Something I read today....

[mizpeh]

I'm sort of sad because this is my last post taken from The Purpose Driven Life.

" About thirty years ago, I noticed a little phrase in Acts 13:36 that forever altered the direction of my life. It was only seven words but, like the stamp of a searing hot branding iron, my life was permanently marked by these words: "David served God's purpose in his generation." Now I understand why God called David " a man after my own heart." Daid dedicated his life to fulfilling God's purposes on earth.
There is no greater epitaph than that statement!.....This phrase [David served God's purpose in his generation] is the ultmate defintion of a life well lived. You do the eternal and timeless (God's purpose) in a contemporary and timely way (in your generation). That is what the purpose-driven life is all about. Neither past nor future generation can serve God's purpose in this generation. Only we can. Like Esther, God created you "for such a time as this.....Paul lived a purpose-driven life. He said, " I run straight to the goal with purpose in every step." His only reason for living was to fulfill the purposes God had for him. He said, "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Paul was not afraid of either living or dying." Rick Warren, pages 318-319

[mizpeh]

Rodney Shaw, pastor of New Life in Austin, did an excellent job of explaining why tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism in this podcast from June 9.

http://www.newlifeupc.org/resources/sermon-mp3s

[mizpeh]

The best explanation of 1 Cor 13: 8-13 I've ever read! It is a response written by Marv to another poster on Theologica in which Marv gives an convincing explanation of what Paul means by "perfect (teleion in the Greek)". The two of them are discussing continuationism of the gifts of the Spirit in the blog section. This is the fifth blog Ted has written on the subject over the course of as many days with Marv commenting. http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/...-pt-5#comments

Okay, I've referred you to my already-written explanation, but here in brief is the main point. The key to understanding what is happening here, with teleion "perfect" is in v. 10. Rather than dragging in the concept "mature" and trying to make it fit the whole thing, observe what Paul actually does in the text: contrast to ek merous "the in part" with to teleion "the 'perfect' or complete." In other words, that he is primarily dealing with a partial / complete contrast is heavily evidenced starting in v. 9: "we X in part."

That Paul does use a childhood / adulthood image is perfectly true, and this is in keeping with his vocabulary of teleion, certainly. But this too falls generally under the idea of partial / complete. The child is in development, the adult "completely" developed.

Another way to state it is that if you have to account for two shades of teleion "complete" and "mature," the former not only appears first and is explained in immediate context but it best explains the presence of the latter. Taking "mature" as the overriding meaning of teleion, I think, does not as well explain the presence of the "complete" idea, which is clearly present, and also precedes it.

Furthermore, not only yours, but the competing "major options" for v. 10 are seriously misreading it. "The perfect" is not A thing, but a state that anything may be in. This is basic Greek, articular neuter adjective: "that which is perfect" (in general) vs. "that which is complete."

The trailer for Star Trek was really cool, and I recall watching it over and over. Since the movie came out last year, I don't think I've watched it once. It just becomes obsolete. When the complete version arrives, the partial version becomes obsolete. It isn't so much a prediction as a principle.

So "the perfect" is not Jesus Christ, not the Parousia, not the Bible, and certainly not the "maturity of the Church." It is the fullness to which the partiality of our Christian experience points. We just know a little now. Prophecy gives us a little information, and the little information gives us promises, and these give us hope. But hope that is seen is not hope.

Hope, and faith, have existence only in the experience of the partial, in this age, before faith becomes sight. So while "the perfect" is not the Parousia, these things he references as "in part" become complete only at the return of Christ (or perhaps individually at death).

The gifts are things done in and by faith, and they make visible to a blind world what is invisible to them, the eternal power and divine nature of God. And supremely also, the love of God. This is why it is absurd, pointless to try and exercise them lovelessly (not a question of impossiblity--but that debate is not for here).

So the gifts fit the world of the partial along with faith and hope, but testify to the truly abiding, the God who is love.

He does mention specific gifts, that is true. And if these are not representing other gifts (all lists of gifts are certainly merely representative) you fail to explain why not. Anyway, he's not just talking about "gifts" such as prophecy and tongues, but also faith itself (2b) and selflessness (3).

Your treatment also misplaces what is not teleion. The church as an immature or mature entity is not referenced at all. Prophecy is said to be "in part" that is not teleion. So is knowledge. It isn't about when the church becomes teleion but when such things as prophecy and knowledge become teleoin. Prophecy is teleion when the riddle of what it is talking about is solved, i.e. when it is fulfilled. The "seer" won't see indirectly, but will see "face to face." Knowledge is fulfilled, well, Paul tells us this: "I will know as I am known.

The fatal blow, I think, to your approach, that is the strong indication that it is construing the situation wrong, is v. 12. If you can take Paul's language of seeing "face to face" and knowing "as I am known" as somehow a reference to this-age Church life, well, I dunno, Ted, enjoy your delusions is really all I can say.

