Something I read today....

[mizpeh]

Hermeneutics with Marv.

"BE HOME BY TEN," Dad said.


"Sure, Pops," you had replied, racing out the door to hop into Johnny's roadster.


But here you are now at the soda shop. It's 9 pm. And you are sitting across the table from Peggy Sue, who is here---alone. She is on the rebound, having just given Biff his walking papers. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished (not that kind of consummation--get your mind out of the gutter). Johnny is with Judy, his steady, of course, and he points out that the second feature at the drive-in starts in thirty minutes. Why not make it a double date?


The moment calls for...exegesis.


Fortunately you are quickly able to muster your interpretive options:


1. The first thing to look out for is false assumptions. Many people assume that the word "ten" refers to 10:00 pm. But the word is ambiguous, isn't it? It could mean 10 pm, but it could also mean 10 am. The context really does not make it clear which is meant. If Dad had wanted you to understand 10 pm, he could certainly have stated this clearly. As it is, one is as valid as the other. And say you come home at midnight... Why, that's ten hours early, according to the "10 am" view.


2. Next, it is important not to overlook culture. Remember, Dad is an old Navy man. The military has a language of it's own, and Dad tends to think in military terms. It is his culture. One thing that is often overlooked by those outside that culture is that 10 pm, in the original military, is 2200. 10 pm is never expressed using the number "ten." Culturally, "ten" refers to 1000, which is pronunced "ten hundred hours." And it refers, always, to 10 am. Cultural considerations actually rule out the "10 pm view."


3. Another thing to consider is genre. This expression: "Be home by ten" is what is known as a Dad-ism. One who is familiar with the genre knows the "rules of the game" for dealing with this genre. Dad, doing his Dad thing, pronounces the customary Dad blessing as you, the son, sally forth into Saturday night. It is really a way of saying "Have a good time." Those who understand the genre know that Dad is not thereby setting a curfew time, though people unfamiliar with the genre might jump to that conclusion....


continued...

http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/...hink-this-blog

[mizpeh]

Charles Spurgeon: "Success exposes a man to the pressures of people and thus tempts him to hold on to his gains by means of fleshly methods and practices, and to let
himself be ruled wholly be the dictatorial demands of incessant expansion. Success can go to my head and will, unless I remember that it is God who accomplishes the work, that he can continue to do so without my help, and that he will be able to make out with other means whenever he wants to cut me out. "

[mizpeh]

Am I consciously or unconsciously creating the impression that I am better than I really am? In other words, am I a hypocrite?
Do I confidentially pass on to others what has been said to me in confidence?
Can I be trusted?
Am I a slave to dress, friends, work or habits?
Am I self-conscious, self-pitying, or self-justifying?
Did the Bible live in me today?
Do I give the Bible time to speak to me every day?
Am I enjoying prayer?
When did I last speak to someone else of my faith? [ conversation starter questions ]
Do I pray about the money I spend?
Do I get to bed on time and get up on time?
Do I disobey God in anything?
Do I insist upon doing something about which my conscience is uneasy?
Am I defeated in any part of my life?
Am I jealous, impure, critical, irritable, touchy or distrustful?
How do I spend my spare time?
Am I proud?
Do I thank God that I am not as other people, especially as the Pharisees who despised the publican?
Is there anyone whom I fear, dislike, disown, criticize, hold a resentment toward or disregard? If so, what am I doing about it?
Do I grumble or complain constantly?
Is Christ real to me?


http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/selfexam.htm

[mizpeh]

" SALVATION

First of all, we see death and life in relation to our salvation. For salvation is often represented in terms of life. Paul wrote that God's gift is eternal life (Romans 6:23), and John explained that those who have the Son have life (1 John 5:12). It's also made clear that the distinctive feature of this life is not its eternity but its quality as the life of the new age. Eternal life is life lived in fellowship with God. (John 17:3).

But the only way to enter this life is death. The reason for this is clear: the barrier to fellowship with God is sin, and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Throughout the Bible sin and death are coupled together as an offense and its just penalty. But if we were to die for our own sins, that would be the end of us. There could be no life that way.

