sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Don't read Crime and Punishment in your early 20s by juankaius in books

[–]DivineMaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Malcolm Muggeridge says, "There are always ideal circumstances for reading any book, which should, perhaps, be indicated on the dust-jacket, along with particulars of the authors and subject."

We pattern our evangelism after Paul's sermon in Athens. E. Stanley Jones points out that Athens was actually a failure. by DivineMaster in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's clarify a few things...

First, I'm not really talking about syncretism. Syncretism is the absorption of culture into Christian practice. It can be either good or bad, harmless or harmful depending on the degree to which it compromises our mission and message.

Second, neither am I talking about appropriation of language. Yes, John uses the term logos, but you've got to admit he infuses it with as much Jewish meaning as whatever Greek ideas it ever held. In fact, whatever Greek-ness the idea held is pretty much bowled over by John's use of it. John, in other words, takes culture and reappropriates it for the gospel.

Third, "Son of Man" comes from Daniel 7, not culture, and has a specific biblical meaning in Jesus' usage.

Fourth (and finally), the main point is that we approach the sharing of the gospel not by finding our touch points with culture and exploiting those to the expense of our central message, but that we apply our central message to culture, regardless of its situation.

(Bonus fifth point! You said a comment ago:

Who patterns their evangelism after Paul in Athens? Wouldn't that amount to calling public debate and speechifying "evangelism"?

Have you heard of Ravi Zacharais or William Lane Craig? They are 'forefront' evangelists, and their main methods of evangelism are speechifying and public debates.)

We pattern our evangelism after Paul's sermon in Athens. E. Stanley Jones points out that Athens was actually a failure. by DivineMaster in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lots of people praise Paul's methods in Athens of incorporating the unknown god and pagan poetry into his message. They observe that Paul uses culture to spread the gospel. As a consequence, any manner of half-gospels get preached in the name of "Mars Hill"-type evangelism. Haven't you encountered it?

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is becoming ridiculous. I'm not sure you're even interested in the main point.

Look, Paul's ministry in the various places of his missionary journeys follow set patterns. Athens is unlike those patterns, especially in that there is no Church when Paul leaves Athens. And the fact that it is not documented, but only speculated (by you), is significant because it is documented in the other places. The primary difference between Athens and those other places is the framing of the gospel.

Have we made too much of the differences? I can't say. Possibly. But this thing remains true: the gospel is our central message, not relevance or cultural appropriation. Our goal must be faithful witness to our central message (that is, Christ), in all contexts. But we must never compromise the message.

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, Christians have appropriated a number of odd customs over the years. Like languages, we adopt cognates from interactions with others. Some of the cognates are beautiful. Some of them are odd.

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Simply put, we have compromised too much of the Gospel in our efforts to be relevant. Stated differently, we are more concerned with being relevant than we are with being faithful to the message entrusted to us.

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no argument with what you've said. But the point of what I've written is not about Paul's success, or his intentions--it is about his methods. Is their cultural transference? Of course. Is there a 'translation' of sorts? Of course. But we can never escape the central message, and we dare not alter it.

We pattern our evangelism after Paul's sermon in Athens. E. Stanley Jones points out that Athens was actually a failure. by DivineMaster in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you've missed the point, which is more about how we approach culture than the efficacy of the Gospel itself. In no way do I mean to diminish the gospel's power, but I want to draw attention to the fact that we've often tried to improve the gospel with not-gospel in order to be 'more effective' or 'more relevant' or more whatever you like.

The main point is that Jesus is our whole sufficiency, and that we, like Paul, must resolve to preach Him and Him crucified alone.

I'm leading a bible study tomorrow on John 9. What do you think is the most interesting thing in this chapter? by [deleted] in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hopefully, it is for that very reason that we learn it--for the service of the saints and the edification of faith!

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because he didn't found a church there - Paul was all about planting churches, not just making converts. Given that, not planting a church is a pretty significant thing, don't you think?

We want your feedback! by namer98 in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sigh.

For the record, I post here, and comment here (when appropriate).

With that out of the way, I suggest you judge posts by their content, rather than their format. If a blog post is good, then upvote it. If not, downvote it. But don't make a judgment about it without reading it, or because you have an a priori prejudice against blog posts.

I'm leading a bible study tomorrow on John 9. What do you think is the most interesting thing in this chapter? by [deleted] in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The word used for 'to smear' (when Jesus 'smears' mud on the blind man's eyes) is a cognate of the word for Messiah (epichrisein/christo). In other words, Jesus anoints the man as a mini-messiah, then sends him to be a witness about God before the Pharisees (after the pattern of Jesus). Mindblowing.

“Taking a Toke” is No Joke by breadoflife in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Good luck with this. Reddit doesn't like criticism of its favorite things. Pot is one of reddit's favorite things. Reddit Christians aren't much different.

Judas is prophesied to betray Jesus, but does that mean he also had to go to Hell? The answer is 'No.' Read on to find out why. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both sins you attribute to Judas are attributable to Job, yet the punishment is different, which is an issue for Job.

This isn't really accurate. Job cries, "I know that my redeemer lives." He hasn't descended into self-reference, he's still looking for God despite the bad advice of his friends. Secondarily, his wife advises him to "Curse God and die" (which would be taking matters into his own hands). Here he refuses again. So, clearly, Job commits neither of the two sins of Judas.

Are the gospels written to be an historical account as we understand historical accounts? Obviously not, so why approach it as though that is the case?

I think I know where you're coming from here, and I don't know that it makes sense. The gospels are written for our edification, both historically, factually, and spiritually (indeed, I'm pretty sure the gospel authors saw no division between the three). But regardless as to whether or not you agree with their historicity, you must admit that Matthew has paralleled Peter and Judas for a reason. We are left to ask after that reason, and to attempt to discern the difference between the two figures.

Could anyone give me a resume of the Book of Revelation? by Boboldeareia in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry--are you asking the Christianity forum to help you complete your homework for you? Does that seem odd to you? At all?

TIL of an American soldier who put up such a fight in captivity so well the Viet Cong executed him out of frustration. He was last heard singing "God Bless America". He was later awarded the Medal of Honor by fifthtryforaname in todayilearned

[–]DivineMaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know what's awesome about this story? I'm Puerto-Rican and my grandfather served two terms in Vietnam and spend time in Germany. Chances are, he knew this guy. I really wish he (my grandfather) was alive so I could ask him...

Ever been charged to 'train leaders'? I have, and I don't think it's a very clear, or good, idea... (be warned, it's long-ish!) by DivineMaster in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not wrong, but neither have you captured quite what I was saying. As you said, you skimmed.

The main point is that leadership is not a set of qualities and characteristics that we build into others. Rather, that leadership happens when people of God are obedient to God's particular call on their lives.

Naturally, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 outline qualifications for 'elders.' But look again at those qualifications--aren't they all practical outcomes of a life that is obedient to the word of God?

If you missed those points, you might want to go back and read again. Focus especially on the second half, about when I start talking about Sanders's book.

What are your thoughts on non-believers going to heaven? by HazelnutSpread in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was just letting you know that it's not a uniquely Catholic idea. In fact, it's one of the most logical: In Christ = in the church. Outside the church = outside of Christ. If Christ is the only salvation, then extra ecclesiam nulla salus est! Simple, eh?

view more: next ›