It kind of messes up the tongues-have-already-ceased idea, at least from this text, but I think that is the intellectually honest way to read v. 12. But y'know, maybe I'm wrong. If you can do it, do it. I can't.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

For those who are interested in the arguments on cessationism and continuationism, there is a good blog called to be continued... you might want to give a read.

http://continuationism.com/

[mizpeh]

"Materialism-- a preoccupation with material things--can smother our spiritual life. Jesus told us not to store up treasures on earth and wrned us against covetousness. So did the apostle Paul, urging us instead to develop a lifestyle of simplicity, generosity, and contentment, drawing on his own experience of having learned to be content in whatever circumstances he was (Philippians 4:11).
Paul added that "godliness with contentment is great gain (1 Timothy 6:6), and then went on to explain that "we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing our of it." Perhaps he was consciously echoing Jobe who said "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart" (Job 1:21). In other words, life on earth is a brief pilgrimmage between two moments of nakedeness. So we would be wise to travel light. We shall take nothing with us. "

John Stott, The Radical Disciple, page 20-21

[mizpeh]

"We are not to be like reeds shaken by the wind, bowing down before gusts of public opinion, but as immovable as rocks in a mountain stream. We are not to be like fish floating with the stream ("for only dead fish swim with the current," as Malcolm Muggeridge put it.) but to swim against the stream, even the cultural mainstream. We are not to be like chameleons, lizards that change their color according to their surroundings, but to stand out visibly against our surroundings.

What then are Christians to be like if we are not to be like reeds, dead fish, or chameleons? Is God's word entirely negative, simply telling us to avoid being molded into the shape of those in the world around us? No. It is positive. We are to be like Christ, "conformed to the image of God's Son. (Rom 8:29)" John Stott, The Radical Disciple, page 27.

[DrPhil]

Beautiful!

[mizpeh]

A Calvinist seminary professor lectured on the incompatibility of salvation by grace alone through faith alone and belief that in order to be saved a person must freely accept the grace of God. “Arminianism makes the individual person’s free choice the decisive factor in his salvation. Therefore, in his theology, salvation cannot be a free gift. By choosing it freely the person is contributing something to his own salvation. That’s a meritorious work and therefore his salvation would not be absolutely the work of God.”

After his lecture, while resting in his office, a student knocked on his door and comes in for a chat. “Professor, I don’t know where else to turn. I don’t have parents that can help me. I’m coming to you as a last resort to see if you have any advice. I’ve been ill lately and can’t work. I’m about to be evicted from my apartment and I have nowhere else to go. I haven’t eaten in three days because I have no money. Unless a miracle happens, I’m going to be homeless. Can you tell me where I can find help or at least pray with me that God will supply my need?

After some prayer and reflection, the professor took pity on the poor student and gave him a check for $1,000–just enough to pay a couple months rent and stock his kitchen with food while he regained his health and found a new job. It was truly a life saving response to the students’ need.

The student took the check, endorsed it, and deposited it in his bank account and then paid his rent and went on a grocery shopping spree.

A week later, the student was telling another student about the professor’s generosity: “Boy, did he ever save my life. If it wasn’t for him, right now I’d be living under the interstate bridge and begging for food.” The other students said, “Wow, you must really be grateful to the professor.” “Yes,” was the reply, “but I take some of the credit, too.” “How so?” the other student asked. “Well, after all, my reaching out and picking the check up off his desk when he laid it down in front of me and my endorsing it and depositing it in my bank account were my contributions to the rescue effort. I deserve some of the credit. After all, I endorsed the check; that was the decisive factor in my being rescued.”

The student who heard this was shocked and dismayed. He immediately went to the Calvinist professor and said “Did you know that student you gave money to is going around taking some of the credit for being rescued? He’s claiming that he partially earned the money by endorsing the check. ”

The professor was livid with anger at the ungratefulness of the student. “How dare he! That was a pure gift; he didn’t do anything to deserve any credit for it. He’s ungrateful as well as stupid.”

The reporting student said, “But professor, in your lecture you said that our free will decision to accept the grace of God would make it not a pure gift. You said our mere decision to allow God to save us, if it were truly free and not itself an act of God in us, would amount to ‘the decisive factor’ in our salvation. How is that different from that student’s claim about accepting the money you offered him? By your logic it seems he is justified in boasting–at least just a little. Why aren’t you willing to share the credit with him?”

http://www.rogereolson.com/2010/08/0...ill-a-parable/

[mizpeh]

I suppose if we can learn from the ant, we can learn from the phorid fly.


(Warning: this is not for the squeamish.)

Beware the Phorid Fly

Although it has fallen into disuse and is avoided by most ministers, “beware” is a Bible word—“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ….Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness” (Colossians 2:8; II Peter 3:17).

