gospel to Jews is continually confronted by strong opposition, regardless of how respectful or low key those witnessing efforts might be.
Unfortunately, some Christians are still not ready to recognize how firmly and indelibly this line has been drawn. The notion that there is a non-offensive way to offer Jewish people the gospel makes some Christians wary of Jewish missions. They may wonder why the Jewish community finds us so objectionable, if we are sensitive in our witness.
The pastor of a megachurch recently asked me whether Jews for Jesus was "confrontational or relational" in our approach to Jewish evangelism. He was considering inviting me to speak in his church, and needed to know if I would fit in with his understanding and expectation of an appropriate witness to people of other religions. That pastor went on to explain that he believes our witness should be oriented toward dialogue—a respectful exchange of ideas and not an aggressive effort to convince and prove that ours is the only correct way.
If by dialogue people mean a style of interaction leading to a give and take exchange of viewpoints, then I can say that I am all in favor of dialogue. As John Stott points out, "Jesus seldom if ever spoke in a declamatory, take-it-or-leave-it style. Instead, whether explicitly or implicitly, he was constantly addressing questions to his hearers' minds and consciences." (Christian Mission in the Modern World. IVP. p.61) Yet Jesus never employed inter-religious dialogue as some commonly understand it today: that is, neither party makes any effort to persuade others of their viewpoint, but only looks to find common ground. David Hesselgrave points out that while the New Testament clearly indicates the apostle Paul, on numerous occasions, engaged in dialogue, "in each of these cases it is apparent that Paul's intention was to establish the truth of the gospel, not find common ground with his audience." (Paradigms in Conflict, Kregel p.107)
A dialogue is only as good as the honesty and transparency of those taking part. Each party's agenda should be acknowledged. It would be hard for any follower of Jesus engaged in dialogue with their Jewish friends to honestly say, "I have no interest in trying to persuade you that Jesus is the Messiah." To do so would not only be dishonest, but ultimately disobedient to the Lord Jesus. For Jewish leaders, religious dialogue is a platform from which to persuade Christians that it is unnecessary and even wrong to evangelize Jews. If both those agendas were out on the table, would the participants still want to move ahead? And if these agendas are kept under wraps, is it really interreligious dialogue after all?
Recently, I read a blog from conservative Jewish author David Klinghoffer, someone I have had my own "dialogue" with in the past. David is honest about his views on Jewish people believing in Jesus, but his views do not exactly invite dialogue in its true sense: "For a Jew to accept Christianity—I'm not speaking of Gentiles here—is therefore a kind of suicide. It's not surprising to find, then, that Christian belief has acted as it has, down through the ages, as the most powerful of all acids on the existence of the Jewish people."
It is somewhat difficult to imagine having a meaningful spiritual conversation with a person who is convinced that to accept your point of view would be a form of suicide. Yet that is a real mindset for so many Jewish people. So, is dialogue a reasonable approach to people who hold views like those of David Klinghoffer, or the people from the Anti-Defamation League, or the members of the Council of Christians and Jews?
It is quite possible to have a respectful give and take with those whom we may have serious disagreements, but not if it means abandoning our responsibility to proclaim a winsome and persuasive case for the gospel. We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated into silence, timidity or a sense of false guilt.
Back to the pastor who wanted to know whether Jews for Jesus was confrontational or relational in our approach. I answered "yes." Every time we proclaim the gospel publically we are visibly positioned to confront those who might prefer to ignore us. By doing so, we make ourselves vulnerable to the rejection of those who oppose us, but we also make ourselves available to those who may be interested to hear more. Our efforts are not merely a matter of making declamatory statements. We engage people in conversation; we relate personally and, in fact, most of our missionaries' time is spent in one-to-one interactions that are very relational indeed.
It's not either/or—either present the truth of Christ as the only way of salvation or be relational and respectful. I believe we can and should be both. Pray with me that God will speak to the hearts of those Christians who are in a position to influence the church—whether they be pastors or educators or writers—about the necessity of clearly communicating the gospel to the Jewish people.
*Released August 12, 2002
by David Brickner
September 16, 2009
Two bits of news from the "dog days of summer" shed interesting light on the challenges of sharing the gospel with Jewish people, and the limitations of dialogue as a means to accomplish this priority.
