tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post3774342646486566059..comments2022-11-08T15:02:17.618+00:00Comments on The Sound of an Alarm: What is wrong with a Christian attending the Cinema or the Theatre?Rev Brian McClunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-44095484770481191052013-12-31T00:11:20.954+00:002013-12-31T00:11:20.954+00:00Meneksh
1. You comments on attending the cinema a...Meneksh<br /><br />1. You comments on attending the cinema are becoming more and more outlandish. Are you seriously saying that: <i>all storytellers play with the same ingredients so all stories are echoes of THE Story </i>? Does this include the immoral shorelines, those with foul language; those which denigrate Biblical marriage, Christian manhood and fatherhood?<br /><br />2. I repeat a point I have made before. If Creation teaches the cross then we don't the Bible [special revelation] nor do we need to spend a fortune translating the Scriptures and sending them out to other parts of the world. Nor does missionaries need to spend years learning a native language, translating the scriptures to teach the cross when all they need to do is point to nature. Creation teaches there is a God but does teach the cross. I pointed out previously the statement of Dr Alan Cairns in his Dictionary of Theological Terms <i>Furthermore, natural revelation, addressed as it was originally, to unfallen man, has nothing to say to fallen man about salvation.</i> <br /><br />You have mentioned Romans ch 1 again. I take it you are referring to v20 which reads: <i>For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. </i> Now where does it mention that creation teaches the cross here? This text tells us that creation teaches two specific things: (i) God's eternal power & (ii) His Godhead or deity. To argue for wanting else is to find something that is not there. <br /><br />There is no proclamation of the gospel in Gen 2:18-24. Why would Gen 3:15 be then commonly described as the 'protoevangel' ie the first gospel proclamation? A proclamation of the Gospel requires the death of a substitute. Gen 2:18-24 doesn't have this. It is at best an illustration of the Gospel for those looking back with the benefit of hindsight who have come to know the substance of the gospel. If as according to you Adam did need a Saviour then what do you understand the Scriptures to mean when it speaks of his original creation in 'righteousness'; remembering that this is what is renewed in us in Christ by regeneration, cf. Eph 4:24?<br /><br />If you read John Owen with care he is speaking about what happened after the Fall and not before it. His points are entirely understandable in this light. Again John Owen never said that the Voice was meditating the Father prior to the Fall. <br /><br />What you actually said about Paul & Peter is: <i>Any objections must be taken up with Peter (1 Pet 1:10,11) and Paul (1 Cor 10:4; Phil 2:6,7).</i> I fail to see what bearing these texts have on the issue other than to illustrate the point I made that references to Christ in the Old Testament are to be seen as types of Christ. Paul does not say what you claim. He is not calling the pre-incarnate person Christ Jesus in Phil 2:5-. He is writing after the incarnation! <br /><br />Regarding what Paul meant in 1 Cor 10:4 when he said that the rock was Christ - is this literally Christ or a type of Christ? Any reasonable interpretation would say a type of Christ. That is easily proved I believe as the literal presence of the Son of God, the angel of His presence, to give Him His full and proper Old Testament title, is specifically said to have been at that very same time going before Moses and the Israelites, on their journey to Canaan, and not after them as 1 Cor 10:4 says, cf. Ex 23:20,23; 32:34; 33:2. The Rock which followed is therefore a type of Christ and most definitely not the substance, for the substance was in front of the people leading them. <br /><br />Regarding the rock following them I understand that Moses smote one rock and water came out in the region of Sinai and that he spoke to other rocks during the wilderness journeyings to obtain water and inadvisedly struck a second rock and was punished. <br /><br /><b>Brian McClung</b>Rev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-85955614786922437212013-12-11T00:02:59.277+00:002013-12-11T00:02:59.277+00:00No worries – life’s busy!
1. Cinema/theatre – all...No worries – life’s busy!<br /><br />1. Cinema/theatre – all storytellers play with the same ingredients so all stories are echoes of THE Story.<br /><br />2. The Story’s written into creation by God the Word, the Creator. Creation reveals the invisible things of God, not because creation’s another revelation alongside *the* Revelation, or another icon alongside *the* Icon of the Invisible God, but because creation proclaims the Icon – it preaches Christ. If it doesn’t preach Him then knowledge of God is available outside of Christ. This reduces Christ to merely *a* Visible Form of the Invisible God, not *the* Image and Icon; just *a* truth about God, not *the* Truth. (When I demonstrated this in detail from Rom 1, you didn’t come back to show how the passage could be saying – against me – that “general” rev is Christless revelation.)<br /><br />3. One reason you say creation doesn’t preach the gospel is that its original purpose wasn’t to present a salvific message, as this would only have been necessary after Gen 3. Yet the gospel’s proclaimed before Gen 3 (e.g. 2:18–24). Part of your argument was the claim that prior to the Fall, Adam & Eve didn’t need a mediator. I’ve shown this is a bizarre notion, not least because the act of creation itself was mediated through Christ. He’s the one point of contact between God & creation before the events of Gen 3! I might add this: “Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator” (Calvin, <i>Inst.</i> II.xii.1).<br /><br />I called on John Owen to help me show that God the Son/Word is the walking, talking Voice in Eden of Gen 3:8. You said I’d misquoted Owen by a) claiming he said the Word mediated the Father before Gen 3:8, which I didn’t say – I just pointed out 3:11,17 that showed God the Word was the Speaker of Gen 2:16,17 (pre-Fall); b) adding my own gloss: the Word was “mediating the Father” in Eden. Yet why would the Son & not the Father “appear unto our first parents” (Owen) & speak for Himself? & why’s this a disclosure of God the Son’s “distinct glorious person, as the Eternal Voice of the Father” (Owen)? Is it an error to call Someone who speaks on the Father’s behalf the Father’s Mediator/Intermediary/Representative? These are questions you’ve still not answered (along with questions posed to your exegesis of 1 Cor 15).<br /><br />4. Indeed, it feels like you’ve simply repeated your previous comments irrespective of my reply, not considering any subsequent objections that render your position untenable. This is illustrated by your repeating the argument that one shouldn’t call the pre-incarnate Word “Jesus Christ” (which, along with the “‘misquoting’ Brainerd/Owen” episodes, seems a neat way of avoiding the deeper issues at hand), despite my showing where Peter & Paul (not to mention Calvin & Edwards) are happy to identify the <i>Logos incarnandus</i> as both “Jesus” & “Christ”.<br /><br />Is the LORD Jesus conflating “the Word” & “Christ” when He says, “I have come down from heaven”? Oughtn’t He to have added a caveat like: “Strictly speaking I didn’t come down from heaven, for I’m the Godman Jesus Christ, the Word united to a human nature. The Person who came down from heaven was pure spirit being who was *then* united to a human nature which is where I, as Jesus Christ the Godman, come in. But what I’m basically saying is that I, or a version of Me, sort of came down from heaven.”<br /><br />Though I appreciate you’re trying to uphold the incarnation, such talk veers dangerously close to the Nestorian heresy of driving a wedge between Jesus of Nazareth & the Eternal Son (in effect a denial of the incarnation). In Phil 2:5 Paul’s happy to call the pre-incarnate Person (who would subsequently do what’s described in 2:7ff.) “Christ Jesus”, & also in 1 Cor 10:4 to give the Name “Christ” to the pre-incarnate Person travelling with Israel. Note that it was “the spiritual Rock that followed them”, distinguished from created rocks that were merely types of Him (unless you think the rock in Ex 17 travelled with Israel!).menekshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-29117849707856580512013-11-26T00:30:14.147+00:002013-11-26T00:30:14.147+00:00Meneksh
