My preacher delivered a sermon today about grace and dealt mainly with the letter to Titus. As I read through it, I thought it provided very good insight as to why a church that doesn’t grow or a church that splits is off-base from a church that is truly rooted in Christ. As Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders and set up the church in Crete, pay attention to what Paul considers to be of most importance to the life force of a church.
Titus 3:1-10
“Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be PEACEABLE, GENTLE, showing ALL HUMILITY to all men. For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.
But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His MERCY He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain GOOD WORKS. These things are good and profitable to men. But AVOID FOOLISH DISPUTES, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”
The most important thing for the church to maintain is the realization of the gift of grace. I say “realization” because grace shouldn’t ever become an old concept. We find different bits of grace in our lives every day. If we are justified by it, grace ought to be at the center of the church, radiating throughout the justified in the form of love, humility, peace, mercy, and gentleness. And naturally, all of that should generate good works.
But what should it NOT generate? Foolish disputes. Why are they useless? Because, as my good friend would say, they only rock the boat, instead of rowing the boat. Simply, disputes are not good works. Why wouldn’t Paul address all of the church issues that arise today in full detail? I think he emphasizes what is profitable instead. I hope we take note what Paul teaches here about what is really crucial to maintain within the church. Don’t reject or avoid those who disagree with you on one of those commonly debated issues. Reject the divisive person. Don’t reject a different perspective. Reject those who want to divide the church because of a different perspective.
A boat is meant to glide through the water, not to turn over.
Grace is meant to embrace; it is meant to hold us together.
I hope we all make this a common meditation in our hearts.
AMEN !
If we all would be more active in DOING than DEBATING-
More active in Conviction than Contention-
and offer more GRACE than guidelines,
we ALL would be better off.
Very good thoughts, my friend.
I hope everything is going well for you!
Good points. Over the past couple of months, I have been thinking a whole lot more about 'grace' and how it relates to us. For a long time, I always saw 'grace' as being something only God could give; yet when I forgive others, do not gossip about the problems they have, be kind when they are not... I am being like my Father and giving grace.
We are currently in the process of appointing elders. First we are deciding if we as a whole desire or need elder leadership (I say yes). If we decide yes, we are going to begin the selection process. Sunday night we had a themed service (organized by him) about submission, guidance, and unity; three very crucial concepts that need to be meditated on as we face the question. We have already had many, many sermons about spiritual leadership and the qualities of an elder (NOT qualifications!).
Now, if we do this right, I am very excited about the possibilities for the congregation. As much as I feel we’ve grown (spiritually), I believe we can grow even more significantly under true spiritual leaders.
This is what I want from our congregation in the future. I want real unity. The unity that Jesus prayed for us to have. I want excitement amongst all members, not just on Sundays. I want more group participation in Christian functions, also not just on Sundays. When we have Bible studies at someone’s house, I want more people to come, simply because we love to be together, growing and supporting each other in the Lord. (I believe it is that way now, but only amongst a small portion of the congregation. It should be that way amongst all of us!)
Along with spiritual growth, what I really, really want is GROWTH IN NUMBER. Since I joined about three years ago, we’ve only really added one family and the occasional passing college student. It’s unfortunate to have only a handful of Christians my age at Northside, located so close to a university. Although our college-age group is very well-knit (i.e., we do everything together), I want more! I want us to develop the passion to evangelize. Right now, I don’t believe we as a group have any such passion. Maybe Rob could come and set us straight!
I’m setting sky high goals for this congregation. Goals that Christ’s power can meet. All it takes is our desire to both lead and follow, as one.
Please pray for our desire.
As for me personally, my job is going great three months into it. I feel like I have stability and opportunity to move up in the distant future, Lord willing. However, looking back, I think my dedication to study, prayer, and Christian action (light-shining) during that time has slipped. So, I’ve got to set the same goals for myself that I set for my congregation. More, more growth!
Please pray for my desire.
Matthew 7:7-8
Ask, and it WILL be given to you;
seek, and you WILL find;
knock, and it WILL be opened to you.
For EVERYONE who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Hey Buddy...
Advice on Elders- I would not decide you need Elders and then pick from the crowd for the "most qualified men". Quite often you end up with the "top turd in the bowl" instead of a truly qualified Elder.
I would wait until some men show they are truly qualified and then place them in the position they have shown that they are willing to keep.
As far as helping you guys with outreach... or anythign else. it would be an honor and a total vacation for me to be able to hang with you again.
Plus to be able to get the honor of seeing the AMAZING and legendary GENE NEAL.... I mean..... can it get any better than that???
