One of the current fads within the church is innovation, marketing, simplification. Now, the Gospel is simple. But applying, it, like many simple things, is incredibly difficult. The teaching elder needs to spend a fair amount of time in exegesis… struggling with his Greek, his Hebrew, and at times his Latin to consider what the text means,
For that does not change. But if he does not preach that, and then apply it to the lives of the congregation, he is not doing his job.
30“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
31“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32There is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that his testimony to me is true. 33You sent messengers to John, and he testified to the truth. 34Not that I accept such human testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36But I have a testimony greater than John’s. The works that the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form, 38and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent.
39“You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. 40Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Now, one of the things that the congregation will do is stray. To that which is comfortable. No one wants to get out of bed and doe the uncomfortable things… but every parent has done this, repeatedly, to a babe. For we in love do what is needed.
(Note: there is nothing, nothing here which is protestant. The reformers already knew how to preach, because those before them had done so for generations.
But if you just do the simple stuff it is like feeding nothing but cheezo. It will assuage hunger, but without substance, you will still starve. A good test is reproof — if you are not confronting your own sin and those around you are not doing your job.
This sheep, you see, is starving. He needs to be fed. Fortunately, he can read… but reading theology does not replace solid preaching: we are saved together and we starve together, and you cannot cure this with a mere reading list.
Agreed, MK.
We at Patriactionary are highly critical of evangelicalism, because it encourages all such things, alas, as well as misandry; there exists in much of evangelicalism today, a blaming of men for everything, and an excusing / ignoring of the sins of women, focusing only on those of men.
So, though we be non-partisan, if you will, in specific doctrinal differences between traditions, we have a big problem with evangelicalism, and we will call them on their shortcomings and failures. Evangelicalism is not traditional; it is not grounded or rooted, and thus tends to fall sway to the fads of the day, in contrast to older, Augustinian traditions, like confessional Protestantism (Reformed, Lutheran), Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Good points gentleman. I find the Church’s that I find myself at odds with include:
1. Those that cheapen the price of sin. It leads to poor behavior and cheap grace. Helps enable adultery, divorce etc..
2. Focus excessively on monetary/earthly prosperity and that God wants you to be rich stuff (hastily pulled from old testament stuff mostly never anything about bearing any cross)
3. Guys with bad pin stripe suits that call themselves apostles (not the biggest deal but just annoying)
Godwin’s Law, which you meant to refer to, only states that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” For some reason, this has morphed into the silly meme that whoever first invokes the Nazis / Hitler automatically has lost the argument. Which is patent bullshit, as one can make logical arguments using their example, and if one makes a good logical argument doing so, it is incumbent on the other party, if they wish to counter one’s point, to then do so, not to suddenly say, “Ha ha; you invoked the Nazis; you lose by default; I won!” That’s absurd, and only impresses those with weak minds, who can’t argue.
Yes, we do need to stand together on issues of common ground, us trads of all persuasions. At the same time, we each need to know and understand our own respective traditions, within each of which, our personal faiths are grounded. No-one can practice ‘mere Christianity’, that’s simply the hallway; the rooms are the respective churches, where the people are, to borrow from C.S. Lewis’s excellent metaphor. We need to emphasize both our commonalities and our distinctives; each tradition has its strengths and weaknesses, if we are honest with ourselves and not overly chauvinistic about our own.
I’ve discussed this a bit today. I find on most issues the serious Christians of all persuasions agree that there is a problem and often agree on the solution. As the general society becomes functionally more antichristian this is becoming more easy to see… if I can invoke the national socialists without mentioning Gresham’s Law, both Catholic and Protestant clergy and laity saved jews and stood against the Nazification of the church in that time: in a similar way we need to stand for truth now.
Not really afraid of anything; we are familiar with Papist church tradition, too, as well as God’s Word; we just don’t agree with the extrabiblical stuff in the Romish way.
But indeed, on non-doctrinal, secular matters, we likely do see very much eye to eye. At my group blog, Patriactionary, we are Protestant and Catholic, having three contributors in each camp, six in total. We don’t get into doctrinal matters there, since that’s not what we’re about. We welcome Christian trads of all persuasions to join in our convos, though anyone who, like one commenter we had, seeks to turn every convo back into drum-beating for one particular Christian tradition and attacking another, will bore and annoy us, and will be banned, as happened to said commenter.
Chris here, though, is a fellow Calvinist, and while his blog is also friendly to trads of all persuasions, too, he will make the case for the Reformed way which he and I both follow.
Cheers!
No doubt Mr. Will Papists who know Church Tradition and the Bible are a Calvinists worst nightmare
Then again no real need per se since I tend to agree with most of your secular views.
Trying to convert us Calvinists to your Papist ways, MK? Not gonna work.
Yet when read with other Bible quotes (in proper context) it builds a strong compelling case for literal presence of the Eucharist.
“I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
One thing that has always amazed me about Biblical literalists is they will believe many things:
Samson killed thousands by himself
Moses parted the red sea
and other improbable (if not for God) events yet they change approach and refuse to believe what Jesus himself said through the Apostle John. It shows literalism is a matter of convenience vs. a rigid adherence.
You can also argue the other way from Hebrews… one sacrifice for all. In the end, we will all be corrected as all our systematic theologies have flaws in them.
First time I have seen this in this reading but this sounds like those who think salvation is in knowing the Bible and not knowing Jesus and experiencing the Eucharist. Much like pharisees of old.
“You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. 40Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
This is Jesus saying he is the word. The entire passage is v. difficult — but it is clear that intellect alone can get us into deep error. The orthodox branches all would say that the Holy Spirit needs to indwell us richly. And the hows, wherefores and whys have to be preached.
Spot on. Churches need to offer meat for their long-standing members, not just milk for the n00bs and the ‘seekers’. Unfortunately, churches that focus on being ‘seeker-sensitive’ (as if anyone would seek, without having first been quickened), which usually refers to evangelical churches, miss the ball completely in this regard.