Tag: Christianity

Preaching – Pole Position


When asked if he thought the contemporary evangelical Christian tends to have a lazy mind, John Stott said he agreed. He continues: I

t has been characteristic of much evangelicalism (but even more of Pentecostalism). There are notable exceptions, and thank God for them. I think we need to encourage each other in the proper use of the mind.

Preachers are still the key people; the church is always a reflection of the preaching it receives.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the low standards of Christian living throughout the world are due more than anything else to the low standards of Christian preaching and teaching.

If we can recover true expository preaching as being not only exegesis but an exposition and application of the Word of God, then congregations will learn it from us preachers and go and do the same thing themselves.

We need to help our congregations to grasp and use the hermeneutical principles that we are using ourselves. We need to be so careful in the development of our evangelical hermeneutic that the congregation says, “Yes, I see it. That is what the text means, and it couldn’t mean anything else.”

The worst kind of preaching allows people to say, “Well, I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you. I think you’re twisting the Scripture.”

Related Articles

More on Rob Bell


I was still mulling over whether to get Rob Bell‘s ‘Love Wins” on the Kindle, half thinking Paul’s ethos of becoming “all things to all men so that by all means some may be saved“. Maybe, from the perspective of reaching out to certain demographics, this book may turn out to be a gem. Yet, what is the gospel Paul’s ethos was directed at, and is this the same gospel “Love Wins” seeks to share?  I have read about half a dozen reviews on Amazon, scan through Witherington’s chapter-by-chapter response and I think it is a book I can ignore for now.

Incidentally, the following extract was from one of the Amazon reviews. I think this reviewer summed it up in funny way…

Several times he asks how can we be punished for the mistakes of a relatively short period of time (our life on earth) for all eternity? How can God be loving? How can God be fair? In answering, I’ll point out that the book makes no mention of Original Sin, and I believe that’s his undoing. When you short-change the significance the wholesale betrayal by our ancestors, then yeah, God’s judgement comes off badly. I describe Genesis 3 as spitting in the face of God, open defiance and shameless rebellion (shame followed soon enough) and anyone less merciful and loving and kind that God would simple snap his fingers, type control-z on his cosmic keyboard and undo the 6 days of Creation. No big deal, the Trinity was harmonious before Creation and we’ll be fine without those thankless twerps. Good thing I’m not God. No, God pursues us for bloody, harrowing centuries with steadfast love and his infinitely costly master plan to restore his creation to order.

Related Articles

Rob Bell – A Ear Tickler?


If you view this video by Rob Bell (sort of a promo to his book Love Wins) you’d probably be compelled to either buy his book and read it, or wonder all over again about the universalist view.

I’d just try and forget about it. I feel like I should read the book at some point but I’m also reminded of 2 Tim 4:3

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

I’m sorry but isnt it true to form of a pastor of a mega church to initiate something like that and create all the facade of being communicative and engaging to the young people of today, instead of preaching the word in season and out of season – ie whether it is fashionable or otherwise – as the Scriptures command us to?

He may stir and make people ask questions but he is also bringing disrepute – not glory – to the name of the Lord, at least for now.

 

Related Articles

Sarcasm in theological academe


I can’t believe that having enjoyed myself in a deliciously instructive and educational treatise on the imminence of the Kingdom of God, Joel B Green et al (including I. H. Marshall no less) punctuated the discussion with this: “It is not therefore an exaggeration to say that sometimes the parables have a polemical tone in addition to their usage to illustrate the kingdom of God“. I would have thought: “like duh…” but it is nice to have an almost dead pan sarcasm in such work…

If only I could read on all night.

Related Articles

Second Experience? Hmmm


We have been doing a series on fundamental Christian beliefs in church and a couple of weeks ago we looked at the topic of the Holy Spirit. Unsurprisingly, the issue of a second experience (of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit I guess) came up, albeit cursorily. I was thinking about it when preparing some thoughts for cell discussion on Friday and continued thinking about it on the periphery. A short while ago I came across these statements:

1. The baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs the moment a person is saved. It is not the same experience as salvation but happens at the time of salvation. It is not a second experience following conversion.

2. God has given believers everything in Christ. When we are saved we are complete in Him. We lack nothing. There is nothing else for Him to give to us.

3. Nowhere are believers commanded to receive any second blessing that would give them power. All power is already available.

4. The power of the Holy Spirit working in a persons life is something that should be desired. Some who have legitimately experienced the Spirit’s power label the encounter as the baptism with the Holy Spirit whereas the Scripture calls this experience the filling of the Holy Spirit. previously mentioned, everything has been provided for us upon conversion. We only need to appropriate what God has already done for us.

I think I agree with these statements and am reasonably at peace with not having a second experience, although who is to limit God – He can show me otherwise.