That's our concern. I and some others believe we already do have truly qualified spiritual leaders, which is why we are doing this. But we have to determine what others feel about it or if they agree on the same people. It's possible that we may not get a positive response for 2 or 3 specific people. In that case, we're not going to just choose anyone.
Top turd in the bowl? :-D. Anyways, I hope everything goes well with the process. The first congregation I attended never had elders, and the second one already had them, so I've never been through the selection process. I'm sure it can be quite difficult though.
I am not anti-elder but one of the problems I have is an attitude of "let the elders handle it", much akin to "that's the preacher's job". Elders are not not our spiritual substitutes. One thing that bothers me is when I hear members of a congregation say "we are strong because of our eldership". This tells me that when those elders die or move away the "strength" goes with them. The strength of a congregation is in its members. It is my hope that your congregation will look upon your new eldership as shepherds and watchers of souls, not house keepers.
hey man, my name is Douglas. I live in Johnson City. Thanks for the good comments on instruments. I actually started the whole topic on my blog about a month ago and it grew from there. It's encouraging to read your post, it would be cool to come visit Northside sometime!
Thanks. :-) It was a good reminder to myself as well. I know it's something I struggle with... I want to be RIGHT so badly that sometimes I forget to be loving in the meantime...
Regarding elders, I am not sure what switch gets flipped in some people, but there are some who instantly change from being the most humble servant into the most arrogant tyrant once they get into a "position of power." I am thrilled to see that you are looking at the hearts of prospective leaders and not just the # of ___ or the # of times they did ___.
aaronw, I don't think we've met before, but my name is Caleb. Thanks for reading my comment. To quickly answer your question, I do not think the "doctrine of Christ" contains anything that is unrevealed. You said the truth was "Christ being the son of God, the one crucified for our sins, the one risen from the dead: THAT'S THE TRUTH."
Amen! But is that the totality of truth? Certainly it is the foundation of truth, but is that all that man is bound to uphold? I would submit that the scripture teaches that all of God's Word is truth. In Jn. 16:13, we find the Apostles were going to be guided into all Truth by the help of the Holy Spirit. We also see that the Truth is God's Word (Jn 17:17)
I do believe that the Bible clearly expresses how we are to worship God. I believe if it didn't, God would be unjust. Thereby I believe the New Testament is also very clear when it comes to instrumental music as well: it says nothing. How can we be authorized to participate in an action which we have no authority for and if practiced would not coordinate (be of the same nature) with the command we have. I hope this helps, sorry if it is not thorough enough, I am sure I will be presenting more on this material in the near future
barbershopboy05 you said "I do believe that the Bible clearly expresses how we are to worship God. I believe if it didn't, God would be unjust." would you mind explaining to me why you think this way?
Did you get your room confirmation?
By the way... even though the seminar offers a free lunch, we usually go to I love New York Pizza instead. their pzza's are 3 feet in diameter.
I have a question for anyone to answer, and it may or may not be able to be answered fully. I don’t even know if it’s a legit question, or if an answer would mean a whole lot, but I’ve been thinking about it lately.
When Jesus uses scripture, is it always just to reveal what was already there, or are there times when Jesus uses scripture as part of his personal ministry, an opening of the eyes, so to speak?
See, I’m already having trouble trying to word this properly. Bear with me.
Now I understand when Jesus quotes, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,’ and concludes with, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh,” he uses this scripture quite plainly.
But certainly we know Jesus did not just come to read scripture. He is the living word, after all. Jesus is everything we need to be reconciled, holy people (Ephesians 1:3-10). So is there more to Jesus’ use of scripture than just his quoting it? Consequently, should there be more respect given to Christ’s use of scripture, or more awe attributed to it?
Though there are many instances in which Jesus says “have you not read”, etc., referring to scripture in discussions with the Pharisees, is Jesus suggesting that they neglected the scripture (they certainly read, yet they neglected what they read)?
Consider Matthew 22:23-33, when Jesus talks with the Sadducees about the resurrection. He quotes in verse 32,
‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’
concluding with, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
And notice that the multitudes were astonished at his teaching. I don’t know about you, but I don’t get resurrection out of that scripture. I can’t really come away with “God is the God of the living = resurrection of the dead” either.
If I put those scripture statements together, all I come up with is that God is, in fact, the God of all these people. Not very original, I know. So, were the Sadducees, or anyone else in that day, “supposed” to be able to draw such a conclusion from the scripture that Jesus quoted? Or were the multitudes astonished because Jesus “uncovered its meaning”? (I keep using quote marks because I’m having trouble putting words to my thoughts.)
The reason I bring up this particular passage is that I have heard this specific example as reasoning that I can make X inference from Y passage, simply because Jesus obviously made inferences from scripture to reach the conclusion.
