It is important that people understand the values that underly what I am trying to do. For me the values that are important when discussing the word holy are the following. They are: biblical, renewal, spiritual and natural. I intend when I write to not violate any one of these four values.
The biblical value means in sum the 66 books of the Book that I grew up with are what I regard as God's Word and nothing more or nothing less than all 66 of them. Each of the 66 make up a portion of God's Word that stands out from other writings. All of them together are normnative and get special attention that none of the others gets.
The renewal value means that collectively all periods of time and people are connected together. Our values are not just made up of the past and being traditional. But neither is it just the future and being futuristic. Renewal means what it says. There is a past, because it happens again, there is a present because it is happening now and there is a future because it includes all. Renewal means that I am connected collectively with my Greatgrandmother, my Grandfather, my mother and others before them. But I also expect to see new believers now and in the future. Our faith should stretch to all periods of time. Not just the past or the present or the future is normnative.
The spiritual value means that the activity of life is produced not by the flesh but by the Spirit. We are otherwise spiritually dead, even though we walk around apparently alive. That is until we are truly born again of the Spirit. So while I think an unbeliever can read correctly a passage of Scripture and explain its meaning, it still does not mean that they are alive and that they have the Spirit. The significance of bringing life is not yet recognized by them.
The natural value that I oppose objects or things contrary to nature. We sing that this is my Father's world and we say that it is God's creation. I take both very seriously. I thoroughly believe that His handwriting is on His handiwork. He reveals Himself in nature. So to go contrary to what is natural is dangerous. A vase of clay is an object made of the material of clay. We need to learn from the materials that God has used and the objects He has made from those materials. We need this value as well as the others.
I went through a very difficult time as a Christian when I tried to live by just the principal of Scripture (Bible) Alone. It isolated me from others and so undervalued renewal the most. Commentaries from the past and present couldn't be used to uphold biblical purity. Yet Luther never avoided the collective connection with other believers. The values of spiritual and natural were diminished. The whole experience propelled me much later to the values above, yet without diminishing the value I placed on the Bible. I still am happily a "chapter and verse" child of my parents.
I just wanted to lay out these values for those who wondered what they are. Much of what I use for communication is based on what I have learned from nature when it comes to communication. It is based on the solid study of language. We live in a day when the changes in transportation have brought distant places close. We also live in a day when changes in the means of communication have brought distant times close. Space and time technologies have altered our understanding of communication for the better. I hope you can see that I value nature in this regard and also renewal.
I think we should use our advanced understandings and also the understandings of the past that we now have in our possession that we did not in the past. We now understand language much like they did in 5th/6th century B.C. This is something that would have been likely inaccessible to Luther. Will we use our renewed understanding to our advantage? That is my challenge to all of us.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Friday, June 05, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Holy Means Whole: According to the Ten Views of Sanctification
How could your title be true you might ask? If there are ten views, how could you propose one view? It is because the ten views show the failure of the meaning of separation to unite Christians around one common view. I think that a viewpoint’s failure may point to the other’s success, though not by itself. It at least adds credibility to the idea of holy means whole.
Also I might mention that it might be more accurate to say somewhere between five and ten views, but I wanted a simple title. There are two key books showing the diversity of opinion.
One is Donald L. Alexander’s Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification. The other is Five Views on Sanctification. This is where I get the idea of ten views, but there is overlap.
In Christian Spirituality, there are the Reformed, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Pentecostal and Contemplative views that are represented. The authors for each in order are Sinclair Ferguson, Gerhard Forde, Laurence Wood, Russell Spittler and E. Glen Hinson. In Five Views on Sanctification, there are in somewhat parallel order, the Reformed, Augustinian-Dispensational, Wesleyan, Pentecostal and Keswick views that are represented. The authors for each in order are Anthony Hoekema, John Walvoort, Melvin Dieter, Stanley Horton and J. Robert McQuilkin. So you could say seven views and ten authors to be the most accurate.
Before I go further I want to clarify a very important point. My gift mix does not make me the scholar that these gentlemen are. I respect all ten of them as scholars and some of them have educated me in the things that I know. Yet my gift mix does include that of teacher.
