|
Sea Urchin
|
101#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:05/09/2009 05:55:24)
Found some info on Theophilus (not sure how accurate, but worth putting out there for thought?) Apologies for the cut & paste.
"Theophilus is the name of a person or an honorary title to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). Most scholars agree that both Luke and Acts were originally written in Koine Greek and that "θεόφιλος" ("Theophilos"), as it appears therein, means friend of God or (be)loved by God or loving God in the Greek language. No one knows the true identity of Theophilos and there are several conjectures and traditions around an identity. In English Theophilos is also written "Theophilus", both a common name and an honorary title among the learned (academic) Romans and Jews of the era. Their life would coincide with the writing of Luke and the author of Acts, sometime between 60-110, depending on which tradition one subscribes to.
Honorary title (academia) tradition maintains that Theophilus was not a person. The word in Greek means "Friend of God" and thus both Luke and Acts were addressed to anyone who fits that description"
I should have realised that theo philos means 'Friend of God'
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
102#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Sea%20Urchin
(Date Posted:05/09/2009 06:18:39)
Urch,
The fact that Luke refers to Theophilus with the honorific, "most excellent", indicates that a real person (and not an idealised "type") was in view.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
103#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:05/09/2009 06:19:05)
and yet more....
"Theophilos, "loved of God". The one to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. It has been suggested that Theophilus is merely a generic term for all Christians, but the epithet "most excellent" implies it was applied by Luke to a definite person, probably a Roman official, whom he held in high respect"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Fremde
|
104#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4470
Posts:219
Registered:19/09/2007
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:05/09/2009 09:55:08)
Ian, thank you for your explanation of dislocation and your
forbearance. Spitchips and Galien thank you both as well (as with Ian)
for your brotherly love and encouragement.
Metanoian, I do not
mind at all. I think by now you see me warts and all. Considering my
prodigal wandering in the wilderness for so long, I have no pretensions
about my status. I have no desire to ever go from Christ again, how can
I, firstly, because Jesus has the words of eternal life and
furthermore, what other faith, what other God, what other Saviour
offers grace to someone who is as wretched and has sinned so much as me?
The
group, "The Pentecost Revival Centre", I fell in with (the word
fellowship is hardly applicable) was an offshoot of the Melbourne and
Ballarat Revival Centres simultaneously around 1970. Scott Williams
left his job as a teacher at Ballarat East High and went to Sydney to
start up the third asembly. A schoolfriend with whom I had kept contact
go roped in and in 1972 he roped in Sharon and me (we had been married
about a year).
The Ballarat group leader was a man called Jim
Kinnane and at first shunned the title of pastor and they took pains to
appoint apostles, prophets, teachers, helps and deacons. Just about
everyone had a title. Jim got praise heaped upon him for being such a
wonderful teacher. In retrospect it was because he could proof-text in
a seemingly endless stream and he was never
given to jocularity as was common (I have been told) in Revival
Centres. Jim seized control and all of a sudden he was being referred
to as Head Pastor. Around the time we came in he gave wrathful and
condemnatory "talks" (as he styled them). In Melbourne his son Ken was
made Pastor with Chris Barling as the "teacher". Ken was an easy going
bloke and very likable in total contrast to his father Jim, who, given
a black habit with a face-shadowing cowl and a scythe could have
doubled for the Grim Reaper.
Ken and his wife went to live in
Warrnambool and in time dropped of the radar so to speak. A guy called
Neil McAuliffe was anointed (they were big on oiling) pastor and turned
from being friendly, generous and often funny (outside of meetings, God
forbid that meetings could be fun or enjoyable!), to one of Jim's
stooges, reporting every misdemeanor, even if repented of, to Jim, who
would inevitably "line the person up" next time they were in Ballarat
or Jim visited Melbourne on a search and destroy visit with Mrs Grim
Reaper who was as trustworthy and friendly as Lady Macbeth.
All
other titles were abolished. I was a hard worker and when given tasks
to do, I did them diligently in the fear of God so to speak. In time I
got every job the was not involved with teaching or rule and instructed
to go to Ballarat. However Jim took pains to make it known to me and
others that I had no authority, except when he went to Sydney or
Melbourne or whenever and he left some "trainee" pastor in charge and
they did something bizzare, then on Jim's return I'd get berated for
not stepping in! Jim said I needed to be broken and set about baiting
and berating me when ever the mood struck him, which was often. I
turned out to be the best at printing that had ever done the job and
even overhauled machines. Others said so .... never Jim.
