18,19 Feb -- Wise or Stupid?
Readings for Sun 18 & Mon 19 February are -- Gen 7:1-9:7; Ps 3:1-8; Prov 1:8-9: Mt 4:1-20.
What an awesome service last night! 33 people with very diverse ages, nationalities and backgrounds expectantly gathered to meet with God. And it was a time of real inspiration, encouragement, challenge, reflection, worship, praise and fellowship. Thanks to Andrew (service leader, keyboard, vocals), Callum (guitar, vocals), Lisa (bass), Caleb and Sarah (also guitar), Al (drums) and Zac (data projector).
Also to Dennis for a great message (and fantales!) It was on Proverbs 1:7 -- "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." Dennis pointed out that fear means respect and that beginning can also be translated as foundation. We'll long remember the tall tower built on a good foundation (the communion table -- symbolic, eh!) and the collapse of the smaller one built on a poor foundation (the sloping floor). Much better to be wise than stupid!
In the morning , I presented "A Panoramic View of Genesis". Here's the quote from J. Sidlow Baxter. "The major themes of Scripture may be compared to great rivers ever deepening and broadening as they flow. And it is true to say that all those rivers have their rise in the watershed of Genesis."
Have a great week. John
Labels: wisdom
posted by Ps John @ 11:59 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Hi,I'm Karen, the new Associate Pastor.
I didn't like the comment at the end of this set of readings, regarding interpretation of the Bible. "Far better to accept the Bible as it stands and believe its testimony on everything."
We all come to the Bible with our own set of perceptions and experiences and a lack of awareness, often, of others' interpretations and the biases which have been put upon Bible interpretation through history. We also come to the Bible with the influence of the Holy Spirit on the individual person that we are in Christ. This isn't going to be the same as the next person. God celebrates diversity in His children.
When we are asked to "believe the Bible as it stands" which version are we to accept? The interpretation which impacts on our hearts and fills us with understanding and passion, or the one imposed upon us? Shouldn't we be listening with openness to other peoples interpretations from their cultural and social background and learning more about our God from them?
What do you think?
Karen
Hi Karen and welcome (to our Church and also to this blog). Thanks for your comment. I too thought that comment was a little too simplistic (and even condescending) when I read it. I wholeheartedly accept the Bible and its testimony, but I'm sure Selwyn Hughes and I would differ on a number of points of interpretion. And there would no doubt be other sincere Christian theologians who would disagree with us both! That's why it is so important (as you say) to come before God's Word humbly, praying that the Spirit will guide us into all wisdom. Even then, we shouldn't see this as a purely individualistic matter. The Spirit also works through faith communities and other Christians -
today as well as through past ages.
When we read that devotion together last night after dinner (including Joel and Meredith), it was a different aspect that got us going -- "If we allow the notion that Christ had dark thoughts within his nature, then the whole scheme of redemption tumbles like a pack of cards.." I certainly believe Jesus was sinless and perfect. Also that the devil is a real, personal being. But I think SH too easily dismisses the idea of Jesus' internal struggle with temptation/evil/sin. Eg his struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane. And Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are (yet without sin, of course, as the second part of the verse emphasises). What do others think?
I can't comment on Selwyn's comments specifically as I've only been reading the bible passages. However, as far as the nature of Jesus goes, I disagree with any notion that says he somehow succumbed to human foibles or didn't really know what he was doing, or was anything less than God (we heard this idea from a speaker not so long ago at our church!).
By the same token, his temptation must have been real or it was not real temptation and thus is meaningless. What the devil was saying to him must have appealed to his human side and it must have been possible for him to accepted the offer. Can God be tempted?
How that actually works with Jesus' dual nature is a mystery I'm happy to not understand (and without the benefit of reading it, I would take that as Selwyn's meaning of taking it "as it stands"), but I think we don't need to invent excuses for Jesus just to satisfy our own human desire for answers to everything.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home