 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
WormBowedB4TerribleGod
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 10/22/2004 4:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | 1 Corinthians 13 notwithstanding....
Also note that the sermons in Acts were in Aramaic and Greek, NOT ONE SINGLE SERMON WAS PREACHED IN ENGLISH.
Show me ANYWHERE in scripture where English was used for preaching.
THERE IS NONE.
God's love is to be found only in Aramaic and Greek.
(Well, Parthian, Median, Elamite, Mesopotamian, Cappadocian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptian, Libyan, Cyrene, Cretan, ancient Arabic, etc. but certainly not English, Mandarin, Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, Hindi, Japanese, P-Celtic, Q-Celtic, Brythonic, Gaelic, French, Spanish....)
Who are you, oh worm, to question the living God? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Brian Burkett
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 10/22/2004 5:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by WormBowedB4TerribleGod
1 Corinthians 13 notwithstanding....
Also note that the sermons in Acts were in Aramaic and Greek, NOT ONE SINGLE SERMON WAS PREACHED IN ENGLISH.
Show me ANYWHERE in scripture where English was used for preaching.
THERE IS NONE.
God's love is to be found only in Aramaic and Greek.
(Well, Parthian, Median, Elamite, Mesopotamian, Cappadocian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptian, Libyan, Cyrene, Cretan, ancient Arabic, etc. but certainly not English, Mandarin, Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, Hindi, Japanese, P-Celtic, Q-Celtic, Brythonic, Gaelic, French, Spanish....)
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm a little slow. And, this being my first post, maybe I'm a little out of place... but what in the world does your reply have to do with spenlake's question?
Beneath His Mercy,
Brian Burkett
http://brianburkett.blogspot.com (My Blog)
http://newlife-church.net (My Home Church)
http://www.newlife-church.net/phpbb2/index.php (Discussion Forum open to people all over the world)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/22/2004 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Brian Burkett, WELCOME! Thank goodness someone else is slow!
WormBowedB4TerribleGod, what does this have to do with spenlake's question? "Also note that the sermons in Acts were in Aramaic and Greek, NOT ONE SINGLE SERMON WAS PREACHED IN ENGLISH.
Show me ANYWHERE in scripture where English was used for preaching.
THERE IS NONE"
I don't get how this relates. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/22/2004 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Technically Spen might be right on, but in context I think he is way off. It is technically true the word love is not mentioned in Acts. The disciples were not out preaching about love and just giving it lip service, instead they acted out love. Agape love is about forgiveness and sacrifice as displayed on the Cross.
John 15:12-13 (NRSV)
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. [13] No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.
One single verse in Acts speaks volumes about such love.
Acts 7:59-60 (NRSV)
While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." [60] Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he died.
Spen, did you pose this as a FYI or is this a continuation of the "confrontational evangelism" issue.
www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3653&whichpage=3
| | Back to Top | | |
|
WormBowedB4TerribleGod
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 10/22/2004 2:13 PM (GMT -6) | | 1 Timothy 3:
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)
Not very well, I'd guess.
Who are you, oh worm, to question the living God? | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/23/2004 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Spen,
I think we would all certainly agree that the sacrificial death of Christ on the Cross is the ultimate expression of God's love for mankind. I think it's possible that the "love message" you are referring to primarily has to do with the message taught and preached to those who are already professing Christians (those within local churches), right? If so, I honestly don't see where the difficulty is. As far as I recall, we do not have many (if any) examples of sermons preached to Christians in Acts; what we mainly have in that book, as far as "sermons" go, are messages preached to unbelievers.
John
John,
I think you are getting what I meant to point out. I am not saying that the sermons in Acts are the full counsel of God. There is much said beyond what is said in Acts - including much about love. What I meant to highlight in this post is exactly what you point out and seem to agree with - Acts records the sermons that were chosen to document the expansion of the gospel. I believe that these sermons would present the core message of the gospel as preached to the gentiles. If this is so, we don't find a single sermon on "love." Even the only major "mercy mission" mentioned in Acts was from the Gentile Christians to the Jewish ones, not as an outreach. There is a concept for evangelization that seems weak to me that places a central focus on preaching "love" to the gentiles instead of the law and the cross and the resurrection that we find so clearly documented. I believe losing this central focus to be misguided. The sermons and the messages that we find bringing the gospel to the gentiles doesn't do this.
