Thursday, March 27, 2014
Friday, November 25, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Friday, July 2, 2010
Motivated by Hell sermon from 6/27/2010
Watch live streaming video from fellowshipchurchofhighsprings at livestream.com
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Sunday School Review #5 November 8
Discussing: Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices
OVERALL THEME: The way we practice our faith can affect the faith itself.
CHAPTER THEME: The role of the modern day pastor is unbiblical, and hierarchies within the church are pagan and without scriptural basis.
HOW THE AUTHOR'S DEFINE MODERN DAY PASTOR: They define the modern day pastor as a single leader who is in charge of all, and who handles all, or nearly all of the church services. All authority is placed in this one individual.
Overview of areas discussed
EXAMINING THE AUTHORS' TREATMENT OF EPHESIANS
The authors try to make the case on page 106 that the word pastor is found only one time in the new testament -- in Ephesians 4:11. This is one of many lines of reasoning they they try to use to say there is too little scriptural evidence to support the office of pastor.
The word for pastor in that Ephesians verse is the greek word "poimen." It means shepherd. We noted that pastor (poimen/shepherd) is linked with "teacher." The verse does not say, "he gave some to be pastors and some to be teachers." Instead it says, "he gave some to be pastors and teachers." Therefore, those that he gave to be pastors are teachers.
Where did the word pastor come from? The word pastor was retained from a latin translation and carried over into english when english translations began to be made- but only in this NT verse - everywhere else it is translated as "shepherd."
And this is where the authors make a grave error. The authors are correct that the word pastor does not occur anywhere else. However, the original word it is translated from (poimen) occurs multiple times throughout the NT.
The following are some examples where poimen occurs.
Notice that all of these poimen/shepherd/pastor verses are applied to Jesus. Notice in the 1 Peter verse that poimen is linked with the word overseer (NIV) or bishop (KJV).
OVERSEERS and ELDERS
The word "overseer" or "bishop" is translated from the greek word episkopos. It denotes the office of an elder -- that is -- what an elder does.
Examine Acts 20:17-28. Notice in verse 17 he is addressing the Elders. But also notice that in verse 28 he reminds those elders that they are overseers (episkopos) of God's flock. Also notice that he charges them to be Shepherds (poimen) of God's church. (if you are using the KJV it says "to feed" which comes from the greek word poimaino, which means "to shepherd") From this passage (and several others 1 Peter 5:1-2 for example) it is clear that elders are overseers and pastors (shepherds).
Now notice the qualifications for elders/overseers in 1 Timothy 3. In verse 2 he must be able to teach. This is because we've noted from the Acts 20 passage that elders are pastors (poimen/shepherd), and that the Ephesians verse tells us that pastors are teachers. Therefore, an elder must be able to teach as a matter of qualification.
ELDERS AS HIERARCHY
A word of caution: The hierarchy (which the authors reject) being described here is not one of the importance of individuals or of the value or worth of individuals, rather it is a hierarchy of authority.
Elders Rule:
In several places throughout the chapter the authors argue that ordination is not an appointment to an office, but that it is simply a recognition by the congregation (or itinerate church planters) of people who are already leaders (page 123). They then go on to argue that ordination is mistranslated and really means "to publicly endorse" (page 124).
They cite three verses (mid-page 124) to explain their point. Unfortunately these verses do not help their positions at all.
OVERALL THEME: The way we practice our faith can affect the faith itself.
CHAPTER THEME: The role of the modern day pastor is unbiblical, and hierarchies within the church are pagan and without scriptural basis.
HOW THE AUTHOR'S DEFINE MODERN DAY PASTOR: They define the modern day pastor as a single leader who is in charge of all, and who handles all, or nearly all of the church services. All authority is placed in this one individual.
Overview of areas discussed
- Biblical language basis of "pastor"
- Overseers and Elders
- Elders as hierarchy
- Biblical language basis for "ordination"
EXAMINING THE AUTHORS' TREATMENT OF EPHESIANS
The authors try to make the case on page 106 that the word pastor is found only one time in the new testament -- in Ephesians 4:11. This is one of many lines of reasoning they they try to use to say there is too little scriptural evidence to support the office of pastor.