 

In the meantime, I have to contend with the historicity of the Messianic Jesus seen through the incident of the Triumphant Entry…sigh indeed….

Related Articles

Infallibility and Inerrancy – The Chicago Statement


In catching up with MST work, I had to go through the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. This statement jumped out at me: “…the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time”. This was in the exposition section at the end of the 19 Articles. It goes on to say this: “No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again“.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was signed in 1978 with signatories which include J.I. Packer, R. C. Sproul and the one I admired immensely, John Warwick Montgomery. In my still lay mind, I cannot find any reason not to subscribe to this statement – every one of the 19 Articles. I understand there may be some issues with autographic texts and the resulting implications but the exposition has addressed this too. It stated that th authority of the Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies which are available are not entirely error free.

Much work is needed still to get on top of this issue but I am very happy to start with this Statement.

Related Articles

Cat in the Cradle


Harry Chapin‘s “Cat in the Cradle” first made its way (for me anyway) into Christian sermons maybe 10 years ago, when I first heard it from Ravi Zachariah. Yesterday Daniel Tong from the Singapore Anglican church mentioned it again.

I think this will become a stronger and stronger theme among the husbands and fathers in growing families. How does one keep the balance between providing for the family and keeping the relationship and bond alive? Pursuing work and career is often a slippery slope for many. It remains a holy grail for them.

You can watch a clip of Chapin doing a live rendition here.

Related Articles

Experiential Theology is Methodist!


I thought experiential theology was the hallmark of the pentecostals. it appears the bloke this emanated from was a German named Schleiermacher, who was a Moravian Pietist – and John Wesley was a Pietist too! So way before pentecostals emphasised experiential theology, the Methodist – indeed the founder of Methodism – was already well and truly in the game! And no, it isnt the wine; I am barely half way through my first glass…

Related Articles

Err… How does that go again? (signs and wonders twists)


If I cant understand something and I ask questions, I am not being dogmatic. I am being inquisitive. I am searching. If no one provides an answer, I reject that something. Again, that is not being dogmatic. That is being reasonable. On the other hand if you cant explain what you are asserting, I’d say you are the dogmatic one. You are suggesting I am not being open to new things. Maybe. If however that “new thing” simply doesnt make sense and no one can plausibly explain it to me, maybe you are the one who is not being open. Maybe you are not open to the possibility that the reason you cant explain is that you are wrong.

If someone continues to claim he heals and that healing took place but I ask why the supposedly healed person continues to be sick, I am not being dogmatic. I am being sensible. If you claim a person has been healed in spite of his continued state of being sick, You are not being open. you are being dogmatic. You are being in fact and quite frankly, stupid. If you claim that supposedly healed person is sick now because he ceased believing and that it was a an issue with his faith, you are even being cruel. That person wants nothing more than to be healed. To say he has no faith is to cast an indictment on him (how dare you) which is cruel simply because you are being dogmatic about your claim that healing took place.

If you explain that to me I will cease questioning and I will cease, in your words, being dogmatic. I will start, in your lingo, to be open.

I dont think God meant for us to be blind and stupid. That to me sums up why I think the signs and wonders movement has a huge hole. Plug that hole and I’m all yours.

Related Articles

Healed By His Stripes? Eh???


I still don’t understand Isaiah 53:5. Maybe it’s others’ reading of it that I don’t understand. Yet again, last Sunday, someone said all of our illnesses and diseases would be healed “by his stripes (or wounds)”. Someone mentioned it for a pre-communion message and the main speaker echoed this in his sermon. In fact the speaker went on to cite an example of a physical healing, to say “by His stripes we are healed”, in clear reference to Isaiah 53:5. In fact he referred to the pre-communion message and said he agreed with that.

Next time I hear this I will ask the person who makes that statement, to explain why he or she thought that verse meant physical healing. Everything in that verse suggests it refers to our spiritual healing.

“He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.” The whole context of that verse was on our spiritual healing. Our disease and illness was rejection of God which leaves us on the road to eternal separation from God, ie death. Jesus came to cure that – He came to bear our sins and die in our place. By His wounds, we are healed.

The problem with saying we are physically healed by His wounds is: the Scriptures doesn’t say that. Also, Jesus’ death and sacrifice is the perfect solution for its purpose, ie redemption of our soul and restoration of our relationship with God – that is  the “illness” it heals, not physical ailments. Very often we have unhealed diseases. Many suffer physical ailments for an extended period of time, without ever getting healed. Some go to their graves with their ailments. Does it mean Jesus’ stripes/wounds are inadequate in their case? Is Jesus’ death and suffering imperfect for our bodies? I sincerely believe this teaching is wrong. I am only a little a little guy – a puny one – when it comes to theology. This one however, is clearly problematic.

Related Articles