So God came to us in Jesus Christ. He took our place, bore our sin and died our death. We had sinned. So we deserved to die. But he died instead of us. the simple statement "Christ died for sins" is enough. He had no sins of his own for which he needed to die; he died for ours.

But his death cannot do us any good less we claim its benefits for ourselves. It is by faith inwardly and by baptism outwardly that we become united to Christ in his death and resurrection. We have died and risen with him. Now therefore we must "count" (or reckon) ourselves "dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:11) -- not pretending we are immune to sin when we know we are not, but realizing and remembering the fact that, being one with Christ, the benefits of his death have become ours. We are "alive to God," alive through his death."

The Radical Disciple (Some Neglected Aspects of Our Calling), by John Stott, pages 114-115.

[mizpeh]

“[T]HE THIRD YEAR OF THE REIGN OF Jehoiakim king of Judah” (Dan. 1:1) is calculated on the Babylonian reckoning; the corresponding calculation in Judah would have made it his fourth year, i.e., 605 B. C. The first round of deportations took place, then, in 605, and swept up Daniel; the second, including Ezekiel, Jehoiachin, the Queen Mother, the aristocracy, and skilled craftsmen, occurred in 597. The final crushing destruction of Jerusalem was in 587.

Almost twenty years before that took place, then, a number of aristocratic young Jewish men had been transported to Babylon. According to Daniel 1, they were well-treated. The imperial policy was not only generous, it was clever. The empire would pull in these gifted and well-bred young men and give them the best education and social formation in the world, with a string of perquisites to make the prospect still sweeter. In due course they would enter government service, intensely loyal to their benefactors while contributing their youth, skills, and knowledge of the imperial frontiers. The four Hebrew young men mentioned here would eventually become so Babylonian in their outlook that they would forget even their birth names: Daniel would become Belteshazzar, Hananiah would become Shadrach, and so forth.

But Daniel drew a line in the sand. It could have cost him his life. He did not object to the change in his name, nor to royal service on behalf of the Babylonian Empire. But he would not “defile” himself (1:8) by eating food prepared in the royal kitchens. He knew that if he partook, he would almost certainly eat things from time to time that the Law of God strictly forbade. For him it was a matter of obedience, a matter of conscience. In the providence of God, the chief to whom he was responsible, Ashpenaz, was an understanding sort, and the result is reported in this chapter.

For many of us today, Daniel’s stand is vaguely quixotic, but certainly not something to emulate. Why die over sausages? Come to think of it, is there anything worth dying for? Probably not—if all there is to life is found in our brief earthly span, and all that is important is what happens to me. But Daniel’s aim was to please God and to conform to the covenant. His values could not be snookered by Babylon; on this point he was prepared to die. The trouble is that when a culture runs out of things to die for, it runs out of things to live for. A colleague in the ministry (Dr. Roy Clements) has often said, “We are either potential martyrs or potential suicides; I see no middle ground between these two. And the Bible insists that every believer in the true God has to be a potential martyr.”

http://fortheloveofgod.rishty.net/20...psalm-105.html

[mizpeh]

For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.



Hebrews 12:3

For consider him…
In the greatness of his person, as God, the Son of God, the heir of all things; and in his offices of prophet, priest, and King, as the Saviour of lost sinners, the Leader and Commander of the people, as the apostle and high priest of our profession: consider him in his human nature, his conversation on earth, and what he did and suffered for men; how that in his nature he was pure and holy, in his conversation harmless and innocent, in his deportment meek and lowly; who went about doing good to the souls of men, and at last suffered and died, and is now glorified: consider the analogy between him and us, and how great is the disproportion; and therefore if he was ill treated, no wonder we should consider him under all his reproaches and sufferings:
that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself;
against his person, they denying his deity, and speaking against his sonship, and against his offices; mocking him as a King, deriding him as a prophet, and treating him with the utmost contempt as a priest and Saviour; and against his actions, his works of mercy to the bodies of men, when done on the sabbath day; his conversing with sinners for the good of their souls, as if he was an encourager of them in sin, and a partner with them; his miracles, as if they were done by the help of the devil; and against the whole series of his life, as if it was criminal. Now we should analogize this contradiction, and see what proportion there is between this, and what is endured by us: we should consider the aggravations of it, that it was "against himself"; sometimes it was against his disciples, and him through them, as it is now against his members, and him in them; but here it was immediately and directly against himself: and this he endured "from sinners"; some more secret, as the Scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees; some more open, as the common people; some of them the vilest of sinners, the most abandoned of creatures, as the Roman soldiers, and Herod's men of war: and this should be considered, that we cannot be contradicted by viler or meaner persons; and it is worthy of notice, with what courage and bravery of mind, with what patience and invincible constancy he endured it: this should be recollected for imitation and encouragement,

