Posts
So, its been a week and a half since I've been back. Enough time to finish my left over grading, to do something many teachers do, but take the other side and get yelled at, to start a tutoring session four times a week, to start a computer programming club, and to head up a group of teachers trying to get some consistency brought to the uniform rules. Busy week.
Yes, I am tutoring a student 1v1 at school, during my free 8th period. She missed almost the entire first quarter, and needed to catch up. I was asked, and couldn't really turn it down when I'm going to be at school anyway, and now I'm getting paid for those 4 hours twice. I do lose my free 8th period.
Then, I began to setup for a computer club. I was asked, by students, prior to going to MI, and I was happy to start. Then I was asked about the tutoring, so the conclusion then, is that during one 8th period, probably Tuesday, I will be doing the computer club, which means that on that day, my tutoring will move to 3rd period, so I lose 1 3rd period a week too. My time is slipping away from me.
Yes, I got in trouble. I should have probably known better, but at the same time I was not the only one, just that when I did it, it was "inflammatory." /shrug. Its over and I will just be more careful in the future.
In addition, I've been doing more thinking about everything previously blogged. While in MI I heard a Sunday school lesson that was very applicable to this stuff. 1 Cor. 7 and Romans 14. "Knowledge puffeth up." "Charity edifieth." "All things are lawful." "All things are not expedient."
So, let's go hypothetical for a bit. I have knowledge that I can eat meat, but that is not what matters. The other guy has knowledge that eating meat offered to idols is not expedient. Now, they both have knowledge and I think we as fundamentalists have capitalized on the "knowledge" that we have and made rules out of it. Let me go on.
It is not wrong to play poker, or to smoke a cigar. Yes, it is lawful, and within my Christian rights, I may do that. However, it is often not expedient. [Is this the Galatians dilemma, liberty vs. license? We have liberty to do whatever (within the context here...we are not talking liberty to steal, etc.)] It is not expedient. That is, it does not further the Gospel as other things would do. It does not glorify Christ in the best manner possible. When we talk expedient or not, we are talking best or not. So, yes, old time fundamentalists took these things they were sure were the expedients and instead of teaching "Charity edifieth," they made and taught rules.
Why? Do we blame them? Not really. You can teach rules. You CAN'T teach charity. Charity comes from a relationship with Christ. Charity comes from spending TIME, lots and lots of time in the Word of God and talking to God.
Anecdotal experience. I've been working out regularly for a while now. I was convinced however, my first year at MBBC that I could hit 300 by Christmas of my second year. I took too many breaks to know if I actually could have or not, but now that I am regular at it, and have been for almost a year, I realize I was probably wrong. I am making progress. I can lift more than ever before; I look better; but I am not huge, nor can I bench 300 (that I know of).
Back to charity and a relationship. And then, the other thing I have been considering for a long time: being God's friend. Abraham was God's friend. God's friend. It wasn't that God was Abraham's friend. God is the friend to many. But how many are God's friend? Think about it. How do you become God's friend?
When I was told I could not talk to my wife (back before she was) I drove out to WI to explain to her dad that our relationship could not move forward without spending time together and communicating. The same applies to God and us. We need time and communication with Him. Well, I really shouldn't lecture about it. Especially since nothing can be done about it.
That is another thing. It was my turn to do faculty devos last week. I debated for some time what do to, but I ended up talking for just a couple minutes and then reading all of Psalms 9. The fact is, I am nothing, and my words are nothing; but I had God's Word, so I used that.
Nothing we say can do anything. The only thing that changes anything is the Word of God. This is why every chapel lecture, every devotional, every message, every Bible study, is worthless without Scripture. It does no good for me to lecture people on doing right, without including the words of Holy God. My words are not alive. My words are not transcendent. My words are not sharper than a two-edged sword. They do not discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. Only God's word does that. If we dare try to assume that our words will be ok; that our words can approximate what God's words do; that our words could in someway move the heart; we have then made ourselves God. That really is just what Satan did. . .people don't like it when I draw analogies like that.
Anyway, the music thing can probably fall into something like this. Maybe they had it right back before and the modern is all wrong, but knowledge puffeth up, and charity edifieth. Maybe, they have it right now; knowledge puffeth up and charity edifieth. Lastly, all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.
On to something else about worship and being in awe of God. We aren't often in awe of God as we should be. Think about Isaiah. Ezekiel. Jesus in the garden. "Jesus saith unto them, I am he. . .As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground." With the brief glimpse of who Christ was, whatever He showed them at that time, they fell to the ground. When Isaiah beheld God's glory, he did not jump up and down and wave his hands, he fell to his face and said "Woe is me." The elders in Heaven do continually bow before the throne. Do we ever prostrate ourselves before Him? We have become too comfortable with a "god" that we do not need to stand in awe and fear of. God is referenced as the "fear of Isaac." Yes, we have lost Godly fear.
Then, lastly, what is worship? How do we define worship? Is worship reading the Bible? Is worship always corporate? Is worship praying? Can you read the Bible, and pray without it being worship? I mean actually talking to God and building a relationship, but not worshiping? Or is it worship? How would you define it? Something that my wife and I were discussing tonight.
Anyway, its late so I should go. We have found Bones an interesting show lately.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
part 3. . .
So, I have had a bit of interest in this topic. Obviously.
I made my conclusion and then the church we attended today had different music. Music different than I would hear up north. Different than what I hear in chapel. Different than all of that. It had a beat. It was not hugely obvious. They played canned music. But the beat was not the focal point. It was not wrong.
Then I started thinking, maybe it would be wrong in some churches. One song would have driven some people crazy. The piano played a nice offertory but it was backed with canned music that was different. The question that would be asked by many is, "Why add that to that beautiful song?" Does that make it wrong? To add that? I can't say it does. But, if that song was played up north, then the purpose would have driven many to question the purpose, and they would not have been driven to worship or glorify God. Does that mean that in the right setting it is "ok" and in others it isn't? Is the fact that we can't appreciate the music a problem on our part? Are we not eating meat that we could be eating?
On to other things. I'm a chicken. I sat at a table listening to people talking about stuff and said very little. I don't know how to interact with people. It isn't that I'm really chicken. It is more that I honestly am not sure when to start talking when someone else is. They sit there and say something and someone else says something and they say something again, and it goes back and forth and I just don't pipe up unless I have an obvious space. It bothers me. What is the difference between that setting and sitting in the basement arguing anything? I feel more comfortable to say what I want? Maybe.
It also bothers me that I seem to be dumbfounded when I hear some things. I am good at arguing the intricacies of our doctrines, but the bigger picture I'm finding myself just quiet. This guy at work argues things I would never have imagined hearing, and I find I'm unsure how to respond. It makes me feel slow. I hate that.
I read a verse the other day that seemed to fit very well with some conversations I have been having. A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump. A little false doctrine or a few poor choices can ruin all the worship. Every false step in any systematic lends itself to a heretical doctrine down the road.
I've been reading Galatians a lot lately. I have been studying it as if I was going to preach through it. I figured I needed to study something Bible related in addition to just reading something Bible related. So, I've been spending time reading Galatians with that mind set. I hope to start writing on it soon. But one thing that keeps occuring to me as I read it is that Paul pronounces cursing on any that preaches any other Gospel. We want to ignore those things and go with them to conferences. We want to think that those Methodists, Lutherans, non-denominationalists, Catholics, etc, are just a little misinformed. Not cursed. Well, Paul says it twice, just in case someone thinks he might be exaggerating. Hes not. Then he says the leaven thing.