Jim
decided that the world outside Australia needed our "pure" Revivalism
and Neil, who had already been moved to Perth was told that he would be
pastor of the English work and I would do all the menial tasks and
printing for England and Germany (Scott had a vision or some such to
start his version of "Das vierte Reich"
(the 4th Reich...pardon my sarcasm). Sharon and I and our newborn baby
were told to go to Perth to sit under Neil for a few months and then go
on ahead to England to set up before Neil and Scott arrived. This
Sharon, baby Caleb, and I did as well as our house being the "hotel"
for new arrivals from Australia and vistors passing through.
Suffice
it to say that the next five years were unhappy for everyone home and
abroad. The Pentecost Revival Centre disappeared everywhere "self
anally" to put it as politely as I can. Scott had gone his own way and
his group grew and expanded into a few countries in Europe including
Scotland and England. But Scott was grooming young men to be more than
his close elders ......
The rest, as they say, is history.
My love in Christ to you for your fellowship on this forum,
John
|
|
Didaktikon
|
105#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Episkopeo
(Date Posted:05/09/2009 18:22:16)
Good morning, Epi.
Hmmmm the Romans liked their patrons.
Well, patronage was the way the world was run in Roman society. If one wanted to get ahead, fit in or even survive, then one invariably needed a patron.
Theophilus must have acquired some information about Christianity probably in discussions with Luke and later Luke deciding to supply him with the more detailed and chronicled accounts.
Or possibly via interaction with Paul himself, as there's nothing in the Gospel that indicates that Luke knew Theophilus personally.
There must have been a close friendship, if not a conversion, for Luke to feel confident that Theophilus would favourably influence that class of Roman society that he represented and Luke wanted to attract.
I don't think so. Patronage was an established custom in Roman society. If Theophilus was favourably disposed towards Christianity (he may have had a converted wife, or close slave for example), then an approach by a well-known Christian (i.e. Luke) on behalf of a well-known imprisoned apostle (i.e. Paul), would not have been altogether unexpected. When Luke wrote his two-stage work (early to mid 60s), the lot in life for Christians in Rome under Nero was becoming increasingly tenuous. A well placed, aristocratic Roman patron would've been seen as a "God-send", and as such would've provided a measure of protection for what was already a marginalised group.
Paul didn't seem to have much help in the way of an advocate in his defense when he was brought before Nero.
Indeed. But by that stage of history, Nero's moderating influences (principally Seneca) were no longer on the scene. It was inevitable that Paul and Peter faced the deaths they did, given their prominence as Christian leaders.
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 05/09/2009 22:50:31)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
prezy
|
106#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:05/09/2009 21:29:42)
REPLY TO FREMDE; Sorry to hear about your sister in law and can imagine the pain you and your family went through. In any sort of Christian fellowship this is the time you need to be cared for, not kicked in the guts. As I keep saying what is the good of the sign of tongues without fruit? There is just no love in revival centres. When I first met hollins I told him how when I was in my teens my mother commited suicide then when I was 21 my father did the same. My only sibling was shot dead when he was 29. Hollins didn't even blink an eye and wasn't even interested! Notice Luke was around when I asked for prayer for Joey. So many prayers and good wishes from everyone except our resident revivalist. Typical. No love. When you were "in" and being blamed for all sorts of things and being used as the scape goat pity the reason they couldn't see why God wasn't with them. They follow a gospel that is not of God.
Thanks again for your prayers and kind thoughts.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
Metanoian
|
107#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To prezy
(Date Posted:06/09/2009 04:22:19)
Reply to prezy REPLY TO FREMDE; Sorry to hear about your sister in law and can imagine the pain you and your family went through. In any sort of Christian fellowship this is the time you need to be cared for, not kicked in the guts. As I keep saying what is the good of the sign of tongues without fruit? There is just no love in revival centres. When I first met hollins I told him how when I was in my teens my mother commited suicide then when I was 21 my father did the same. My only sibling was shot dead when he was 29. Hollins didn't even blink an eye and wasn't even interested! Notice Luke was around when I asked for prayer for Joey. So many prayers and good wishes from everyone except our resident revivalist. Typical. No love. When you were "in" and being blamed for all sorts of things and being used as the scape goat pity the reason they couldn't see why God wasn't with them. They follow a gospel that is not of God.
