Today’s post continues with a study of John 8, not included in the three-year Lectionary for public worship in Catholic and mainline Protestant churches.
As such, this chapter qualifies as part of my ongoing Forbidden Bible Verses series, which contains readings which are also essential to understanding Scripture.
Today’s reading comes from the King James Version with commentary by Matthew Henry.
38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
——————————————————————————-
In last week’s post, the Pharisees continued debating Jesus after the Feast of Tabernacles in the Court of the Women, where the temple treasury was located.
After Jesus told them that ‘the truth shall make you free’ (John 8:32), they invoked Abraham (John 8:33):
They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
Jesus calls them out on their false claim (John 8:37):
I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Essentially, He is saying that from a lineage point of view, yes, technically, they are descended from Abraham. However, the fact that they seek to kill Him shows that what He is saying as God’s Son has no meaning to them at all.
The discussion continues in today’s verses. Jesus will prove that the Jewish hierarchy and He are of two different spiritual families, with two different fathers. This begins in verse 38, where Jesus says that He speaks of what God the Father has shown Him whereas the hierarchy follow in the footsteps of their father.
Once more, they invoke Abraham (verse 39). This discussion is not unlike the one Jesus had with the hierarchy in John 5 after He had healed the man at Bethesda. His opponents invoked Mosaic Law and claimed that it forbade Jews working on the Sabbath, to which Jesus replied (John 5:46-47):
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
In both instances, Jesus is telling them that if they really did revere their lineage — that of Abraham and Moses — then they would understand His words. However, it is plain that they do not. Abraham sought to do God’s will. Surely, then, when God’s Son appears among His Chosen, should they not listen, understand and obey what He says?
Jesus points out that they want to kill Him because He speaks the truth as He received it from His heavenly Father (verse 40): Abraham would never have behaved like the Pharisees.
In verse 41, we see that Jesus is close to delivering a hard truth to them: ‘You do the deeds of your father’. This implies that their father is not His Father, despite their objection when they say that they were not born of fornication, so, they, too, claim God as Father. ‘Fornication’ in Scripture is sometimes used in a spiritual as well as a sexual sense. The same is true of ‘adultery’ and ‘adulterous’, which sometimes refer to ‘idolatry’ and ‘idolatrous’.
Matthew Henry explains (emphases mine) and indicates the selective memory the Pharisees have of their ancestors (as recorded in the Old Testament):
(1.) Some understand this literally. They were not the sons of the bondwoman, as the Ishmaelites were; nor begotten in incest, as the Moabites and Ammonites were (Deu. 23:3); nor were they a spurious brood in Abraham’s family, but Hebrews of the Hebrews; and, being born in lawful wedlock, they might call God Father, who instituted that honourable estate in innocency; for a legitimate seed, not tainted with divorces nor the plurality of wives, is called a seed of God, Mal. 2:15.
(2.) Others take it figuratively. They begin to be aware now that Christ spoke of a spiritual not a carnal father, of the father of their religion; and so,
[1.] They deny themselves to be a generation of idolaters: “We are not born of fornication, are not the children of idolatrous parents, nor have been bred up in idolatrous worships.” Idolatry is often spoken of as spiritual whoredom, and idolaters as children of whoredoms, Hosea 2:4; Isa. 57:3. Now, if they meant that they were not the posterity of idolaters, the allegation was false, for no nation was more addicted to idolatry than the Jews before the captivity; if they meant no more than that they themselves were not idolaters, what then? A man may be free from idolatry, and yet perish in another iniquity, and be shut out of Abraham’s covenant. If thou commit no idolatry (apply it to this spiritual fornication), yet if thou kill thou art become a transgressor of the covenant. A rebellious prodigal son will be disinherited, though he be not born of fornication.
[2.] They boast themselves to be true worshippers of the true God. We have not many fathers, as the heathens had, gods many and lords many, and yet were without God, as filius populi-a son of the people, has many fathers and yet none certain; no, the Lord our God is one Lord and one Father, and therefore it is well with us. Note, Those flatter themselves, and put a damning cheat upon their own souls, who imagine that their professing the true religion and worshipping the true God will save them, though they worship not God in spirit and in truth, nor are true to their profession. Now our Saviour gives a full answer to this fallacious plea (v. 42, 43), and proves, by two arguments, that they had no right to call God Father.