We fight with these two principles. We are to love the brethren. We are to strive for unity. We are to bear others' burdens. We are to separate ourselves from heresy. Doctrine is divisive. Because these things can be hard decisions, we must be close to the Lord. We must walk with God if we are to make the right decision in each instance.
If you are a Calvinist, say it. It just means you believe those 5 points. If you are a Baptist, say it. Don't hide behind bland labels. Biblicist. Non-denominational. What are these things? I don't get it. I want you to tell me what you believe. These labels tell me you are too chicken to name what you believe; OR, you really have no stance on some of this and you need to start reading your Bible and come to decisions on what it says.
I was talking to someone else this week and I mentioned that I love reading God's Word and studying it and he said, "You know that every believer should be able to say that?" He's right. Every believer should be able to say that. They should mean it with all of their hearts that they desire and long for God's Word and love spending time in it.
My wife cheers for the Steelers. I cheer for the Vikings. Next week they play. The Vikings are undefeated. Go them. Still don't like Favre though.
I made my conclusion and then the church we attended today had different music. Music different than I would hear up north. Different than what I hear in chapel. Different than all of that. It had a beat. It was not hugely obvious. They played canned music. But the beat was not the focal point. It was not wrong.
Then I started thinking, maybe it would be wrong in some churches. One song would have driven some people crazy. The piano played a nice offertory but it was backed with canned music that was different. The question that would be asked by many is, "Why add that to that beautiful song?" Does that make it wrong? To add that? I can't say it does. But, if that song was played up north, then the purpose would have driven many to question the purpose, and they would not have been driven to worship or glorify God. Does that mean that in the right setting it is "ok" and in others it isn't? Is the fact that we can't appreciate the music a problem on our part? Are we not eating meat that we could be eating?
On to other things. I'm a chicken. I sat at a table listening to people talking about stuff and said very little. I don't know how to interact with people. It isn't that I'm really chicken. It is more that I honestly am not sure when to start talking when someone else is. They sit there and say something and someone else says something and they say something again, and it goes back and forth and I just don't pipe up unless I have an obvious space. It bothers me. What is the difference between that setting and sitting in the basement arguing anything? I feel more comfortable to say what I want? Maybe.
It also bothers me that I seem to be dumbfounded when I hear some things. I am good at arguing the intricacies of our doctrines, but the bigger picture I'm finding myself just quiet. This guy at work argues things I would never have imagined hearing, and I find I'm unsure how to respond. It makes me feel slow. I hate that.
I read a verse the other day that seemed to fit very well with some conversations I have been having. A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump. A little false doctrine or a few poor choices can ruin all the worship. Every false step in any systematic lends itself to a heretical doctrine down the road.
I've been reading Galatians a lot lately. I have been studying it as if I was going to preach through it. I figured I needed to study something Bible related in addition to just reading something Bible related. So, I've been spending time reading Galatians with that mind set. I hope to start writing on it soon. But one thing that keeps occuring to me as I read it is that Paul pronounces cursing on any that preaches any other Gospel. We want to ignore those things and go with them to conferences. We want to think that those Methodists, Lutherans, non-denominationalists, Catholics, etc, are just a little misinformed. Not cursed. Well, Paul says it twice, just in case someone thinks he might be exaggerating. Hes not. Then he says the leaven thing.
We fight with these two principles. We are to love the brethren. We are to strive for unity. We are to bear others' burdens. We are to separate ourselves from heresy. Doctrine is divisive. Because these things can be hard decisions, we must be close to the Lord. We must walk with God if we are to make the right decision in each instance.
If you are a Calvinist, say it. It just means you believe those 5 points. If you are a Baptist, say it. Don't hide behind bland labels. Biblicist. Non-denominational. What are these things? I don't get it. I want you to tell me what you believe. These labels tell me you are too chicken to name what you believe; OR, you really have no stance on some of this and you need to start reading your Bible and come to decisions on what it says.
I was talking to someone else this week and I mentioned that I love reading God's Word and studying it and he said, "You know that every believer should be able to say that?" He's right. Every believer should be able to say that. They should mean it with all of their hearts that they desire and long for God's Word and love spending time in it.
My wife cheers for the Steelers. I cheer for the Vikings. Next week they play. The Vikings are undefeated. Go them. Still don't like Favre though.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Stubbornness and ignorance and . . . rhyme?
The young generation is ignorant of the why behind the rules.
We don't know. We weren't taught.
The rules were hammered in, and too often the "why" was left to rot.
And so we throw the rules out, we can't stand to have them, baseless as they are.
And we continue anew, finding our standards now are very few.
We forge ourselves a path hoping it is near the truth.
Our closest counselors, those others of our youth.
The old generation is too stubborn to admit they could be wrong.
When asked the reason "why", they wax long and long.
They tell us to be safe. They tell us it is worldly.
And yet when the principle has left, they still hold those standards strong.
Despite the nonsense they then preach, they still preach it as a jewel.
And when they have young folks to teach, they hammer in the rule.
The middle ground is hard to see, the observer can't be sure.
He hates to ask his friends of glee; he sees their nonsense sure.
He sighs to ask the elderly, he doesn't want a liturgy.
He seeks the Truth unabridged. He wants the principle and rule.
And so he talks to old and young, with the Bible as his tool.
He counts on the Holy Spirit to show him the truth.
Well, there is some more poor rhyme, but I think it kinda expresses my frustrations. Of course, I need the disclaimer that not every young person is like that and not every old person is either. I have heard elderly get sharply harsh because of something that the young person says when that person needs to be guided to the truth instead of force-fed it. At the same time, I have seen young people abandon what they had been taught because of one rule that did not have basis.
I hate to be Rehoboam. It scares me to be one of those "wise" kids that doesn't need to listen to the elderly and all they have. But then I hesitate because sometimes I don't get very Biblical or logical responses. It is more of practiced rhetoric. Both are scary. The young wise kids and the old ones who quote the same thing over and over.
Another poem I wrote at school today. You may not care for the content...I'm not sure what I think about all the content myself. But a lot of it I do. So, here it is for your pleasure or not. For those that read it already, I didn't mean to repeat that one section. . .I got distracted when copying it, so here it is as is should have been.
Out with the Old
The old fashioned is gone
In with the new
We don't need a tie
Or a suit in a pew
A worship team with a screen
We'll clap to the beat
We'll sway back and forth
When Holy God we meet
We'll critique His Word
It isn't quite right
Though we rest upon it
The end of our soul's plight
No more humble awed reverence
We need to fix church to win the lost
The past church had it all wrong
We will fix church whatever the cost.
What will bring that poor soul in?
Surely, not "thees" "thous" and preaching on sin.
No, not old fashioned hymns nor words.
They've lost their fire, their zeal, their "in."
God understands when we edit His plan.
We must be modern to win the modern man.
We don't know. We weren't taught.
The rules were hammered in, and too often the "why" was left to rot.
And so we throw the rules out, we can't stand to have them, baseless as they are.
And we continue anew, finding our standards now are very few.
We forge ourselves a path hoping it is near the truth.
Our closest counselors, those others of our youth.
The old generation is too stubborn to admit they could be wrong.
When asked the reason "why", they wax long and long.
They tell us to be safe. They tell us it is worldly.
And yet when the principle has left, they still hold those standards strong.
Despite the nonsense they then preach, they still preach it as a jewel.
And when they have young folks to teach, they hammer in the rule.
The middle ground is hard to see, the observer can't be sure.
He hates to ask his friends of glee; he sees their nonsense sure.
He sighs to ask the elderly, he doesn't want a liturgy.
He seeks the Truth unabridged. He wants the principle and rule.
And so he talks to old and young, with the Bible as his tool.
