Showing posts with label Church's Duty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church's Duty. Show all posts
Friday, November 15, 2019
Unprofitable servants
"If people think they can be all-powerful masters of life, that life is given to them for the lust of the flesh, then it is obvious that every act of sacrifice for another will seem to them a deed worthy of a reward and without reward they will not do anything. . . . One must understand that man can do nothing on his own and that if he gives away his mortal life for the good, then there should be no thanks or reward expected." - Leo Tolstoy, The Gospel in Brief, pg. 96
Friday, January 6, 2017
There is nothing special in the sacrament itself
"In order that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and the sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Spirit is given, and the Holy Spirit produces faith, where and when it pleases God, in those who hear the Gospel. That is to say, it is not on account of our own merits but on account of Christ that God justifies those who believe that they are received into favor for Christ's sake. Gal. 3:14, 'That we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.'
Our churches condemn the Anabaptist and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works." - The Book of Concord, The Augsburg Confession, Pg. 31 Article 5 [The ministry of the Church]
Our churches condemn the Anabaptist and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works." - The Book of Concord, The Augsburg Confession, Pg. 31 Article 5 [The ministry of the Church]
Thursday, December 31, 2015
The Calvinist Non-Lordshiper are the one's who really do count the cost.
The funny thing is while the Lordshipers are touting their horns "count the cost" "it will cost you everything" those who really have lost everything for the sake of the gospel are those who are of the sovereign free grace of God camp.... Those who believe that salvation is by the effectual and accomplished death of Christ alone received by assent alone. As far as it goes friends I once considered friends no longer are friends with me. It isn't because I pushed them away. I try and attempt to keep up with some of them, but with no avail. I had one tell me the other day that I can be friends with him on Facebook at least if I didn't say anything or post anything on his wall. This same guy asked me if I had down syndrome or was molested as a child.
David Bishop says, "Had LS stopped at saying Christians should strive to bring every area of their life into logical alignment with the truth of the gospel, then I would not have had a problem with them. I would have said amen. But they didn't stop here. Instead they went on to say you're not even saved unless you're doing this, and you have no right to the assurance of your salvation unless you're doing this. Now, that's bad. Very, very bad, because it obliterates the cross of Christ alone as the only foundation of repentance from dead works. It substitutes the cross with my striving to bring my life into alignment with Christ's authority as the foundation of repentance from dead works"
David Bishop says, "Had LS stopped at saying Christians should strive to bring every area of their life into logical alignment with the truth of the gospel, then I would not have had a problem with them. I would have said amen. But they didn't stop here. Instead they went on to say you're not even saved unless you're doing this, and you have no right to the assurance of your salvation unless you're doing this. Now, that's bad. Very, very bad, because it obliterates the cross of Christ alone as the only foundation of repentance from dead works. It substitutes the cross with my striving to bring my life into alignment with Christ's authority as the foundation of repentance from dead works"
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Martin Luther on Judging doctrine adn teaching of the pastor or teacher
Martin Luther on Judging doctrine and teaching of the pastor or teacher:
"Second, in this matter of judging doctrine and of appointing dismissing teachers or pastors, not the least attention is to be paid to any human decree, law, precedent, usage, or custom, whether it be decreed by pope or emperor, by prince or bishop, whether it has been observed by half the world or by all the world, whether it be in existence for one year or for a thousand years.
. . . .
The word and teaching of man have decreed and prescribed that the judging of doctrine be left altogether to bishops, theologians, and councils; all the world is bound to regard as law and as articles of faith whatever these have decided. This is abundantly proved by their daily harping on the pope's canon law. One hears scarcely anything else from them but the boast that they have the power and the right to judge what is Christian and what is heretical; the plain Christian must await their decision and abide by it.
. . . .
Christ decrees the very opposite. He takes from the bishops, theologians, and councils both the right and power to judge doctrine and confers this right and power on all men, in particular on all Christians. . . ." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 326
(John 10:3, 5, 8; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4; Matthew 7:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Matthew 20:26; 24:4-5)
"Second, in this matter of judging doctrine and of appointing dismissing teachers or pastors, not the least attention is to be paid to any human decree, law, precedent, usage, or custom, whether it be decreed by pope or emperor, by prince or bishop, whether it has been observed by half the world or by all the world, whether it be in existence for one year or for a thousand years.
. . . .
The word and teaching of man have decreed and prescribed that the judging of doctrine be left altogether to bishops, theologians, and councils; all the world is bound to regard as law and as articles of faith whatever these have decided. This is abundantly proved by their daily harping on the pope's canon law. One hears scarcely anything else from them but the boast that they have the power and the right to judge what is Christian and what is heretical; the plain Christian must await their decision and abide by it.
. . . .
Christ decrees the very opposite. He takes from the bishops, theologians, and councils both the right and power to judge doctrine and confers this right and power on all men, in particular on all Christians. . . ." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 326
(John 10:3, 5, 8; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4; Matthew 7:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Matthew 20:26; 24:4-5)
Martin Luther on what a true Christian community is
Martin Luther on what a true Christian community is:
It is necessary, first of all, to know where and what a Christian community is so that men may not engage in purely human affairs under cover of the name of a Christian church, as has always been the custom of non-Christians. The certain mark by which a Christian community can be recognized is the preaching of the gospel in its purity. Just as one can tell by the military banner, as by a sure sign, what leader and what army have taken the field, so one may surely know by the gospel where Christ and his people are stationed. Of this we have God's sure promise in Isaiah 55 [:10, 11], 'My word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but as the rain comes down from heaven and waters the earth, so shall my word accomplish that which I purpose.' Hence we are certain that where the gospel is preached there must be Christians, no matter how few in number or how sinful and weak they may be. We are just as certain that where the gospel is not preached and where the doctrines of men hold sway there can be no Christians but only heathen, no matter how great their numbers or how pious and good their lives.