Reading these exchanges between Jesus and His detractors helps clarify St James’s Epistles with regard to faith and works. It is not enough to say, ‘Hey, I believe, I’m saved — I’ve been baptised, I receive the Sacrament’. No, our faith must also bear the beautiful fruits of obedience and holiness, through a spontaneous desire to do God’s will. That is not a matter of following a checklist of behaviours nor is it coasting along in life doing nothing which makes our faith manifest to others. Otherwise, we are no better than the scribes and Pharisees.
The Pharisees’ objection edges Jesus closer to revealing who their true father is. Jesus tells them that if God were truly their Father, they would surely recognise Him as God’s Son (verse 42). Furthermore, He tells them that they do not understand what He is saying because they cannot hear it (verse 43). They have blocked their minds; they will not hear and, as a result, refuse to understand what He has to say.
If this sounds familiar, it is. We read similar verses in His discussion with them after the Bethesda healing:
37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. (John 5:37-38)
Also:
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? (John 5:42-44)
Read those last three verses once more. Jesus returns to this point in verse 44 and tells the Pharisees the blunt truth. He says they are the Devil’s children and do the deeds — lies and murder — which they learned from him! The Pharisees are uttering lies and soon they will be complicit in murder. If you’ve been following this series or know John’s Gospel, this evil act is mooted in:
John 5:16, after the healing at Bethesda: ‘And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day’.
John 5:18: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
However, Jesus is also accusing the Pharisees of murdering the souls of the ordinary Jews over whom they exercise spiritual control.
Henry draws comparisons between families. A hard-working, God-fearing father who is close to his family tends to instil the same traits in his own children. In contrast, a ne’er-do-well who cheats and defrauds people tends to produce children who gladly imitate his example.
And it does appear as if the Pharisees are rather relishing these exchanges in spreading lies and contemplating how they can put an end to the Son of God. They are displaying ‘the lusts of’ their ‘father’.
Henry unpacks Jesus’s accusation:
You are of your father the devil, v. 44. If they were not God’s children, they were the devil’s, for God and Satan divide the world of mankind; the devil is therefore said to work in the children of disobedience, Eph. 2:2. All wicked people are the devil’s children, children of Belial (2 Co. 6:15), the serpent’s seed (Gen. 3:15), children of the wicked one, Mt. 13:38. They partake of his nature, bear his image, obey his commands, and follow his example. Idolaters said to a stock, Thou art our father, Jer. 2:27.
This is a high charge, and sounds very harsh and horrid, that any of the children of men, especially the church’s children, should be called children of the devil, and therefore our Saviour fully proves it.
1. By a general argument: The lusts of your father you will do, thelete poiein. (1.) “You do the devil’s lusts, the lusts which he would have you to fulfil; you gratify and please him, and comply with his temptation, and are led captive by him at his will: nay, you do those lusts which the devil himself fulfils.” Fleshly lusts and worldly lusts the devil tempts men to; but, being a spirit, he cannot fulfil them himself. The peculiar lusts of the devil are spiritual wickedness; the lusts of the intellectual powers, and their corrupt reasonings; pride and envy, and wrath and malice; enmity to that which is good, and enticing others to that which is evil; these are lusts which the devil fulfils, and those who are under the dominion of these lusts resemble the devil, as the child does the parent. The more there is of contemplation, and contrivance, and secret complacency, in sin, the more it resembles the lusts of the devil. (2.) You will do the devil’s lusts. The more there is of the will in these lusts, the more there is of the devil in them. When sin is committed of choice and not by surprise, with pleasure and not with reluctancy, when it is persisted in with a daring presumption and a desperate resolution, like theirs that said, We have loved strangers and after them we will go, then the sinner will do the devil’s lusts. “The lusts of your father you delight to do;” so Dr. Hammond; they are rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel.