Thanks again for your prayers and kind thoughts.
A gathering together without love is like a car trying to drive without petrol..
blessings
Metanoia
|
|
Metanoian
|
108#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To Sea%20Urchin
(Date Posted:06/09/2009 15:09:11)
Reply to Sea Urchin
and yet more....
"Theophilos, "loved of God". The one to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. It has been suggested that Theophilus is merely a generic term for all Christians, but the epithet "most excellent" implies it was applied by Luke to a definite person, probably a Roman official, whom he held in high respect" Hi Urchin, Here's a scan from The Pillar New Testament Commentary (David G. Peterson): 
|
|
Metanoian
|
109#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:06/09/2009 15:27:21)
Reply to Fremde
Ian, thank you for your explanation of dislocation and your
forbearance. Spitchips and Galien thank you both as well (as with Ian)
for your brotherly love and encouragement.
Metanoian, I do not
mind at all. I think by now you see me warts and all. Considering my
prodigal wandering in the wilderness for so long, I have no pretensions
about my status. I have no desire to ever go from Christ again, how can
I, firstly, because Jesus has the words of eternal life and
furthermore, what other faith, what other God, what other Saviour
offers grace to someone who is as wretched and has sinned so much as me?
The
group, "The Pentecost Revival Centre", I fell in with (the word
fellowship is hardly applicable) was an offshoot of the Melbourne and
Ballarat Revival Centres simultaneously around 1970. Scott Williams
left his job as a teacher at Ballarat East High and went to Sydney to
start up the third asembly. A schoolfriend with whom I had kept contact
go roped in and in 1972 he roped in Sharon and me (we had been married
about a year).
The Ballarat group leader was a man called Jim
Kinnane and at first shunned the title of pastor and they took pains to
appoint apostles, prophets, teachers, helps and deacons. Just about
everyone had a title. Jim got praise heaped upon him for being such a
wonderful teacher. In retrospect it was because he could proof-text in
a seemingly endless stream and he was never
given to jocularity as was common (I have been told) in Revival
Centres. Jim seized control and all of a sudden he was being referred
to as Head Pastor. Around the time we came in he gave wrathful and
condemnatory "talks" (as he styled them). In Melbourne his son Ken was
made Pastor with Chris Barling as the "teacher". Ken was an easy going
bloke and very likable in total contrast to his father Jim, who, given
a black habit with a face-shadowing cowl and a scythe could have
doubled for the Grim Reaper.
Ken and his wife went to live in
Warrnambool and in time dropped of the radar so to speak. A guy called
Neil McAuliffe was anointed (they were big on oiling) pastor and turned
from being friendly, generous and often funny (outside of meetings, God
forbid that meetings could be fun or enjoyable!), to one of Jim's
stooges, reporting every misdemeanor, even if repented of, to Jim, who
would inevitably "line the person up" next time they were in Ballarat
or Jim visited Melbourne on a search and destroy visit with Mrs Grim
Reaper who was as trustworthy and friendly as Lady Macbeth.
All
other titles were abolished. I was a hard worker and when given tasks
to do, I did them diligently in the fear of God so to speak. In time I
got every job the was not involved with teaching or rule and instructed
to go to Ballarat. However Jim took pains to make it known to me and
others that I had no authority, except when he went to Sydney or
Melbourne or whenever and he left some "trainee" pastor in charge and
they did something bizzare, then on Jim's return I'd get berated for
not stepping in! Jim said I needed to be broken and set about baiting
and berating me when ever the mood struck him, which was often. I
turned out to be the best at printing that had ever done the job and
even overhauled machines. Others said so .... never Jim.
Jim
decided that the world outside Australia needed our "pure" Revivalism
and Neil, who had already been moved to Perth was told that he would be
pastor of the English work and I would do all the menial tasks and
printing for England and Germany (Scott had a vision or some such to
start his version of "Das vierte Reich"
(the 4th Reich...pardon my sarcasm). Sharon and I and our newborn baby
were told to go to Perth to sit under Neil for a few months and then go
on ahead to England to set up before Neil and Scott arrived. This
Sharon, baby Caleb, and I did as well as our house being the "hotel"
for new arrivals from Australia and vistors passing through.