First of all sorry for the inordinate lon...Meneksh<br /><br />First of all sorry for the inordinate long delay in posting your comments and responding to them. It just seems that every time I would think about doing do there was always something more pressing to do with regards to 'work'. This is after all a 'personal' blog, so it takes second place when others things are more urgent in Church life. Postings on the main blog have been light because of this as well. I also acknowledge receipt of your subsequent posts asking about whether they would be posted. I can only reply through the comment section and its not the place for every comment like that. So sorry again. <br /><br />There are four points under discussion here: <br />1. The issue of attending the theatre/cinema. <br />2. Whether creation teaches the gospel. <br />3. Did Adam and Eve prior to the Fall need a mediator?<br />4. How are to understand Christ in the Old Testament?<br /><br />In addressing the specific points you made in your last reply I would say the following. <br /><br />1. I have no reason to avoid texts. It is not much use to quote a text without explaining what you understand that text to mean. I have no desire to second guess what you might understand a text to mean. Where you have explained what you understand a text/passage to mean I have sought to deal with it. If I have omitted to do this with some text then mention it again and I will address it. But first give what you understand that text clearly to teach!<br /><br />2. You have argued for much more than: "This Divine Person had had dealings with them pre-Fall". You have argued that "the Word Himself 'appeared' to Adam, walking in the Garden, mediating the Father". See comment made on 10th June 2013 @21:22. It is wholly inaccurate of you to say otherwise. It has nothing to do with space either. <br /><br />I have sought to explain that to suggest this is simply wrong. I am not going to go over the many reasons again. <br /><br />Regarding the fourth point you seem to conflate who the 'Word' is and who "Christ" is. The "Word is the eternal Son, the second person of the trinity, a spirit being. 'Christ" in the person of the Godman, the eternal Son incarnated, ie. united to a human nature. The eternal Son has always existed and has even appeared in a human form at various times down through Old Testament times. These were all types of the person of Jesus Christ. The person of Jesus Christ begun to exist in the womb of the virgin as outlined in Luke 1:35. <br /><br />To pick up on one of the texts you just quote but never explain, 1 Cor 10:4: And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ; was the literal rock the person of Christ? Or was the literal rock a type of Christ? I believe it to be the second of these two possibilities. I believe that to be the consistent teaching of the Scriptures. <br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-24294959667588885202013-10-24T20:32:15.670+01:002013-10-24T20:32:15.670+01:00I agree with you Revrend McLung. We need more Fait...I agree with you Revrend McLung. We need more Faithful Men of God like yourself who Sound the Alarm against wickedness, apostasy and immorality on every Hand.<br /><br />The old standards have gone sad to say. Our wee Country that has enjoyed so much Blessing from the Lord is now nowhere Spiritually. Nowadays folk who Profess to be Saved think nothing of being found in the Dens of iniquity like the Pictures and the Theatre, the Dancehall and the Disco, the Clubs and the Pubs. Back in the Days of Revival when the Great Preacher WP Nicholson was Preaching the Blood and the Book and many folk were getting Saved, my these places were frowned upon. If only folk were as keen to be out at the prayer meeting, and please note I'm not just talking about the Young Folk in our Congregations!!<br /><br />I just skimmed the comments here but my its sad to see so many so called Christians forsaking the old paths just so they can fit in with the World. These folk don't have a leg to stand on because their so compromised the unsaved don't see them as any different from them selves!! They can't support their practice from Gods Word and when The Lords People ask them to give account of them selves as you have done, they retreat as we've seen here for they have no answer to give!! If folk these days would stand up and be Counted and lay their lives on the Alter for God we would see a Mighty Moving of God even in our day across our Land.<br /><br />And its no good folk saying you might as well be at the Pictures if you have a Television in your House for I got rid of mine as I was so fed up of seeing so many sodomites and republicans on it and I haven't missed it a bit, The Lord has Blessed our House these 3 Years because of it!!!<br /><br />DerekDereknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-56873845917849745172013-06-23T22:47:11.129+01:002013-06-23T22:47:11.129+01:00- Texts you won't/didn't give full account...- Texts you won't/didn't give full account of, I expounded & you ignored subsequently include Rom 14; 1:19,20; 10:18; Ps 19; Col 2:3; Heb 1:1,2; Rev 5:13.<br />- You eisegete me by saying I say Owen argues for all I argue. All I claimed for him was he said "the Voice of God walking in the Garden (Gen 3:8) was Christ, as no-one's seen the Father at any time". This he clearly argues. The next bit was my own comment: "This Divine Person had had dealings with them pre-Fall" (apparent from Gen 3:11,17 which refers to 2:16,17). If the division was unclear, blame limited space! You're OK with Owen's claim anyway, yet miss its implications while waxing lyrical on tangential issues (supposed misquotes). Why've you not spent as much time addressing eisegesis of Rom 1? (NB: St John [Jn 1:1] finds the first mention of the Word even earlier than the Targumists [Gen 1].)<br />- You argued "don't call pre-incarnate Son 'Christ'", yet Peter, Paul (1 Cor 8:6; 10:4; Phil 2:6,7), Calvin & Edwards do. Now you argue "the Son appears in human form as a type of Christ", & somehow this means He's not really & truly present in OT? Moses disagrees! Calvin says OT saints BOTH i) have Christ then & there, the pre-incarnate Person, present, active, committed to redemption; ii) look forward to the One they know & love becoming flesh & effecting this redemption. Isn't Jesus truly ours now? If so is it absurd to long for His future advent too? NO!<br />- Issues you still ignore re: Son in Eden pre-Fall: Did Adam see the Father? Jn 1:18 says no. Why not? Why's the Son the Father's "Voice" to Adam? Why doesn't the Father command in Gen 2? Is He acting through the Son? Of course: why did the Father not only redeem but *create* *through* the Son? He doesn't act any other way. Christ as Father's Mediator/Agent/Hand/Priest is doctrine of God stuff before it's hamartiology stuff. Sin doesn't alter Triune ways; it just shows off the gracious God more clearly (Rom 5:20). Christ remains our Mediator eternally. It's only due to our unbreakable union with the Son that we'll fellowship with the Father as sons, even in a sinless universe; it's all down to Him. If that union breaks, it's over for us.<br />- I hold to Supra & argue for indiscriminate gospel preaching so clearly I'm no hyper-C! Do all Supras hold the view that Adam needed a Mediator pre-Fall? All *Trinitarians* should!<br />- "Lamb slain from creation" is a clue. "2nd Adam already present & at work even before 1st has failed" is beautiful, not ludicrous. Good to call Gen 3:15 proto-evangel, yet strictly the gospel was proclaimed before that (you've blogged on Gen 2). Or is gospel truth found before Gen 3:15 eisegesis?