The first is a serious dust up between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and several Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the National Council of Synagogues.
Seven years ago the USCCB's Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs—in coordination with the National Council of Synagogues—released a document titled, "Reflections on Covenant and Mission."* This document categorically stated that, "targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity is no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church."
Jews for Jesus referred to this document, among others, as we described what we see as an ongoing "War on Jewish Evangelism."
This summer, the USCCB made a surprising retraction of their theological error by releasing another document titled, "A Note On Ambiguities Contained In Reflections On Covenant And Mission." The new document unequivocally repudiates much of the original, declaring that it was never authoritative or representative of the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It further affirms that,
"Jesus Christ in himself fulfills God's revelation begun with Abraham and that proclaiming this good news to all the world is at the heart of her mission. Reflections on Covenant and Mission, however, lacks such an affirmation and thus presents a diminished notion of evangelization. The long story of God's intervention in the history of Israel comes to its unsurpassable culmination in Jesus Christ, who is God become man…. we also believe that the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God's promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ."
Jewish community leadership reacted swiftly with a letter and press relase to express "serious concern." The Anti-Defamation League stated that the new document "engendered both uncertainty and considerable disappointment with respect to the position maintained by the Church and its spokespersons," with "invitations" to become Christian making Jewish participation in dialogue with the Church "untenable".
In other words, a Catholic "yes" to evangelism led to a Jewish "no" to dialogue.
The second bit of news came from Berlin, Germany, where the annual meeting of the International Council of Christians and Jews released a twelve-point document titled, "A Time for Recommitment: The Twelve Points of Berlin- A Call to Christian and Jewish Communities Worldwide."
It is notable that this conference was held in the same city where, just one year ago, the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) issued the statement,"The Berlin Declaration on the Uniqueness of Christ and Jewish Evangelism in Europe Today 2008.".
Whereas the WEA statement was positive and supportive of Jewish evangelism, the "Time for Recommitment" document is just the opposite. Point 2 calls for a commitment "to promote interreligious dialogue … by understanding dialogue as requiring trust and equality among all participants and rejecting any notion of convincing others to accept one's own beliefs." And under point 3, "…by opposing organized efforts at the conversion of Jews."
A Christian "no" to evangelism was accompanied by a Jewish "yes" to dialogue.
It is quite clear, to those who are willing to see, that Jewish community leaders only engage in "dialogue" when their partners agree to abstain from direct evangelism. The simple belief that Jewish people, like all people, need Jesus is enough to offend. Any and all efforts to tell the gospel to Jews is continually confronted by strong opposition, regardless of how respectful or low key those witnessing efforts might be.
Unfortunately, some Christians are still not ready to recognize how firmly and indelibly this line has been drawn. The notion that there is a non-offensive way to offer Jewish people the gospel makes some Christians wary of Jewish missions. They may wonder why the Jewish community finds us so objectionable, if we are sensitive in our witness.
The pastor of a megachurch recently asked me whether Jews for Jesus was "confrontational or relational" in our approach to Jewish evangelism. He was considering inviting me to speak in his church, and needed to know if I would fit in with his understanding and expectation of an appropriate witness to people of other religions. That pastor went on to explain that he believes our witness should be oriented toward dialogue—a respectful exchange of ideas and not an aggressive effort to convince and prove that ours is the only correct way.
If by dialogue people mean a style of interaction leading to a give and take exchange of viewpoints, then I can say that I am all in favor of dialogue. As John Stott points out, "Jesus seldom if ever spoke in a declamatory, take-it-or-leave-it style. Instead, whether explicitly or implicitly, he was constantly addressing questions to his hearers' minds and consciences." (Christian Mission in the Modern World. IVP. p.61) Yet Jesus never employed inter-religious dialogue as some commonly understand it today: that is, neither party makes any effort to persuade others of their viewpoint, but only looks to find common ground. David Hesselgrave points out that while the New Testament clearly indicates the apostle Paul, on numerous occasions, engaged in dialogue, "in each of these cases it is apparent that Paul's intention was to establish the truth of the gospel, not find common ground with his audience." (Paradigms in Conflict, Kregel p.107)
A dialogue is only as good as the honesty and transparency of those taking part. Each party's agenda should be acknowledged. It would be hard for any follower of Jesus engaged in dialogue with their Jewish friends to honestly say, "I have no interest in trying to persuade you that Jesus is the Messiah." To do so would not only be dishonest, but ultimately disobedient to the Lord Jesus. For Jewish leaders, religious dialogue is a platform from which to persuade Christians that it is unnecessary and even wrong to evangelize Jews. If both those agendas were out on the table, would the participants still want to move ahead? And if these agendas are kept under wraps, is it really interreligious dialogue after all?
