Oswald Chambers Daily Devotional Bible (pg. 586):
And they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done.” Acts 4:18-21
…much of what is called Christianity today is not the Christianity of the New Testament; it is distinctly different…. Jesus is not the fountainhead of modern Christianity. He is scarcely thought about. Christian preachers, Sunday School teachers, religious books, all without any apology patronize Jesus Christ and put Him on one side.
We have to learn that to stand true to Jesus Christ’s point of view means ostracism — the ostracism that was brought on Him. Most of us know nothing whatever about it.
The modern view looks upon human nature as pathetic; men and women are poor ignorant babes in the wood who have lost themselves. Jesus Christ’s view is totally different. He does not look on men and women as babes in the wood, but as sinners who need saving, and the modern mind detests His view.
Our Lord’s teaching is based on something we violently hate, namely His doctrine of sin; we do not believe it unless we have had a radical dealing with God on the line of His teaching.
Remember that a disciple is committed to much more than belief in Jesus, he is committed to His Lord’s view of the world, of men, of God and of sin (Bold Mine).
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.
Consider sharing this post:
Related posts:
- Chart Comparing Biblical vs. Cultural Christianity The following chart comparing Biblical Christianity with Cultural Christianity was...
- William Wilberforce on Cultural Christianity From Real Christianity You might understand the Christianity our culture...
- Facebook Christianity Being a minimal to moderate user of Facebook for two...
- Dick Staub on Christianity-Lite The Culturally Savvy Christian: A Manifesto for Deepening Faith and...
- Who was Jesus: Cultural Trend Setter or the Son of God? Throughout all of history there has never been anyone as...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Stephen
on Dec 4th, 2009
@ 4:53 pm:
The problem with what you’re saying is that the “lord’s view” will still be interpreted by humans. That is, you are still going to subjectively argue, no matter how much you may strive to be objective, that your ideas are God’s ideas. This creates problems, because it is antithetical to Scripture, in that Scripture highlights the difference between God and humanity (see Philippians 2), and your idea that anyone can be unbiased creates elitism. Not humility. Too often I read comments by people dictating why THEY are right. It is presumptuous and irrelevant. WHo cares if they’re right. The Bible commands us to love, not convince people of our own intellectual superiority. And the doctrine of sin need not be hated. We’re human. We’ll sin. Repentance is the road to hope, correct?
Jesse
on Dec 4th, 2009
@ 5:57 pm:
@ Stephen:
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
I would have to disagree with you that studying and teaching God’s word is antithetical to Scripture. Before ascending to heaven, Jesus told the disciples to teach people to observe all that He had commanded them (Matthew 28.18-20). So, this insinuates that we have the ability to objectively grasped what was said and teach others His sayings.
In addition, Jesus did gifts to the church that included teachers and shepherds (Ephesians 4) so that they could teach the saints to do the work of the ministry which insinuates the same things as before.
There are other references, but I’m short for time.
Besides, did not you contradict yourself by doing what you said shouldn’t be done in that you spoke on behalf of God (i.e. “The Bible commands…”)?
Stephen
on Dec 4th, 2009
@ 6:51 pm:
Hi,
Well, let’s be nuanced. I did say the Bible commands, that’s true. But the concept of love is a very wide concept. It would not be the same as saying” the Bible commands you to wear a hat” The concept and principles of love are set down specifically (such as in 1 Cor 13) but are also implied and open to interpretation.
And while Jesus told his disciples to teach what he commanded him, we are not those specific disciples, are we? And wouldn’t culture and place make a difference? Surely the Gospel crosses cultural milieus differently, doesn’t it? Or is culture the gospel? It just sounds like you are being a bit simplistic, which I think is dangerous because it leads to this sense that again, we are ‘right.’ Maybe, maybe not. The church has changed drastically through the centuries in its doctrines and creeds, and many divisions remain. Who is right? You? Me? Someone else?
The other assumption here is that you equate God’s Word = Scripture. That is not a biblical reference at all. When we see the reference of ‘God’s Word’ in the New Testament it is not referring to the canon of 66 books that we have accepted today. Too many evangelicals get that wrong, unfortunately.
Jesse
on Dec 4th, 2009
@ 11:08 pm:
@ Stephen:
Oh touché Stephen. Regardless of how you “nuance” what you say, you still are contradicting yourself. In your first comment you said:
So, this means, that anyone – including yourself – cannot speak on behalf of God because it’s will still be interpreted by humans.
Moreover, you continue to walk upon a highway of inconsistency. You just said above,
In the same vein, how can 1 Corinthians 13 carry any weight since it was written to the Corinthians and not to you and I?
Now, in all due respect, I don’t really understand why you think I’m equating the words printed on a piece of paper as divine in and of themselves. Maybe this assumption of yours was derived from my reference of Matthew 28 as an authoritative text for all believers? If this were the case – which is the only explanation I can think of since I actually didn’t write the post – then your thoughts would fall victim to the same contradictions as before, for you are quoting Scripture as well.
The Bible is not authoritative because the print and pages are divine. The The words are authoritative because the Author who inspired the authors is the One True and Living God (2 Timothy 3.16-17; 2 Peter 1.20-21).