He counts on the Holy Spirit to show him the truth.
Well, there is some more poor rhyme, but I think it kinda expresses my frustrations. Of course, I need the disclaimer that not every young person is like that and not every old person is either. I have heard elderly get sharply harsh because of something that the young person says when that person needs to be guided to the truth instead of force-fed it. At the same time, I have seen young people abandon what they had been taught because of one rule that did not have basis.
I hate to be Rehoboam. It scares me to be one of those "wise" kids that doesn't need to listen to the elderly and all they have. But then I hesitate because sometimes I don't get very Biblical or logical responses. It is more of practiced rhetoric. Both are scary. The young wise kids and the old ones who quote the same thing over and over.
Another poem I wrote at school today. You may not care for the content...I'm not sure what I think about all the content myself. But a lot of it I do. So, here it is for your pleasure or not. For those that read it already, I didn't mean to repeat that one section. . .I got distracted when copying it, so here it is as is should have been.
Out with the Old
The old fashioned is gone
In with the new
We don't need a tie
Or a suit in a pew
A worship team with a screen
We'll clap to the beat
We'll sway back and forth
When Holy God we meet
We'll critique His Word
It isn't quite right
Though we rest upon it
The end of our soul's plight
No more humble awed reverence
We need to fix church to win the lost
The past church had it all wrong
We will fix church whatever the cost.
What will bring that poor soul in?
Surely, not "thees" "thous" and preaching on sin.
No, not old fashioned hymns nor words.
They've lost their fire, their zeal, their "in."
God understands when we edit His plan.
We must be modern to win the modern man.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
part 2
More thoughts. And while they all tend one way, the conclusion tends the other.
We think "how sad" that hymns are considered in such low-esteem, and they think it is sad that these non-hymns are considered the same way by us. Is their culture truly wrong? Will we condemn many cultures? The big thing here, is that though they don't use hymns, they don't condemn them either. We do. We condemn everyone and anyone that is not like us. This is part of our fundamentalist nature. I understand being separate. But what are we being separate from? What is the "world"? Is it the Hispanic culture? We can't do that.
Yes, I understand that many chapels are not to be times of worship, but this man that I share an office with truly wants to worship God and encourage the kids to do so. Whether anyone else is, he is trying to worship.
I agree that hymns are sung with enthusiasm and that it ministers and edifies, but that also mimics our music preferences and that of those around us. Because the Hispanic culture, which is everywhere down here, is always more active and involved, our English old fashioned services may not in their minds provide ample opportunity to worship. This is what missionaries come back and tell us. They tell us that in adapting to the culture of the people things that are fine here are not there, and things that are not here are there. It is a part of the culture. America is not just English anymore, with the traditional services. Is God American? We know Hes not. Is this bad, to leave the traditional? I don't know. Of course we must be extremely careful when leaving, yet, it may be necessary to include other things. I'm not talking about a complete abandoning even on this narrow topic, but rather an inclusion of some other things.
We aren't Israel. We don't have the straightforward law to tell us how to worship. We have principles. Further, we aren't pulling from the Muslims, or Catholics, etc. This type of music I am speaking from is not a denominational difference as much as it is a cultural difference. Just being down south, I have heard things in independent fundamental baptist churches that I wouldn't hear up there. The social aspect of the south is integrated into the church. God doesn't say that in Jerusalem is the way we ought to worship. He says in spirit and in Truth. We have the southern aspect and then the cross-cultural aspect with the Hispanics.
Then we have the rock bands/culture. And here is the kicker for me. For some reason I wanted to hear/see the song again. So, I remembered the words to a song and a quick google search revealed several different youtube videos of the people who did the song singing it.
What I came up with is that I am far to ignorant about the other cultures, but after a tiny bit of discussion, I realized that what takes place in our chapel with these songs, is not cultural. It is something else. And, that something else I cannot agree with. Now, can I justify condemning it? Well...let's see.
The actions, atmosphere, and attitude (yes, three "a"s; good for me) of the people who "perform" these songs is not what we should be wanting or expecting. Rather, the actions are performance based. The atmosphere is that of the rock-and-roll world. This is an anti-christian world. If you wanted to argue that it is not "anti-" you still could not come to the solid conclusion that it is "pro-". If it is not strong Christianity, than we are conforming to the world, are we not? Are we to live apart from the world? We are not to be "of" the world. Is rock and roll of the world? I'm pretty sure. It is not of the church. It is not "of God." The attitude is not the attitude of solemn, holy, and reverent worship of almighty God. Rather, it is the attitude of a star.
Of course, there are obstacles.
Is all worship supposed to be done in solemnity? I think here, we must be extremely careful with the differences between joy and light-heartedness. The difference between celebrating God's greatness and forgetting God is holy and is only approached through Christ. In much of the music from chapel and the same type, even though the words may talk about God's holiness, that thought is not in mind during the song. We don't see evidence that the song is meant to actually consider God's holiness.
Can we say that Classical or Jazz or Country is "of God?" We would admit that music is "of God." Why is classical ok?
What is the reasoning behind the music appealing to the body over the soul? We know that different music does appeal differently. Do we find Scripture backing up the thought that one is wrong though? God knew that this music debate would come up. He knew that we would be discussing this. What parameters did he leave us with? Psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs. Singing and making *melody* in our hearts to the Lord. Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Perhaps the emphasis could be on melody? If the beat outweighs the melody, then it should be avoided in the house of God?
Consider another fact. It is a fact that Godly people (generally the older generation) tend to have a problem with rock, rap, metal, etc. Why is this? Is it because they are old? Why is it that Christians who we would say are close to the Lord tend to shun those things?
I recently had a discussion with someone about the Bible issue. We were discussing the self-authentication characteristic and the comparison that I make is that the saints that look into the aspect and are not pushing away from the "rules" of the "old generation" tend to find this chapel music the wrong fit. I don't want to say "The more spiritual recognize that this is bad music." However, there is truth to the fact that those closer to God see their sin and those things that displease God much easier and clearer. Why should we be debating the music in our churches when we aren't doing our devotions regularly, or handing our tracts on a regular basis, or giving to the poor we drive by weekly, etc. Is our worship music really the big debate? I could say the same thing about all sorts of things we debate. Is it really worth discussing?
Well, YES! Let me clarify, that YES it is worth debating. The problem is, that we cannot often see clearly the issues on this stuff because we aren't even walking with God. It is like walking through the woods completely avoiding the path and then trying to argue with three other people in the woods about what to do about the tree in the way. The guy on the path sees that he can just step over it. The other guys think they need to chop it up, or go way around. (Bad analogy? Maybe.)
So, my conclusion as of now, is the same as it has been for years. That is basically that unless we have good and weighing reasons to abandon the standards and principles of our parents and grandparents and the saints before us, then we should instead uphold those. If in upholding those, we come to a place of oppressing the saints then it needs to be evaluated. For this discussion then, those genres that I listed several times should probably not be used in church, or to attempt worship. The logic, and reason behind this is not a simple verse, and bang you are done. Instead we have a long row of questions and complicated issues in order to try to arrive at a simple conclusion.
Compare this to the argument for wearing a suit to church. Why? Does the Bible say to? No. We say that we should wear our best into the house of God. People hear that and say "It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. God doesn't care about the clothes, but about our hearts." Yes, but we respond that it is not a rule. But for me, to enter the house of almighty, holy, God, I should shave, do my hair, and look my best. We do the same for any person of importance. We dress up for special occasions. Anyway, it is a matter of people with a heart attitude desiring to please God. We don't look down on people who don't wear a suit. We just try our best to do right and please God.