I agree with you that Christians have need of moral/ethical guidance and there is much that is preached to Christians that gives contect to what God means by "loving our neighbor." There is defined content to loving others which is not raw emotion. Scriptures go beyond this to state, "if someone doesn't love man whom he does see, how can he love God whom he does not see?" This message is not what was preached in Acts, however, in evangelization. As you rightly point out, it was preached to Christians.
Thank you for your insights, I continue to appreciate them.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/23/2004 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | spenlake-
I guess I don’t quite see the point either. If your point is to say that standing up and saying “Let’s love one another. Let’s not hate or do evil, let’s be kind and loving—love, love, love” doesn’t amount to presenting the gospel, I’d agree.
It’s obvious that “love” is not expressly mentioned in any recorded sermon in Acts. What one makes of this is another issue, since it’s certainly true that no one of those sermons is complete and since it’s also true that we have other claims in the NT that do make much of love being an express part of the gospel, like Romans. I mean, here you have Paul announcing that he’s setting out for the Roman believers the gospel he preaches so there would be no doubt in their minds about what actually constituted Paul’s gospel. So we have reason to believe that Romans is as definitive an explanation of the “core” of the gospel as is Acts. But love plays a big part in defining that core in Romans. Thus…there you go.
So I guess I say, yeah, standing up and just yelling “Love!” is not the same as presenting the gospel. But the way you try to exclude “love” from the express core of the gospel on the basis that the word isn’t mentioned in any recorded sermon in Acts isn’t, I don’t think, a valid argument. I can’t help thinking that it’s the place which open theists give to love (its inter-personal qualities and metaphysical requirements) in arguing what has to be the case or not about the divine-world relationship that is behind this thread. Seems a strange topic to bring up were that not the case.
I’m also really uncomfortable with claiming we are to “preach the law.” I never preach law to people. But again, I’m not sure what you meant. If you just mean putting people in touch with their failure to perform, to reach the standard, to please God in and of themselves, then yeah, let’s make that a part of what we present to people. But just to preach “law”? Or even "law and the Cross"? I keep thinking of John 1.17 "Law came through Moses BUT (what an crucial adversative!) grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." It's a hard line to walk. On the one hand we want to agree (with Jesus!) that the heart of the law is "loving God and loving our neighbor" but on the other hand we want to say Jesus came with something Moses (via Law) DIDN'T come with, that there's something fundamental NOW in Christ that is Law is NOT about. That's why we are such failures at loving so long as we attempt to love qua law but also why, when we end up loving freely in Christ, our love fulfills the Law (Rm 8.4-5). So my answer to law is "yes and no."
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/23/2004 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | |
Tom: I guess I don’t quite see the point either. If your point is to say that standing up and saying “Let’s love one another. Let’s not hate or do evil, let’s be kind and loving—love, love, love” doesn’t amount to presenting the gospel, I’d agree.
Spen: This is actually the key point that I wanted to highlight.
Tom: It’s obvious that “love” is not expressly mentioned in any recorded sermon in Acts. What one makes of this is another issue, since it’s certainly true that no one of those sermons is complete and since it’s also true that we have other claims in the NT that do make much of love being an express part of the gospel, like Romans. I mean, here you have Paul announcing that he’s setting out for the Roman believers the gospel he preaches so there would be no doubt in their minds about what actually constituted Paul’s gospel. So we have reason to believe that Romans is as definitive an explanation of the “core” of the gospel as is Acts. But love plays a big part in defining that core in Romans. Thus…there you go.
Spen: In Romans we also have a strong "context" of law as the backdrop for the need for the gospel. This "law" is the standard that is held up for BOTH the Jews and the Gentiles. You seem to acknowledge this in your later paragraph. I actually started this post because I had listened to a sermon that was critical of Ray Comfort and his presentation of the gospel. The Dr. that was preaching stated that the law was not to be preached to the Gentiles and that only love was to be offered as the gospel. I find this whole concept defective and an attack on the gospel itself. I was simply referring to Acts to highlight this point, not to imply that love is not important.
Tom: So I guess I say, yeah, standing up and just yelling “Love!” is not the same as presenting the gospel. But the way you try to exclude “love” from the express core of the gospel on the basis that the word isn’t mentioned in any recorded sermon in Acts isn’t, I don’t think, a valid argument. I can’t help thinking that it’s the place which open theists give to love (its inter-personal qualities and metaphysical requirements) in arguing what has to be the case or not about the divine-world relationship that is behind this thread. Seems a strange topic to bring up were that not the case.