Paul spoke of those who could be dead while they live (I Timothy 5:6). How strange. Is that possible? It must be since Jesus Himself said it about the folks in Sardis (Revelation 3:1).

My belief in those statements was strengthened on my last visit to the barbershop. I arrived early for my appointment, so I sat down and picked up an outdoor magazine about nature and wild game in Texas. An article immediately caught my attention—“Dawn of the Living Dead Ants.”

Now I like the sound of “dead ants.” The imported fire ants that are plaguing the South are dreaded enemies of every landowner in the region. They are vicious, stinging anyone who disturbs them. We fight a major war constantly in my lawn. Accidentally step in one of their mounds and they will remind you that they own that piece of real estate.

The article actually focused on another recent import called the phorid fly. About the size of a small fruit fly, scientists discovered that they were formidable enemies of the fire ant. I mentally applauded the little airborne pest, something I never thought I would do, when I read of how it cowered the ants and even made them run and hide. Fire ants will retreat to their mound at the sight of one. Wow, I thought. These ants have been known to kill small animals and yet they run from a fly? Incredible, but true.

Researchers have discovered the reason. The little fly has found that the neck of the fire ant is the best place in the world to deposit their larva. After the deposit, the larva feeds on the ant’s body fluids, eventually making its way to the head where it eats part of the brain. Then, as if becoming a zombie, the ant simply walks away from the colony, continuing its aimless journey for up to two weeks. He is doomed, dead while he lives, as it were. When the fly nears maturity, it releases an enzyme that causes the ant’s head to fall off, and the fly escapes through the now open neck.

As a nature article, it was interesting. But it suggested clear parallels in the spiritual world. Some people I know have evidently been attacked by a spiritual phorid fly. The larva of false teaching and postmodern methodology has been deposited in their necks, causing them to turn their heads and look beyond the Apostolic ranks for their inspiration and direction. Before long they were acting strangely, and, zombie-like, they walked away on a spiritual “journey” to nowhere. They left the colony of believers and the body of truth when their minds began to be consumed by postcharismatic, emergent methodologies and concepts, making them vulnerable to deadly, unbiblical philosophies marked by spiritual deceit and the rudiments of the world.

One by one they are being found where their heads fell off. We love them and pray for their restoration, but it is not easy for one to return after losing his head. Saving face becomes more important than saving the soul. That is why Peter and Paul were so adamant about keeping the faith. Faith lost is seldom restored.

John left this additional warning: “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward” (II John 8). If we lose our heads, we will lose our reward.

Beware the phorid fly!

http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/

[mizpeh]

If you go to http://thinktheology.org/ the links will work.

Understanding the human heart:

David Powlison Answers Questions on Christian Counseling!
By luke g. on Jul 23, 2010 in Biblical Counseling, Blog Shelf, Family Life, Healing, Parenting, Practical Theology, Shepherding | 0 Comments

Justin Taylor has recently provided David Powlison’s answers to fifteen important questions related to Christian counseling. I’ve found them extremely helpful, wise, and biblically saturated. If you have an interest in providing Godly counsel and understanding the human heart, I’d encourage you to read through the following links. These questions are taken from Powlison’s essay “I Am Motivated When I Feel Desire” from Seeing With New Eyes: Counseling and the Human Condition Through the Lens of Scripture. The questions are links are as follows:

1.What’s Wrong with People?
2.Why Do People Do Specific Ungodly Things?
3.What’s Wrong with Wanting Good Things?
4.Why Do Our Desires Deceive Us?
5.Is “Lusts of the Flesh” Terminology Practical?
6.Does Each Person Have One “Root Sin”?
7.How Do I Know If a Desire Is Inordinate Rather than Natural?
8.Why Talk about the “Heart” When the Bible Says It’s Unknowable?
9.Doesn’t the Term “Lusts” Just Apply to Bodily Appetites?
10.Can Desires Be Habitual?
11.What’s the Relationship between Fear and Desire?
12.Do We Ever Have Conflicting Motives?
13.“Lusts” and Other Ways of Talking about Sin
14.Should We Just Confront People about Their Sinful Cravings?
15.Can You Change What You Want?
Each of these questions, and the answers provided, will help your understanding of the human heart and will, in turn, help you provide biblical wisdom for those in need of help!

[mizpeh]

" It's no good giving me a play like Hamlet or King Lear and telling me to write a play like that. Shakespeare could do it; I can't.

And it is no good showing me a life like the life of Jesus and telling me to live a life like that. Jesus could do it; I can't.

But if the genius of Shakespeare could come and live in me, then I could write plays like his.

And if the Spirit of Jesus could come and live in me, then I could live a life like his.

God's purpose is to make us like Christ, and God's way is to fill us with his Holy Spirit"

From The Radical Disciple by John Stott, page 37.