But what about the Sermon on the Mount?
Matthew 5:43-44
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies,…”
Jesus uses this scripture, as well as others in Matthew 5, quite differently, doesn’t he? And there’s no way you or I can do this. I can’t say to you,
“Romans 12 says this, BUT I SAY THIS…”
Now, Jesus isn’t necessarily contradicting scripture here, but he certainly is introducing the concept of loving enemies, and pointing out the difference of the old law to this concept. Only Jesus can do this.
So, if only Jesus can do a “BUT I SAY”, is it possible that the other ways in which Jesus uses scripture also require us to stand back in reverence of what only the living word could do?
These are just thoughts in my head made available to you. I’m not trying to make any flashy statement. I may just be totally confusing myself more than anything else, but here’s my own stab at this question so far…
I certainly believe that we come to a better understanding of God’s word by persistent study and deep meditation and prayer. On the opposite end, I believe we can shut ourselves out of real truth by only skimming the surface of scripture to find certain authoritative statements or making rash conclusions based on the scriptural silence of a particular issue. However, it seems with the way we typically discuss scripture on pleonast, if I try to draw a conclusion from scripture in a similar manner as Jesus (I said similar), if I put His word in my heart and meditate and pray and see something truthful not specifically spelled out for me, my logic would get bashed because “the scripture indicates no such thing.” So then, the benefit I could get from God’s word reduces to whatever is specifically stated. Thus, I approach the Bible with a “formula” mentality, and I would require no spiritual understanding or discernment, no perspective of scriptural context, and not much help from God to find an exact answer to every question I may have.
But I know I haven’t arrived at a full spiritual understanding (nor will I in this life), and that exact answers don’t exist for everything, so how can that formula possibly be right?
Your last paragragh presented an interesting thought...using Scripture "like Jesus did". I suppose that really depends on whether or not we see Jesus as pulling some "hidden truth" out of these verses or making a common sense argument on the basis of a valid implication in the text that had been overlooked by the Sadducees. If we take the latter view, then we can do what Jesus did. However, if we believe that Jesus pulled the rabbit out of the hat, so to speak, by making some application that was not truly in the text (in other words He was putting some divine spin on the words that was not demanded by the text)...then I cannot see how you or any of us can use Scripture like Jesus did. We would have to essentially be inspired by the Spirit, in which case I do not see why we would be looking to the written word in the first place.
The reference Jesus made in Matt. 22:29-33 to the "I am the God of Abraham" statement is not a BUT I SAY TO YOU example...there is no contrast between what Jesus is saying and the Old Law. If you notice vs 29 and 31, Jesus says they erred by "not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God". Clearly, Jesus thought that these poeple COULD and SHOULD have known of the resurrection from the OT, specifically the passage that he referenced. That is how I see it...but then again, I am not trying to undermine CENI. It probably colors my perspective a bit.
Aaron, in all honesty, I really don't think that you understand what the "silence" issue is about when you say that, with a certain point of view, your benefit from God's word is reduced to "whatever is specifically stated". If that we true, then there would be no such thing as "necessary inference" or "general authority"...concepts that those who accept CENI as the basis of communication would readily acknowledge as valid. I do not know specifically of the instances in which you felt that your "logic was bashed"...but maybe it would be good to go back and try to reassess whether or not your "logic" in those instances represented inferences that were truly necessary...or is it possible that you were "pulling some rabbits out of the text" that were not really there, like Jesus was supposedly doing? I don't know...I wasn't there. You will have to decide for yourself.
The "formula mentality" that you despise so much is not about just trying to "skim the surface of Scripture and come up with authoritative statements". The objective is to try and understand God's will as it has been revealed in His word. Once we start going beyond the baseline of communication that we see in commands, examples, and necessary inferences, we are not really making much practical or objective use of God's revelation. If we are to benefit from God's word, our convictions must truly come from God's word and not from idle or otherwise unnecessary speculation.
I have at times (and still do) question some of the applications that my brethren have made with regard to the CENI approach to Bible study. I believe that mistakes have been made, mostly in the area defining expediency and also in the realm of necessary inference. Some of the inferences we draw are not entirely necessary and on some issues I do not believe that God has been as specific as some have claimed. But I do not see any practical benefit in casting aside CENI as a framework in trying to understand what God has revealed in His word. Our objective is to understand God's will...and that objective is not being accomplished if we constantly formulate conclusions that are unnecessary and speculative in nature. This is the "formula" that results from stepping outside of the CENI approach.
Wrote a bit more than I intended to...you know me...I am pretty free with my point of view. Feel free to delete anything that you think is just taking up space. :D
Why would I delete your comments? I asked for feedback.