<br />- 1 Cor 15: Is Paul talking about sinful flesh in 44–47? Jesus is needed by man as *sinner* & even as *creature*. Natural earthy Adam was a life-borrower: it could be taken from him [Gen 2:17]. He didn't have life that's gone *beyond* death (44). How would Adam have achieved that had Fall not happened? Good works? He needed Life founded in the everlasting God. He needed the Spiritual heavenly Man, the Life-giver. I don't claim Adam's a sinner pre-Fall but incomplete (read my unpublished comments). Contra Edward Irving the Son didn't assume fallen flesh, but was as Adam was pre-Fall – very good, sinless, yet needing to reach His goal/be made perfect, which comes through suffering (Heb 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). In New Creation is no possibility of Fall, unlike Adam in Eden. Adam's not the destination. He's the acorn. Jesus is the mighty oak. Adam's incomplete until united to Christ. He's created for that union. End goal is Son as firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29) so humanity needs to become sons *in the Son*. Not even sin, death & devil can thwart that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-30019631436971156432013-06-20T11:02:11.914+01:002013-06-20T11:02:11.914+01:00Meneksh
What you allege most certainly does impac...Meneksh<br /><br />What you allege most certainly does impact upon the Covenant of Works. If Adam needed a Mediator prior to the Fall and if <i>"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world was held out to Adam pre-Fall"</i> then the covenant of grace is already in vogue. Adam must already then be a sinner needing grace and redemption; a second Adam is already present and at work even before the first Adam has failed; as the mediator is one who secures eternal life by His work, then Adam must already be spiritually dead and in need of this new life. The proposition is just ludicrous!<br /><br />I don't contradict Paul or Peter for neither of them are speaking of Adam prior to the Fall. When Paul speaks of 'corruptible' flesh he is speaking of sinful flesh. He uses this term to describe those who are subject to death. This could not be a reference to Adam prior to the Fall as he was not subject to death until after the Fall. <br /><br />I don't know what you believe, but you argued for this thesis by saying that it was a Supralapsarian viewpoint. Usually when someone defends what they believe from a particular viewpoint it would be usual to assume that they must believe what they are saying! It is also interesting that in this context you should quote Calvin who is generally accepted not to hold to a Supralapsarian viewpoint. I would be very interested in reading the wider context of Jonathan Edwards quote. <br /><br />Some questions for you: <br />1. If "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world was held out to Adam pre-Fall" as you allege, then how can Gen 3:15 be described as the proto-evangel, the first setting forth of the covenant of grace? <br />2. If Adam was created with a perfect righteousness, holiness and knowledge, Eph 4:23,24; Col 2:10 in what sense did he need a mediator?<br />3. Do all Supralapsarians, in your opinion, hold to this view that Adam needed a mediator prior to the Fall?<br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-70295802463683166612013-06-20T11:01:36.730+01:002013-06-20T11:01:36.730+01:00Meneksh
I believe I could easily multiple proof t...Meneksh<br /><br />I believe I could easily multiple proof texts! What I have avoided are texts that are quoted by you without ever stating what you understand that text to teach. The way you use proof texts and quotes it would be difficult to know what you are inferring they teach. I have no intentions of second guessing as to what they are referring to. If you expound a text then I will seek to address it. <br /><br />You have indeed misquoted John Owen and your latest reply is an attempt to justify that misquote. This is easily proved. John Owen's quote makes no reference at all to the time/circumstances of our first parents in Eden prior to the Fall. He specifically mentions Gen 3:8 in the wider section from which you took the quote. This verse is a reference to the time in Eden after the Fall, when our first parents did indeed require a mediator. If you care to read a little further back you would have found that this was indeed what John Owen was referring to. On page 295 of my edition he writes regarding 'The Word/voice of the Lord' and this is what he clearly states: <i>it first occurs in them [the Targumists] on the first appearance of a divine person after the sin and fall of Adam, Genesis 3:8.</i> How much clearer can it be! John Owen is in agreement with the Jewish commentators that the term 'the word/voice of the Lord' first occurs on the first appearance of a divine person after the sin and fall of Adam and he mentions Gen 3:8 for good measure. If words mean anything then John Owen is not implying, as you have repeatedly alleged, that this was a reference to life prior to the Fall, where the Son was 'mediating the Father' to use your language. No one of a reasonable mind could argue that he does. <br /><br />I have no difficulty with the Eternal Son appearing to Adam and Eve prior to the Fall. My contention is that He was not there as their Mediator as Adam and Eve did not require one. Our first parents were without sin. A mediator is required where sin exists and where that sin needs atoned for. It is sin that separates from God and hides His face and places a sinner under His condemnation. As Adam and Eve were not sinners but sinlessly perfect they did not require a mediator. It may indeed have been the Son of God who communed with them in the garden but He was not there as their mediator. <br /><br />Again with respect to the quotation from Calvin's Institutes, if you cared to read a little further again you would find Calvin speaking about the advent of Christ at Bethlehem. You can't have a coming advent of someone who is really and truly present in the world. I understand Calvin to be referring to a pre-incarnation appearance of the Son of God in a human form. Your own further quote from Calvin proves my point, where you say that: <i>They looked forward to the Promised Christ…</i> Why would they be looking forward if He was already present? These appearances are types of Christ. Melchizedek would be an example of this. But as Paul argues in Hebrews the person of Jesus Christ is superior to Melchizedek. In what sense would Melchizedek be superior if your contention be true? <br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-66658866227202302382013-06-12T16:19:19.295+01:002013-06-12T16:19:19.295+01:00- On misquotes: You've stopped appealing to a ...- On misquotes: You've stopped appealing to a handful of proof-texts after actual consideration of them. (Indeed, you've studiously avoided many biblical passages in the course of this exchange.) <br /><br />I haven't misquoted Owen. Sure, as a scholar addressing scholars his context differs from ours, & he's thus more measured than I am. (He can afford to be: he's not contending with imposed space restrictions.) That doesn't overturn the point he carefully establishes. He's aware there's no categorical biblical statement that "the Son was in Eden"; nonetheless textual evidence & theological thinking strongly urge this conclusion. The phrase "most probable" (which elsewhere he can follow up with "yea indeed undeniable") only blunts his conclusion if you want it to. He's very much <b>arguing for</b> the Son/Word as the One appearing to Adam. <br /><br />So, moving from English comprehension to theology, the quote still poses less of a problem for me than you. The Word appeared. Why's this Owen's verdict? What's the Son doing there in Gen 3? What might the title "Voice of the LORD God" mean? And why does the Voice indicate (3:11,17) that *He* spoke the command to Adam in 2:16,17 (*pre-Fall*)? Why, when He had no business doing so? Can't the Father do His own work?