I got tons more to say, but blogging while I'm watching Numbers with my wife tends to take more time than I wanted to plan on blogging to begin with. Maybe later.
So much other stuff though...
I am tired of being where I am. I was in a meeting that made me think I wasn't sticking around much longer. Of course, the problem with the meeting was fixed soon after, but I hate being in that spot where it is so bad that that thought occurs to me. Of course, that is misunderstandings, and that is expected.
I talked to Joe. He's frustrated. He told me that we know that several of us all think that we should be doing something bigger, and since we all think that, maybe we should. It obviously isn't coincidence. It is preordained that we are where we are knowledge-wise, positionally, etc. We are all somewhere, and lots of us are wondering why we are where we are. We are wondering where we should go. We are wondering what to do. We don't know what to do, but we want to do more. Much more!! It drives me crazy. I want more than this. I don't know what it is I should do. I don't know what it is God wants for me. Yet, I feel the tug of discontentment. And I am content here. Grandma told me that God uses discontentment to get us to move. To prevent us from settling somewhere for longer than He wants. It was a good reminder.
Mike VK says we don't have time for degrees. He says we don't have time to teach the saints. He says our churches are too full of itching-ears and the wheat and the tares are too close that all we can do is preach. Indeed. I second that. But WHERE!?! I don't have a church. None of us do. What church would take us with our old-fashioned preaching, with our stand on God's sovereignty and man's wickedness, and our believe in the self-authenticating Scriptures? Are there people out there? I was asked that this weekend. I was asked if there are people left. We can't find them. I work at a "Christian" school, and I don't see a lot of Christ-likeness there. I see what I might see anywhere else. People are human. I am torn.
When we come to the end, will I stop going to church? Will I fear what man can do unto me? What will my daughter do? Will she be old enough to understand, or will it come too quickly? Do we have another 60 years where I might see my grandchildren? The state of the world, the country, and the church, and there is nothing worth saving. God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for 10. 10! How many left does America have? Israel had thousands and yet the famine came. Israel had thousands and yet was rules by wicked leaders who cursed God. Israel was the chosen nation of God. We are heathen. lol, what are our chances? Will God spare America for 100? There have to be 100 true Christians, right? I mean, we should be able to count them if we really try. . .Can I count 100 Christians? I remember at a big family gathering -- don't remember which, but it was a big one -- we counted 80 people. 80. I wish that I could write with 100% certainty that they were all saved. In fact, I would say with most certainty, that apart from God's future working, we should assume some are not saved. That leaves us with -80. Start adding Christian friends from states far and wide, and you start to hope. You start to count families, and see another 5 there, and another 7 there. But, then you wonder -- can you really be sure about them all? Or just the ones you know? How many families seemed all saved and then one, two, or more abandoned the faith? 100. It doesn't seem like too much to ask for 100 souls that belong to Christ. What if we expand, maybe God would spare a state for 100, but the whole country? How about 100 families? 100 families dedicated to God. We know we aren't the only ones. If Elijah teaches us nothing else, it is that even when we feel alone, not only is God present, but God has a remnant. 100 families. Maybe. Maybe there are 100 families. Maybe they love God and will die for him. What about us? The questions isn't even so much do we love Christ? The question is, are we walking so close to Christ that when threatened with death and our families death we would not deny Him? The disciples failed. I don't know if we can do much better. How hard to turn from your family to die at the stake!
One of the saddest things I can ever remember reading was when a husband was going to the stake, his wife was crying and begging him to deny Christ. What could be worse for that man than to hear his wife abandon him during that time? Yes, it was sad and emotional, but when he did the right thing, one of the hardest things a man with a family could do, she begged him to sin.
Often, I have wondered if America would turn that way. I read some Nietzsche today. "Great Philosopher." lol. Supposedly, this stuff is can be so deep that it frustrated the faith of Christians. It was horrible stuff. It really was. But, this is what the world is reading regularly. This is why our scholars in seminary say that you can deny the virgin birth and go to Heaven. They say that God can die. Really. This is where America is. And I'm not talking about mainstream liberal democratic America. I'm talking about the theology of the scholars that teach almost every pastor standing in a pulpit. They are all wack. Currently, I am in direct opposition to degrees. I want nothing to do with them. Here, I see where Baptists went astray in the past. Baptists shunned the false teaching of higher learning. They found the heresy there to be more than they could bear and they exalted the unlearned minister. Ah, the fault there. Fault can be found everywhere.
I got off topic. 100 families. That's in America. Think of the rest of the world. I think that this is where I would hope to guess America is. I think from Elijah's point of view that I should be estimating way higher. From Abraham's point of view, I am too high. We see two individuals that estimated the number of saints. Both were off. And both had lessons to learn. Abraham arose and saw the smoke and PRAYED. Prayer still works. Prayer is what we need. And to remember that God is here. God is always here. But, what can we say/do? Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
35Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
"Even so come Lord Jesus. Amen."
We think "how sad" that hymns are considered in such low-esteem, and they think it is sad that these non-hymns are considered the same way by us. Is their culture truly wrong? Will we condemn many cultures? The big thing here, is that though they don't use hymns, they don't condemn them either. We do. We condemn everyone and anyone that is not like us. This is part of our fundamentalist nature. I understand being separate. But what are we being separate from? What is the "world"? Is it the Hispanic culture? We can't do that.
Yes, I understand that many chapels are not to be times of worship, but this man that I share an office with truly wants to worship God and encourage the kids to do so. Whether anyone else is, he is trying to worship.
I agree that hymns are sung with enthusiasm and that it ministers and edifies, but that also mimics our music preferences and that of those around us. Because the Hispanic culture, which is everywhere down here, is always more active and involved, our English old fashioned services may not in their minds provide ample opportunity to worship. This is what missionaries come back and tell us. They tell us that in adapting to the culture of the people things that are fine here are not there, and things that are not here are there. It is a part of the culture. America is not just English anymore, with the traditional services. Is God American? We know Hes not. Is this bad, to leave the traditional? I don't know. Of course we must be extremely careful when leaving, yet, it may be necessary to include other things. I'm not talking about a complete abandoning even on this narrow topic, but rather an inclusion of some other things.
We aren't Israel. We don't have the straightforward law to tell us how to worship. We have principles. Further, we aren't pulling from the Muslims, or Catholics, etc. This type of music I am speaking from is not a denominational difference as much as it is a cultural difference. Just being down south, I have heard things in independent fundamental baptist churches that I wouldn't hear up there. The social aspect of the south is integrated into the church. God doesn't say that in Jerusalem is the way we ought to worship. He says in spirit and in Truth. We have the southern aspect and then the cross-cultural aspect with the Hispanics.
Then we have the rock bands/culture. And here is the kicker for me. For some reason I wanted to hear/see the song again. So, I remembered the words to a song and a quick google search revealed several different youtube videos of the people who did the song singing it.
What I came up with is that I am far to ignorant about the other cultures, but after a tiny bit of discussion, I realized that what takes place in our chapel with these songs, is not cultural. It is something else. And, that something else I cannot agree with. Now, can I justify condemning it? Well...let's see.
The actions, atmosphere, and attitude (yes, three "a"s; good for me) of the people who "perform" these songs is not what we should be wanting or expecting. Rather, the actions are performance based. The atmosphere is that of the rock-and-roll world. This is an anti-christian world. If you wanted to argue that it is not "anti-" you still could not come to the solid conclusion that it is "pro-". If it is not strong Christianity, than we are conforming to the world, are we not? Are we to live apart from the world? We are not to be "of" the world. Is rock and roll of the world? I'm pretty sure. It is not of the church. It is not "of God." The attitude is not the attitude of solemn, holy, and reverent worship of almighty God. Rather, it is the attitude of a star.