Suffice
it to say that the next five years were unhappy for everyone home and
abroad. The Pentecost Revival Centre disappeared everywhere "self
anally" to put it as politely as I can. Scott had gone his own way and
his group grew and expanded into a few countries in Europe including
Scotland and England. But Scott was grooming young men to be more than
his close elders ......
The rest, as they say, is history.
My love in Christ to you for your fellowship on this forum,
John |
Thanks John for filling me in on what happened in the history of CAI and how it now all fits together. It seems that CAI are now a spent force. I notice it is now 2 months since any posting in their particular room. But I am of the hope that God will rebuild some of the shattered lives of the folk that have left that legalistic nightmare.. Golly it may well be that we are witnessing a unique time in history with not only CAI being ripped apart and finished as a group but also the RCI are heading in a similar direction also and rumours coming out of the Revival Fellowship camp indicate another group are not in for a very bright future also. thanks John blessings Metanoia
|
|
Didaktikon
|
110#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Metanoian
(Date Posted:06/09/2009 17:26:59)
Good morning, Eric.
In my larger "Acts" essay I pointed out that letters of the sort penned by Luke the Evangelist were intended to be "published", that is, to be read aloud by the recipient to his immediate circle of friends. If Theophilus was a reasonably powerful figure in Roman society then it can be presumed that Luke had hoped that he would serve as a patron for the Christians, specifically the imprisoned Peter and Paul, and thus would be able to exercise a degree of "leverage" to their benefit. Patronage of this sort was ubiquitous in the New Testament world; understanding its existence and effects helps us to make sense of certain aspects of letters such as Acts, Romans, the Corinthian epistles and Philippians, for example.
Thanks for sharing Peterson's thoughts from his very recent commentary on Acts.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Episkopeo
|
111#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:06/09/2009 19:59:55)
Good Morning Ian,
Lots of background information and learning has come from the discussion on the twice mentioned Theophilus of Luke's gospel and the Acts. Thank you for drawing attention to Paul, Luke Theophilus and patronage. I see clearly now how Paul would use Luke's eloquence with words in addressing his two books to Theophilus, an ideal patron for the Christian way.
Patronage was ubiquitous in the church of my upbringing in a little country town in Australia. I cannot understand why I didn't see it in the Luke, Theophilus opening passages of the two books. In my early church times every project had a patron, (and benefactor where possible) some notable of the town, not necessarily of the same persuasion. Even in the church tennis club someone of influence, with keen interest in the sport, would be approach to act as patron, usually donating some end of season trophies. Most were honoured to accept. Just adding a bit of local trivia on the subject of patronage.
It's been great reading.
Epi
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
112#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:07/09/2009 05:26:11)
I've been doing some further study on Luke and find that the deeper I go, the deeper I WANT to go! (if that makes sense?)
- it seems as though Theophilus was a Roman official or at least a person of high position or wealth
- he was possibly Luke's patron and responsible for seeing that his writings were copied and distributed
- the message of this gospel was intended for Theophilus' own instruction (1:4) as well as for those to whom it was distributed
- it appears that Luke was Greek, an historian, a physician, an educated man and a Gentile
- he was a faithful and loyal friend of Paul and stayed with him after others had deserted him (2 Ti 4:11)
- Luke explained his purpose for writing in the first 4 verses of ch 1 and tells how (v3) he is writing a 'careful account'
- Luke's gospel gives special emphasis to prayer (more so than the other gospels?) and miracles
- women are given an important place in his writings
- he presents the works and teachings of Jesus that are particularly important for understanding the way of salvation
More to do still...
Thanks Ian for causing me to look a little deeper, much appreciated.
Urch
(Message edited by Sea Urchin On 07/09/2009 05:28:45)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
113#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Sea%20Urchin
(Date Posted:07/09/2009 17:00:02)
Good morning, Urchles.