Let me explain the difference. Jesus was a teacher, but while He may have also been an expert in the law, He never refers to Himself that way. On the other hand in Luke 10, we find him discussing things with an expert in the law. In that passage in Luke 10:25-37, Jesus defines the expert in the law as one who knows what is written in the law and he defines the teacher as one who knows how to read it. He asks: “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” I think the first question is what experts ought to know, even if they are not great teachers. I think the second question is what teachers ought to know, even if they are not great experts. I think Jesus worded his two questions the way he did, because of the expert’s role and because of his role in this story.
My role is not that of expert. I am not the most knowledgeable in “what” questions. In college, I turned down a pretty good job offer thinking it involved too much detail for me. What I did not understand is that it would not require me so much to be an expert, as to teach how I read what is written. That I could have been good at, but unfortunately I missed that opportunity.
Now I know that I am a person equipped with the gift of teaching, but not necessarily that of knowledge or expertise. These ten men can beat me in that area. But when I read their material, I think I see something others may miss in reading. I see the same basic idea for the definition of holy as being that of separation. I do not read the same thing there that I read in Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Wesley(?) and Spurgeon. A new definition is being proposed by all ten men, when you read them.
Their failures to solve so many problems between themselves means maybe there is something wrong from the beginning. Maybe holy or sanctification are being defined wrongly. I know this may add only probability to the idea that holy means whole. But it adds more than that. It adds a great reason to read the previous experts of previous generations and see “what is written” in their pages that is not written now.
Happy reading to all of you. If you want to save some time, then feel free to read my other entries of quotes in my previous blog entries. I have many more quotes I wish I had time to already make available, but it will already give you a generous start. God’s riches blessings to you for reading.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Also I might mention that it might be more accurate to say somewhere between five and ten views, but I wanted a simple title. There are two key books showing the diversity of opinion.
One is Donald L. Alexander’s Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification. The other is Five Views on Sanctification. This is where I get the idea of ten views, but there is overlap.
In Christian Spirituality, there are the Reformed, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Pentecostal and Contemplative views that are represented. The authors for each in order are Sinclair Ferguson, Gerhard Forde, Laurence Wood, Russell Spittler and E. Glen Hinson. In Five Views on Sanctification, there are in somewhat parallel order, the Reformed, Augustinian-Dispensational, Wesleyan, Pentecostal and Keswick views that are represented. The authors for each in order are Anthony Hoekema, John Walvoort, Melvin Dieter, Stanley Horton and J. Robert McQuilkin. So you could say seven views and ten authors to be the most accurate.
Before I go further I want to clarify a very important point. My gift mix does not make me the scholar that these gentlemen are. I respect all ten of them as scholars and some of them have educated me in the things that I know. Yet my gift mix does include that of teacher.
Let me explain the difference. Jesus was a teacher, but while He may have also been an expert in the law, He never refers to Himself that way. On the other hand in Luke 10, we find him discussing things with an expert in the law. In that passage in Luke 10:25-37, Jesus defines the expert in the law as one who knows what is written in the law and he defines the teacher as one who knows how to read it. He asks: “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” I think the first question is what experts ought to know, even if they are not great teachers. I think the second question is what teachers ought to know, even if they are not great experts. I think Jesus worded his two questions the way he did, because of the expert’s role and because of his role in this story.
My role is not that of expert. I am not the most knowledgeable in “what” questions. In college, I turned down a pretty good job offer thinking it involved too much detail for me. What I did not understand is that it would not require me so much to be an expert, as to teach how I read what is written. That I could have been good at, but unfortunately I missed that opportunity.
Now I know that I am a person equipped with the gift of teaching, but not necessarily that of knowledge or expertise. These ten men can beat me in that area. But when I read their material, I think I see something others may miss in reading. I see the same basic idea for the definition of holy as being that of separation. I do not read the same thing there that I read in Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Wesley(?) and Spurgeon. A new definition is being proposed by all ten men, when you read them.
Their failures to solve so many problems between themselves means maybe there is something wrong from the beginning. Maybe holy or sanctification are being defined wrongly. I know this may add only probability to the idea that holy means whole. But it adds more than that. It adds a great reason to read the previous experts of previous generations and see “what is written” in their pages that is not written now.
Happy reading to all of you. If you want to save some time, then feel free to read my other entries of quotes in my previous blog entries. I have many more quotes I wish I had time to already make available, but it will already give you a generous start. God’s riches blessings to you for reading.
In Christ,
Pastor Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