Of course, there are obstacles.
Is all worship supposed to be done in solemnity? I think here, we must be extremely careful with the differences between joy and light-heartedness. The difference between celebrating God's greatness and forgetting God is holy and is only approached through Christ. In much of the music from chapel and the same type, even though the words may talk about God's holiness, that thought is not in mind during the song. We don't see evidence that the song is meant to actually consider God's holiness.
Can we say that Classical or Jazz or Country is "of God?" We would admit that music is "of God." Why is classical ok?
What is the reasoning behind the music appealing to the body over the soul? We know that different music does appeal differently. Do we find Scripture backing up the thought that one is wrong though? God knew that this music debate would come up. He knew that we would be discussing this. What parameters did he leave us with? Psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs. Singing and making *melody* in our hearts to the Lord. Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Perhaps the emphasis could be on melody? If the beat outweighs the melody, then it should be avoided in the house of God?
Consider another fact. It is a fact that Godly people (generally the older generation) tend to have a problem with rock, rap, metal, etc. Why is this? Is it because they are old? Why is it that Christians who we would say are close to the Lord tend to shun those things?
I recently had a discussion with someone about the Bible issue. We were discussing the self-authentication characteristic and the comparison that I make is that the saints that look into the aspect and are not pushing away from the "rules" of the "old generation" tend to find this chapel music the wrong fit. I don't want to say "The more spiritual recognize that this is bad music." However, there is truth to the fact that those closer to God see their sin and those things that displease God much easier and clearer. Why should we be debating the music in our churches when we aren't doing our devotions regularly, or handing our tracts on a regular basis, or giving to the poor we drive by weekly, etc. Is our worship music really the big debate? I could say the same thing about all sorts of things we debate. Is it really worth discussing?
Well, YES! Let me clarify, that YES it is worth debating. The problem is, that we cannot often see clearly the issues on this stuff because we aren't even walking with God. It is like walking through the woods completely avoiding the path and then trying to argue with three other people in the woods about what to do about the tree in the way. The guy on the path sees that he can just step over it. The other guys think they need to chop it up, or go way around. (Bad analogy? Maybe.)
So, my conclusion as of now, is the same as it has been for years. That is basically that unless we have good and weighing reasons to abandon the standards and principles of our parents and grandparents and the saints before us, then we should instead uphold those. If in upholding those, we come to a place of oppressing the saints then it needs to be evaluated. For this discussion then, those genres that I listed several times should probably not be used in church, or to attempt worship. The logic, and reason behind this is not a simple verse, and bang you are done. Instead we have a long row of questions and complicated issues in order to try to arrive at a simple conclusion.
Compare this to the argument for wearing a suit to church. Why? Does the Bible say to? No. We say that we should wear our best into the house of God. People hear that and say "It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. God doesn't care about the clothes, but about our hearts." Yes, but we respond that it is not a rule. But for me, to enter the house of almighty, holy, God, I should shave, do my hair, and look my best. We do the same for any person of importance. We dress up for special occasions. Anyway, it is a matter of people with a heart attitude desiring to please God. We don't look down on people who don't wear a suit. We just try our best to do right and please God.
I got tons more to say, but blogging while I'm watching Numbers with my wife tends to take more time than I wanted to plan on blogging to begin with. Maybe later.
So much other stuff though...
I am tired of being where I am. I was in a meeting that made me think I wasn't sticking around much longer. Of course, the problem with the meeting was fixed soon after, but I hate being in that spot where it is so bad that that thought occurs to me. Of course, that is misunderstandings, and that is expected.
I talked to Joe. He's frustrated. He told me that we know that several of us all think that we should be doing something bigger, and since we all think that, maybe we should. It obviously isn't coincidence. It is preordained that we are where we are knowledge-wise, positionally, etc. We are all somewhere, and lots of us are wondering why we are where we are. We are wondering where we should go. We are wondering what to do. We don't know what to do, but we want to do more. Much more!! It drives me crazy. I want more than this. I don't know what it is I should do. I don't know what it is God wants for me. Yet, I feel the tug of discontentment. And I am content here. Grandma told me that God uses discontentment to get us to move. To prevent us from settling somewhere for longer than He wants. It was a good reminder.
Mike VK says we don't have time for degrees. He says we don't have time to teach the saints. He says our churches are too full of itching-ears and the wheat and the tares are too close that all we can do is preach. Indeed. I second that. But WHERE!?! I don't have a church. None of us do. What church would take us with our old-fashioned preaching, with our stand on God's sovereignty and man's wickedness, and our believe in the self-authenticating Scriptures? Are there people out there? I was asked that this weekend. I was asked if there are people left. We can't find them. I work at a "Christian" school, and I don't see a lot of Christ-likeness there. I see what I might see anywhere else. People are human. I am torn.
When we come to the end, will I stop going to church? Will I fear what man can do unto me? What will my daughter do? Will she be old enough to understand, or will it come too quickly? Do we have another 60 years where I might see my grandchildren? The state of the world, the country, and the church, and there is nothing worth saving. God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for 10. 10! How many left does America have? Israel had thousands and yet the famine came. Israel had thousands and yet was rules by wicked leaders who cursed God. Israel was the chosen nation of God. We are heathen. lol, what are our chances? Will God spare America for 100? There have to be 100 true Christians, right? I mean, we should be able to count them if we really try. . .Can I count 100 Christians? I remember at a big family gathering -- don't remember which, but it was a big one -- we counted 80 people. 80. I wish that I could write with 100% certainty that they were all saved. In fact, I would say with most certainty, that apart from God's future working, we should assume some are not saved. That leaves us with -80. Start adding Christian friends from states far and wide, and you start to hope. You start to count families, and see another 5 there, and another 7 there. But, then you wonder -- can you really be sure about them all? Or just the ones you know? How many families seemed all saved and then one, two, or more abandoned the faith? 100. It doesn't seem like too much to ask for 100 souls that belong to Christ. What if we expand, maybe God would spare a state for 100, but the whole country? How about 100 families? 100 families dedicated to God. We know we aren't the only ones. If Elijah teaches us nothing else, it is that even when we feel alone, not only is God present, but God has a remnant. 100 families. Maybe. Maybe there are 100 families. Maybe they love God and will die for him. What about us? The questions isn't even so much do we love Christ? The question is, are we walking so close to Christ that when threatened with death and our families death we would not deny Him? The disciples failed. I don't know if we can do much better. How hard to turn from your family to die at the stake!
One of the saddest things I can ever remember reading was when a husband was going to the stake, his wife was crying and begging him to deny Christ. What could be worse for that man than to hear his wife abandon him during that time? Yes, it was sad and emotional, but when he did the right thing, one of the hardest things a man with a family could do, she begged him to sin.
Often, I have wondered if America would turn that way. I read some Nietzsche today. "Great Philosopher." lol. Supposedly, this stuff is can be so deep that it frustrated the faith of Christians. It was horrible stuff. It really was. But, this is what the world is reading regularly. This is why our scholars in seminary say that you can deny the virgin birth and go to Heaven. They say that God can die. Really. This is where America is. And I'm not talking about mainstream liberal democratic America. I'm talking about the theology of the scholars that teach almost every pastor standing in a pulpit. They are all wack. Currently, I am in direct opposition to degrees. I want nothing to do with them. Here, I see where Baptists went astray in the past. Baptists shunned the false teaching of higher learning. They found the heresy there to be more than they could bear and they exalted the unlearned minister. Ah, the fault there. Fault can be found everywhere.