The word for pastor in that Ephesians verse is the greek word "poimen." It means shepherd. We noted that pastor (poimen/shepherd) is linked with "teacher." The verse does not say, "he gave some to be pastors and some to be teachers." Instead it says, "he gave some to be pastors and teachers." Therefore, those that he gave to be pastors are teachers.
Where did the word pastor come from? The word pastor was retained from a latin translation and carried over into english when english translations began to be made- but only in this NT verse - everywhere else it is translated as "shepherd."
And this is where the authors make a grave error. The authors are correct that the word pastor does not occur anywhere else. However, the original word it is translated from (poimen) occurs multiple times throughout the NT.
The following are some examples where poimen occurs.
Notice that all of these poimen/shepherd/pastor verses are applied to Jesus. Notice in the 1 Peter verse that poimen is linked with the word overseer (NIV) or bishop (KJV).
OVERSEERS and ELDERS
The word "overseer" or "bishop" is translated from the greek word episkopos. It denotes the office of an elder -- that is -- what an elder does.
Examine Acts 20:17-28. Notice in verse 17 he is addressing the Elders. But also notice that in verse 28 he reminds those elders that they are overseers (episkopos) of God's flock. Also notice that he charges them to be Shepherds (poimen) of God's church. (if you are using the KJV it says "to feed" which comes from the greek word poimaino, which means "to shepherd") From this passage (and several others 1 Peter 5:1-2 for example) it is clear that elders are overseers and pastors (shepherds).
Now notice the qualifications for elders/overseers in 1 Timothy 3. In verse 2 he must be able to teach. This is because we've noted from the Acts 20 passage that elders are pastors (poimen/shepherd), and that the Ephesians verse tells us that pastors are teachers. Therefore, an elder must be able to teach as a matter of qualification.
ELDERS AS HIERARCHY
A word of caution: The hierarchy (which the authors reject) being described here is not one of the importance of individuals or of the value or worth of individuals, rather it is a hierarchy of authority.
Elders Rule:
- 1 Timothy 3:4 - This qualification requires that an elder rule (KJV) or manage (NIV, NASB) his house well. The context is rulership and authority.
- 1 Timothy 5:17 - This verse requires that elders (plural) who rule well (KJV, NASB) or direct the affairs of the church well (NIV) be worthy of double honor. Again, the context is one of authority and rulership.
In several places throughout the chapter the authors argue that ordination is not an appointment to an office, but that it is simply a recognition by the congregation (or itinerate church planters) of people who are already leaders (page 123). They then go on to argue that ordination is mistranslated and really means "to publicly endorse" (page 124).
They cite three verses (mid-page 124) to explain their point. Unfortunately these verses do not help their positions at all.
- Acts 14:23 - in this verse the word ordain (KJV) or appoint (NIV) is translated from the Greek word cheirotoneo which means to appoint to an office with or without votes. It carries with it the meaning of stretching forth a hand.
- 1 Timothy 3ff - This passage sets requirements that must be met before a person can be recognized or established as an elder.
- Titus 1:5ff - in this verse Paul tells Titus he must finish what was not completed at Ephesus. That is, he must set up a church government by appointing (NIV) or ordaining (KJV) elders. He then gives Titus the qualifications for those elders. The Greek word from which "ordain" and "appoint" are translated is Kathistemi, which means to set in place.
- Matthew 24:45-47 - translated in the KJV as 'hath made ruler", and "put in charge" (NIV)
- Matthew 25:21-23 - translated in the KJV as "make thee ruler", and "put in charge" (NIV)
- Luke 12:42-44 - translated in the KJV as "shall make ruler" and "puts in charge" (NIV)
- Acts 6:3 - appoint (KJV), turn this responsibility over (NIV), put in charge (NASB)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Sunday School Review #4 November 1
Discussing Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices
OVERALL THEME: The way we practice our faith can affect the faith itself.
CHAPTER THEME: The sermon is very bad and of pagan (non-Christian) origin.
Before we began our discussion we had to be fair and review what the authors meant by “The Sermon.” They define the sermon as: an oration by the same guy, to the same passive group of people on a weekly basis, and that it is a cultivated form of speech.” (Bulleted at the top of Page 87). This was opposed to their description of NT preaching, which they argue was extemporaneous, with interruptions from the audience, and that it was given out of a present burden, and not scripted in any way.
