Just to follow up, without confusion...
There will be a 9am Family Service on Christmas Day, No 3 Strands
There will be regular services on New Years Day, No 3 Strands
Merry Christmas everyone! Enjoy this special holiday with your families.
December 19, 2011
December 14, 2011
Conformity to Christ: Leading holy lives
Here is a link to a solid Christianity Today article on holiness by Joel Scandrett entilted, "Holy to the Core: We're tempted by moralism because we've forgotten what God wants at the center," that helps to resolve the tension Christians tend to feel between God's gift of grace and the real moral transformation that ought to follow.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/may/22.39.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/may/22.39.html
Robust Faith
As you are well-aware, I enjoy a good cup of coffee. I particularly appreciate a fresh, bold, full-bodied coffee that is has a rich, yet balanced, flavor with a clean finish. I hold diluted, stale, and bitter coffee in contempt (yes, I am a coffee snob; although, since I am also a coffee addict, you might still catch me drinking the bad stuff). My impression is many American Evangelical Christians continue to drink a stale, weak brew of faith that leaves them with a bitter aftertaste. Genuine, saving faith is far richer and more robust. It empowers and energizes good works via a flavorful balance between legalism and license. I think the following definition of faith offers a recipe for a more satisfying brew:
Faith is a state of believing, which is justified according to the reliability of the object or the subject that is being trusted. A belief is the mental assent to the truthfulness of a conclusion, that is, the noetic acceptance of its congruence with reality (the real state of affairs, things as they actually are). As such, it is formed or developed in the human mind. In other words, a person’s knowledge, feelings, and will are all significant factors in the reasoning process that precedes assent; thus, they can either foster or hinder faith. However, the main point is this – the essence of faith requires an object or a subject. In short, I must have faith in something or someone (e.g., faith in God; see Mark 11:22; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; and 1 Peter 1:21).
In the New Testament the Greek term for faith (pistis ) is also used to refer to a collection of beliefs–that which is believed, a body of faith, or specific teachings (Philippians 1:27; Titus 2:2; and Jude 3). For Christians, this propositional content is summed up in the deliberate profession, “Jesus is Lord.” As a result, the term often denotes the acceptance of the gospel message of salvation based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. However, given the nature of this conclusion, believing that the resurrection is true entails believing in the risen Jesus (John 3:16; Acts 3:12-16; Ephesians 1:15; and 1 Timothy 3:13). Indeed, true knowledge about Jesus is dynamically linked to an actual encounter with him.
Consequently, in addition to rational assent, the notion of faith also conveys the relational concepts of conviction, commitment, and consecration. God is a speaking God – the initiator or the antecedent of faith. Accordingly, faith is a repentant response to God’s voice. It is submitting to God’s leading and guiding in an act of total reliance upon his promises (Acts 13:3, 14:22, 16:6-10, 23:11). Undeniably, then, faith is an ongoing, interpersonal relationship in which we assume an orientation of humble discipleship, a receptive posture of listening and learning.
Given the above discussion, it is evident that the meaning of faith includes the idea of faithfulness or trustworthiness. It requires a position of confidence in which a person aligns his or her motives, considerations, choices, and aspirations according to the credibility and fidelity of the other. God’s faithfulness, then, logically and ontologically precipitates man’s faith. In other words, God has made himself known such that he has shown his reliability – God’s trustworthiness has been demonstrated in history and is known through revelation, tradition, reason, and experience. Hence, faith requires an initial mental assent to certain propositions about God as well as a continuing trust in a living, dynamic relationship with God.
Lastly, faith is a dynamic, future-oriented attitude of living-in-trust. It constitutes an interpersonal relationship with God that grows and develops in knowledge and understanding through shared experience. That is, there are degrees of faith (and doubt) as well as a maturing of faith (Ephesians 4:13). As has been noted, faith is a living act of trust for a future outcome based on past reliability. In sum, faith is a receptive, trusting orientation to the unlimited possibilities present in communion with God that finds its certainty in his trustworthy nature and consistent character as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Faith is a state of believing, which is justified according to the reliability of the object or the subject that is being trusted. A belief is the mental assent to the truthfulness of a conclusion, that is, the noetic acceptance of its congruence with reality (the real state of affairs, things as they actually are). As such, it is formed or developed in the human mind. In other words, a person’s knowledge, feelings, and will are all significant factors in the reasoning process that precedes assent; thus, they can either foster or hinder faith. However, the main point is this – the essence of faith requires an object or a subject. In short, I must have faith in something or someone (e.g., faith in God; see Mark 11:22; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; and 1 Peter 1:21).