From this it follows unquestionably that the bishops, foundations, monastic houses, and all the rest of that crew have long since ceased to be either Christians or a Christian community, though they have flaunted this name as their exclusive possession. Anybody who knows what the gospel is can see, hear, and understand that to this very day they rely on their human teachings and have altogether rejected, and are still rejecting, the gospel. Whatever such people do and say must therefore be regarded as heathen and of this world." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 325-326
It is necessary, first of all, to know where and what a Christian community is so that men may not engage in purely human affairs under cover of the name of a Christian church, as has always been the custom of non-Christians. The certain mark by which a Christian community can be recognized is the preaching of the gospel in its purity. Just as one can tell by the military banner, as by a sure sign, what leader and what army have taken the field, so one may surely know by the gospel where Christ and his people are stationed. Of this we have God's sure promise in Isaiah 55 [:10, 11], 'My word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but as the rain comes down from heaven and waters the earth, so shall my word accomplish that which I purpose.' Hence we are certain that where the gospel is preached there must be Christians, no matter how few in number or how sinful and weak they may be. We are just as certain that where the gospel is not preached and where the doctrines of men hold sway there can be no Christians but only heathen, no matter how great their numbers or how pious and good their lives.
From this it follows unquestionably that the bishops, foundations, monastic houses, and all the rest of that crew have long since ceased to be either Christians or a Christian community, though they have flaunted this name as their exclusive possession. Anybody who knows what the gospel is can see, hear, and understand that to this very day they rely on their human teachings and have altogether rejected, and are still rejecting, the gospel. Whatever such people do and say must therefore be regarded as heathen and of this world." - Martin Luther, Right and Power of a Christian Church, Pg. 325-326
Sunday, June 14, 2015
The issue between those who hold to the sincere offer and those who do not
The complainants put it this way:
Let us try to define the difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark as sharply as we can.
The difference is not that the complainants insist that the Gospel must be preached to all men promiscuously, while Dr. Clark claims that it must be preached only to the elect. This would be quite impossible, seeing that no preacher is able to single out the elect and separate them from the reprobate in this world. They are agreed that the Gospel must be preached to all men.
Nor is the difference that the complainants openly deny the doctrine of reprobation, while Dr. Clark professes to believe this truth. We read in the Complaint: 'He believes - as do we all - the doctrine of reprobation'.
Again, the difference does not consist in that the complainants characterize the Gospel as an 'offer' of Christ or as salvation, while Dr. Clark objects to that term. If the term 'offer' is understood in the sense in which it occurs in the confessions, and in which also Calvin uses it (offere, from obfero, meaning to present), there can be no objection to that term, though, to prevent misunderstanding, it would be better to employ the words to present, and presentation.
Again, even though Dr. Clark objects to the word 'sincere' in the sense in which the complainants use that term, afraid to leave the impression that he preaches Arminianism, even this does not touch the real point of difference between them. That God is sincere in the preaching of the Gospel no one would dare to deny. As the complainants rightly ask: 'Would it not be blasphemy to deny this?'
But the difference between them does concern the contents of the Gospel that must be preached promiscuously to all men.
It is really not a question to whom one must preach, or how he must preach, but what he must preach.
According to the complainants, the preacher is called to proclaim to all his hearers that God sincerely seeks the salvation of them all. If this is not their meaning when they write: 'in the gospel God sincerely offers salvation in Christ to all who hear, reprobate as well as elect,' their words have no meaning at all.
According to Dr. Clark, however, the preacher proclaims to all his hearers promiscuously that God sincerely seeks the salvation of all the elect. The elect may be variously named in the preaching: those who repent, they that believe in Christ, that hunger for the bread of life, that thirst for the water of life, that seek, knock, ask, that come to Christ, etc. etc. But they are always the elect.
We may define the issue still more sharply, and limit it to God's intention and attitude in the preaching of the Gospel with regard to the reprobate. - Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy
In the course of Dr. Clark's examination by presbytery it became abundantly clear that his rationalism keeps him from doing justice to the precious teaching of Scripture that in the gospel God sincerely offers salvation in Christ to all who hear, reprobate as well as elect, and that he has no pleasure in any one's rejecting this offer but, contrariwise, would have all who hear accept it and be saved.
Let us try to define the difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark as sharply as we can.
The difference is not that the complainants insist that the Gospel must be preached to all men promiscuously, while Dr. Clark claims that it must be preached only to the elect. This would be quite impossible, seeing that no preacher is able to single out the elect and separate them from the reprobate in this world. They are agreed that the Gospel must be preached to all men.
Nor is the difference that the complainants openly deny the doctrine of reprobation, while Dr. Clark professes to believe this truth. We read in the Complaint: 'He believes - as do we all - the doctrine of reprobation'.