If you could further clarify for me what you mean on this one point, it would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, the simplistic blogosphere dolt, Jesse.
Stephen
on Dec 5th, 2009
@ 1:10 am:
Haha,
My point, such as it is, is that we are ALL dolts. So yes, I accept the possibility that I am wrong. Of course! In fact, if I’m sure of anything it is that my views will change, but towards what? Towards compassion? Towards inclusion? Towards that vague idea called love? My point about being the specific disciples of Jesus (Peter, John, Philip, etc) is that the Incarnation occurred in time and space. Or at least, those of us who believe Jesus is the Son of God believe this. Therefore, Scripture itself is time and place. When Paul says to timothy “Fetch my cloak” He’s not talking to us, is he? In the same vein, there were certain cultural nuances that dictated what Paul wrote, wasn’t there. Can you imagine a pastor telling a woman to be quiet?! (Of course, I actually can because I’ve heard it and its disgusting but I digress)
The interpretation of Scripture is trying to understand how to apply principles of the biblical story to our lives in THIS time and place. So it goes without saying that it MUST be subjective. No?
Now… all that is my opinion. That’s all. We work through the Bible as a living document within community, but that means that it will change. The words won’t change, but their interpretation will, depending on our knowledge. Of culture. Of history. Of Jewish idioms. Etc. If we read it simply as a “love letter to us”, I believ we will read it incorrectly, and end up, as I said earlier supporting things like misogyny and slavery and patriarchy, none of which one would necessarily support if taking the Bible as a whole and what it communicates about God. Or would it?
Your liberal, wishy washy academic,
Stephen
Jesse
on Dec 5th, 2009
@ 3:26 pm:
Well, no. Since Scripture is – as you say – rooted in history, it too can be understood in its historical context since it is an objective reality.
For instance, I can understand what you said yesterday and the day before by learning about who you are and clarifying what you meant. Just because what you said is rooted in the past, it can still be understood.
Not only can it be understood, but it can also be applied today in our lives by understanding the principle and bridging it to our context today.
For instance, what would you tell someone that was addicted to some form of narcotic? How would you apply the Scriptures to them and their struggles?
Besides, as I’ve said before, why would your subjective interpretation and application of the Scriptures, both in the particulars and the metanarrative, be right while others – like myself – are wrong? How can you say, “You’re wrong and misguided for speaking on behalf of God using the Bible,” while you yourself do the same thing? It is this inconsistency that I’m trying to understand.
Just because you, me, and others have errored and will error in the future does not mean that we’ll always error on everything and cannot know anything for certain.
In continuing in your opinion, I would be curious to know if we can know objective truth?
Stephen
on Dec 5th, 2009
@ 3:59 pm:
Hey Jesse,
To the first part of your question. Yes, we can understand certain things said in a different time and place, but in different times and in different places they WILL be interpreted differently. We know with a glance at church history. What that should tell us, I think, is that we’re probably not right or exact in how we apply the Gospel or attempt to follow Jesus. It’s hit and miss for all of us. So when some group comes out (and there have been many through history) and says they have it down exactly, I think its silly. Its also dangerous, and eventually said group usually attempts to force others into their way of thinking. (EXample: Did John Huss deserve to be burned at the stake?)
And before I get to the idea of objective truth, let me touch on what you said earlier. I didn’t say you were wrong in what you believed, I don’t agree with you, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong. What is wrong (for lack of a better term) is your assumption that you are correct. That sounds like semantics but bear with me. Faith exists on the back of doubt. that is, if there is not doubt, there is no faith. As it says in 1 Peter, we believe in what we cannot see. Therefore, doubt MUST be present. (This is my difficulty with the absolutism of fundamentalism, somehow it gets misinterpreted as conviction) So, while I readily admit that I may be wrong, fundamentalism says that it is inherently right based on the idea that it is possible to know exactly right from wrong, and that certain individuals are granted that status over others. (Evangelicals and fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins always apply this to themselves of course) If you want to argue within Rationalism, within that plausibility structure defined by Enlightenment absent teleology, for the existence of God, let alone the Incarnation, you must take a position that says one can know objective proof. The irony here is that the supporting structure does not make room for God, so squeezing Him into it becomes problematic.
As for objective truth, there is no way of knowing whether we can know it or not. We won’t know until we die, or perhaps ever. There is no proof either way. It is a matter of faith, which by definition, can not be ‘objective.’ Speaking of which, the terms ’subjective’ and ‘objective’ are themselves creations within rationalism, so I can’t really use them because I don’t support the structural belief behind the construction of the words.
The end result of this Christian Rationsalism (or modernism or whatever you want to call it, is inevitably elitism and pride) Paul wrote that love builds up but that knowledge puffs up. Its hard for me to accept a system that says we can ‘reson’ people into the Kingdom. I don’t believe the Kingdom is reasonable or rational. I personally think its crazy, ’cause I think God’s crazy. (I have to look in the mirror every morning and go to work and watch other humans and can’t help but say to God… “This was your plan? Us?”)
The lack of humility within fundamentalism strikes me as not only odd but as a sign, considering Philippians 2. And considering church history. (BTW, I do not see any differences between Sam Harris and John Hagee)
Cheers!
Stephen