2. By two particular instances, wherein they manifestly resembled the devil-murder and lying. The devil is an enemy to life, because God is the God of life and life is the happiness of man; and an enemy to truth, because God is the God of truth and truth is the bond of human society.
(1.) He was a murderer from the beginning, not from his own beginning, for he was created an angel of light, and had a first estate which was pure and good, but from the beginning of his apostasy, which was soon after the creation of man. He was anthroµpoktonos-homicida, a man-slayer. [1.] He was a hater of man, and so in affection an disposition a murderer of him. He has his name, Satan, from sitnah-hatred. He maligned God’s image upon man, envied his happiness, and earnestly desired his ruin, was an avowed enemy to the whole race. [2.] He was man’s tempter to that sin which brought death into the world, and so he was effectually the murderer of all mankind, which in Adam had but one neck. He was a murderer of souls, deceived them into sin, and by it slew them (Rom. 7:11), poisoned man with the forbidden fruit, and, to aggravate the matter, made him his own murderer. Thus he was not only at the beginning, but from the beginning, which intimates that thus he has been ever since; as he began, so he continues, the murderer of men by his temptations. The great tempter is the great destroyer. The Jews called the devil the angel of death. [3.] He was the first wheel in the first murder that ever was committed by Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother, 1 Jn. 3:12. If the devil had not been very strong in Cain, he could not have done such an unnatural thing as to kill his own brother. Cain killing his brother by the instigation of the devil, the devil is called the murderer, which does not speak Cain’s personal guilt the less, but the devil’s the more, whose torments, we have reason to think, will be the greater, when the time comes, for all that wickedness into which he has drawn men. See what reason we have to stand upon our guard against the wiles of the devil, and never to hearken to him (for he is a murderer, and certainly aims to do us mischief, even when he speaks fair), and to wonder that he who is the murderer of the children of men should yet be, by their own consent, so much their master. Now herein these Jews were followers of him, and were murderers, like him; murderers of souls, which they led blindfold into the ditch, and made the children of hell; sworn enemies of Christ, and now ready to be his betrayers and murderers, for the same reason that Cain killed Abel. These Jews were that seed of the serpent that were to bruise the heel of the seed of the woman; Now you seek to kill me.
In verse 45, Jesus laments that He has been telling the Pharisees the raw, unvarnished truth and they refuse to listen. He then asks them to convince Him of his so-called sins and alleged violations of Mosaic Law (verse 46). Note that Jesus’s arguments are always better than theirs. We have read this throughout the Gospel of John. The scribes and Pharisees can only put up empty accusations with no concrete arguments to support them. They are relying on the lazy, perverse, adversarial principle of ‘throw enough mud and it will stick’.
Once again, Jesus asks them why they do not believe Him when He is clearly telling the truth and has been all along. And he also repeats that if they were children of God, they would surely hear Jesus’s words as God’s own (verse 47).
These verses hearken back to John 3:18-21:
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
31He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
32And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
And John 3:36:
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Those among the clergy and laity who see universalism or temporary punishment in the final day of judgment really should study this Gospel closely. More verses from John to support our necessary and salvific faith in Christ can be found here.
Next week: John 8:48-59
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 17, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Robert Hickok
I was just reading this yesterday while waiting in a line. I had a little tract sized NIV John.
It struck me while taking in these verses anew: what were the Pharisees thinking at this point? I can’t help but wonder if some of them were cut deeply by Christ’s words. But many of them at the time did not give in, rather they must have, with great anguish, turned away from the dialogue. Probably wrenched themselves almost physically from the choice before them to return to their murderous shcemes of false teaching and hypocrisy.
And we could guess that some of these were doubly wounded at Peter’s sermon in Acts. Enough that they could not bear it (“cut to the heart”) and repented.
I keep thinking about how that must’ve been for them, those who turned away and those who finally repented. It must have been a peculiar agony for both.
But one thing is most poignant. Those who turned ’round and believed at Peter’s proclamation must, more than many, many after them, have seen an immensity in their belief, in the realization of Christ’s work and assumption of His throne.
Surely it was a significant contribution to the great power with which the Gospel spread in the first churches. Those thousands who were made disciples could probably witness to the intensity of the change in the priests who repented. Much like Paul?