<br /><br />- On "Christ" referring only to *incarnate* Son: A Calvin quote? Certainly! (You've not read <i>Institutes</i> then?) "The God who of old appeared to the patriarchs was no other than Christ." (I.xiii.27.)<br /><br />I'll throw in Jonathan Edwards for free (<i>History of the Work of Redemption</i>, I.iv.1, my emphases):<br /><br /><i>This redemption [i.e. the Exodus] was by <b>Jesus Christ</b>, as is evident from this, that it was wrought by him that appeared to Moses in the bush; for that was the person that sent Moses to redeem the people. But that was <b>Christ</b>, as is evident, because he is called "the angel of the LORD" ...</i><br /><br />Calvin also said OT saints "had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share in His promises" (II.x.2). They looked forward to the Promised Christ (Comm Ex 29:38, "by this sacrifice the minds of the people were directed to Christ"), obviously, but they had & knew Him there and then, the Spirit-Anointed One ("Christ"), the <i>Logos incarnandus</i>.<br /><br />P.S. You'll need to show me how you're not flatly contradicting Paul & Peter.<br /><br />- On Supralapsarianism: Thanks for your concern! Though I think it's obvious I'm no hyper-Calvinist. Now, to engage with the issues: I treated "Christ as *Saviour* pre-Fall" as a supra- matter. "Christ as *Mediator* pre-Fall" is at heart a Trinity question. Church fathers, taking seriously multiple statements of Christ in the Gospels, were adamant that the Son was the Hand of the Father through whom He conducts all His work, & that for the Father ever to bypass/ignore the Son would go against both His nature & His good pleasure. The LORD Jesus Christ stands at the Head of creation. All things were created through Him. Creatures cannot bypass Him to gain access to the Father, whether or not sin's in the picture. Mediated communion with God is essential to Trinitarian faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-429875490501870572013-06-11T17:30:59.435+01:002013-06-11T17:30:59.435+01:00Meneksh
Just as I thought! Another misquote! The ...Meneksh<br /><br />Just as I thought! Another misquote! The whole quote reads somewhat differently from the slant you have put on it. Here is the complete sentence and the wider context: <br /><i>It is therefore most probable, that, in the great alteration which was now coming upon the whole creation of God, — mankind being to be cast out of covenant, the serpent and the earth being to be cursed, and a way of recovery for the elect of God to be revealed, — He by whom all things were made, and by whom all were to be renewed that were to be brought again unto God, did in an especial and glorious manner appear unto our first parents, as he in whom this whole dispensation centred, and unto whom it was committed. And as, after the promise given, he appeared “in a human shape,” to instruct the church in the mystery of his future incarnation, and under the name of Angel, to shadow out his office as sent unto it and employed in it by the Father; so here, before the promise, he discovered his distinct glorious person, as the eternal Voice or Word of the Father.</i><br /><br />1. John Owen begins these comments with words which interestingly you left out: <i>"It is therefore most probable…"</i>. This alone gives a different flavour to the quote. Probable = "likely to be the case or to happen". Somewhat different to the emphatic statements you have been making on the topic and illiciting the support of various authors. [I would like to read the quote from Calvin as well]<br />2. These comments of John Owen are referring to the Lord's appearance to our first parents after the Fall and not before the Fall. This much is evident from another part of the quote that you conveniently left out: <i>"…as he in whom this whole dispensation centred, and unto whom it was committed".</i> In using the words <i>"this whole dispensation"</i> it is obvious that John Owen is not speaking of the dispensation of man's innocency prior to the Fall but of the time after the Fall has taken place. After the Fall they most certainly needed a mediator. No one disputes that. This does not establish the need for one before the Fall! <br />3. Significantly John Owen nowhere in this quote uses the words/phrase: "mediator" or "mediating the Father". That is your 'eisegesis' of his words. You are putting words in his mouth!<br /><br />To define who 'Christ' is can never be labelled 'pedantic'; nor is what I said an inaccurate distinction; nor does it contradict Paul or Peter. 'Christ' is a title for the person of the Godman. He was promised down through OT times. He can't be promised all through the OT age and also be present all through the OT age. It has to be one or the other. If Christ was present then there is no more need for types and shadows. However these types and shadows did exist and continued until the Godman appeared. <br /><br />Supralapsarianism leads to many things, including hyper-calvinism, but I wasn't aware that it required Adam to need a Saviour prior to his Fall into sin!<br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-40075963277488016682013-06-10T21:22:21.374+01:002013-06-10T21:22:21.374+01:00Gladly!
- So 1 Cor 9:22 etc. play no part here?
- ...Gladly!<br />- So 1 Cor 9:22 etc. play no part here?<br />- Some Bible verses you quote can't be saying what you claim they say. Still you repeat your view (denying Christ is *the* sole Icon of God), even insisting on backing it up without the Bible. So to charge me with "extremely dodgy" quotes is unfair.<br />- Owen's Works, Vol 18, "Appearances of Son of God under OT", pp.216–220 (newer reprints renumber it as Vol 17): <i>He by whom all things were made ... did in an especial and glorious manner appear unto our first parents ... before the promise, he discovered his distinct glorious person, as the eternal Voice of the Father.</i> Not a type, but the Word Himself *appeared* to Adam, walking in the Garden, mediating the Father.<br />- You say God in Eden may well've been the Son. What was He doing if not mediating the Father? The Persons' roles from Gen 1 aren't a departure from who They've always been in eternity past. That says Christ doesn't truly reveal God. To speak/act by bypassing/ignoring the Son goes against the Father's being & will; He's always expressed Himself through His Eternal Word & Image. It subverts the Son's mediatorial role to say God's actions in the economy aren't predicated upon/revelatory of His eternal being.<br />- "Son" not "Christ" in OT is a pedantic & inaccurate distinction. The Son has always been the One anointed by the Spirit. The Spirit always flows from Head to Body & that's as true of OT saints like Bezaleel & David as it is of us. Calvin repeatedly said *Christ* in OT appeared. Any objections must be taken up with Peter (1 Pet 1:10,11) and Paul (1 Cor 10:4; Phil 2:6,7). Either Paul's inaccurate or he thinks it's OK to call the Son "Christ" & even "Jesus" before He's incarnate.<br />- "Christ as Saviour pre-Fall" is more of a supra/infralapsarian issue. Reformed theologians don't have to bin Cov of Works in order be supra (i.e. God's desire to *redeem* is prior to His permitting Fall). The Cross isn't an afterthought/response to fallenness, but crux of God's purposes. God's desire has always been for the glory of the Cross as the way to win a bride for the Son (Gen 2). Our God loves to *save*. Having something to *redeem* is the reason for creation. That's why the glory & boast of God is the Cross of Christ. Sin can't thwart that determination; it fits within God's redemptive purposes, not the other way round. God desires to redeem men as men, not simply as sinners. That doesn't turn 1 Cor 15 on its head. Paul speaks of corruptible vs. incorruptible flesh, but doesn't stop at *fallen* Adam; he goes back to creation. The 1st man Adam, *of the earth*, had one kind of glory. But he, as created being, was corrupt-able & became corruptible, not the finished/perfected article, and only a pattern of the One to come. But there's another kind of glory, that of the 2nd Man, *the Lord from heaven*. Adam couldn't achieve that. We're never told that he'd one day just reach this glory himself. Adam had to put it on, i.e. be clothed with Christ incorruptible. Perfection/completion through the Cross (Heb 2:10; 5:9; 7:28) was always intended. Thus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world is held out to Adam pre-Fall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-8266337909216742212013-06-10T19:25:07.910+01:002013-06-10T19:25:07.910+01:00Meneksh