You're welcome. Actually this is where I had intended that study on the Church to point to all those months ago, before it bogged down. Luke-Acts, Ephesians and Philippians are the New Testament books that are most often studied, when one seeks to develop a biblical ecclesiology.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Episkopeo
|
114#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:07/09/2009 21:10:57)
Hi All,
So we have established that Luke's gospel, although addressed to Theophilus is definitely not for private use but to be set before the broad public and giving the facts of the life, death, resurrection and ascention of Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of the way called Christianity.
Looking at the "Harmony of the Gospels" chart I see that Luke provides an account of Jesus' early life which no other gospel does, even pre birth and even pre birth and birth of John Baptist.
I am slowly reading Gospel of Luke in full again and noticed the detail to the early life, John's birth, Jesus birth announced to Mary, Mary visits Elizabeth, Mary's the Magnificat, John Baptist birth, Circ. of John Baptist, Zecharias' Prophecy, Birth of Jesus, Circ. of Jesus and the Presentation in the Temple. I found Luke's description of Simeon's reaction interesting :-
Luke 2 : 25 - "And behold there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, awaiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said: "Lord, now You are letting Your
servant depart in peace, According to Your Word; For my eyes have seen Your salvation. Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, A light to bring revelation to the GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel."..............Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother............."Yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."
Luke seemed keen to point out that Simeon was waiting for the Colsolation of Israel (the Messiah) to bring comfort of God's people and his acknowledgement of Jesus as "the one". He also emphasised the activity of the Holy Spirit here. He follows here with the prophetess Anna who "never left the temple but worshipped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem" Luke doesn't say exactly why she gave thanks but sees fit to include her acknowledgement that the child and Israel's redemption were connected. The boy Jesus in the temple is included in L
|
|
Episkopeo
|
115#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:07/09/2009 21:17:17)
This got posted before I'd finished so I'll continue :-
......included in Luke's account of Jesus's early history which he was at great pains to present. Giving more facts to a hopefully worldwide fellowship Luke may be giving a more biography style story of Jesus hopefully for a curious worldwide fellowship which would transcend the limits of the Jewish nation itself, but embracing all nationalities, Gentiles as well as Jews.
Epi
|
|
Didaktikon
|
116#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Episkopeo
(Date Posted:07/09/2009 23:26:38)
Hi, Epi.
Pretty much. Luke intentionally crafted his attempt at a Gospel around what was a recognised Greco-Roman genre known as "bios". Although his was a wee bit different in some respects, the aim was pretty much the same.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
TBerry
|
117#
|
Rank:New User
Score:610
Posts:26
Registered:12/03/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:08/09/2009 18:46:09)
Luke, who wrote the majority of the new testament text (Book of Luke and Book of Acts) was a gentile himself, and presents Jesus in his geneology as "son of Adam" (Luke 3) while other gospel writers simply present Jesus as "son of Abraham".
|
|
Didaktikon
|
118#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To TBerry
(Date Posted:08/09/2009 18:52:19)
Hi, TBerry.
I'm happy to stand corrected, but I don't think it was Luke who wrote the majority of the New Testament text at all. That would likely be Paul (whether by "book count", or "word count").
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 08/09/2009 19:02:43)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
MothandRust
|
119#
|
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610
Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/09/2009 05:32:14)
I'm sure TB is referring to the N.T. narratives :P
This discussion is a nice contrast to the 'other' Luke thread.
Interesting how much the book of Luke talks about 'tongues' isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
|
|
TBerry
|
120#
|
Rank:New User
Score:610
Posts:26
Registered:12/03/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/09/2009 18:52:16)
Ian, yes stand corrected - there is no doubt the books of Luke and Acts equal more verses in total than all of Paul's letters put together - i too was quite astounded by this fact! Count up chapters and verses if you like - but its quite plain the majority of the actual TEXT of the new testament is indeed written by Luke, a gentile - goodness me !!
|
|
Talmid
|
121#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Reply to TBerry
(Date Posted:09/09/2009 19:45:17)
Hi TBerry I see you don't dispute Ian's assertion that there are more *words* attributed to Paul than Luke. So you're saying: more text = more verses more text = fewer words Personally I'd take the no. of words as a better measure of the relative amount of text. 