In the New Testament the Greek term for faith (pistis ) is also used to refer to a collection of beliefs–that which is believed, a body of faith, or specific teachings (Philippians 1:27; Titus 2:2; and Jude 3). For Christians, this propositional content is summed up in the deliberate profession, “Jesus is Lord.” As a result, the term often denotes the acceptance of the gospel message of salvation based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. However, given the nature of this conclusion, believing that the resurrection is true entails believing in the risen Jesus (John 3:16; Acts 3:12-16; Ephesians 1:15; and 1 Timothy 3:13). Indeed, true knowledge about Jesus is dynamically linked to an actual encounter with him.
Consequently, in addition to rational assent, the notion of faith also conveys the relational concepts of conviction, commitment, and consecration. God is a speaking God – the initiator or the antecedent of faith. Accordingly, faith is a repentant response to God’s voice. It is submitting to God’s leading and guiding in an act of total reliance upon his promises (Acts 13:3, 14:22, 16:6-10, 23:11). Undeniably, then, faith is an ongoing, interpersonal relationship in which we assume an orientation of humble discipleship, a receptive posture of listening and learning.
Given the above discussion, it is evident that the meaning of faith includes the idea of faithfulness or trustworthiness. It requires a position of confidence in which a person aligns his or her motives, considerations, choices, and aspirations according to the credibility and fidelity of the other. God’s faithfulness, then, logically and ontologically precipitates man’s faith. In other words, God has made himself known such that he has shown his reliability – God’s trustworthiness has been demonstrated in history and is known through revelation, tradition, reason, and experience. Hence, faith requires an initial mental assent to certain propositions about God as well as a continuing trust in a living, dynamic relationship with God.
Lastly, faith is a dynamic, future-oriented attitude of living-in-trust. It constitutes an interpersonal relationship with God that grows and develops in knowledge and understanding through shared experience. That is, there are degrees of faith (and doubt) as well as a maturing of faith (Ephesians 4:13). As has been noted, faith is a living act of trust for a future outcome based on past reliability. In sum, faith is a receptive, trusting orientation to the unlimited possibilities present in communion with God that finds its certainty in his trustworthy nature and consistent character as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
December 9, 2011
The Law
Here is a good summary of how the Mosaic Law was viewed by the Jews:
"Overall, the emphasis falls on four motifs: the law (1) comes from God, (2) is intended for human benefit, (3) is a reliable guide to living and (4) illuminates one's mind or understanding."
My contention is that the Holy Spirit now fills this role in the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit supplies the guidance and empowerment necessary to live lives pleasing to God. Christians are led by the Spirit, rather than led by the Law/Guardian/Tutor or the Elementary Principles of this World (stoicheia).
"Law," in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998): 490.
"Overall, the emphasis falls on four motifs: the law (1) comes from God, (2) is intended for human benefit, (3) is a reliable guide to living and (4) illuminates one's mind or understanding."
My contention is that the Holy Spirit now fills this role in the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit supplies the guidance and empowerment necessary to live lives pleasing to God. Christians are led by the Spirit, rather than led by the Law/Guardian/Tutor or the Elementary Principles of this World (stoicheia).
"Law," in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998): 490.
Article on Miracles
Here is a link to an illuminating interview in Christianity Today magazine entitled, "It's Okay to Expect A Miracle: Scholar Craig Keener rediscovers the reality of divine intervention." In the interview, Senior Writer Tim Stafford asks Craig S. Keener about his latest work, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, in which he investigated and verified contemporary miracle accounts in order to show that the New Testament miracle stories were not mere legends.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/okay-to-expect-miracle.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/okay-to-expect-miracle.html
December 8, 2011
"Flesh" (sarx)
The word “flesh” is used 147 times in the New Testament. Paul uses it 91 times.
The term “flesh” has several usages:
1. It refers to the material that covers human bones.
2. It indicates the body, physical existence.
3. It denotes humanity in general (including physical ancestry or human lineage).
4. It connotes the earthly sphere, the limited human realm, the natural human state or condition (in distinction from the spiritual or divine).