Please submit your comment in proper Engl...Meneksh<br /><br />Please submit your comment in proper English and I will upload it and respond. Otherwise I won't!<br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-59092776600379694152013-06-04T23:21:17.264+01:002013-06-04T23:21:17.264+01:00Meneksh
I would like to see John Owen's quote...Meneksh<br /><br />I would like to see John Owen's quote. As we have already discovered in this exchange your quotes are extremely dodgy and not what they seem! I would hazard a guess that John Owen sees Gen 3:8 as a type of Christ. Which is totally different from what you allege. This is another example of what I said some time ago about illustrating Gospel/spiritual principles from creation. Again this is totally different from claiming that creation reveals the Gospel. It did not. <br /><br />There are some serious misunderstandings or worse in what you allege:<br /><br />1. The God that Adam and Eve knew in the Garden was the one and only true and living God. Adam didn't 'see' anyone, he 'heard' a voice! It may well have been the second person of the Trinity. It was most definitely not Messiah/Christ! 'Messiah/Christ' was one promised down through OT times and is a name which belongs exclusively to the 'Godman' who was incarnated in the Virgin's womb at Bethlehem. God the Son has eternally existed but the person of Jesus Christ exists from Bethlehem. As Isaiah put it: a son was given, a child was born. This unique person, a 'Godman' exists from then until eternity to come. There are types of Christ in the OT pointing forward to Him but Christ as a person exist from Bethlehem. <br /><br />2. Prior to the Fall Adam stood before God on the basis of a Covenant of works. If he had obeyed he would have secured eternal life of all his posterity. Up until he sinned he did not need a Saviour or a mediator. Adam prior to the Fall was like the holy angels, who are able to this day to enter God's presence by their own righteousness. Christ's didn't die for the holy angels yet they dwell in His presence. Adam pre-Fall stood on the same basis. The nonsensical idea that Adam needed a Saviour prior to the Fall turns on its head the covenant of works and what Paul says about the first Adam and second Adam in 1 Cor 15. If Adam needed a Saviour prior to the Fall then either he was created less than perfect by God and not holy and righteous as the Bible states or the Fall actually took place before the Fall as recorded in Gen 3. One is unworthy of God; the other is just plain nonsense!<br /><br />I have no interest in repeating myself about the cinema. I simply quote again the words of 1 John 2:15: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.<br /><br />Brian McClung<br />Rev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-47662719834669510112013-05-30T11:57:08.263+01:002013-05-30T11:57:08.263+01:00I would rather not say the following but feel I mu...I would rather not say the following but feel I must.<br /><br />Who is the God Adam knew in Eden? John Owen said that the Voice of God walking in the Garden (Gen 3:8) was Christ, as no-one has seen the Father at any time (Jn 1:18). This Divine Person had had dealings with them pre-Fall ("I commanded ...", Gen 3:11).<br /><br />How horrendous to say the default position is unmediated encounter with "God". How horrible to make Christ unnecessary!<br /><br />How horrific to make sin more fundamental than Christ, given that sin defines Him and His role rather than the other way around (Jn 16:9)! Does that explain your seeming obsession with sin over and above Christ? For you, where grace (Christ) abounds, sin doth much more abound ...<br /><br />... yet effectively for you Christ doesn't even abound!<br /><br />He's not preached by creation. He doesn't make Himself available to sinful people. There's no way anyone could even see a shadow of Him in a story, film or play. Adam didn't need Him before Gen 3:6, so presumably He won't be needed in the New Creation where there's no possibility of sin.<br /><br />Presumably, after 10,000 years of no-one sinning and no-one to save, the old old story of the Man called Jesus with nail-scarred hands will become outdated.<br /><br />Presumably in Gen 2 the gospel of the Man whose bride is formed through his death-like sleep is a superfluous oddity in a creation that had an entirely different purpose.<br /><br />What I've heard from you is that Jesus is a theological luxury rather than THE theological necessity. At best, Christ crucified and risen is a detour from what God's really like. How He is toward us in the gospel does not reveal who God is essentially. Jesus Christ is not really the Word of God and God remains essentially unknown. Horrendous!<br /><br />My repeated point has been that Christ is THE Icon of god. Creation is not another icon but only points to him.<br /><br />By saying creation reveals God but says nothing of Christ, you have undermined <i>solus Christus</i>, and you have not even attempted to answer any charge that you have denied <i>solus Christus</i>.<br /><br />You have simply asserted things and ignored the biblical arguments set before you. You haven't engaged with Scripture at any depth. You have seemed more content with quoting extra-biblical authorities. This is not only something for which you criticise Roman Catholicism; it's also a hallmark of cults.<br /><br />Your comments have highlighted the impoverished theology that stands behind your position on cinema. It has led you continually to downplay Christ.<br /><br />All of which we should see as horrendous!!Menekshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-5197689700458429772013-05-27T20:28:30.096+01:002013-05-27T20:28:30.096+01:00Meneksh
Yes, I most surely do argue that a Saviou...Meneksh<br /><br />Yes, I most surely do argue that a Saviour was not necessary prior to the Fall, as our first parents were sinlessly perfect, although not infallibly so. <br /><br />Adam was his own mediator. He had a true knowledge of God, a perfect holiness and a flawless righteousness. He could, and he did, meet with God without the need of any other mediator. There was no need of another mediator until sin entered and all mankind in Adam became separated from God. <br /><br />God has revealed Himself in His works of creation, hence the term "natural" revelation. This revelation of God in nature is accessible to all mankind without distinction, hence the term "general" revelation…Furthermore, natural revelation, addressed as it was originally, to unfallen man, has nothing to say to fallen man about salvation. Dr Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms. <br /><br />I can't put it any better or more succinct than that, so I rest my case!<br /><br />Brian McClung<br />Rev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-13906831599537000852013-05-27T20:26:02.522+01:002013-05-27T20:26:02.522+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-39915607355408429582013-05-23T15:46:38.302+01:002013-05-23T15:46:38.302+01:00- All seek after "life" & "love...- All seek after "life" & "love". Jesus is both, but no-one's seeking Him. World's OK with having what Jesus offers, but not Him.<br /><br />- Surprised Rom 14, 1 Cor 8–10, Col 2 & Gal are unfamiliar to you.<br /><br />- What do you say about the following features of holiness/separation/being different from world? John 13:35; 1 Cor 10:29b; 9:22; 10:33; Mt 11:19; 9:10,11; Lk 15:1,2.<br /><br />- Heb 1:1,2 & Jn 1:18 don't disagree but Heb 1:1,2 is not exhaustive doctrine of revelation. Treatments of rev based on it alone say it's *only* since incarnation that Father has spoken through Son.