(Message edited by Talmid On 09/09/2009 19:46:43)
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
TBerry
|
122#
|
Rank:New User
Score:610
Posts:26
Registered:12/03/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:10/09/2009 00:47:46)
No, without trying to twist it all - SIMPLY, Luke wrote M-O-R-E of the new testament than any other writer - more text (words, letters, verses - however you like to put it). Yes Pauls contributions are quite diverse and would appear to many as the greatest contribution of the NT text however they are not actually - Lukes chapters are quite long and both books are very long too, totally a greater portion. This fact is often overlooked. Luke is one of the most significant writers involved in the NT.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
123#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To TBerry
(Date Posted:10/09/2009 02:36:43)
Hi, TBerry.
From some very brief research that I've undertaken just now, it appears that you're quite right in what you've maintained, and thus I stand suitably corrected. The facts are these. In the United Bible Societies 4th edition Greek New Testament, the Gospel According to Luke fills 119 pages. The Acts of the Apostles fills a further 112 pages, for a total of 231 pages. The complete epistles of Paul (less Hebrews, which wasn't written by Paul) fills 223 pages, which indicates that Luke the Evangelist wrote "eight pages" more than did the apostle Paul. However, this outcome is tentative at best, given that the UBS4 GNT, being a critical text, contains a textual apparatus at the bottom of each page, one which varies in length from page-to-page and book-to-book. And importantly, when it comes to considering the Acts of the Apostles, there exist two principle families of texts: the Alexandrian and the Western. The Western family reflects the endeavours of an intentional recension undertaken by Lucian of Antioch in the early fourth century, and as such is about 10% longer than the corresponding, and earlier, Alexandrian text. Consequently, if we remove 11 pages to account for the difference in length, Paul "wins" by 3 pages!
Such is what invariably occurs when one "counts" pages, chapters or verses in printed versions (whether Greek or English). Unfortunately, I no longer possess a very useful concordance to the Greek New Testament, one which listed the number of Greek words for each book of the New Testament as "originally" written. I prepared a paper on this subject almost twelve years ago, and as I recall the result was that I established that Paul wrote considerably more words than Luke, overall. But given that I no longer have access to the paper, or the reference works which I used in preparing it, I can no longer prove the matter. And, of course, I have no desire to individually count all the words for myself just to win an argument! So I concede defeat. However, I will state that you erred in suggesting that greater volume in some way equals greater contribution (Paul's writings provided the Church with considerably more doctrinal information and pastoral counsel than do Luke's, for example). But I suppose on one matter we both do agree: Luke certainly was one of the most significant authors used by God in preparing the New Testament!
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 10/09/2009 16:44:29)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Talmid
|
124#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Reply to TBerry
(Date Posted:10/09/2009 03:28:17)
TBerry
OK
I might add that have seen word counts that indicate Paul (excl Hb) wrote more (59,316 words) than Luke (48,708), but I can't vouch for the figures (unknown Greek/English/version) and clearly Luke was a *big* contributor wrt "volume".
(Message edited by Talmid On 10/09/2009 03:33:04)
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
125#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:21/09/2009 00:13:40)
Hi, all.
I'm just seeking to gauge public interest in the continuation of this thread. I'm of the opinion that the basic thesis of the thing has been proven, but would like to know if people are interested in furthering the discussion.
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 21/09/2009 00:14:32)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
126#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:21/09/2009 04:36:24)
Ummm.....Please Sir, can I have more?
O Twist.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
127#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:21/09/2009 04:56:21)
Ian,
If not more of Luke, how about starting another thread on a similar issue? I've found this thread very informative, stimulating and revealing as we were all able to have input and our thoughts and views were teased out. I loved hearing everyone's views and the interaction of openly sharing without putting others down. I particularly loved those 'ah-ha' moments as something was revealed.
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Fremde
|
128#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4470
Posts:219
Registered:19/09/2007
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:21/09/2009 18:39:56)
Good morning Ian,
Although I lag, I enjoy and more to the point, I am edified by the topic and interchange of views.
Reply to Oliver Twist (Sea Urchin in disguise) .... More! You want more!
Ian breaks into song with "I'm reviewing the situation......"
Beware however of Revivalist pastors singing "We've got to pick a pocket or two"
Have a blessed day,
John
|
|
Episkopeo
|
129#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:21/09/2009 20:01:34)
Good Morning All,
Like Urch, I enjoyed the discussion on Luke. The thread is open of course to further discussion should anyone want to tackle other points within the gospel. Some of Paul's letters like Ephesians and Romans could be good subjects for discussion. It might even endear Paul to any who might not be too keen on him and his theology!!! Also the seven churches in Revelation might be a good one, especially as in Rev. we were given quite a lot on this subject especially the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna. The churches according to Revival are epitonised in Revival.