Again, the difference does not consist in that the complainants characterize the Gospel as an 'offer' of Christ or as salvation, while Dr. Clark objects to that term. If the term 'offer' is understood in the sense in which it occurs in the confessions, and in which also Calvin uses it (offere, from obfero, meaning to present), there can be no objection to that term, though, to prevent misunderstanding, it would be better to employ the words to present, and presentation.
Again, even though Dr. Clark objects to the word 'sincere' in the sense in which the complainants use that term, afraid to leave the impression that he preaches Arminianism, even this does not touch the real point of difference between them. That God is sincere in the preaching of the Gospel no one would dare to deny. As the complainants rightly ask: 'Would it not be blasphemy to deny this?'
But the difference between them does concern the contents of the Gospel that must be preached promiscuously to all men.
It is really not a question to whom one must preach, or how he must preach, but what he must preach.
According to the complainants, the preacher is called to proclaim to all his hearers that God sincerely seeks the salvation of them all. If this is not their meaning when they write: 'in the gospel God sincerely offers salvation in Christ to all who hear, reprobate as well as elect,' their words have no meaning at all.
According to Dr. Clark, however, the preacher proclaims to all his hearers promiscuously that God sincerely seeks the salvation of all the elect. The elect may be variously named in the preaching: those who repent, they that believe in Christ, that hunger for the bread of life, that thirst for the water of life, that seek, knock, ask, that come to Christ, etc. etc. But they are always the elect.
We may define the issue still more sharply, and limit it to God's intention and attitude in the preaching of the Gospel with regard to the reprobate. - Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Philemon 8-16 - Philemon's love for the truth
"Paul says that he is appealing to Philemon 'for love's sake,' rather than boldly commanding him. Some commentators understand this phrase to refer to Paul's love for Philemon, but it is Philemon's love for Christ Jesus and for all the saints that is mentioned most prominently in the preceding verse: Paul has already mentioned them twice. Paul wants Philemon to do something out of love, not from a sense of duty, even though Paul has the authority to command him to do his Christian duty. If Philemon does this thing voluntarily, willingly, intelligently, and cheerfully, rather than grudgingly and without understanding, then he too will have grown in Christ, that is, in his understanding and love for Christ and all believers." - John Robbins, Slavery and Christianity
8Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is proper, 9Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
10I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: 11Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: 12Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: 13Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: 14But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. 15For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; 16Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
Matthew 18 - tell it to the Church
"Paul's final greeting is to 'the church in your house.' In the New Testament, the word church is never used of a building. We have drifted so far from the teaching of the New Testament that some Christians now think they are not in a church unless they are in a church building, or at least affiliated with an organization that owns such a building. But in the New Testament, the church is a society that meets for the purpose of publicly worshiping God. All Christians, as members of Christ's body, which is the invisible church, are members of Christ's church. When some of them gather together for public worship in a particular place, they are called a particular church: in this case, 'the church in your house.' Just as the New Testament never uses the word church to refer to a building, so it never uses the word church to refer only to church officers. It does not even mention such officers or offices as popes, cardinals, episcopal bishops, archbishops, trustees, superintendents, assistant pastors, associate pastors, music ministers, or youth pastors. All those offices have been invented by men. The church in Philemon's house is the entire group of Christians that meets there for worship. They are all part of the ekklesia." - John Robbins, Slavery and Christianity
Sunday, February 15, 2015
It is not that Christ died for everyone but that the Gospel is Proclaimed to all
4 Who wishes that all men may be saved. Here follows a confirmation of the second argument; and what is more reasonable than that all our prayers should be in conformity with this decree of God?And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth. Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect; for, if"the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth," (Romans 1:16,)it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life. In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life.Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God" say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. Not without good reason was it said, "Now, kings, understand," and again, in the same Psalm,"I will give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession." (Psalm 2:8-10.)In a word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the duty arising out of that love which we owe to our neighbor is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling, and to testify this by godly prayers.With the same view does he call God our Savior; for whence do we obtain salvation but from the undeserved kindness of God? Now the same God who has already made us partakers of salvation may sometime extend his grace to them also. He who hath already drawn us to him may draw them along with us. The Apostle takes for granted that God will do so, because it had been thus foretold by the predictions of the prophets, concerning all ranks and all nations.
John Calvin on 1 Timothy 2:4
John Calvin on 1 Timothy 2:4
Sunday, February 8, 2015
What we should say?
"He [Latomus] says that I lack the evangelical modesty which I enjoin, and that this is especially true of the book in which I replied to the sophists of Louvain when they condemned my teachings. Now I have never insisted that anyone consider me modest or holy, but only that everyone recognize what the gospel is. If they do this, I give anyone freedom to attack my life to his heart's content. My boast is that I have injured no one's life or reputation, but only sharply reproached, as godless and sacrilegious, those assertions, inventions, and doctrines which are against the Word of God. I do not apologize for this, for I have good precedents. John the Baptist [Luke 3:7] and Christ after him [Matt. 23:33] called the Pharisees the 'offspring of vipers.' So excessive and outrageous was this abuse of such learned, holy, powerful, and honored men that they said in reply that He had a demon [John 7:20]. If in this instance Latomus had been judge, I wonder what the verdict would have been! Elsewhere Christ calls them 'blind' [Matt. 23:16], 'crooked,' 'liars,' 'sons of the devil' [John 8:44, 55]. Good God, even Paul lacked evangelical modesty when he anathematized the teachers of the Galatians [Gal. 1:8] who were, I suppose, great men. Others he calls 'dogs' [Phil. 3:2], 'empty talkers' [Tit. 1:10], 'deceivers' [Col. 2:4, 8]. Further, he accused to his face the magician Elymas with being a 'son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy' [Acts 13:10].