<br /><br />- You've confused X (natural theology) with Y ("general revelation"). X thinks it can know/define God without God the Word. Y doesn't ignore God the Word. *From God's side* the invisible things of God are revealed in creation because the One who makes the Invisible God visible is the content of creation's sermon. Unless God the Word is proclaimed by creation, creation is silent concerning God. Otherwise you deny Jesus THE Way & Truth. *From our side* it involves seeing properly God's self-disclosure – something we can't & won't do in fallen condition. Sinful humanity is like student in class listening to headphones rather than teacher. Bible = spectacles to focus our vision.<br /><br />- Re: your claim that creation's original purpose wasn't to set forth Christ as this would only have been necessary post-Fall. (Is Christ unnecessary pre-Fall?!) Irenaeus said that Christ was "Saviour" before Fall & He formed creation in order to be the scene of His incarnate work. 1. Creation's goal wasn't Adam in Eden. Adam & original creation very good but incomplete. Adam only a pattern of the One to come (Rom 5). 2. Gospel proclaimed pre-Fall (e.g. Gen 2). 3. It's Satanic theologia gloriae (Mt 16) to claim creation's perfection could have been achieved without Christ's suffering. 4. Creation & redemption are held together in Bible & can only be approached through One Word who is both Creator and Redeemer. 5. Is "Jesus" (Saviour) a mask, or a Name revealing His essential nature? Paul (1 Cor 8) calls Him this in a pre-Fall context. 5. Jesus (Jn 10:17) claims that Crucifixion & Resurrection are integral to & constitutive of the Triune life. To cut God loose from His saving activity is to imagine a false god.<br /><br />- Rom 10:18, Col 2:3 & Rev 5:13 are v. important. Rom 10: Paul's not drawing a parallel but answering direct question. Why would he prove that *the gospel* has been heard by saying that *gospel-less* revelation has gone throughout earth? Col 2: Have some of these treasures, unavailable outside of Jesus, locked up in Him, somehow slipped out and easily accessible to creation? Rev 5: Why is creation's song about Father and Slain-Lamb-Son?<br /><br />- "Why preach gospel if they've heard it from creation?" is like saying the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election renders redundant the responsibility to evangelise.<br /><br />- If Christ Jesus is not the God proclaimed from start to finish, the god being proclaimed is sub-Christian & not Christ who is Lord & *Saviour* in equal measure. Result: God viewed as Sovereign Law-giver over & above loving Father, Self-giving Saviour & Life-giving Spirit. Leads to a) compartmentalised Christian life dividing sacred and secular; b) "Christian" ethos where legalists fit in more than licentious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-5974293985040949502013-05-22T19:11:37.479+01:002013-05-22T19:11:37.479+01:00Meneksh
I haven't posted your multiple commen...Meneksh<br /><br />I haven't posted your multiple comments [I think there were 7 in total in your most recent reply] or responded as I am short of time to read multiple comments. I pointed that out on the comments policy and did post a subsequent multiple reply from you and did respond. <br /><br />If you want further comments posted then you need to reduce your last set and future comments to one per reply. Then I will take the time to read and respond. <br /><br />Brian McClung<br /><br />Rev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-77987870057435571482013-04-12T14:11:31.114+01:002013-04-12T14:11:31.114+01:00Meneksh
2. You are simply wrong about Heb 1:1,2. ...Meneksh<br /><br />2. You are simply wrong about Heb 1:1,2. It is an exhaustive treatment of revelation. John 1:18 doesn't contradict Hebrews rather it agrees fully with it. Creation does not present the gospel & Christ as Saviour. Here is what John Gill had to say on Romans 1:19 to answer that point at the same time: <i>There are some things which could not be known of God by the light of nature; as a trinity of persons in the Godhead; the knowledge of God in Christ as Mediator; the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ; his incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection; the will of God to save sinners by a crucified Jesus; the several peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, particularly the resurrection of the dead, and the manner of worshipping of God with acceptance…</i><br /><br />The natural revelation, ie. creation, was provided for an unfallen world. It was never designed for a world fallen into sin and spiritual darkness as is now the case. It didn't need to teach Christ and the gospel as when God made it the world was without sin. Sin entered afterwards and immediately upon its entry God commenced to give special revelation, cf. Gen 3:15, the promise of a redeemer. This could never have been known from creation. It never was its purpose! Why shoehorn something into creation that was never there in the first place and was never its intended purpose?<br /><br />Rom 10:18; Col 2:3 & Rev 5:13 have no bearing whatsoever upon this matter. Rom 10:18 is an example of the very point that I was making whereby spiritual principles can be illustrated from the natural world. Paul is drawing a parallel between the natural revelation going into all the world and the gospel being preached in all the world. The fact that he does is an argument in support of what I am saying, for if creation taught the gospel why would we need to send preachers into all the world to preach the gospel to every creature from the BIble if people could learn it from creation? When missionary go into tribes with no gospel knowledge, they teach that there is a God from nature and from the Scriptures; they teach that there is a Saviour exclusively from the Scriptures. <br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-3636840943623098092013-04-12T14:10:56.670+01:002013-04-12T14:10:56.670+01:00Meneksh
1. There is a world of difference between...Meneksh<br /><br />1. There is a world of difference between sinners coming to Christ and believers being found in places of worldly entertainment. To conflate the two is unscriptural and in my opinion a little foolish. Separation from the world is clearly taught by the Bible. Why do professing Christians refuse to accept its plain teaching on this point?<br /><br />I think in quoting 1 Cor 13 you missed verse 6: [Charity/love] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth. Surely that is another argument not to be found where pleasure and entertainment is derived from films which do not honour God or His truth. <br /><br />You are sadly mistaken if you think the world wants 'true love'. It doesn't! It cannot! It wants its sin that is why the world generally for example strives for the secret of long life. The natural heart is totally depraved therefore it can never chose or desire what is good. The unconverted heart loves sin in its various forms. They are so in love with sin that they never want to leave this world. <br /><br />You reasoning about attending the cinema is alarmingly wrong. Your argument is a licence for the individual Christian to do as they think best. Your reasoning could equally be used as an argument for going to the pub as well and a whle lot of other places a Christian should never be found! This was the mark of departure from God in the days of the Judges, cf. Jud 17:6; Jud 21:25. <br /><br />The Christian, as Paul reminds us, is under the law to Christ, 1 Cor 9:20,21. God commands us to flee every appearance of evil. If that doesn't take in the cinema/theatre, and such like places, then words don't mean anything. As I pointed out before it has been the historical evangelical position that attendance at these types of places is not in keeping with a profession of the Gospel. The spirit of seeking to attend these worldly places of entertainment is a far cry from that of the Psalmist in <i>Psalm 101:3: I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.