We discussed the merits of the authors’ definition regarding the first several points – ie, regularity, passive audience, same speaker. We discussed how they might have a point that such things do not appear present in the NT church, and how they could, in the right mix, stifle church functioning. Since they devote much of the chapter to it, we had a critical discussion regarding whether or not a cultivated form of speech is bad.
GRECO-ROMAN RHETORIC- The authors argue that the sermon is pagan and bad because it comes from a cultivated form of speech called “rhetoric” that was perfected by the Greeks and Romans. We questioned why this was bad since many of Paul’s writings have elements of Rhetoric. One of the elements we humorously discussed is paralipsis.
Paralipsis is basically mentioning something without mentioning it. An often used example to illustrate paralipsis would be: I’m not even going to mention how it has been reported that my opponent is a wife beater and a sluggard.
Hebrews 11:32-39 is a positive example of this rhetorical technique.
MORE THAN JUST RHETORICAL TECHNIQUES?
Greco-Roman Rhetoric had consistent form. Elements of that form included an introduction called an exordium, a statement of facts called a narratio, a proposition called a propositio, proofs to back up the propositio called a probatio, an exhortation called the exhoratio, and finally it had a conclusion called, you guessed it, the conclusio.
One writer has noticed Greco-Roman rhetoric in 1 Corinthians. You decide:
Click here to read 1 Corinthians in a new window
(paraphrased from faithtacoma.org)
Looks pretty Greco-Roman doesn’t it?
Another writer (Ken Schenk) has proposed that the book of Galatians is, in fact, almost identical to Greco-Roman rhetoric. His outline below. Again, you decide:
Click here to read Galatians in a new window:
The Epistolary Prescript: chp/vss. 1:1-5
The Exordium: chp/vss 1.6-11
The Narratio : chp/vss 1.12-2.14
The Propositio: 2.15-21
The Probatio: chp/vss 3.1-4.31
The Exhortatio: chp/vss 5.1-6.10
The Conclusion: 6.11-18
We discussed the authors' very good thesis that every member should function if is to look like a NT church. However, their insistence that “passivity” is never acceptable, and that it is an argument against the sermon was questioned. We discussed how it is difficult to harmonize that thinking with Paul’s admonition that women not speak in church. (see 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.) Afterall, passivity, (listening to a sermon) is not acceptable or the norm for NT church gatherings as argued by the authors.
CONCLUSION: The authors' make good points that modern day sermons with their regularity of speaker and frequency can become staid, and these kinds of sermons do not appear in the NT so we should always monitor them and check them. Also, the passivity of the audience, which is a consequence of the sermon format, in general, can be very problematic. However, the Bible does not prescribe the exact way to do church, so a modern day sermon, even though it is not biblical, can be a good addition to church life. Afterall, flush toilets, electric lights, and musical instruments are not NT biblical either, but we agree all are good additions to church life.
How might changing the sermon (as defined by the authors) affect our faith for good or bad? I'll ask this question on Sunday.
Your Servant in Christ,
Mike Hosey
OVERALL THEME: The way we practice our faith can affect the faith itself.
CHAPTER THEME: The sermon is very bad and of pagan (non-Christian) origin.
Before we began our discussion we had to be fair and review what the authors meant by “The Sermon.” They define the sermon as: an oration by the same guy, to the same passive group of people on a weekly basis, and that it is a cultivated form of speech.” (Bulleted at the top of Page 87). This was opposed to their description of NT preaching, which they argue was extemporaneous, with interruptions from the audience, and that it was given out of a present burden, and not scripted in any way.
We discussed the merits of the authors’ definition regarding the first several points – ie, regularity, passive audience, same speaker. We discussed how they might have a point that such things do not appear present in the NT church, and how they could, in the right mix, stifle church functioning. Since they devote much of the chapter to it, we had a critical discussion regarding whether or not a cultivated form of speech is bad.
GRECO-ROMAN RHETORIC- The authors argue that the sermon is pagan and bad because it comes from a cultivated form of speech called “rhetoric” that was perfected by the Greeks and Romans. We questioned why this was bad since many of Paul’s writings have elements of Rhetoric. One of the elements we humorously discussed is paralipsis.
Paralipsis is basically mentioning something without mentioning it. An often used example to illustrate paralipsis would be: I’m not even going to mention how it has been reported that my opponent is a wife beater and a sluggard.