lest ye be wearied, and faint in your minds;
contradiction is apt to make persons weary and faint, as Rebekah was, because of the daughters of Heth, and as Jeremiah was, because of the derision of the Jews, (Genesis 27:46) (Jeremiah 20:8,9) but a consideration of Jesus, and of what he has endured, tends to relieve the saints in such a condition; See (Matthew 10:25) (Luke 23:31) .


http://studylight.org/com/geb/view.c...ter=12&verse=3

[mizpeh]

The Peril of Praying to the Trinity

This Sunday well meaning pastors and congregants across North America will make unintended blunders into heresy by praying things like this: "Heavenly Father, we thank you for dying for us"; "Lord Jesus, we thank you for being such a loving Father." Prayers like this, while no doubt prayed with good intention, evince a deep confusion about the God to which we are praying. Our God is a Trinity, and this immediately makes it more complex and perilous to pray to the triune God than any other God in the major monotheisms (i.e. those conceptions in Judaism and Islam).

According to Christianity, God is one, but he exists as three distinct and equally divine persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Because these persons are distinct, you cannot conflate their identities. If you are praying to the Father, then you cannot thank him for dying for us. But you can thank his Son for dying for us. Or you can thank him for sending his Son to die for us. And you cannot thank Jesus for being a loving Father. But you can thank the Father for being a loving Father. Or you can thank Jesus for having a loving Father.

In short, when you address the Christian God you must always be clear which aspect of that God you are addressing. Are you addressing all three persons or just one? And if one then which one? These questions are fundamental to the orthodoxy, and even the meaning of the prayer.
In addition, note that it is permissible to switch your referent within a prayer. You might begin by praying to the Father, but then switch to praying to the Son. But if you do, make it clear that you have switched referents. Don't pray, "Heavenly Father, we thank you for your mercy. We thank you for dying for us." Make it clear to the congregation (and to God) that the second sentence is directed to the Son.

Finally a question: is it appropriate to pray to the Trinity, or the Son, or the Spirit? After all, Jesus taught us to pray to the Father. Are we then obliged to pray only to the Father?

This is an excellent question. And the short answer is that we have four precedents of Christians praying to Jesus in the New Testament, including Stephen in his last moments being stoned, and Paul pleading for a thorn to be relieved. Such examples provide a precedent to pray to the Son as well. And surely if we can pray to the Son then it is appropriate to pray to the Spirit as well, for he is no less divine. And if we can pray to the Spirit, then surely we can address the entire Trinity as well.

But let it be noted that the normative pattern for prayer in the New Testament is indeed directed to the Father. And whenever and however you pray, always be clear to whom it is you are praying.

http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/t...he-trinity-14/

[Timmy]

Bad link.

Our AG pastor started a lot of prayers like this: "Father, we thank you, dear Jesus...". Think he was closet Oneness?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Bad link.

Our AG pastor started a lot of prayers like this: "Father, we thank you, dear Jesus...". Think he was closet Oneness?

Here's a link to the blog but I can't find the exact post when I used the search feature. You might really like this guy. He has alot of atheists discussing theology with him.

http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist

Are you talking about your former pastor or your current pastor? He definitely sounds Oneness! Did you ever try to correct him?

[mizpeh]

Maybe this one will work:

http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/t...he-trinity-14/

Check out the titles for his blog posts for the month of July 2009. Very interesting and much more intelligent discussion than CARM.