Spen: I probably don't fully grasp the place that open theists give to love because it seems vague and subjective when presented in its inter-personal qualities and metaphysical requirements. I don't mean to imply that it is false or "lacking" but it seems poorly defined and articulated in relation to the gospel and its presentation to the Gentiles. As I stated earlier, I was not probing the total system of open theism but the claims made in one sermon regarding how scriptures command us to preach to the Gentiles and criticsm of Ray Comfort's evangelistic preaching.
Tom: I’m also really uncomfortable with claiming we are to “preach the law.” I never preach law to people. But again, I’m not sure what you meant. If you just mean putting people in touch with their failure to perform, to reach the standard, to please God in and of themselves, then yeah, let’s make that a part of what we present to people. But just to preach “law”? Or even "law and the Cross"? I keep thinking of John 1.17 "Law came through Moses BUT (what an crucial adversative!) grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." It's a hard line to walk. On the one hand we want to agree (with Jesus!) that the heart of the law is "loving God and loving our neighbor" but on the other hand we want to say Jesus came with something Moses (via Law) DIDN'T come with, that there's something fundamental NOW in Christ that is Law is NOT about. That's why we are such failures at loving so long as we attempt to love qua law but also why, when we end up loving freely in Christ, our love fulfills the Law (Rm 8.4-5). So my answer to law is "yes and no."
Spen: I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Thank you.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/24/2004 2:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Spen,
Another thought tonight. The law failed to make men (women), and children righteous. What it did (does) is make them (us) aware of our sin. The law is not enough. The law without love is religion, or ritual. Add love to the mix, and you have relationship. How can we neglect one or the other? They are inseparable. People need to be aware of their sin. They need a standard. But a standard without love is a clanging cymbol...
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
I agree with your summary that the law never saved anybody. It never did and it never will. This is not the purpose of the law. As you correctly stated, "People need to be aware of their sin." This purpose is accomplished through the law and is its function - to show us our neediness of the gift of an alien righteousness given to us by God through the death of His Son. To the extent that a sinner understands his problem of sin before a righteous God, to that extent the love of God as expressed in the gospel and death of His Son is valuable.
As I indicated in my post to Tom, this thread was begun in response to a sermon in which the Dr. made the claim that we were not to preach the law to the Gentiles. This concept is anti-gospel in that it attacks the purpose of the law, to make people aware of their sins and bring the value of the gospel into focus. You are right when you say, "They need a standard." Scriptures tell us that this standard is the law. Once people understand their problem of sin, the sweetness of the love expressed by God to us through the gospel is the most blessed and valuable thing on this earth.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 10/24/2004 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Spen,
Another thought tonight. The law failed to make men (women), and children righteous. What it did (does) is make them (us) aware of our sin. The law is not enough. The law without love is religion, or ritual. Add love to the mix, and you have relationship. How can we neglect one or the other? They are inseparable. People need to be aware of their sin. They need a standard. But a standard without love is a clanging cymbol...
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
I agree with your summary that the law never saved anybody. It never did and it never will. This is not the purpose of the law. As you correctly stated, "People need to be aware of their sin." This purpose is accomplished through the law and is its function - to show us our neediness of the gift of an alien righteousness given to us by God through the death of His Son. To the extent that a sinner understands his problem of sin before a righteous God, to that extent the love of God as expressed in the gospel and death of His Son is valuable.
As I indicated in my post to Tom, this thread was begun in response to a sermon in which the Dr. made the claim that we were not to preach the law to the Gentiles. This concept is anti-gospel in that it attacks the purpose of the law, to make people aware of their sins and bring the value of the gospel into focus. You are right when you say, "They need a standard." Scriptures tell us that this standard is the law. Once people understand their problem of sin, the sweetness of the love expressed by God to us through the gospel is the most blessed and valuable thing on this earth.
Spen,
I've experienced a shift in some of my thoughts about the law in this past month. I think I was rebelling perhaps in a slightly childish way, because I wanted to defend grace "to the death" - sounds oxymoronish doesn't it? 
Now I see - finally - that the two belong together. An imbalance of either may not be truly healthy. Having just said that though, I believe, I believe, I believe...in radical grace. BUT, I guess the place for radical grace is within a repentant heart. Their is true joy in that, and peace, and a fertile soil, where the Spirit can cultivate the fruit of the spirit in our lives, and where we can be transformed, and be a testimony of grace in an obedient life.
It's a good place to be.
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
| 49 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|