Just to clarify, when I mentioned “logic-bashing”, I wasn’t referring to a personal experience. I did not say that Matthew 22 was a "BUT I SAY" instance. I said that Matthew 5 was. My issue with Matthew 22 was that I have trouble making the leap from the scripture he quoted to his conclusion about resurrection. Add to that the fact that the people were "astonished" at his teaching. Why would they be astonished if they could have so easily made the same application? I'm not saying that Jesus pulled a rabbit out of his hat. But I’m sure glad I have his ministry available to me, because I admit I would have serious trouble “knowing the scriptures” without Jesus and the apostles preaching. It seems that the entire Jewish people, who had the scriptures and at least “knew” what they said, could not understand the scriptures the way Jesus did.
Now I say this respectfully. I was just trying to present my thoughts in the form of words and I am sure I didn’t do a great job of it (and I alluded to that several times in my post). I am asking a question, not presenting a theme. Yet you seem to think that you know my thoughts better than I do. CENI? I never brought it up. You are taking what I apparently “despise” and equating it to your idea of CENI, and responding to that. But it is interesting that you would read my description of a formula and automatically think I am talking about CENI. I don’t blame you.
In fact, if you reach a conclusion by reading a command, observing an example, and making a necessary inference, that’s perfectly fine with me. We all do that. But is that it? Is that all I need to do with God’s word? Do I not need to meditate on God’s word? Do I not need to pray for spiritual wisdom? Do I not need faith while reading?
It’s common sense to an extent, right? All those in the OT had common sense, yet didn’t know the scriptures the way they apparently should have. But I don’t think that your idea of scripture interpretation is what I was talking about.
If the Jewish people "could not understand the Scriptures the way that Jesus did", then how would they be "astonished at His teaching? Disagreement does not bring astonishment...it brings confusion. There is a vast difference between "overlooking" something in Scripture (even if it is right in front of us) and not being "able" to understand something. If they could not understand it...why the rebuke for not knowing? It seems clear to me that they indeed COULD have understood the truth regarding the resurrection in the OT but OVERLOOKED statements that would have necessitated that conclusion. The fact that they could have understood this truth is evidenced by them grasping the truth in astonishment when Jesus pointed it out.
I am glad you do not blame me for thinking that you had CENI in mind but if you are not talking about CENI, then perhaps you can do me the favor of maybe explaining in a little more detail what you are talking about. When you speak of "looking for authoritative statements" in Scripture, I associate that concept with command, example, and necessary inference...and it did appear as if you were criticizing those who look at Scripture through this lens and then try to respect the "silence" of God. But then again on the flip side, I do not know of anyone who would seek to apply the CENI approach without including things like "meditating", "praying", and "faith"...so that would seem to refer to some other approach to Bible study that lacks those things. Maybe if I better understood exactly what "formula" you were criticizing as not being right, it would help things.
Friend, my criticism, though not really the focus of my post, is surely not directed at how you study scripture. I am beginning to loathe discussions about “CENI”. NOT the concept, but the discussions.
The reason is, whether or not anyone has a good grasp on the concept, I am confident that no one has the same grasp on it. So, when one person criticizes their own understanding of CENI, another takes that as criticism of his understanding of CENI, but they’re not arguing about the same thing.
I don’t think you can take the interpretation of God’s word, slap a name on it, and expect everyone to be of one mind about it. The concept may include meditating, etc., but that’s not what I’m talking about. When you state three rules about scripture interpretation, whether or not they have validity, you are inviting people to take ONLY those three things and impose them on the scripture, when in reality, it should begin with the naked scripture. It becomes rather superficial.
If you treat the Bible superficially, then no, you don’t have to meditate, you don’t have to pray, and you don’t have to consider context to interpret scripture. You can find all the answers you want in an instant, and over time your mind will become so focused on which individual verses fit into which category, that you will miss out on real spiritual understanding. And you will become quite “astonished” when someone disagrees with you about something. No wonder there are so many misapplications of CENI! People take the concept the wrong way.
Now since it is so apparent that those in the OT did not know the scriptures to the extent of Jesus, no matter how educated they were or what privileged positions they had with God, God’s word should not be taken lightly.
I figured that if I mentioned CENI, no matter what I actually said, it would be taken the wrong way. But I wasn’t talking about the concept. It’s taken the wrong way, don’t you think? If I say “formula” and someone thinks “CENI”, then the term is not serving the concept very well.
I'm going to skip the debate and just comment on the question.