Just adding my suggestions.
God Bless.
Epi
|
|
Metanoian
|
130#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:22/09/2009 00:27:27)
Yeah well "Luke" has runned for cover so it seems.
What would interest me is if Ian could share a teeny weeny insight to his very specialised hobby: Textual Criticism. To be able to engage in TC is a highly specialised field and it seems that it is imperative to know the range of texts and how these manuscripts are weighed. This required knowledge of the texts would explain why Ian is fastidiously focused on Exegesis. I understand this however that without TC, we could not recover the Greek Text as close to the original autograph texts that give us our Bible today in its highest possible accuracy. Perhaps a recommended reading on the subject I would certainly welcome.
Metanoia
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
131#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:22/09/2009 05:16:03)
Eric, I think we're talking about two different 'Lukes' here.
I'd like to offer a suggestion on something I've been doing a bit of a study on and would like to discuss with others - Creation.
Also liked Epi's suggestion of Romans or Ephesians. Actually, anything at all is good!
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Metanoian
|
132#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:07/10/2009 00:30:37)
Well here's some food for thought:
Nowhere in scripture will you find the phrase "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" in its nominal (noun) form. Yes it uses verbal form or different verbs altogether but ?? any thoughts anyone ??? 
Metanoian.
|
|
brolga
|
133#
|
Registered:12/09/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:08/10/2009 05:25:49)
When one reflects on watching the people in the video (Catholic charismatic history) and Pente, etc “churches,” they are more to be showing an outward appearance of an emotional state within and moving on their feelings rather than having that deep personal conviction toward the things of God which I believe one acquires at conversion. Is this really baptism in the Spirit? I see much the same thing at a football match or a musical gig or similar.
Gone are the days when folk would gather in the name of a holy day (Sunday) where there would be a more sincere and heartfelt relationship in worship and reverence to God, singing hymns that meant something to the glory of the Lord.
To me, baptism in the Spirit is that which is given to endow power to those that would sincerely and reverently follow Christ according to his will, having a desire to gain the knowledge and in the work of spreading the good news of his kingdom here on earth.
(Message edited by brolga On 08/10/2009 19:08:14)
--------------------------------------------------------------
'It is for God above all things that we are born, and not for ourselves.' (Calvin)
|
|
Galien
|
134#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:08/10/2009 20:37:43)
Brolga,
When one reflects on watching the people in the video (Catholic charismatic history) and Pente, etc “churches,” they are more to be showing an outward appearance of an emotional state within and moving on their feelings rather than having that deep personal conviction toward the things of God which I believe one acquires at conversion. Is this really baptism in the Spirit? I see much the same thing at a football match or a musical gig or similar.
So why do you think the two things are mutually exclusive. Can one not have an outward emotional reaction AND a deep personal conviction toward the things of God? Does it say anywhere in the bible that there is a problem with deep emotional feelings toward God?
Gone are the days when folk would gather in the name of a holy day (Sunday) where there would be a more sincere and heartfelt relationship in worship and reverence to God, singing hymns that meant something to the glory of the Lord.
Oh I don't know, that is what I find if I go to an Anglican service for example. And really, do things always have to be done the way they have always been done? Are people not free to worship God whoever they choose? I have seen some pretty weird stuff, and performance art in public is NOT my thing, but really I just ignore it and worship with my eyes SHUT.
To me, baptism in the Spirit is that which is given to endow power to those that would sincerely and reverently follow Christ according to his will, having a desire to gain the knowledge and in the work of spreading the good news of his kingdom here on earth.
