I'm Sick and Tired

[bleechers]

My mind and thought process is different. This I know. While the message being delivered like that may not be right for you, it may spark someone else's interest and plant a seed. I can liken that to Christian rap. Some people think it's wrong. However, not everyone will be touched by other genres of Christian music. Everyone has a different avenue by which Christ gets to them. I just say don't knock it.

Our thought processes are different because we are saved. We have the Holy Spirit and a new nature. I'm with you there. When I watch the news, I "filter" it through the Bible (particularly news from the Middle East). I saw a great analogy for sin in Lord of the Rings... but I'd never expect the lost to get it like I do... nor would I recommend the movie to them and tell them to get truth out of it.

The lost need one thing: the clear presentation of the gospel. Paul made reference to the gods of the greeks on Mars Hill, but only as a short introduction. The problem with all these "clever" approaches is that they either never get to the gospel or they assume that people will get it without explanation (or worse, without the Word).

I blogged on The Passion before it was released. I titled that entry "Another Disappointment Ahead". I watched the TBN teen show before it was released... they predicted "hundreds of thousands of people repenting in the thearters" and "church services breaking out in movie houses" (whatever a "church service" is).

I predicted lots of tumbleweeds in terms of "revival"... and a bunch of Christians out 8 bucks on top of that. Why? Because it didn't have a gospel message, it was almost all extra-biblical; it was made by unbelievers. So for two months the church put aside preaching and hoped a movie would do it... well one church benefitted from it, but it wasn't any Baptist church.

Just one more clever thing that promised a great revival that didn't happen.

Ooh... I've just opened a can of worms didn't I?

 

[Gold Dragon]

If you'll note, I said "certain" people. Those would be those who had already REJECTED the clear message.

I know you did. I just wanted to clarify.

Read what Jesus said "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted." The "you" there represents believers... so to use the parables as justification for being "culturally relevant" just doesn't work. The "them" refers to those who had rejected the clear Kingdom message.

Either way, you can't fit in "use the parables to reach the lost."

I didn't use the idea of parables to justify being culturally relevant (which appears to be an evil phrase around here). I just feel that is what he did. Jesus used a lot of parables that were culturally relevant to his day in his teaching. He didn't simply debate the Jewish law with Pharisees in the synagogues all day. He went out and taught among the common people in ways that they understood, whether it was through parables, healing or other things. I think that is something I aspire to do in my journey of being more Christ-like.

I don't oppose identifying with the state of a person, but only to preach a clear gospel message. I never mess with the message. It doesn't need help or "cultural relevance". Paul gives us his pedigree in Phillipians 3, but only to show its worthlessness and to exalt the work of Christ.

It isn't the message that needs help. It is the people. The message doesn't change but the people hearing it do.

He was not trying to be creative or clever. God Forbid.

I find it sad that some people consider being creative and clever as being wrong or sinful.

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

bt:

Amen brother! Preach It!!!

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

Lets see

I don't watch TV
Listen to secular music
Go to movies (very often anyway)
Read non biblical literature (save for the occasional tech journal)


Anyone want to know where I stand on this issue?


Blessings

Pastor George

me too (except for tv...working on that one). at my baptist church im looked at as a "legalist". (where is that "roll eyes" smilie when you need it?)

 

[Andyman_1970]

BT:

Would you consider the statement "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path" one that lines up with our Biblical worldview?

 

[J.A.I]

Bleechers - You say you don't expect the 'lost' to get it like you do. When you compare things, when you tell things through a story (like the parables), people are more likely to get it. So if someone explains the similarities between the Christ life and the movie, then they will get it in a way that is so understandable. The Bible isn't easy to understand at 1st attempt, but if you explain things differently, they may get it, and then they can go into the Word with a different mindset.

I still have my Childrens Bible that my mommie (I love her so much) gave me when I was a child. It puts the Bible in storybook format and sometimes I read it. I'm in my 20s, and I still do that. Because sometimes it's just easier to understand depending on what it is and my mindset at the moment.

As far as the revival, I know MANY people whose lives were truly affected by The Passion. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean God doesn't.

 

[J.A.I]

In the Matrix.. the 1st 1.. there are a LOT of examples of faith.. a WHOLE lot. If you look at it with certain eyes, you will see it. You don't have to let the bad cloud the good. That is why so many people are so unwilling to want to know Christ. They look at the so called bad in the Bible and not the goodness of God.. and they get turned off because they let the few so called bad things affect the beauty and goodness and mercy that God has.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Are you telling me that your pastor never uses any extrabiblical illustrations in his sermons? That he never references any aspect of modern culture like politics, technology and current events except to condemn?[/quote]

The response.

Yes that is exactly what I'm telling you. He does not and neither do I.

I guess if your not going to use anything "extrabiblical" or pagan, you better take the book of Titus out of your Bible, because Paul quotes a pagan prophet there. The funny thing is Paul affirms that the statement that pagan prophet makes is true, and yet it's origins are pagan...............

Bleechers mentions Paul on Mars Hill, notice what Paul does, he takes the words of pagan poets and uses them to make an arguement for the existence of the One True God. There is no record of him using Hebrew Scripture, or Jewish tradition or anything like that............interesting.