</i><br /><br />Brian McClungRev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-64777925404846397972013-04-03T23:10:55.821+01:002013-04-03T23:10:55.821+01:002. Does creation present Christ? Heb 1:1,2 isn'...<b>2. Does creation present Christ?</b> Heb 1:1,2 isn't an exhaustive treatment of revelation. Taken by itself it could look like it is <b>only</b> in these last days that God has spoken to us by His Son, which contradicts John 1:18 for a start (not to mention the rest of Hebrews 1)!<br /> <br />I know space is limited, but I feel you have side-stepped my questions arising from reading Rom 1:19,20. Are you advocating such a thing as Christless revelation of God?<br /> <br />The creation's testimony about God is <b>maximal</b> not <b>minimal</b> (<b>even</b> the <b>invisible</b> things are clearly seen). Surely this means it is saying more than "there exists a glorious God"?<br /><br />If the gospel plays no part in that <b>maximal</b> testimony, what kind of a god is creation proclaiming? Not a Gospel God. Not the Crucified God.<br /> <br />What is the "glory" of this "glorious God"? Who is this God? Father, Son and Holy Spirit? None of the above?<br /> <br />And why does Paul in Rom 10:14–18 quote from the "general" revelation part of Ps 19 to answer the question, "Have they not heard [the good news]?"<br /> <br />Isn't the song of creation pouring forth praise to the One seated on the throne, and to the Lamb (Rev 5:13)?<br /> <br />In light of Col 2:3, I'm still intrigued at your agreement with the notion of extracting illustrations of spiritual principles from <b>a)</b> creation, which you say bypasses Christ, and <b>b)</b> works of fiction by unsaved writers, who are opposed to Christ!<br /> <br />There's precedent in Scripture for <b>a)</b> because creation proclaims Christ.<br /><br />There's biblical warrant for <b>b)</b>, when unsaved men speak or illustrate the gospel without knowing it (e.g. Gen 50:20; Jn 11:49–52), and/or when such things are pressed into the service of Christ (e.g. Acts 17). Yet you claim it's not legitimate to say that exactly the same applies to theatrical productions/films!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-47276252802760196012013-04-03T23:09:44.285+01:002013-04-03T23:09:44.285+01:00I would venture that, just as reading newspapers o...I would venture that, just as reading newspapers or novels can be instructive, even sobering, so too can watching films/plays. You yourself have said that there are many kinds of films that are beneficial.<br /><br />Christians have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2). We see things through His eyes. In Christ, we see the great longings and hopes and fears of a lost world shown up all the more clearly. Every cry, complaint, wish, etc., put in the mouths of characters on the stage or screen, corresponds with what we find in Scripture again and again.<br /><br />As we watch, read and pay attention to the world around us the Spirit of Christ in us scrutinises, diagnoses and exposes the world's false gospels and solutions and presses upon us once again the One who is the Question to humanity's answers and the Answer to humanity's questions.<br /> <br />As I've said before, very few films set Christ forth as the Divine Logos, the One in whom all sin is judged, in whom true reconciliation is effected, in whom all hunger is satisfied. Christ's presence is sorely needed. But even though He's <b>absent</b>, it's <b>Christ's</b> absence that is felt, not someone else or some abstract life-principle.<br /> <br />Above all, liberty in Christ means we are free to love and serve our neighbour. That must include spending time with the lost as Jesus did. To do so is not compromising but doing something like what we see Paul doing throughout Acts, in 1 Cor 9, etc. In all of this He is explicitly imitating Jesus Himself (1 Cor 11:1).<br /> <br />We can cut ourselves off from the world. We can refuse to read the papers. We can live in ignorance of the cinema or theatre apart from when something immoral/blasphemous is released/staged that we can protest against. We can refuse to spend much time with sinners lest we be corrupted -- aside from concerted evangelistic campaigns, before we return to our holy huddle.<br /> <br />But I can't help thinking that if our prime concern is to be different from the world rather than an obsession with Jesus, with loving Him and one another, the ones we'll end up looking very different from are the apostles and the Post-Pentecost Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-68074354216775718822013-04-03T23:07:45.534+01:002013-04-03T23:07:45.534+01:00The world wants this love, but it doesn't want...The world wants this love, but it doesn't want Christ. In Adam, humanity has forsaken Christ. Cut off from Him, everyone is full of emptiness, thirst, hunger, longing. We have dug broken cisterns. No-one seeks after Him, but all seek to fill His absence and cover our guilt. One of the ways in which this is seen is in our insatiable appetite for amusement and entertainment.<br /> <br />What countless multitudes think they'll find in entertainment, but what entertainment never delivers, is delivered in the Christ who came down to us, sought us, and relentlessly pursued us through hell and death, loving us more than His own life. He is everything we need.<br /> <br />In that sense the Crucified God judges, not merely the cinema or the theatre or those who go there, but all of humanity as enslaved pleasure-seekers, sinful lovers of ourselves, not lovers of Christ and our neighbour. Everyone is condemned already, even before they step through the doors of a cinema.<br /> <br />But when in Christ, we are liberated from slavery to these things. They are set in their proper context. We no longer live for them but for Christ. And everything we do, we now do to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).<br /><br />A Christian may object to cinema attendance on the basis that it is deliberately putting oneself in a position to be bombarded with worldliness. Regardless of whether there is an "objective" right answer to the issue, that person is right to avoid going to the cinema, as to go would be acting against his conscience.<br /><br />Another Christian may have no problem with the cinema, given that anybody who has ever engaged in conversation with a non-Christian, read a newspaper, or walked around a city centre, has deliberately put himself in the way of unprofitable worldly propaganda. It's a necessary part of following the LORD Jesus. That and other reasons are why this Christian is convinced in his own mind that he is at liberty to attend the cinema.<br /><br />Part of our freedom in Christ relates to cultural practices concerning which others might judge us. However, freedom in Christ does not mean that we run roughshod over our brothers and sisters but instead that we serve them. If the second Christian offends the first brother in this, he is not to insist on his rights but to relinquish them for his brother's sake. (Cf. Rom 14; 1 Cor 8–11; etc.)<br /><br />If someone objects to a cultural practice and imposes a prohibition on the church family, claiming that someone cannot truly be a Christian unless they adhere to this prohibition, this is very wrong. We should make a concerted effort to attend the cinema as much as possible to fly in the face of this "other" gospel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-31410568606593168192013-04-03T23:02:39.282+01:002013-04-03T23:02:39.282+01:00Many thanks again for taking time to reply :)