Hebrews 11:32-39 is a positive example of this rhetorical technique.
MORE THAN JUST RHETORICAL TECHNIQUES?
Greco-Roman Rhetoric had consistent form. Elements of that form included an introduction called an exordium, a statement of facts called a narratio, a proposition called a propositio, proofs to back up the propositio called a probatio, an exhortation called the exhoratio, and finally it had a conclusion called, you guessed it, the conclusio.
One writer has noticed Greco-Roman rhetoric in 1 Corinthians. You decide:
Click here to read 1 Corinthians in a new window
(paraphrased from faithtacoma.org)
- Exordium chp/vss 1:4-9 an introduction to secure the goodwill of the readers
- Proposition chp/vss 1:10 In this case, that there are divisions in that church and there should not be.
- Narratio chp/vss 1:11-17 a statement of the facts that lead to the proposition
- Probatio chp/vss 1:18 – chp 16:12 Proofs and main arguments supporting the proposition
- Conclusion 16:13-18 summing it all up.
Looks pretty Greco-Roman doesn’t it?
Another writer (Ken Schenk) has proposed that the book of Galatians is, in fact, almost identical to Greco-Roman rhetoric. His outline below. Again, you decide:
Click here to read Galatians in a new window:
The Epistolary Prescript: chp/vss. 1:1-5
The Exordium: chp/vss 1.6-11
The Narratio : chp/vss 1.12-2.14
The Propositio: 2.15-21
The Probatio: chp/vss 3.1-4.31
The Exhortatio: chp/vss 5.1-6.10
The Conclusion: 6.11-18
We discussed the authors' very good thesis that every member should function if is to look like a NT church. However, their insistence that “passivity” is never acceptable, and that it is an argument against the sermon was questioned. We discussed how it is difficult to harmonize that thinking with Paul’s admonition that women not speak in church. (see 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.) Afterall, passivity, (listening to a sermon) is not acceptable or the norm for NT church gatherings as argued by the authors.
CONCLUSION: The authors' make good points that modern day sermons with their regularity of speaker and frequency can become staid, and these kinds of sermons do not appear in the NT so we should always monitor them and check them. Also, the passivity of the audience, which is a consequence of the sermon format, in general, can be very problematic. However, the Bible does not prescribe the exact way to do church, so a modern day sermon, even though it is not biblical, can be a good addition to church life. Afterall, flush toilets, electric lights, and musical instruments are not NT biblical either, but we agree all are good additions to church life.
How might changing the sermon (as defined by the authors) affect our faith for good or bad? I'll ask this question on Sunday.
Your Servant in Christ,
Mike Hosey
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Sunday School Review #3 October 18
Hello all. Sorry I'm late with this. Hope you all are having a good week. Here's what we talked about this weekend:
OUR OVERALL THEME: How we practice our faith effects the faith itself.
SUNDAY'S THEME: Found in various places between the bottom of page 67 and the middle of page 68 of Pagan Christianity - The theme is that modern Christianity is plagued by a scourge of pragmatism. Pragamatism is a guiding philosophy that says "whatever works is what is best," while ignoring moral or ethical considerations. (Note: pragmatism is only bad when it is a guiding philosophy for life -- obviously, in a situation where ethical, moral and spiritual implications can be wisely weighed, a pragmatic approach - one that efficiently produces a desired outcome - isn't necessarily bad.) The bottom of page 68 begins a critique of the great revivalist and evangelist, Charles Finney. the authors charge that, "He taught that the sole purpose of preaching was to win converts. Any devices that helped accomplish that goal were acceptable." Here the authors overstate the point. Certainly, Finney would not have approved of topless female dancers to win over the white male heathens. But the idea that making converts was the single priority of preaching allowed him to employ techniques that were not necessarily bad, but not necessarily scriptural either. This gave to Finney the tool of pragmatism, and he employed it.
How might practicing our faith with pragmatism effect the faith itself?