I got off topic. 100 families. That's in America. Think of the rest of the world. I think that this is where I would hope to guess America is. I think from Elijah's point of view that I should be estimating way higher. From Abraham's point of view, I am too high. We see two individuals that estimated the number of saints. Both were off. And both had lessons to learn. Abraham arose and saw the smoke and PRAYED. Prayer still works. Prayer is what we need. And to remember that God is here. God is always here. But, what can we say/do? Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
35Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
"Even so come Lord Jesus. Amen."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
long time ago in a state far far away. . .
I blogged.
I have missed blogging. I have wanted to blog for some time. I have ideas and strands of thoughts throughout the day and yet I cannot remember them when I am home. Blogger is blocked at school for some odd reason, and so my "brilliant" ideas are just lost.
Music has been on my mind for some time. Chapel here is. . .different. We listen to and "sing" music that I grew up calling "bad music." Now, there was nothing morally wrong with it, and I understand that, but I also understand the principle of the music. At the same time, the guy who leads the music would probably find our type of hymns and traditional worship music lacking the energy and the excitement that he currently expresses and wants to express in worship. So, is he wrong? Can I say he is wrong? Back in the (I think I have my dates right here) late 1600's people first started singing in Baptist churches. That was not included in church services. Then, people began singing things that were not the psalms. Imagine the controversy! People writing songs and them being sung in the church. What now? We accept a piano and organ. That is all I grew up with in church. What about a orchestra? Sure, we accept that too. Well, at least some of us. What about a guitar? What makes a guitar different than other stringed instruments? What about drums? I remember church shopping and not even staying for the service because there were drums and the sanctuary was darkened. Maybe there were more reasons...I was young.
So, what music should be in church? Is music one of those things that is determined within a social context? The pronunciation of words and the use of hand/head gestures here and around the world do not mean the same nor have the same offense to each one. Music is different within different cultures. The man who leads the music here also teaches Spanish. He told his class that almost all Spanish music was the same. Dances just changed moves. That was in general, but think about the cultural difference. They always have an upbeat music, and their culture is energetic and more colorful than northern MI. Does this mean it is bad? /shrug What are we looking at to determine "bad" music? And now, when I say "bad" I mean morally wicked music? Is there a music line between home and worship? We listen to some mannheim steamroller, and snoopy jazz at home. Why don't we listen to that to truly good lyrics in church? Why is one right and another not? We (used loosely) we're brought up this way. We listened to different things at home and at church. We were told and taught that once the music in a church goes, so does the Bible and all forms of separation. I can sympathize. That is experiential truth. We have heard about and seen that happen. But is it because of what the music symbolized then? It was rebellious to hear or play rock. Is it still? Isn't the rebellious stuff rap and heavy metal? Or is rock still bad? Why was rock bad? Because of the inherent wickedness in the melodies? Or because of the rebellion that it represented?
What is safe? It is safer to not listen to rock, rap, etc? If it is only safer, then we should not be condemning others for listening to and utilizing it in worship. Are we naive enough to think that David really danced to no beat? That in the worship of God, it is not so much the beat as it is the heart? Of course, it has always been the heart. But does God condemn music with off beats? We aren't told that. We are told to make a joyful noise. Sing. Praise. Songs and Hymns. What defines a hymn? Does the inclusion of the word hymn negate or qualify the word song? I don't think so. What are we left with? Do we have warrant from Scripture to say that this other type of music is bad? What type of music is right? Where are the morals? Where is the chapter and verse?
Practicality. Some music is not meant to be sung by a group(congregational). The song is not written that way. Some songs aren't. We "sing" things in chapel that are really not congregational songs. We don't know where he is going with the song. It is a solo, or band number. That type of thing is not practical. Is it wrong to have that song as a special though? What about music preferences? Everyone has them. I dislike much of the music I hear on TV or radio. It annoys me and I can't stand it. I dislike the music played during chapel. It gets under my skin. It bothers me. It is not my preference. But hymns may not be others preferences. Must they conform? Culture makes a big difference in music taste.
Thoughts...but no conclusion, I apologize. I can't condemn it. I think in practicality that certain types of songs need to be avoided in congregational worship because they do not lend themselves to being sung together. But other than that, I have nothing at the moment.
I have missed blogging. I have wanted to blog for some time. I have ideas and strands of thoughts throughout the day and yet I cannot remember them when I am home. Blogger is blocked at school for some odd reason, and so my "brilliant" ideas are just lost.
Music has been on my mind for some time. Chapel here is. . .different. We listen to and "sing" music that I grew up calling "bad music." Now, there was nothing morally wrong with it, and I understand that, but I also understand the principle of the music. At the same time, the guy who leads the music would probably find our type of hymns and traditional worship music lacking the energy and the excitement that he currently expresses and wants to express in worship. So, is he wrong? Can I say he is wrong? Back in the (I think I have my dates right here) late 1600's people first started singing in Baptist churches. That was not included in church services. Then, people began singing things that were not the psalms. Imagine the controversy! People writing songs and them being sung in the church. What now? We accept a piano and organ. That is all I grew up with in church. What about a orchestra? Sure, we accept that too. Well, at least some of us. What about a guitar? What makes a guitar different than other stringed instruments? What about drums? I remember church shopping and not even staying for the service because there were drums and the sanctuary was darkened. Maybe there were more reasons...I was young.
So, what music should be in church? Is music one of those things that is determined within a social context? The pronunciation of words and the use of hand/head gestures here and around the world do not mean the same nor have the same offense to each one. Music is different within different cultures. The man who leads the music here also teaches Spanish. He told his class that almost all Spanish music was the same. Dances just changed moves. That was in general, but think about the cultural difference. They always have an upbeat music, and their culture is energetic and more colorful than northern MI. Does this mean it is bad? /shrug What are we looking at to determine "bad" music? And now, when I say "bad" I mean morally wicked music? Is there a music line between home and worship? We listen to some mannheim steamroller, and snoopy jazz at home. Why don't we listen to that to truly good lyrics in church? Why is one right and another not? We (used loosely) we're brought up this way. We listened to different things at home and at church. We were told and taught that once the music in a church goes, so does the Bible and all forms of separation. I can sympathize. That is experiential truth. We have heard about and seen that happen. But is it because of what the music symbolized then? It was rebellious to hear or play rock. Is it still? Isn't the rebellious stuff rap and heavy metal? Or is rock still bad? Why was rock bad? Because of the inherent wickedness in the melodies? Or because of the rebellion that it represented?
What is safe? It is safer to not listen to rock, rap, etc? If it is only safer, then we should not be condemning others for listening to and utilizing it in worship. Are we naive enough to think that David really danced to no beat? That in the worship of God, it is not so much the beat as it is the heart? Of course, it has always been the heart. But does God condemn music with off beats? We aren't told that. We are told to make a joyful noise. Sing. Praise. Songs and Hymns. What defines a hymn? Does the inclusion of the word hymn negate or qualify the word song? I don't think so. What are we left with? Do we have warrant from Scripture to say that this other type of music is bad? What type of music is right? Where are the morals? Where is the chapter and verse?
Practicality. Some music is not meant to be sung by a group(congregational). The song is not written that way. Some songs aren't. We "sing" things in chapel that are really not congregational songs. We don't know where he is going with the song. It is a solo, or band number. That type of thing is not practical. Is it wrong to have that song as a special though? What about music preferences? Everyone has them. I dislike much of the music I hear on TV or radio. It annoys me and I can't stand it. I dislike the music played during chapel. It gets under my skin. It bothers me. It is not my preference. But hymns may not be others preferences. Must they conform? Culture makes a big difference in music taste.