That’s reason to Glorify God. May the same sort of thing happen to our faithless preachers. May they be cut to the quick with these words of Christ and see their error.
October 17, 2011 at 8:57 pm
churchmouse
Well, we’ll see next week, so I don’t want to say too much.
But when another group of scribes and Pharisees confronted Jesus after the healing at Bethesda, they were so obtuse, so proud that they couldn’t understand what He was telling them. Matthew Henry comments on the Jewish reaction following the miracle (linked in my post):
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/forbidden-bible-verses-john-51-17/
See what John MacArthur says here (also linked in the post):
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/forbidden-bible-verses-john-531-47/
This theme is also mentioned in John 7:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/forbidden-bible-verses-john-71-13/
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/forbidden-bible-verses-john-725-36/
And see John MacArthur on the beginning of John 8:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/forbidden-bible-verses-john-81-11/
Also:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/forbidden-bible-verses-john-821-30/
They didn’t need saving — they were so self-righteous and so notionally ‘holy’! It doesn’t seem they felt any remorse.
Interesting that you mention faithless preachers — I had the same thought writing when this up!
October 18, 2011 at 7:32 am
jameshigham
Gentlemen
I’ve chosen this thread as appropriate to continue the saga of the 6 year old Muslim and Christianity, as this has less comments to go through to find it, because it is a problematic issue [and I'll come back to the forbidden verses this afternoon when I give my report on how it went today] and also because it is nearer the top and more easily found.
For anyone outside, the url was:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/western-nationsa-possible-outcome-for-our-immediate-future/
Frankly, I got almost nowhere and believe I was meant to get nowhere. I don’t believe I was meant to give urls for the lady to go to because much of it was flawed theology. I’ve done much praying on this and am getting the feeling that the words are going to be put into my mouth when I get there.
That might alarm you but it might not alarm the Lord, as He has provided your own urls in the last two days and I’ll take them along with me on paper. The basics for a 6 yr old are not difficult and they’ve been stated.
The difficulty is with myself. I have made a quantum shift these past two days on the questions of Original Sin and of Sacrifice. This thing gets more and more complicated as it goes along and as I read Irenaeus and Augustine.
Essentially, I always accepted the Augustinian and therefore Catholic definition for want of any other and yet, in Russia all the time I was there, was another definition:
Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind (see also traducianism), but never accepted Augustine of Hippo’s notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.
I’m very close to this – that something obviously happened, that a step in the wrong direction was taken and that Man’s nature was altered for the worse [maybe even his genetic code or soul code, we can't know], even that this has come down to us today.
The notion though of a newborn babe who dies going to hell because he was not physically baptized into the church I have much trouble with.
I do like the notion of purgatory, not because it excuses – go sin, priest absolves, go sin again – but because it takes into account the innocents and I do believe that has been factored in by the Lord somehow. I don’t need to believe in Purgatory, only that the innocents are taken care of.
The Sacrifice is the other problematic area but enough for now because I have to get read to go up town.
Thanks for your patience.
James
October 18, 2011 at 8:32 am
churchmouse
Thanks, James, for resuming on here and for your post.
First, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Those URLs were for you to read to help you come up with a message to give to her and to be aware of Muslim arguments against Christianity. My dozen or so points Sunday night were points to discuss with her to answer a question: ‘Why am I a Christian?’
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/western-nationsa-possible-outcome-for-our-immediate-future/#comment-4762
We attempted to choose the most biblically correct URLs. I also attempted to get my points about the life of Christ as biblically correct as possible. So, it’s puzzling why you would have said these were flawed theology.
This isn’t a criticism, just a comment: I’m not sure about the URLs (which I didn’t read in full, just skimmed a few salient topics) but I never mentioned Original Sin or unbaptised babies going to Hell. My points — which I believed to be positive and easy-to-follow as a narrative of redemption — focused on Jesus’s life, death, resurrection, ascension and the arrival of the Holy Spirit to guide us. On Original Sin — Muslims also think that humans are sinful. On that point, I would have said, ‘Man is inherently prone to sin’ and left it at that for now. What you are discussing with this person (’6 years old’ perhaps a typo?) concerns Christianity, ergo, Christ is the message to convey.