I hold that the sophists have no right to judge me, for they themselves see that my work does not disagree with the apostles, Christ, and the prophets. But according to such teachers as Latomus, in our day we show evangelical modesty when we kneel before godless and blasphemous bishops and sophists, and say: 'Gracious Lord, your Grace does well; distinguished Master, your Excellency speaks well.' If you tell them what they are - ignorant, stupid, godless blasphemers against God's Word, doing incalculable damage to the service of God and souls - then you are called one who offends against the whole gospel." - Martin Luther, Against Latomus
I hold that the sophists have no right to judge me, for they themselves see that my work does not disagree with the apostles, Christ, and the prophets. But according to such teachers as Latomus, in our day we show evangelical modesty when we kneel before godless and blasphemous bishops and sophists, and say: 'Gracious Lord, your Grace does well; distinguished Master, your Excellency speaks well.' If you tell them what they are - ignorant, stupid, godless blasphemers against God's Word, doing incalculable damage to the service of God and souls - then you are called one who offends against the whole gospel." - Martin Luther, Against Latomus
Thursday, December 4, 2014
The question is what is the Intentions of God
"Just because the crier - if we may use this figure for comparison - travels up and down the streets and alleys of the village to invite all to the auction sale, does this cancel out the condition that he really is inviting only: (1) those who desire to buy something; (2) those who have money to buy; and (3) those who have opportunity to go t the auction? By this illustration we can clearly see that by sating all these exceptions, one distorts the nature of the dispute, does not at all advance a solution, and unnecessarily prevents a meeting of the minds.
The only way by which you achieve clarity is to inquire about the intention of God and proceed directly to what thoughts filled the heart of Christ when he, the Son of God, died." - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace
The only way by which you achieve clarity is to inquire about the intention of God and proceed directly to what thoughts filled the heart of Christ when he, the Son of God, died." - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace
Monday, November 24, 2014
The Primacy of the Truth
Also Clark says, "The primacy of the intellect, then, cannot be a power automatically exercised over the volition regarded as a separate faculty. This would violate the unity of the person. Instead of the phrase 'THE PRIMACY OF THE INTELLECT', the essential idea might better be expressed as 'THE PRIMACY OF THE TRUTH'. And the primacy is one of authority rather than of psychological power. The older forms of expression generate an old perplexity dating from Platonic dialogues. On the assumption that the intellect dominates the will, it would follow that no one does wrong knowingly. All evil is due to ignorance, and education guarantees correct conduct. The ambiguities hidden in this apparently simple language are enormous. But if we speak of the primacy of truth, we can avoid, even if we do not solve, these perplexities. The primacy of truth will mean that our voluntary actions ought to conform to the truth. Obviously sometimes they do not. If it is true that worshiping God is good, we ought to worship him. Perhaps we choose not to worship God, but the truth is superior in right to our will. This way of putting the matter extends as well to the voluntary choice of belief. We may choose to believe a truth, or we may choose to believe a lie. Both types of choice actually occur. But the primacy of truth means that we ought to believe the truth and we ought not to believe the lie." - Emphasis is mine. Found in his Three R's
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
What is the Church?
"Whoever would not go astray should therefore hold fast to this, that the church is a spiritual assembly of souls in one faith and that nobody is reckoned a Christian for his body's sake. Thus one will know that the true, real, right essential church is a spiritual thing and not anything external or outward, by whatever name it may be called. For a non-Christian may have all those other things but they will never make him a Christian without true faith, which alone makes Christians. It is on this account that we are called Christian believers, and on Pentecost we sing:
'Now let us pray to the Holy Ghost For the true faith of all things the most.'
It is in this way, and never in any other, that the Holy Scriptures speak of the holy church and of Christendom . . . . The name 'spiritual estate' is given primarily to the bishops, priests, and monks, not on account of their faith, which they perhaps do not have, but because they have been consecrated with an external anointing, wear crowns, use a distinctive garb, make special prayers and do special works, external matters of worship. But violence is done to the word 'spiritual' or to the word 'church' when it is used for such external affairs. These words are concerned only with the faith which, working in the soul, makes right and true spiritual person and Christians. Yet this manner of using these words has spread everywhere, to the great injury and perversion of many souls who think that such outward show is the spiritual and only true estate in Christendom or the church." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome
'Now let us pray to the Holy Ghost For the true faith of all things the most.'