Could God's truth be so wide and deep that even the words of pagan prophets and poets could be used for the arguement of the One True God?

How did Paul know about those pagan writers? He would have had to have read and be familiar with their works. Paul didn't sit around in a "holy bubble" and only read the Torah and such.

When Paul is in Ephesus (referring to the "bashing" statement), he doesn't bash the god of the city, Artimus. He doesn't bash the god of the city even though it is pagan and stands against everything he believed and yet the WHOLE city was converted............this has interesting implications for us today, esspecially as Christians in the US.

It's interesting one of the distinctive things about the Jesus revolution is they never blasphemed the gods of the cities, and yet the whole city became Christian.

I find it funny how we as Baptist "hang our hats on" being Biblically accurate (like with Baptism by immersion) and yet we deviate from the way the early church (pre 300 AD) did things in this respect as recorded in the Bible.

And we wonder why whole cites are not coming to know Jesus.....................

 

[bleechers]

As far as the revival, I know MANY people whose lives were truly affected by The Passion. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean God doesn't.

Who, what and how? You cannot see that movie alone and be saved. It has no gospel in it.

when you tell things through a story (like the parables), people are more likely to get it.

How do you square that with Jesus' clear statements in Matthew, Luke and John that parables are so people don't "get it"?

So if someone explains the similarities between the Christ life and the movie, then they will get it in a way that is so understandable.

Right, but we go to the truth of scriptures to explain truth. We don't use parables or clever speech to explain movie allegories. You're confusing a saved person who knows the gospel who is able to see the gospel with a lost person who can not... the lost person needs a clear testimony from the Word of God to be saved. The NT is abundantly clear about that.

1 Corinthians 2
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1 Corinthians 1
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul was a questionable public speaker in form... but he preached the Word.

2 Corinthians 10
10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.

 

[bleechers]

I guess if your not going to use anything "extrabiblical" or pagan, you better take the book of Titus out of your Bible, because Paul quotes a pagan prophet there. The funny thing is Paul affirms that the statement that pagan prophet makes is true, and yet it's origins are pagan...............

Bleechers mentions Paul on Mars Hill, notice what Paul does, he takes the words of pagan poets and uses them to make an arguement for the existence of the One True God. There is no record of him using Hebrew Scripture, or Jewish tradition or anything like that............interesting.

In both instances, Paul takes about 1.7 seconds to get to the truth. He didn't write 7 epistles of allegory hoping people would "get it".

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

You can hardly use those two verses out of context to defend the massive movement in the church today to use 99% "clever stuff" while trying to inject 1% gospel (if we're lucky). Read Rick Warren's massive best seller... try to find a clear gospel message?

When it comes to the lost. They must hear the gospel, clearly. I can explain the allegory in CS Lewis' work, but that won't save anybody. They might think it's clever. They may appreciate me pointing out the Christian allegory, but they won't see THEIR need for salvation in it.

 

[Andyman_1970]

In both instances, Paul takes about 1.7 seconds to get to the truth. He didn't write 7 epistles of allegory hoping people would "get it".

In the case of Titus and Mars Hill Paul does not allegorize those writers, he takes their statements affirms that they are true and uses them to make an arguement for the One True God. It would be a huge assumption on my part to think Paul went on for hours about this pagan poet, and it would be an assumption on your part that he only spent 1.7 seconds...............

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

I agree.

 

[Gold Dragon]

In both instances, Paul takes about 1.7 seconds to get to the truth. He didn't write 7 epistles of allegory hoping people would "get it".

Jesus did something similar in his various parables about the kingdom of heaven and other concepts. I know you believe that parables were used to hide the truth, however as I stated earlier, they were also used to reveal the truth to others. At that time you seemed to agree with me. And despite his frequent use of parables, Jesus seemed to have quite the growing following.

 

[bleechers]

It would be a huge assumption on my part to think Paul went on for hours about this pagan poet, and it would be an assumption on your part that he only spent 1.7 seconds...............

My 1.7 seconds was allegorical because we're Christian here.

My point was, Paul didn't use those quotes as his message. They were very quick intros so he could preach a clear message. He didn't quote the pagan poets and then hoped everybody would "get it".

I might use the Ring in the Lord of the Rings as an intro for a message on sin (doubtfully, but for the sake of discussion)... but I wouldn't show the movie and sit back hoping everybody would suddenly understand sin... and anything I said about sin, I would back with the scriptures, not with the movie.

 

[bleechers]

they were also used to reveal the truth to others

To whom? I already said that believers can understand them. My point is that are not meant for either the lost or for those who have rejected the clear gospel... besides, Jesus' message was different than the message we preach.

And despite his frequent use of parables, Jesus seemed to have quite the growing following.

Most of whom had absolutely no idea what He was talking about. I sem to recall the vast majority eventually screaming "we have no King but Caesar!".

 

[Andyman_1970]

I might use the Ring in the Lord of the Rings as an intro for a message on sin (doubtfully, but for the sake of discussion)... but I wouldn't show the movie and sit back hoping everybody would suddenly understand sin... and anything I said about sin, I would back with the scriptures, not with the movie.