Debates go on all the time in the Western denominations about the unbaptised infant going to Hell. That is another topic which can wait. For those unexplained circumstances, all I would say is that God, our Creator, in His infinite wisdom and grace handles the situation. We do not know what happens. Furthermore, our ways are not God’s ways.
We use the Sacrament of Baptism to bring the infant into the Christian community as soon as possible. (Some denominations believe that Baptism absolves Original Sin (my POV) and others believe it is more of an obligation to bring and bless the child into a wider Church family.)
On death, lesser sinners will go to Heaven but those who persistently reject Jesus and His Father will suffer eternal torment. The Bible does not mention Purgatory.
If you read this before you see this enquirer, please feel free to come back with any questions. I am disappointed that you found we didn’t give you good information. You have a great starting point with your own points; our add-ons were to help you answer any other points she might have and to give you some preparation for possible objections from her. We didn’t hear from you yesterday, which understandably, was due to work. Subsequent edit: If you are able, it might help to take a Bible with you, as Muslims appreciate seeing where a belief appears in the Bible. They use the same method with the Koran, quoting, then showing the person where the verse is.
We hope that all goes well this afternoon and shall await your report. The grace of God and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit will help you to say the right things in defence of our faith. Keep it positive and try not to get bogged down in difficult theological issues.
Jesus Christ is our Redeemer whom God sent to save us from sin and bring us to eternal life with Him. It’s a beautiful message of hope.
October 18, 2011 at 9:29 am
jameshigham
My dozen or so points Sunday night were points to discuss with her to answer a question: ‘Why am I a Christian?’
Got that. I just didn’t explain well enough.
I am disappointed that you found we didn’t give you good information.
Again it was my explanation here – you gave more than enough good information, too much in fact and it set me thinking [I'm smiling, not frowning whilst writing this]. This is a most valuable time and thanks. Sorry if it came across as negative earlier – just thinking out loud.
So, I’m now off up town and we’ll see what happens.
October 18, 2011 at 9:57 am
churchmouse
Phew, that’s a relief! We’ll await your news!
October 18, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Robert Hickok
Ditto.
October 18, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Robert Hickok
The last couple of White Horse Inn podcasts are well worth the listen, folks:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/10/09/whi-1070-christianity-the-new-liberalism/
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/10/16/whi-1071-give-them-grace/
The first you can certainly guess. The second is really sweet. Even if you don’t have kids, the Gospel message is so well communicated here. James, you might find it useful in your dialogue. I just bought the book and am very impatient to read it (specially since I have 4 young-uns in the house).
Here are two more: http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/surprised-by-grace – The Gospel again, RS Clark interviewing Tchividjian.
And: http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/preaching-christ – Yet another good one on the Gospel.
Mouse, if you’re a big fan of Clark, this is where you’ll get your best round with him, @ Office Hours.
October 18, 2011 at 1:33 pm
churchmouse
Thanks for the links! I’d love to read the transcripts, though I doubt they are available — unfortunately, I don’t really have the time for lengthy audio or video, so generally avoid them.
October 18, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Robert Hickok
Lamentably, most of these won’t have transcripts. Mohler’s Thinking In Public often does. On the good side, Office Hours is about 30 minutes, so if you get stuck someplace (bus or waiting line) you can get through one.
Had I the time, I’d comment or maybe even transcribe some of these for you guys. Maybe I can try to bring something out of them.
These interviews have one theme in common that I would yell from the rooftops. The Gospel is what we must maintain in our minds day in and day out. We must return to what Christ has done for us, the grace we have received over and over again. Sin has no hold on us because of this and this alone – not ever because of our law-keeping obedience. The Gospel changes us and a consistently improving understanding of that Gospel is what drives us to a greater conformity to Jesus’ nature. There isn’t a self-help book or “practical sermon” in the world that will do a bit of good for us if we don’t consume the message of righteousness and salvation through Christ alone. It’s that important.