It is in this way, and never in any other, that the Holy Scriptures speak of the holy church and of Christendom . . . . The name 'spiritual estate' is given primarily to the bishops, priests, and monks, not on account of their faith, which they perhaps do not have, but because they have been consecrated with an external anointing, wear crowns, use a distinctive garb, make special prayers and do special works, external matters of worship. But violence is done to the word 'spiritual' or to the word 'church' when it is used for such external affairs. These words are concerned only with the faith which, working in the soul, makes right and true spiritual person and Christians. Yet this manner of using these words has spread everywhere, to the great injury and perversion of many souls who think that such outward show is the spiritual and only true estate in Christendom or the church." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Martin Luther on The Papacy in Rome
"I contend for only two things. First, I will not suffer any man to establish new articles of faith and to abuse all other Christians in the world and slander and brand them as heretics, apostates and unbelievers simply because they are not under the pope. It is enough that we let the pope be pope, and it is not necessary that for his sake God and his saints on earth should be blasphemed. Second, all that the pope decrees and does I will receive on condition that I first test it by the Holy Scriptures. He must remain under Christ and submit to being judged by the Holy Scriptures." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Christian Rap and it's suppose sinfulness
I have been following a blog for quite some time now. Hopefully my responses are educated. But I think the debate is finally over (I think). The Link to the last question begins here:
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music/
It is interesting to note that Scott gives some form of example of music that 'sounds' horrible. He post videos of Christian hardcore music and which he says that some of these songs have lyrics but he cannot understand them. My question is why does he not look up the lyrics if he wants to understand them and perhaps maybe he could learn how to sing the song (most who like that genre do). It is not different than to suggest I am listening to a scream-o in which the screamer is hard to understand (once I begin to understand the lyrics the song becomes a little more reasonable).
It is the usual case in which Scott does not truly understand Scripture. He says let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel (quoting Phil 1:27). I wonder what he would say about acts in which he disagrees with? According to this verse Scripture alone (Gospel) is the basis for our holy living. And the rule and conduct for our lives should be based upon what God has said in Scripture alone. This is not what he wants to say - Scripture does not speak on all areas of life. He just shot himself in the foot.
He assumes (wronglfully) that this music he speaks of is ugly. He simply does not understand the music.
Shai Linne I think has done a wonderful job in pressing the issue. He says, According to the rest of verse 27, a manner of life worthy of the gospel is seen as believers are “standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel”
Wonderful, and how is it that we stand in unity? Ephesians 4. Content, Content, Content.
Finally Scott addresses with his final reply. He speaks of his daughter who was assumingly acting bad. Perhaps maybe she was, maybe she was not. Lets give this to Scott. She is his daughter of course. But, again there are perhaps many things in which would be pride according to Scott that Scripture condones. For instance as calling out false doctrine. Not allowing those who hold to false doctrine to stand in or infiltrate the assembly. Yet in our day the Christian wants to unify with those who have false doctrine. This is Van Tillian presupposition. Well we cannot know whether this is so or not. I know I know you speak the truth, but your actions do not show it. Therefore, you are acting in pride. He assumes things.
Now there are some who want to say that one is speaking in pride when he or she addresses false doctrine. They assume that the communication of it is done in pride and sinfulness. The question is where or show me how this is sinful or prideful. If you press them on this question they cannot answer it. I am expecting certain men to tell me where in my comments I have been in pride. I am afraid they will not be able to show me where this is the case. Scripture already says what pride is and Scott is using extra-biblical reasoning to say that pride is more than what Scripture says it is.
Regardless, the interesting feature is that he cannot cite chapter and verse on the issue with his daughter. We are not talking about whether a man who actually does a sin knows it or not. That is possible. It is part of the fall that men do not know or see their sin as they ought. Perhaps some of the things that could be said is this that the intentions of people matter. This is true. We read books and the first thing we should ask is what does the author intend to say. Essentially this issue goes back to the first post on this issue. Although intentions are very important. Sometimes how we say things do matter in one sense. But again this is not to say that we should always say things in a nice way. Sometimes there are instances in which it is better to yell or to say something in a particular way than another time - this is Ecclesiastes.
Scott does continue on with the 'discussion' and most of what he says spurs on a question of whether he truly understands Shai's point.
Here is the link to the last discussion I think:
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music-rebuttal/
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music/
It is interesting to note that Scott gives some form of example of music that 'sounds' horrible. He post videos of Christian hardcore music and which he says that some of these songs have lyrics but he cannot understand them. My question is why does he not look up the lyrics if he wants to understand them and perhaps maybe he could learn how to sing the song (most who like that genre do). It is not different than to suggest I am listening to a scream-o in which the screamer is hard to understand (once I begin to understand the lyrics the song becomes a little more reasonable).
It is the usual case in which Scott does not truly understand Scripture. He says let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel (quoting Phil 1:27). I wonder what he would say about acts in which he disagrees with? According to this verse Scripture alone (Gospel) is the basis for our holy living. And the rule and conduct for our lives should be based upon what God has said in Scripture alone. This is not what he wants to say - Scripture does not speak on all areas of life. He just shot himself in the foot.
He assumes (wronglfully) that this music he speaks of is ugly. He simply does not understand the music.
Shai Linne I think has done a wonderful job in pressing the issue. He says, According to the rest of verse 27, a manner of life worthy of the gospel is seen as believers are “standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel”
Wonderful, and how is it that we stand in unity? Ephesians 4. Content, Content, Content.
Finally Scott addresses with his final reply. He speaks of his daughter who was assumingly acting bad. Perhaps maybe she was, maybe she was not. Lets give this to Scott. She is his daughter of course. But, again there are perhaps many things in which would be pride according to Scott that Scripture condones. For instance as calling out false doctrine. Not allowing those who hold to false doctrine to stand in or infiltrate the assembly. Yet in our day the Christian wants to unify with those who have false doctrine. This is Van Tillian presupposition. Well we cannot know whether this is so or not. I know I know you speak the truth, but your actions do not show it. Therefore, you are acting in pride. He assumes things.