5. It signifies the seat of sinful behavior; the corrupt, fallen features of humanity (the eager vehicles of sin); the debased aspect of the human condition (sin and death’s sphere of influence); the human being in contrast to God; the drives, ambitions, and aims that are opposed to God; the self-seeking, self-regarding, and self-sufficient orientation that is often hostile to God (the autonomous self); the corrupted natural order or realm that is passing away (dying), which still generates degraded desires. (This is often called the "ethical" use of the term to distinguish it from the other more "neutral" uses.)
The negative "ethical" use of "flesh" in the fifth chapter of Galatians, is associated with a person’s detrimental passions and desires, specifically those that prompt a person to sin. Thus, “flesh” is, perhaps, best translated in that context as “sinful inclination.”
Although the term’s broad range of meaning and Paul’s varied usage make it notoriously difficult to translate, some renderings may be misleading. Three common ones deserve attention: First, “physical nature” is a poor translation because it implies that the physical body itself is inherently evil, rather than part of God’s good – but fallen – creation (e.g., the Gnostics believed that all matter is evil and that a human being is an eternal spirit that must somehow escape from the body it has been imprisoned in). Second, “lower nature” is a flawed rendering because it insinuates that human beings also have a higher nature that is uncontaminated by sin (this contradicts total depravity, which is arguably the biblical view that the Fall has adversely affected every aspect of human nature and existence – mind, will, emotions, relationships, and institutions). Third, even though “sinful nature” is a more suitable interpretation it is still somewhat slanted because it relies upon what I think is a mistaken reading of Romans 7; namely, seeing the inner tension articulated in the passage as a description of the Christian experience. Furthermore, this translation, like “lower nature,” continues to lend credibility to the erroneous notion that humans have two contrasting natures: a lower, sinful nature that exists in tension with a higher, spiritual nature. The real contrast that Paul is getting at is not between dual human natures, but between the now defeated domain of human depravity and the Spirit of God.
The term “flesh” has several usages:
1. It refers to the material that covers human bones.
2. It indicates the body, physical existence.
3. It denotes humanity in general (including physical ancestry or human lineage).
4. It connotes the earthly sphere, the limited human realm, the natural human state or condition (in distinction from the spiritual or divine).
5. It signifies the seat of sinful behavior; the corrupt, fallen features of humanity (the eager vehicles of sin); the debased aspect of the human condition (sin and death’s sphere of influence); the human being in contrast to God; the drives, ambitions, and aims that are opposed to God; the self-seeking, self-regarding, and self-sufficient orientation that is often hostile to God (the autonomous self); the corrupted natural order or realm that is passing away (dying), which still generates degraded desires. (This is often called the "ethical" use of the term to distinguish it from the other more "neutral" uses.)
The negative "ethical" use of "flesh" in the fifth chapter of Galatians, is associated with a person’s detrimental passions and desires, specifically those that prompt a person to sin. Thus, “flesh” is, perhaps, best translated in that context as “sinful inclination.”
Although the term’s broad range of meaning and Paul’s varied usage make it notoriously difficult to translate, some renderings may be misleading. Three common ones deserve attention: First, “physical nature” is a poor translation because it implies that the physical body itself is inherently evil, rather than part of God’s good – but fallen – creation (e.g., the Gnostics believed that all matter is evil and that a human being is an eternal spirit that must somehow escape from the body it has been imprisoned in). Second, “lower nature” is a flawed rendering because it insinuates that human beings also have a higher nature that is uncontaminated by sin (this contradicts total depravity, which is arguably the biblical view that the Fall has adversely affected every aspect of human nature and existence – mind, will, emotions, relationships, and institutions). Third, even though “sinful nature” is a more suitable interpretation it is still somewhat slanted because it relies upon what I think is a mistaken reading of Romans 7; namely, seeing the inner tension articulated in the passage as a description of the Christian experience. Furthermore, this translation, like “lower nature,” continues to lend credibility to the erroneous notion that humans have two contrasting natures: a lower, sinful nature that exists in tension with a higher, spiritual nature. The real contrast that Paul is getting at is not between dual human natures, but between the now defeated domain of human depravity and the Spirit of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)