Most of you will probably identify with that “on-fire” condition of a new believer. And then it fizzles out, doesn’t it? We start off like finely tuned racing cars but end up in very short time as beat up clunkers that sometimes look fine on the outside but run quite poorly.
This is absolutely because the Gospel is what set us off in the first place. And then, assuming we had our start, failed to receive that continuous maintenance that is the only thing that keeps us going. Negatively said: we don’t get the Gospel, and then become lawkeepers. We get the Gospel and then keep getting the Gospel. Lawkeeping is Christ’s forte, not ours and it never will be.
So as we grow in our understanding of what Christ is and what He has done, we will, without doubt, increase in our godliness, but as the Scripture says “not me but Christ in me” – That’s His Gospel working, not our hard study in the Law.
It’s why the Roman Catholic cannot survive – he is trapped in a loop of doing without any added fuel. Confession is great but the Gospel is greater. Sacraments are vital, but the Gospel is so much more that Sacraments are rendered pointless without it.
And it’s why the mainliner cannot survive – he is trapped in a loop of doing the same as the RC. Therapy and pep-talks will not serve him for he does not have the Gospel. And he doesn’t even have sacraments, so we can forget the essential symbols of Christ’s sacrifice. If the Gospel is not preached and heard, all that remains in one’s life, if anything, is the Law, which produces rebellion, hypocrisy and desperation.
There you go, guys. This distilled from about 2 hours of audio downloads from White Horse Inn and WSCAL Office Hours this week. God bless!
October 18, 2011 at 2:46 pm
churchmouse
Thank you very much, Robert, for this excellent precis!
October 18, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Robert Hickok
I am sad that I can’t do these guys justice. They said it far better than I can. Hearing these back to back really moved me yesterday and then I heard yet another on the way to work.
October 18, 2011 at 2:59 pm
jameshigham
Very strange events. When I got there, there were all sorts of people in from the Turkish community and discussion at that point was impossible. One of the helper’s daughters was helping and that, in turn, meant that a dozen of her 15 year old friends came in and ate. I think you get the idea.
There were three quiet minutes at the end and it was agreed I’d email a text she could use for the boy and many theological links for her use. She and husband seemed quite interested. I’ve work meetings tomorrow which I’m preparing for today [plus blog scheduling] but I am going to write the first part today and might run it past you if you were interested.
I asked what the time frame was and in terms of the school, it’s passed but in terms of what she tells the boy, who seems really interested just now, I’d say there are a few days, certainly no later than Thursday.
Inconclusive but gives space to think and write.
October 18, 2011 at 3:19 pm
churchmouse
Thanks for the prompt update, James. Yes, we would be most interested to see what you come up with and would look forward to reading it!
I’m just a bit confused. I thought at the weekend that this was for the mother, then saw ’6 year old’ today. (If that was in your earlier posts, I do apologise for having missed it.) So, it seems to have been for a school project? (Is it a state school?) If so, that takes a bit of pressure off you.
A bit of an advanced topic for a teacher to assign to a class of six year olds, it would seem. Hmm.
Are the parents really requesting the information for themselves and using the boy as cover? (Possibly, as the child seems positively disposed towards learning more, so he must know a little bit about our faith already?) If so, that would be wonderful.
Good luck with catching up on work this afternoon!
October 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Robert Hickok
Yes, Good luck, James. I also wonder if the boy is the only one interested.
October 23, 2011 at 3:58 am
jameshigham
Just looked at this and found it interesting and valid:
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=584&var3=main
It is evident, therefore, that in the short interval between the death of Jesus and the first Christian preaching, something had happened. Something must have happened to explain the transformation of those weak, discouraged men into the spiritual conquerors of the world. Whatever that happening was, it is the greatest event in history. An event is measured by its consequences-and that event has transformed the world.
October 23, 2011 at 4:23 am
churchmouse
Yes, the Crucifixion and Resurrection — the main points for evangelism and historical events — followed by the Holy Spirit on the first Pentecost, considered to be the Church’s birthday, enabling the 12 Apostles to go about their work bringing souls to Christ. (Not sure about the Pharisees, though. Once Christ leaves someone or an institution, that’s it.)