I totally agree. The only way we know these statements from either in our case these movies or in Paul's case are true is that we measure them against the Word of God.

 

[Gold Dragon]

To whom? I already said that believers can understand them. My point is that are not meant for either the lost or for those who have rejected the clear gospel... .

So how did those believers actually become believers if Jesus' teachings wasn't what drew them to the truth? Weren't they lost to begin with? Were there people like you around who gave them the "right" presentation of the gospel?

besides, Jesus' message was different than the message we preach

Really? Interesting. I consider myself a Christian who preaches Jesus' good news. What message are you preaching?

 

[bleechers]

So how did those believers actually become believers if they weren't lost to begin with and Jesus' teachings wasn't what drew them to the truth? Where there people like you around who gave them the "right" presentation of the gospel?

Getting a bit surly are we?

The ones who believed are the one who had accepted Jesus message of the Kingdom that He was preaching clearly... before Matthew 13. After Matt 12, to those that had REJECTED the CLEAR message, He spoke to them in Parables as a judgment.

If you'll notice in Matt 13, Jesus pulls aside the disciples and explains the first parable. To those who believe the light they have been given, they will be given more light... to those who rejected the light of Israel (Jesus their King), they were given darkness.

In John 17, the disciples in the upper room are relieved because there Jesus spoke "plainly" to them.

Really? Interesting. I consider myself a Christian who preaches Jesus' good news. What message are you preaching?

In short: Do you tell people to do as the Pharisees say for they sit in the seat of Moses? Do you tell people to offer the sacrifices commanded by Moses in the Law?

No. We preach the Good News of Christ, we do not, however, preach the same message he preached. We don't promise a Kingdom on earth. We're not building a Kingdom on earth. Jesus preached a message to Israel ("Go not unto the cities of the Gentiles"; "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." etc.).

What He preached we learn from and teach from, but we must be careful not to take what He meant for Israel and apply to anyone else.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Getting a bit surly are we?

The ones who had accepted Jesus message of the Kingdom that He was preaching clearly in before Matthew 13. After they had REJECTED the CLEAR message, He spoke to them in Parables as a judgment.

If you'll notice in Matt 13, Jesus pulls aside the disciples and explains the first parable. To those who believe the light they have been given, they will be given more light... to those who rejected the light of Israel (Jesus their King), they were given darkness.

In John 17, the disciples in the upper room are relieved because there Jesus spoke "plainly" to them.?

I sure hope they were believers by the time they were in the upper room. All this shows is that sometimes Jesus speaks plainly and sometimes he doesn't. I would argue that Jesus never preaches the complete gospel "plainly" to the twelve and yet they go on to change the world and build the church.

In short: Do you tell people to do as the Pharisees say for they sit in the seat of Moses? Do you tell people to offer the sacrifices commanded by Moses in the Law?

I would speak as Jesus did to Pharisees if I were speaking to modern day Pharisees. Some are disguised as Baptists.

No. We preach the Good News of Christ, we do not, however, preach the same message he preached. We don't promise a Kingdom on earth. We're not building a Kingdom on earth. Jesus preached a message to Israel ("Go not unto the cities of the Gentiles"; "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." etc.).

What He preached we learn from and teach from, but we must be careful not to take what He meant for Israel and apply to anyone else.

In one fell swoop, dispensationalism has dismissed most of Jesus' teachings as irrelevant to our gospel message. You guys are worse than the Jesus Seminar. Kidding BTW.

 

[bleechers]

I would speak as Jesus did to Pharisees if I were speaking to modern day Pharisees. Some are disguised as Baptists.

Aha! But in all the examples I gave (re: His commands), He was not speaking to the Pharisees!

I would argue that Jesus never preaches the complete gospel "plainly" to the twelve and yet they go on to change the world and build the church.

Agreed. He even tells them that He is not telling them everything.

So I ask, if you want to follow Jesus' lead, do you then "never" preach the complete gospel? If you concede (a) that Jesus did not preach the complete gospel and (b) that Paul did and commanded us to do the same... then you must conclude that we are actually not preaching the same message Jesus preached, are we?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Aha! But in both examples I gave, He was not speaking to the Pharisees!

You got me. I had no idea where those examples were from and didn't bother searching. Where are they from?

Agreed. He even tells them that He is not telling them everything.

I agree. My argument isn't that we should preach completely in parable like Jesus did because plain teaching is often easier to understand for some. But insisting that we only preach "plainly" is the other extreme which wasn't even the case for the twelve apostles.

So I ask, if you want to follow Jesus' lead, do you then "never" preach the complete gospel? If you concede (a) that Jesus did not preach the complete gospel and (b) that Paul did and commanded us to the same... then you must conclude that we actually not preaching the message Jesus preached, are we :razz

I am preaching the same message that Jesus preached. Just not in the same style or with the exact same words. I use a style and words that are more conducive to understanding in this generation and a style that is more plain than the style that he used. The message is the same.

I'm not sure why you insist on making everything a command that somehow we must follow legalistically. Whatever happened to freedom in Christ?