1. ...Many thanks again for taking time to reply :)<br /><br /><b>1. The issue of theatre/cinema attendance.</b> You say that being found in places frequented by the worldly is a no-no. Going back to your original post, one of your main reasons is the company. "[T]he ungodly resort" there, "attending ... in their droves", so why would Christians want to be in such company?<br /> <br />In the Gospels, the LORD Jesus Christ always seemed to attract certain types of people: Sinners. <b>He</b> was the place where the ungodly resorted in their droves. He made Himself at home with them, in their company, in their houses, at their parties. He called Himself their Friend. Where Jesus is concerned, to stay away from where Sinners flock is to stand with the scornful Pharisees.<br /> <br />What was it about Christ that <b>Sinners</b> wanted to be in <b>His</b> company? Do Sinners feel the same about us? Perhaps they go to "worldly" places to avoid us!<br /> <br />The popular Christian slogan, "Christians are in the world but not of the world," can often be heard as: <b>"Christians are in the world</b> <i>[which is a shame, there's nothing we can do about it, but remember we're escaping to heaven soon!]</i> <b>but</b> <i>[striving by God's grace]</i> <b>not</b> <i>[to be]</i> <b>of the world</b> <i>[so let's grit our teeth and keep the world at arm's length]</i><b>."</b><br /> <br />In John 17:14–19, both Jesus and the disciples are "not of the world" <b>to begin with</b>. Yet they are not <b>taken out of</b> the world, but both are <b>sent into</b> the world (because that's where the worldly are!).<br /> <br />The Church is to be holy, separate, distinct from the world. This does not mean that we are to be prickly, withdrawn, fearful, defensive -- judging those on the outside (1 Cor 5:12). Whatever 1 Cor 9:19–23 looks like in practice, we can be sure it's not that!<br /> <br />Jesus tells us that what is to distinguish us from the world is our love for one another (John 13:35), which flows out of the love that He has for us (John 13:34).<br /> <br />If this is what sets us apart from the world, that means that the world doesn't reject us primarily because we "know what we believe and we tell it as we see it no matter how unpopular", or because we "take a stand against error", or because we refuse to fraternise with certain people, or because we "uphold moral standards". (The BNP does that kind of thing with great ease!)<br /> <br />That's not to say that standing firm in faith, opposing error and avoiding false teachers play no part in following Jesus (e.g. 1 Cor 16:13; 1 Pet 4:2–4; 2 Tim 3:1–5), but we must recognise that these things in themselves can be entirely fleshly. (Cf. 1 Cor 13.) And we are certainly not called to be moral policemen.<br /><br />The love that marks out the Bride of Christ is out of this world. It is extravagant, counter-intuitive, other-centred, self-sacrificial. Such love that forsakes ease and comfort in this life only makes sense in the light of the New Creation hope. This love is constituted by, conformed to and centred around the Cross. The world rejects this love as foolishness. This love, embodied in Christ, appears to the world to be the way of death, not the way to life.<br /> <br />And yet the world longs for such love. It is sought in both legalism and licence, "spirituality" and materialism. The world tries to recreate such union and communion in its relationships and social gatherings, whether these be characterised by closeness and inclusivity or exclusion and isolation. The world often extols such love in marriage ceremonies and commemorative events.<br /> <br />And all the while True Love is available, held out to the world, in Christ the Head, on display in His Body.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-49006433827987309962013-03-30T14:22:24.196+00:002013-03-30T14:22:24.196+00:00Meneksh
Sorry for the delay in posting comments. ...Meneksh<br /><br />Sorry for the delay in posting comments. [I added the change to give an explanation for delays which I felt I owed to you and others] <br /><br />There are two points under discussion: <br />1. The issue of attending the theatre/cinema. <br />2. The secondary issue regarding whether creation teaches the gospel. <br /><br />On the first it has been the historic, evangelical position, based upon the Word of God, and that for many a day, that attending the theatre/cinema is an expression of worldliness. I entirely agree with this thesis and do not see any reason that you have presented that would make me change my mind on the issue. <br /><br />I firmly believe that the powerlessness of the Church of Jesus Christ today is directly attributable to the ingression of worldliness into evangelical Christianity. This is nothing new and has always caused a loss of spiritual power and effectiveness. It is intensely sad when professing Christians think that the answer to this powerlessness and lack of effectiveness is closer associations with the world so that we might influence them and win them to Christ. It didn't work for Lot in Sodom with his family and it won't work today either. It indeed may extract professions of 'Christianity' but it is a Christianity totally alien from the Word of God. <br /><br />2. Does Creation teach the Gospel? It illustrates spiritual principles but does not teach the gospel and this is a vital distinction. For an illustration you need first a source of teaching. Creation does not teach the Gospel. That is plain from portions such as <i>Hebrews 1:1,2: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.</i> Paul is here speaking about saving revelation. He does not say that God spoke in time past from creation. He goes back as far as the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact he does not mention creation at all when speaking about saving revelation. That should speak volumes to us!<br /><br />Creation teaches unfallen mankind that there exists a glorious God. It cannot teach a fallen sinner the way to God. This is why special saving revelation is required as Paul highlights in Heb 1:1,2. The sinner is even blind today to the first and cannot see God in creation. Again what I am saying is the position of historic reformed Christianity. <br /><br />The Gospel is a 'mystery'. It is not known to man and never known without special revelation from God. It could not possibly be present in a film produced, directed and acted in by the ungodly whose minds are blinded by the God of this world. I repeat the point I made in a previous reply about 'seeing things that are not there'.<br /><br />It is the exposition of this special revelation alone that God promises to bless. I don't see the parallel between your issues with public speaking and the argument for drama. The principles of good public speaking didn't originate with the stage and therefore can't be argued that to employ them is to countenance drama. <br /><br />Brian McClung<br />Rev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1494879303411564036.post-52082702023687892742013-03-18T22:15:09.300+00:002013-03-18T22:15:09.300+00:00Julie
There is a world of difference between pres...Julie<br /><br />There is a world of difference between presenting the gospel to sinners and attending places of worldly entertainment for no other reason than being entertained. If the world doesn't see a difference in the way a Christian lives then it is no surprise that they want nothing to do with their gospel. The Bible commands us to avoid all appearance of evil, <i>1 Thess 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.</i> <br /><br />It is the failure to separate from the world that causes the Church of Jesus Christ to lose its power to influence an ungodly world. I would suggest that this is the chief feature of the Church of Jesus Christ today. It has no power to influence an ungodly world. Why has it no power? Because it is compromising with the world and the practices that were once shunned by born again believers in the past, as expressions of worldliness, are now deemed to be okay and indulged in by many who profess to belong to the Lord. <br /><br />That is why Free Presbyterian ministers take an oath at their ordination to 'denounce the great public vices of drinking, dancing, gambling and the pleasure crazes of this present wail world'. Following after these things robs any Church and Christian of their power to see anything accomplished for the Lord. <br /><br />Brian McClung Rev Brian McClunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440585427738798222noreply@blogger.com