Further down the page they state a solid truth, "The philosophy of pragmatism opens the door for human manipulation and a complete reliance up oneself rather than upon God." We discussed how this is a problem with modern Christianity and we cited "seeker sensitive" churches, mega churches, or any local churches, etc... who are so organizationally focused on winning converts that they have lost the ability to build real Christian community. Their problem is human ingenuity and not miraculous intervention. As part of this discussion we explored the following verses:
We revisited the idea, discussed in a previous class, that the church, and each of its members, is part of the BODY of Christ. This means everyone has a duty to perform, just like every part of the body has a duty to perform. For instance, the eye sees for the whole body, the hand grasps for the whole body, the appendix . . . uh. . . well, nevermind. We discussed how open church meetings, like those you woud see in a small group, foster this kind of "every member" participation. We discussed just exacly how open the New Testament church meetings were. We examined:
Considering the 1 Corinthian verses above, we defined what prophet meant in that passage. Does anyone remember how we defined it? HINT, check out 2.f.3 here, for a possible definition. What do you think of that definition given the context of the passage?
Finally, we discussed how during the heat of problems this summer, a friend approached me complaining that he/she wasn't getting anything from church or sermons and felt unfed. I gently explained that I didn't come to church to be fed, but to serve. We discussed this statement in terms of church culture. How mighty you critisize this statement? How might you praise it?
I will see you guys Sunday. Enjoy the rest of the week.
OUR OVERALL THEME: How we practice our faith effects the faith itself.
SUNDAY'S THEME: Found in various places between the bottom of page 67 and the middle of page 68 of Pagan Christianity - The theme is that modern Christianity is plagued by a scourge of pragmatism. Pragamatism is a guiding philosophy that says "whatever works is what is best," while ignoring moral or ethical considerations. (Note: pragmatism is only bad when it is a guiding philosophy for life -- obviously, in a situation where ethical, moral and spiritual implications can be wisely weighed, a pragmatic approach - one that efficiently produces a desired outcome - isn't necessarily bad.) The bottom of page 68 begins a critique of the great revivalist and evangelist, Charles Finney. the authors charge that, "He taught that the sole purpose of preaching was to win converts. Any devices that helped accomplish that goal were acceptable." Here the authors overstate the point. Certainly, Finney would not have approved of topless female dancers to win over the white male heathens. But the idea that making converts was the single priority of preaching allowed him to employ techniques that were not necessarily bad, but not necessarily scriptural either. This gave to Finney the tool of pragmatism, and he employed it.
How might practicing our faith with pragmatism effect the faith itself?
Further down the page they state a solid truth, "The philosophy of pragmatism opens the door for human manipulation and a complete reliance up oneself rather than upon God." We discussed how this is a problem with modern Christianity and we cited "seeker sensitive" churches, mega churches, or any local churches, etc... who are so organizationally focused on winning converts that they have lost the ability to build real Christian community. Their problem is human ingenuity and not miraculous intervention. As part of this discussion we explored the following verses:
- Psalm 127:1 - Unless God is building the house, who labors in vain?
- John 15:5 - Who is the source? Apart from that source what can we do?
- Acts 2:42-47 - Who added to their number daily? What did they do to add numbers to themselves daily?
We revisited the idea, discussed in a previous class, that the church, and each of its members, is part of the BODY of Christ. This means everyone has a duty to perform, just like every part of the body has a duty to perform. For instance, the eye sees for the whole body, the hand grasps for the whole body, the appendix . . . uh. . . well, nevermind. We discussed how open church meetings, like those you woud see in a small group, foster this kind of "every member" participation. We discussed just exacly how open the New Testament church meetings were. We examined:
- 1 Corinthians 14:29-33 - Notice how if one prophet is speaking, and another sitting down has a prophesy, that the prophet speaking is to be quite and let the sitter proceed. This is quite a picture of an open meeting -- not unlike our sunday school meetings, or a small group meeting.
- Verse 31 above: Notice the words "you all." What is the significance of that?
- Matthew 18:20 - We discussed how Christ is the head of all real Christian meetings, and that openess can be o.k. because of this verse.
Considering the 1 Corinthian verses above, we defined what prophet meant in that passage. Does anyone remember how we defined it? HINT, check out 2.f.3 here, for a possible definition. What do you think of that definition given the context of the passage?
Finally, we discussed how during the heat of problems this summer, a friend approached me complaining that he/she wasn't getting anything from church or sermons and felt unfed. I gently explained that I didn't come to church to be fed, but to serve. We discussed this statement in terms of church culture. How mighty you critisize this statement? How might you praise it?
I will see you guys Sunday. Enjoy the rest of the week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)