Machen (whose article you have cited) is excellent — I serialised Christianity and Liberalism, his 1923 book, earlier this year (see my Christianity / Apologetics page). An excellent volume which answers many questions.
October 25, 2011 at 5:41 am
Pooka
I finally got hold of Machen. He’s next on my reading list. Have to finish one book tonight. Can’t wait to crack this one.
James, good reading. I enjoy Modern Reformation too. Really good. Monergism and MR are probably two of the best.
I can recommend a book to you, one that is fresh and easy to read. Look up The World Tilting Gospel by Dan Phillips. It’s the whole mess in plain English. Not tediously long and has some pretty comprehensive exposition of the really important stuff.
October 25, 2011 at 5:42 am
Pooka
Oh, sorry for the name change. I hacked up my WordPress and now that’s how I’m tagged. Still the same me.
October 28, 2011 at 10:40 am
churchmouse
Sorry, Robert, for the late reply! I’ll look into Dan Phillips, although I find him a bit pusillanimous on Pyromaniacs. He doesn’t appear to be terribly winsome (and is a bit of a watchdog for Frank ‘Open Letter’ Turk
.)
Let me know how you like Machen!
October 28, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Pooka
You’ll find his book quite sincere and un-pusillanimous (but still with the wit and quirk). I’m not hugely fond of the Pyro-scene anymore because of the tone (therefore I keep my yap shut).
I already do, and I haven’t opened the book. I have read a bunch about or by Machen that already impress. I decided to take a break from heavy stuff for a few days, however, since I went from Theonomy to Phillips with a bunch of research in between (assurance, LDS church, stuff like that). I’m reading some Sir Terry Pratchett for fun and to shake off the gloom.
October 28, 2011 at 3:51 pm
churchmouse
In your opinion — just from your observations — do you think Phillips and Turk are attracted to theonomy? I just got that impression from reading their blog and some of the comments in the past few months.
October 28, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Pooka
I do not think so. Almost-Sola Pietas – almost as painful as theonomy – appears to be in the mix instead.
My impression is that the “Lordship Salvation” emphasis has been round the block at the Team Pyro part of town for a long time (or at least that which hails from MacArthur, going by the theme). Obedience and discipline are very high on the list there, in contrast to – this is just my opine here – the grace-Gospel-resting theme that comes out of Westminster/White-Horse-Inn and the Reformed circles I attend to here in town.
October 28, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Pooka
I made that up. Haha. ASP: Almost Sola Pietas. Silly me.
October 28, 2011 at 6:59 pm
churchmouse
Yes, that’s one of the grey areas around MacArthur. He says that wasn’t what his beliefs were/are about, yet sometimes he can be rather Arminian / Wesleyan in the ‘works’ / ‘holiness’ category.
The only one I really enjoy reading and who offers any glimmer of hope in Christ is Phil Johnson, who works at MacArthur’s Grace To You Ministries. (Robert — I realise you know this, but I’m inserting extra info for other readers.) Johnson is the one who comes up with the Spurgeon quotes and sermons.
I’m never sure how the three Pyros fit together. Johnson seems to be far above the rest. Phillips and Turk seem much more yoked together. That goes as far as commenters, too. Johnson seems to know how to handle them better than the other two. (Unfortunately, for that reason, I shall not be spending money on Mr Phillips’s book.)
October 28, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Pooka
Good comments, Mouse. I agree. I’ve enjoyed Johnson’s speeches and sermons quite a bit.
Just wish we could all get along in the Covenant Theology thing. The Dispy-v-CT war sucks.
October 28, 2011 at 11:55 pm
churchmouse
Yes, such is our inherent depravity combined with a bit of Satan’s meddling as well in the Works Dept.
November 1, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Pooka
James, I’ve encountered a resource that may prove most useful to you. There’s some audio listening required, but I think it’s well worth it. So here’s some excellent help with your muslim adventures:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/10/23/whi-1072-a-christian-mission-in-a-muslim-world/
http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/to-the-church-in-smyrna-the-story-of-fikret-bocek
Both of these are interviews of the same person, but they contain some complementing information that makes both informative. Enjoy!