Now there are some who want to say that one is speaking in pride when he or she addresses false doctrine. They assume that the communication of it is done in pride and sinfulness. The question is where or show me how this is sinful or prideful. If you press them on this question they cannot answer it. I am expecting certain men to tell me where in my comments I have been in pride. I am afraid they will not be able to show me where this is the case. Scripture already says what pride is and Scott is using extra-biblical reasoning to say that pride is more than what Scripture says it is.
Regardless, the interesting feature is that he cannot cite chapter and verse on the issue with his daughter. We are not talking about whether a man who actually does a sin knows it or not. That is possible. It is part of the fall that men do not know or see their sin as they ought. Perhaps some of the things that could be said is this that the intentions of people matter. This is true. We read books and the first thing we should ask is what does the author intend to say. Essentially this issue goes back to the first post on this issue. Although intentions are very important. Sometimes how we say things do matter in one sense. But again this is not to say that we should always say things in a nice way. Sometimes there are instances in which it is better to yell or to say something in a particular way than another time - this is Ecclesiastes.
Scott does continue on with the 'discussion' and most of what he says spurs on a question of whether he truly understands Shai's point.
Here is the link to the last discussion I think:
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music-rebuttal/
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Christian Rap and Shai Linne
I think now the Debators are now arguing none essentials. Shai needs to press Scott on what he means by:
Indeed the real issue is not contextualizing the Gospel. But the real issue is whether or not the Gospel is being heard in this form of music. Music - apart from the lyrics - does communicate in one sense (though to be honest Humans are lead by such things). We would rather listen to good music without actually hearing the words. All men struggle with this. Scott believes that emotions play a role in the Christian Life. Whereas the truth of the Scripture is that Emotions play no role at all. Truth matters. That is why Scripture calls us to worship God alone. God says that it is by His Name alone that He saves people. The Christian Faith is intellectual. The real issue here in discerning whether or not a particular Genre is good or not is not the musical instruments used but whether the lyrics themselves speak of divine truth. In one sense we must redefine the issue or restate the issue. The issue is not whether or not I can listen to rap - but whether those lyrics those words in the rap are edifying and God glorifying.
As we stick to the issue now we can consider the rest of the problem going on. The question was asked:
Some of my points though will be with Shai Linne's comments to the Question. He says that music is used with the Lyrics. Depending on the type of song it is it seems determines the type of music played. This seems to be logical. Likewise with how we communicate truth's of scripture depends on what is being communicated. We obviously would not tell someone they are Totally depraved and apart from Life in Christ you have no hope and that the Law condemns with a smiling face. Likewise music is used to enforce what is being said (it leads the emotions). This is what he says:
Yet, I fail to see how this in itself proves Scott's contention that rap music is wrong. Perhaps maybe he is the one who is moved by the music, rather than by the WORDS of truth Spoken? Maybe he felt compelled to buy a gun after listening to rap music? Bach gave him a Handel on things. Obviously Context determine the Content. There is a Law and Gospel distinction. I would not speak the Law to someone who needs to hear the Gospel and likewise I would not want to speak the Gospel to someone who needed to hear the Law. My tone of voice has nothing to do with the truth being communicated ultimately (though it may help, or may be hurtful in some cases). So I want to always bring the case back to the Objective reality of things - Content, Content, Content.
With this I want to respond briefly to Scotts' address:
I am not certain Shai has to in this regard. Scott has moved away from Scripture. Scripture does not speak on the tone or music style of the giving of truth. We saw this when we went through various Scripture verses that Scott used. At this juncture this is philosophy. Of course do we believe that Scripture alone is our only Guide for faith and practices? Yes. We need no other guide or tool at all. It would be wrong for Shai to use the music to get people do something that was out of pure emotions. Scripture says that our worship should be Reasonable (Romans 12:1-2).
Perhaps the better word would be entices rather than communicate. Music certainly can entice us to do something. This is something we must stay away from. But Communication is used rather than entice because entice would be bad. lets say Certain forms of music are not fitting to entice God's truth . . . Because in reality music does not speak anything. This is why many may listen to country music and become entice with the Chivalry climate that is speaks on often. The issue goes straight back to the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God alone and nothing else. Music should not entice us to do anything unscriptural. A preacher or a minister may administer the Word of God fine. But how he does that whether he preaches or writes a book does not matter as long as the Word of God is preached (John 4:21-24; Romans 10:14-17). - This could be my rebuttle to what Scott said:
Here is a link to Shai's Comment to the Question asked: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content/
Here is a link to Scott's rebuttle: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content-rebuttal/
Third, you are making a very common category error in these discussions. I agree completely, of course, that whatever God creates is good. God created music. God created meat. These things are good. But God did not create rap. People did. For that matter, God did not create Gregorian chant, German chorales, Appalachian folk tunes, country western, jazz, or rock ‘n’ roll. People did. And because these are all human communication, they are moral. It is very dangerous to ascribe to God something that he did not make.