Thoughts...but no conclusion, I apologize. I can't condemn it. I think in practicality that certain types of songs need to be avoided in congregational worship because they do not lend themselves to being sung together. But other than that, I have nothing at the moment.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Addendum
After more contemplation, I realized that the faith factor of this discussion must be considered with further magnification. For while both sides of this discussion have access to a large battery of questions, and logical complications, both sides also require faith. It is at this point where this argument becomes simpler. Let us then examine these focal points.
Let us begin with the tradition of the Reformation and the Textus Receptus. Those who hold to the position of the TR believe that God has promised to preserve His word. We believe that without the Word of God we would be lost. We believe that God used the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus to compile the Greek text we have before us today (I only make mention of Erasmus because the other side is sure to, and we need to have an idea in our mind of the proper role he did and did not play). Here is the focal point we have come to see. We accept by faith that God used these men, this tradition, and the Spirit working in the revived church to preserve this Text, between two covers, without error. This was done without inspiring any of those working on the texts, or anyone who was translating.
Those along the CT side follow much the same formula. They believe that God has promised to preserve His word. They believe that without this Word, we cannot be saved. They will admit that God worked in and through the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus. (Most, if not all, do call the TR a corrupt text though.) This side believes that the TR is not perfect. They believe God has kept His promise by preserving for us all His words spread throughout all the MSS. With this form of preservation, God’s word is not and cannot be between two covers. Instead it is found in all the MSS. Since it is found in all the MSS, then in order to know which words are God’s words in Greek, the CT person must trust that the translation committees of today will find God’s words for them. This is their point of faith.
The foremost factor here is faith. Do you trust that God worked in the Reformation and TR tradition to give us His complete Word between two covers? Or, do you believe that God preserved His word for us in all the MSS and that He uses dozens of different translation committees to show it to us? Obviously, we have a point of faith in each argument. Which is more believable? Which conforms to the Scriptural definition of preservation? That is the key.
Remember, everything must be tested with Scripture. The passages mentioned previously leave no room for doubting that the church will have the complete Scripture. Not spread throughout the world, but always in its possession. Further, the Great Commission requires that we teach all nations. This requires that we be able to consistently and faithfully translate this Greek text into languages spoken by the common people. Notice however, that in order to be able to translate with any certainty the words of God, that one must in fact have those words before him. If those words are spread far and wide, no person can truly undertake the necessary job of translating into the common tongue. We are then stuck waiting on the words from the scholars who cannot agree amongst themselves.
If we accept by faith that God worked in the TR tradition and the reformation to bring together His perfect word, then we do not have a problem understanding and accepting that some words in our Greek text have their support in the Latin. We don’t have a problem understanding that words that have miniscule support are given by inspiration of God. Just as the unregenerate looks at Scripture and says, “It isn’t possible that the church really found all the right books. You don’t even claim inspiration for them!” So, the textual critic of today looks at the TR and says, “It isn’t possible that the Reformers /TR tradition /Holy-Spirit-lead-church really found all the words God intended.”
Yes!! It is possible! The literal exegesis of the Scriptures requires it! We accept it by faith that God has kept His promises!
Addendum 2.
Note that the method and argumentation for the determination of the canon is virtually the same as the method and argumentation for the authority of the TR tradition. The canon was brought together to conform to that which God had already determined by the early church. This is a fact accepted by both sides, and often argued by both together against the unregenerate. This is the history of the formulation of the canon. As discussed briefly before, the canon was not simply given to the church as the canon, but holy men of God by the Spirit of God were lead to reject the false books, and accept those that God had truly spoken. These men were not inspired, nor were they perfect. But as men of God desiring to follow truth, they were lead by God to that truth; we now have the canon of the 27 NT books today. Then after the dark ages, God used the Reformers to reawaken His people and caused them to pursue and compile the TR tradition.
Addendum 3.
It is worth mentioning that there is a difference between the arguments of scholars/theologians and the common layperson. Not to differentiate at all in matters of importance, or intelligence, but rather, we should understand that these groups argue the same topic at different layers. In order to understand when/where they interact it becomes necessary to recognize them. This is not something that I will endeavor to do here. But the level of this discussion in most churches rarely reaches the depth of our discussion.
Addendum 4.
I have endeavored to define the above positions as those whose views align with the most conservative, and exegetically sound. Both sides have authors and proponents that are not consistent, and misrepresent Scripture. I have attempted to not represent either side by those in the outer fringe.
Let us begin with the tradition of the Reformation and the Textus Receptus. Those who hold to the position of the TR believe that God has promised to preserve His word. We believe that without the Word of God we would be lost. We believe that God used the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus to compile the Greek text we have before us today (I only make mention of Erasmus because the other side is sure to, and we need to have an idea in our mind of the proper role he did and did not play). Here is the focal point we have come to see. We accept by faith that God used these men, this tradition, and the Spirit working in the revived church to preserve this Text, between two covers, without error. This was done without inspiring any of those working on the texts, or anyone who was translating.
Those along the CT side follow much the same formula. They believe that God has promised to preserve His word. They believe that without this Word, we cannot be saved. They will admit that God worked in and through the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus. (Most, if not all, do call the TR a corrupt text though.) This side believes that the TR is not perfect. They believe God has kept His promise by preserving for us all His words spread throughout all the MSS. With this form of preservation, God’s word is not and cannot be between two covers. Instead it is found in all the MSS. Since it is found in all the MSS, then in order to know which words are God’s words in Greek, the CT person must trust that the translation committees of today will find God’s words for them. This is their point of faith.
The foremost factor here is faith. Do you trust that God worked in the Reformation and TR tradition to give us His complete Word between two covers? Or, do you believe that God preserved His word for us in all the MSS and that He uses dozens of different translation committees to show it to us? Obviously, we have a point of faith in each argument. Which is more believable? Which conforms to the Scriptural definition of preservation? That is the key.
Remember, everything must be tested with Scripture. The passages mentioned previously leave no room for doubting that the church will have the complete Scripture. Not spread throughout the world, but always in its possession. Further, the Great Commission requires that we teach all nations. This requires that we be able to consistently and faithfully translate this Greek text into languages spoken by the common people. Notice however, that in order to be able to translate with any certainty the words of God, that one must in fact have those words before him. If those words are spread far and wide, no person can truly undertake the necessary job of translating into the common tongue. We are then stuck waiting on the words from the scholars who cannot agree amongst themselves.
If we accept by faith that God worked in the TR tradition and the reformation to bring together His perfect word, then we do not have a problem understanding and accepting that some words in our Greek text have their support in the Latin. We don’t have a problem understanding that words that have miniscule support are given by inspiration of God. Just as the unregenerate looks at Scripture and says, “It isn’t possible that the church really found all the right books. You don’t even claim inspiration for them!” So, the textual critic of today looks at the TR and says, “It isn’t possible that the Reformers /TR tradition /Holy-Spirit-lead-church really found all the words God intended.”
Yes!! It is possible! The literal exegesis of the Scriptures requires it! We accept it by faith that God has kept His promises!
Addendum 2.
Note that the method and argumentation for the determination of the canon is virtually the same as the method and argumentation for the authority of the TR tradition. The canon was brought together to conform to that which God had already determined by the early church. This is a fact accepted by both sides, and often argued by both together against the unregenerate. This is the history of the formulation of the canon. As discussed briefly before, the canon was not simply given to the church as the canon, but holy men of God by the Spirit of God were lead to reject the false books, and accept those that God had truly spoken. These men were not inspired, nor were they perfect. But as men of God desiring to follow truth, they were lead by God to that truth; we now have the canon of the 27 NT books today. Then after the dark ages, God used the Reformers to reawaken His people and caused them to pursue and compile the TR tradition.