Recently, I read a blog from conservative Jewish author David Klinghoffer, someone I have had my own "dialogue" with in the past. David is honest about his views on Jewish people believing in Jesus, but his views do not exactly invite dialogue in its true sense: "For a Jew to accept Christianity—I'm not speaking of Gentiles here—is therefore a kind of suicide. It's not surprising to find, then, that Christian belief has acted as it has, down through the ages, as the most powerful of all acids on the existence of the Jewish people."
It is somewhat difficult to imagine having a meaningful spiritual conversation with a person who is convinced that to accept your point of view would be a form of suicide. Yet that is a real mindset for so many Jewish people. So, is dialogue a reasonable approach to people who hold views like those of David Klinghoffer, or the people from the Anti-Defamation League, or the members of the Council of Christians and Jews?
It is quite possible to have a respectful give and take with those whom we may have serious disagreements, but not if it means abandoning our responsibility to proclaim a winsome and persuasive case for the gospel. We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated into silence, timidity or a sense of false guilt.
Back to the pastor who wanted to know whether Jews for Jesus was confrontational or relational in our approach. I answered "yes." Every time we proclaim the gospel publically we are visibly positioned to confront those who might prefer to ignore us. By doing so, we make ourselves vulnerable to the rejection of those who oppose us, but we also make ourselves available to those who may be interested to hear more. Our efforts are not merely a matter of making declamatory statements. We engage people in conversation; we relate personally and, in fact, most of our missionaries' time is spent in one-to-one interactions that are very relational indeed.
It's not either/or—either present the truth of Christ as the only way of salvation or be relational and respectful. I believe we can and should be both. Pray with me that God will speak to the hearts of those Christians who are in a position to influence the church—whether they be pastors or educators or writers—about the necessity of clearly communicating the gospel to the Jewish people.
*Released August 12, 2002
Monday, September 14, 2009
A footnote worth reading
Habakkuk 2:4 (Amplified Bible)
Look at the proud; his soul is not straight or right within him, but the [rigidly] just and the [uncompromisingly] righteous man shall [a]live by his faith and in his faithfulness.
Footnote:
Habakkuk 2:4 There is a curious passage in the Talmud [the body of Jewish civil and religious law] which says that Moses gave six hundred injunctions to the Israelites. As these commands might prove too numerous to commit to memory, David brought them down to eleven in Psalm 15. Isaiah reduced these eleven to six in [his] chapter 33:15. Micah (6:8) further reduced them to three; and Isaiah (56:1) once more brought them down to two. These two Amos (5:4) reduced to one. However, lest it might be supposed from this that God could be found only in the fulfillment of the law, Habakkuk (2:4 KJV) said, "The just shall live by his faith" (William H. Saulez, The Romance of the Hebrew Language).
Look at the proud; his soul is not straight or right within him, but the [rigidly] just and the [uncompromisingly] righteous man shall [a]live by his faith and in his faithfulness.
Footnote:
Habakkuk 2:4 There is a curious passage in the Talmud [the body of Jewish civil and religious law] which says that Moses gave six hundred injunctions to the Israelites. As these commands might prove too numerous to commit to memory, David brought them down to eleven in Psalm 15. Isaiah reduced these eleven to six in [his] chapter 33:15. Micah (6:8) further reduced them to three; and Isaiah (56:1) once more brought them down to two. These two Amos (5:4) reduced to one. However, lest it might be supposed from this that God could be found only in the fulfillment of the law, Habakkuk (2:4 KJV) said, "The just shall live by his faith" (William H. Saulez, The Romance of the Hebrew Language).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)