Brother, I’m not understanding the distinction you’re making. You said that God created music. But then you went on to say that people created particular genres of music. Every genre you mentioned has lyrics, which you rightly termed “human communication”. But my original question was about music apart from lyrics. Can you explain what you mean when you say “God created music.”? Thanks.
Indeed the real issue is not contextualizing the Gospel. But the real issue is whether or not the Gospel is being heard in this form of music. Music - apart from the lyrics - does communicate in one sense (though to be honest Humans are lead by such things). We would rather listen to good music without actually hearing the words. All men struggle with this. Scott believes that emotions play a role in the Christian Life. Whereas the truth of the Scripture is that Emotions play no role at all. Truth matters. That is why Scripture calls us to worship God alone. God says that it is by His Name alone that He saves people. The Christian Faith is intellectual. The real issue here in discerning whether or not a particular Genre is good or not is not the musical instruments used but whether the lyrics themselves speak of divine truth. In one sense we must redefine the issue or restate the issue. The issue is not whether or not I can listen to rap - but whether those lyrics those words in the rap are edifying and God glorifying.
As we stick to the issue now we can consider the rest of the problem going on. The question was asked:
Shai, I have heard you talk about the differences between east coast, southern, midwest, and west coast hip hop and the “flavors” they communicate. Would you say that each of these forms has strengths and weaknesses when attempting to communicate different aspects of biblical truth such as lament, exultation, rebuke, or instruction? If so, could you give examples of what each of these do well and what they do poorly? If not, could you explain why not?
Some of my points though will be with Shai Linne's comments to the Question. He says that music is used with the Lyrics. Depending on the type of song it is it seems determines the type of music played. This seems to be logical. Likewise with how we communicate truth's of scripture depends on what is being communicated. We obviously would not tell someone they are Totally depraved and apart from Life in Christ you have no hope and that the Law condemns with a smiling face. Likewise music is used to enforce what is being said (it leads the emotions). This is what he says:
This is an excellent question, Scott. It’s something that I think Christian Hip-hop artists need to wrestle with more than we do. My answer is yes. Like all genres, different regional forms of Hip-hop have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to expressing different kinds of truth. It’s something I’m conscious of and it guides how I choose the music I rap over. It’s the point I tried to make starting at the 5:50 point of this video...
Yet, I fail to see how this in itself proves Scott's contention that rap music is wrong. Perhaps maybe he is the one who is moved by the music, rather than by the WORDS of truth Spoken? Maybe he felt compelled to buy a gun after listening to rap music? Bach gave him a Handel on things. Obviously Context determine the Content. There is a Law and Gospel distinction. I would not speak the Law to someone who needs to hear the Gospel and likewise I would not want to speak the Gospel to someone who needed to hear the Law. My tone of voice has nothing to do with the truth being communicated ultimately (though it may help, or may be hurtful in some cases). So I want to always bring the case back to the Objective reality of things - Content, Content, Content.
With this I want to respond briefly to Scotts' address:
In the meantime, third, I would simply like to observe that you did not use any Scripture to prove that “southern Hip-hop is strong when it comes to encouraging excitement and rallying around something.”
I am not certain Shai has to in this regard. Scott has moved away from Scripture. Scripture does not speak on the tone or music style of the giving of truth. We saw this when we went through various Scripture verses that Scott used. At this juncture this is philosophy. Of course do we believe that Scripture alone is our only Guide for faith and practices? Yes. We need no other guide or tool at all. It would be wrong for Shai to use the music to get people do something that was out of pure emotions. Scripture says that our worship should be Reasonable (Romans 12:1-2).
But here is the point I would like to stress here: often we who argue that certain forms of music are not fitting to communicate God’s truth are cut off from any discussion because the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that music communicates, how music communicates, or that some kinds of music are inappropriate for holy matters.
Perhaps the better word would be entices rather than communicate. Music certainly can entice us to do something. This is something we must stay away from. But Communication is used rather than entice because entice would be bad. lets say Certain forms of music are not fitting to entice God's truth . . . Because in reality music does not speak anything. This is why many may listen to country music and become entice with the Chivalry climate that is speaks on often. The issue goes straight back to the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God alone and nothing else. Music should not entice us to do anything unscriptural. A preacher or a minister may administer the Word of God fine. But how he does that whether he preaches or writes a book does not matter as long as the Word of God is preached (John 4:21-24; Romans 10:14-17). - This could be my rebuttle to what Scott said:
I’m convinced that if we could get past the “But the Bible doesn’t say anything about music!” argument, we could really move this discussion along to actually discuss the merits and demerits of the genre of rap itself.
Here is a link to Shai's Comment to the Question asked: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content/
Here is a link to Scott's rebuttle: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content-rebuttal/
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Thursday, August 1, 2013
On Judging Classes of Men
When Jesus and the Apostles say do not judge this is in relation to the fact hat all men without distinction are part of the body. We are not to judge those who are suffering or who are poor or rich. This is what the Hebrews did. But those who mourn let us mourn and those who rejoice let us rejoice. We are to be truth lovers and prudent as light has no fellowship with darkness. Christ has died for all of His elect (his body, who is the Church also known as Israel of God) so that all would live and glorify God.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Our Freedom in Christ Alone never in the Law
The point in 1 Corinthians 9 is that Paul is no longer under the law but being in Christ has become free unto the law of Christ. The gospel, the good news, is that we are free from the that says my right my want to consider others as more important than ourselves.