Regarding Matthew 22, while Jesus did provide some new info when He explained that in the resurrection there would be no marriage (as far as I know there is nothing in scripture anywhere other than here that talks about that issue), His comments on Exodus 3:6 are not new or providing some kind of inspired spin or enlightenment. Rather, He explains with precise logic. In Exodus 3:6, God said, "I am the God of Abraham..." Not, "I was the God of Abraham..." God is not the God of the dead but of those who are alive. Thus, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob must actually be alive in some sense. If you believe Jesus' logic faulty, that is one thing. However, I don't think you can come from this statement and have Jesus providing some special insight to it. Rather, He believed everyone could read this Scripture and come to the same conclusion He did. That was why He rebuked the Saducees for not knowing the Scripture.
Regarding Matthew 5, I do not believe Jesus was saying, "The Old Law says this, but I say something else." Rather, He was saying, "You have heard someone say this or misuse this passage, but I say..."
For instance, the Old Law condemned coveting a neighbor's wife as well as committing adultery with her. Therefore, Jesus' statement that "You have heard that it was said you shall not commit adultery, but I say to you that everyone who looks..." was not the Old Law says it is wrong to commit adultery, but I'm adding something new. He was merely pointing out in this case how some had misused the one commandment to deny the real teaching.
However, even if you disagree with this assessment and believe Jesus was contrasting with the Old Law, we still don't have him providing enlightenment on some passage because of his special knowledge. In that case, we have him saying the law had been changed and then revealing what His law is.
The point is, did Jesus somehow find hidden meanings? Did He meditate on a verse until He pulled some meaning out that wasn't actually in the verse? No. We cannot do that either. Meditating on the Scripture is not done to find hidden meaning. It is not done to find something that is not actually in the text. Rather, meditating means thinking about the Scripture in order to make the connections necessary to know what is being taught.
But Edwin, I view the "making connections to know what is being taught" to be part of the whole of scripture interpretation. Otherwise, you're just reading facts and not making any actual use of them.
I don't mean that Jesus pulled out a hidden meaning in scripture. But his teaching is sure appreciated as a revelation (maybe not specifically with a certain use of OT scripture). I just wonder if we only had the old law, would we come to such a revelation? It seems that no one actually under the old law did. If we lived back then, what would we think of the scripture in front of us? Would we believe we have a grasp on it until Jesus corrected us?
At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, we see Jesus saying if anyone "hears these sayings of mine, and does them...". Though he used OT scripture, they were still his sayings. It wasn't like he was saying, "you're wrong on this and this and this in the old law, go back and make sure you've got it." Jesus used scripture and then pointed ahead. He even gives us a "new commandment". You might say that to love one another is in the Old Testament, but Jesus still calls it a "new" commandment.
His new commandment was not to love one another. His new commandment was to love one another as He loved us.
Of course, making the connections is part of scripture interpretation. The point is, even though Jesus apparently made a point from a scripture that no one had noticed before doesn't mean He was providing new revelation. The fact that He expects them to have known this should say to us, "Man, I've got to be studying and meditating more." It shouldn't cause us to say, "Wow, Jesus is just so much better than me that I can't hope to use scripture as he did."
Regarding the sermon, of course Jesus was providing His word. I'm just pointing out that Jesus was not using Scripture in some weird way that we cannot use it. In the Sermon, He is providing his law.
"Man, I've got to be studying and meditating more."
That's exactly what I conclude from Jesus' use of scripture. Don't be a bad Bible student. Don't assume that the answer is on the surface. And don't close your mind to other ideas.
I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by what you called the "formula" study that is "superficial" but that is okay. No need to beat a dead horse...we both agree that we need to dig for deeper spiritual meaning and application from God's word. I believe that is what you were getting at...sorry about any misunderstandings.
I figured I wasn't expressing myself well. I wrote this post on a whim, really.
Basically, what I mean is that I'm sure there are those (not in any particular church) that don't treat the whole of the text or give it the devotion it deserves, and we can all be guilty of this. There's a danger of taking verses out of context and bending them to one's own preconceived ideas. Also, taking what a preacher says, for example, and not making any discovery for oneself.
I'm an engineer, so what I mean by "formula" is that it requires no serious thinking or understanding. I had classes in college where we were given formulas to find specific answers, and I found that the ones that took the time to understand WHY the formula exists got an education. The ones that took the formula and churned out the answer like a computer without thinking critically did not receive education. They may have gotten one or two test questions right by using a formula, but they won't know whether or not that formula even applies to any given problem, because they will have no understanding. So, for me, a formula is meaningless in comparison to the understanding behind it.
In other words, a formula is really intended to be the very end result of an application of understanding. Understanding does not BEGIN with the formula. So maybe it would have been better to say "formula-first mentality". Hope that made it clearer.