Addendum 3.
It is worth mentioning that there is a difference between the arguments of scholars/theologians and the common layperson. Not to differentiate at all in matters of importance, or intelligence, but rather, we should understand that these groups argue the same topic at different layers. In order to understand when/where they interact it becomes necessary to recognize them. This is not something that I will endeavor to do here. But the level of this discussion in most churches rarely reaches the depth of our discussion.
Addendum 4.
I have endeavored to define the above positions as those whose views align with the most conservative, and exegetically sound. Both sides have authors and proponents that are not consistent, and misrepresent Scripture. I have attempted to not represent either side by those in the outer fringe.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
complicated stuff
So, just like theologians struggle with the order of regeneration: Faith, justification, sanctification, imputation, regeneration. What is the order, and can we determine that one must precede another, etc. Hard questions debated for a long time.
The hard question that occurs to me this morning further surrounds the Bible issue which has been foremost in my thoughts lately. The aspect of faith in this issue is necessary. The "majority" opinion is not built on a flimsy case. It isn't at its roots, horrible. We see the destruction that has been caused by veering from the straight and narrow just a bit in defense of the faith. (Recall that the majority of the straying that has affected the church was done by Christians fighting for the Bible.)
But, our hard question boils down to a matter of faith. Why do we defend the Scriptures against the lost who ask how it could possibly be God's Word? How do we defend against those unregenerate scholars that ask how we can be sure we have the complete canon? We do not assign inspiration or infallibility to those men and churches that came to the conclusion that God had written Hebrews and not the Gospel of Thomas. In the same way that the lost look at this and say that we are arguing for the Scriptures based on faith in the Scriptures and it is circular, we are susceptible to the same argumentation when arguing the KJV. They say "You are saying Erasmus was inspired; and the KJV translators." No, we accept by faith the promises God made to us, and so that when Erasmus continued the tradition of the church which lead to the KJV we see the hand of God in keeping His promise.
Reading the opposing side, however, without the proper background can be very convincing. I did some reading last night, and the guy was pretty good. He wasn't saying anything anti-Scriptural. They usually don't. He admitted we need preservation; and said we had it. This is the toughest crowd to beat. The guys who are closet to us, yet arrive at different conclusions.
The crux of the whole matter comes back to our interpretation of Scripture, and our need for certainty. What does it mean to say we have the words of God, and not just the ideas conveyed into some words? "To admit error in one part is to admit error in the whole." -- Turretin (paraphrase) This is really our trumpet. A logical fallacy committed by the other side. But that can be scary. Because logic is NOT the final authority when it comes to things of faith.
Can we admit we do not have the each specific word in English? Can we admit we do not have each specific word in Greek? Many prefer not to have thoughts of the original languages, but they must be considered.
I'm going to lay out some of their argument for a bit...I'll let you know when I am done with them.
***
God says He will preserve His Word.
History shows the MSS being changed and copied, and errors abounding.
Yet, through Providence, today we still have spread throughout all the MSS the perfect Word of God.
We can't know exactly which words are Gods, but it doesn't matter because of all the MSS, the differences are so few and so minuscule that in the end we DO still know what God was saying.
Nothing was lost.
Nothing of importance is under question. It is just differences of opinions on a fraction of the MSS.
***
I'm done with them...this is spawning another idea for an essay. Two options: the option of men deciding the truth, or trusting that we have it.
You see, the above argumentation leaves us with a whole pile of MSS evidence and the fact that somewhere inside it consists everything God has/had for us. This means we must rely on a committee of translators to decide where it is, and which words fit and which don't. It comes down to faith, again. They must have faith that the translators on their committees can find God's words, and share them with everyone else. We believe that God used the tradition of the TR/reformation, to leave us with God's words. If I can find a good way to write it up, and recall enough information about it, then maybe I will write it as a solid paper. Maybe it won't be long though. Maybe 1 page will be enough. It would be a good addendum.
That is my next project...because, as much reading as anyone can do on the subject, and as much disagreement as can be found, it seems that it MUST come down to one of the above options. Both of which leave the other saying "You are acting like the Catholic church." One can only be right, however.
I will of course follow up with that here when it is done.
The hard question that occurs to me this morning further surrounds the Bible issue which has been foremost in my thoughts lately. The aspect of faith in this issue is necessary. The "majority" opinion is not built on a flimsy case. It isn't at its roots, horrible. We see the destruction that has been caused by veering from the straight and narrow just a bit in defense of the faith. (Recall that the majority of the straying that has affected the church was done by Christians fighting for the Bible.)
But, our hard question boils down to a matter of faith. Why do we defend the Scriptures against the lost who ask how it could possibly be God's Word? How do we defend against those unregenerate scholars that ask how we can be sure we have the complete canon? We do not assign inspiration or infallibility to those men and churches that came to the conclusion that God had written Hebrews and not the Gospel of Thomas. In the same way that the lost look at this and say that we are arguing for the Scriptures based on faith in the Scriptures and it is circular, we are susceptible to the same argumentation when arguing the KJV. They say "You are saying Erasmus was inspired; and the KJV translators." No, we accept by faith the promises God made to us, and so that when Erasmus continued the tradition of the church which lead to the KJV we see the hand of God in keeping His promise.
Reading the opposing side, however, without the proper background can be very convincing. I did some reading last night, and the guy was pretty good. He wasn't saying anything anti-Scriptural. They usually don't. He admitted we need preservation; and said we had it. This is the toughest crowd to beat. The guys who are closet to us, yet arrive at different conclusions.
The crux of the whole matter comes back to our interpretation of Scripture, and our need for certainty. What does it mean to say we have the words of God, and not just the ideas conveyed into some words? "To admit error in one part is to admit error in the whole." -- Turretin (paraphrase) This is really our trumpet. A logical fallacy committed by the other side. But that can be scary. Because logic is NOT the final authority when it comes to things of faith.
Can we admit we do not have the each specific word in English? Can we admit we do not have each specific word in Greek? Many prefer not to have thoughts of the original languages, but they must be considered.
I'm going to lay out some of their argument for a bit...I'll let you know when I am done with them.
***
God says He will preserve His Word.
History shows the MSS being changed and copied, and errors abounding.
Yet, through Providence, today we still have spread throughout all the MSS the perfect Word of God.
We can't know exactly which words are Gods, but it doesn't matter because of all the MSS, the differences are so few and so minuscule that in the end we DO still know what God was saying.
Nothing was lost.
Nothing of importance is under question. It is just differences of opinions on a fraction of the MSS.
***
I'm done with them...this is spawning another idea for an essay. Two options: the option of men deciding the truth, or trusting that we have it.
You see, the above argumentation leaves us with a whole pile of MSS evidence and the fact that somewhere inside it consists everything God has/had for us. This means we must rely on a committee of translators to decide where it is, and which words fit and which don't. It comes down to faith, again. They must have faith that the translators on their committees can find God's words, and share them with everyone else. We believe that God used the tradition of the TR/reformation, to leave us with God's words. If I can find a good way to write it up, and recall enough information about it, then maybe I will write it as a solid paper. Maybe it won't be long though. Maybe 1 page will be enough. It would be a good addendum.
That is my next project...because, as much reading as anyone can do on the subject, and as much disagreement as can be found, it seems that it MUST come down to one of the above options. Both of which leave the other saying "You are acting like the Catholic church." One can only be right, however.
I will of course follow up with that here when it is done.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)