The whole context of 1 Corinthians is that of combating issues of disunity within the church. Essentially Paul deals with the quite essential reasons why there are disunity or breaking of fellowship. His last reason and most compelling and important one at that is that their doctrine of the Gospel was messed up. Without a great foundation a house will not stand together not only congruently but perhaps maybe even permanently as foundations shifts and moves the house will suddenly break apart and tumble down eventually. The issue of the church was not their view of the law, but of much extreme importance of the gospel - the resurrection. If Christ has not been raised, then we are still caught in our sins and are most to be pitied never mind the thought that we will then be shown to be most morally good and perhaps praised. Paul knocks this thought down right away in Chapter 15 verse 18.
So with that the law cannot bring unity but only disunity. As Albert Mohler Jr (President of Southern Seminary) says in his book Culture Shift, The city of man is disunified, whereas in the city of God the ruler is God and all are unified under His rulership. Those who are outside of Christ are under the curse of the law and its demands and burdens. No one is free there is no unity to be had in the works of the law. Some might charge this Antinomian - I don't see it this way. The law is preached to those who are dead in trespasses and sins to show them that they have not obeyed and are not righteous but have fallen short of God's glory and are under His just wrath and anger. Paul says in Romans 8 however that God has done what the law weakened by the flesh could not do and that is essentially break down the curse and save humans from the corrupting power and decay of its power by work of the Spirit. In Christ God has not only punished sin but He has justified sinners (Romans 3). Therefore Paul could explain that there is Therefore NOW no Condemnation for God's elect (those who are IN CHRIST). Finally it has been done. The debt has been Paid, nothing do I owe.
So going back to the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul says that he most certainly does have a right to eat and drink according to his privilege as an apostle, however, he does not take up his privileges but rather has surrendered his rights (v. 12; v. 15). The reason why he has surrendered his rights and could do such is because he is not under the law. Paul in verse 19 - 23 says that in order to win some not under the law he becomes like one not under the law and to win those who are under the law he becomes like one who is under the law So that He might win some to Christ. He could do this because he is not under the law but is in Christ who has become for him a new 'law' - that is the law of love in which believers who are in Christ stand in unity of because of the Gospel truth that Christ has died and has been resurrected destroying both sin and death so that by faith repenting of their sins and trusting in Him alone they might also live freely unto glory.
So with that Paul is able to say that "But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." He can only do such by surrendering his rights and can only surrender his rights only in Christ.
The whole context of 1 Corinthians is that of combating issues of disunity within the church. Essentially Paul deals with the quite essential reasons why there are disunity or breaking of fellowship. His last reason and most compelling and important one at that is that their doctrine of the Gospel was messed up. Without a great foundation a house will not stand together not only congruently but perhaps maybe even permanently as foundations shifts and moves the house will suddenly break apart and tumble down eventually. The issue of the church was not their view of the law, but of much extreme importance of the gospel - the resurrection. If Christ has not been raised, then we are still caught in our sins and are most to be pitied never mind the thought that we will then be shown to be most morally good and perhaps praised. Paul knocks this thought down right away in Chapter 15 verse 18.
So with that the law cannot bring unity but only disunity. As Albert Mohler Jr (President of Southern Seminary) says in his book Culture Shift, The city of man is disunified, whereas in the city of God the ruler is God and all are unified under His rulership. Those who are outside of Christ are under the curse of the law and its demands and burdens. No one is free there is no unity to be had in the works of the law. Some might charge this Antinomian - I don't see it this way. The law is preached to those who are dead in trespasses and sins to show them that they have not obeyed and are not righteous but have fallen short of God's glory and are under His just wrath and anger. Paul says in Romans 8 however that God has done what the law weakened by the flesh could not do and that is essentially break down the curse and save humans from the corrupting power and decay of its power by work of the Spirit. In Christ God has not only punished sin but He has justified sinners (Romans 3). Therefore Paul could explain that there is Therefore NOW no Condemnation for God's elect (those who are IN CHRIST). Finally it has been done. The debt has been Paid, nothing do I owe.
So going back to the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul says that he most certainly does have a right to eat and drink according to his privilege as an apostle, however, he does not take up his privileges but rather has surrendered his rights (v. 12; v. 15). The reason why he has surrendered his rights and could do such is because he is not under the law. Paul in verse 19 - 23 says that in order to win some not under the law he becomes like one not under the law and to win those who are under the law he becomes like one who is under the law So that He might win some to Christ. He could do this because he is not under the law but is in Christ who has become for him a new 'law' - that is the law of love in which believers who are in Christ stand in unity of because of the Gospel truth that Christ has died and has been resurrected destroying both sin and death so that by faith repenting of their sins and trusting in Him alone they might also live freely unto glory.
So with that Paul is able to say that "But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." He can only do such by surrendering his rights and can only surrender his rights only in Christ.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
On Christian Truth and Living
Christ Jesus fully embodies the truth and love aspect. Not just in his actions and what He taught but also in that He fully reveals to us the Father and that we are to be made like Him through the Spirit's work.
Essentially what I am saying Knowing who He really is that He is the great proposition to be taught and understood and that also to be like Him is the end of life.
Essentially what I am saying Knowing who He really is that He is the great proposition to be taught and understood and that also to be like Him is the end of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)