Sounds fair, but it doesn't mean we get to decide for others what reverence is. Live and let live?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
Episkopeo
|
135#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:08/10/2009 21:43:15)
Reply to brolga
When one reflects on watching the people in the video (Catholic charismatic history) and Pente, etc “churches,” they are more to be showing an outward appearance of an emotional state within and moving on their feelings rather than having that deep personal conviction toward the things of God which I believe one acquires at conversion. Is this really baptism in the Spirit? I see much the same thing at a football match or a musical gig or similar. Gone are the days when folk would gather in the name of a holy day (Sunday) where there would be a more sincere and heartfelt relationship in worship and reverence to God, singing hymns that meant something to the glory of the Lord. To me, baptism in the Spirit is that which is given to endow power to those that would sincerely and reverently follow Christ according to his will, having a desire to gain the knowledge and in the work of spreading the good news of his kingdom here on earth. |
Hi Brolga, Charismata - Charis (gifts) Mata (grace) Although appearing to be on similar lines the Charismatic movement is distinct from Pentecostalism in many ways and was never associated with them, certainly distancing themselves from the Pentecostal extremes such as Toronto blessing, etc It arose years/decades after the Pentecostal Churches began. The movement was not confined to the Catholic Church. Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and even Lutherans had/have their "charismatic arm" in their churches, sometimes called by different names. I think Anglicans referred to it as "The Renewal" while in the Catholic Church it was the Charismatic Renewal. It was not part of the traditional worship but sometimes is incorporated into for special services such as healing services etc. However they operated and whatever they called it, it swept through traditional churches in Australia in the late 70s, 80s and onward, many holding annual well attended conferences with excellent speakers. Movements rise and fall or wane and the charismatic by it's meaning will always be in churches, the form might change from full on, high powered to more steady. The Catholic Charismatic Movement when it began did bring the laity into action and the laity enthusiastically took it on board, gathering often without clergy (many clergy reservedly later entered the fray) using their Holy Spirit given gifts as in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 of faith, knowledge, prophecy, tongues etc although sometimes forgetting the gift of self control in their enthusiasm and freedom. There are many positives that came from the Charismatic Movement in the Catholic Church. God Bless. Epi
|
|
Talmid
|
136#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Reply to Galien
(Date Posted:08/10/2009 23:17:35)
Hi Galien
Are people not free to worship God whoever they choose?
If we take the bible as God's word, he's the potter; we're the clay. He knows what's best for us. It says how to worship him (eg intellect, emotions and deed are "in"), and says what displeases him (eg child sacrifice, temple prostitution and pride are "out"). It says there are unpleasant consequences for those who choose to disobey him. ("Not fair" perhaps, but he *is* the potter, and we *are* but clay.)
So ... *if* we take the bible as God's word, we need to think in terms of worshipping God the way *he* chooses, rather than the way *we* choose. (Eg, why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say ...)
(Message edited by Talmid On 08/10/2009 23:19:13)
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
brolga
|
137#
|
Registered:12/09/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 00:00:53)
Galien,
So why do you think the two things are mutually exclusive. Can one not have an outward emotional reaction AND a deep personal conviction toward the things of God? Does it say anywhere in the bible that there is a problem with deep emotional feelings toward God?
I wasn’t focusing on whether there was a problem with the way people chose to express their feelings etc. it was about “Baptism in the Spirit.” How it is defined, for example the way it is presented in this day and age by Pente groups and modern day “churches” and how the bible defines it. We should be careful to not confuse baptism in the Holy Spirit with the various other ministries of the Holy Spirit. The filling of the Holy Spirit is how He empowers and controls us (Acts 4:31; Ephesians 5:18). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is God the Holy Spirit taking up permanent residence in our lives (John 14:17; Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 1 John 4:4). The sealing of the Holy Spirit is God marking us as His permanent possession (Ephesians 1:13-14). Baptism in the Holy Spirit is related to these other ministries of the Holy Spirit, but at the same time, it is separate from them.
Oh I don't know, that is what I find if I go to an Anglican service for example. And really, do things always have to be done the way they have always been done?
That’s a turn around, it’s the first time you have mentioned about going to an Anglican church, have you really? Things do have to be done according to God’s Word.
Are people not free to worship God whoever (how ever?) they choose?
I don’t think so. Scripture tells us we are to worship him in spirit and in truth
(Message edited by brolga On 09/10/2009 00:05:46)
--------------------------------------------------------------
'It is for God above all things that we are born, and not for ourselves.' (Calvin)
|
|
Galien
|
138#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 00:10:54)
Talmid,
Are people not free to worship God whoever they choose?
If we take the bible as God's word, he's the potter; we're the clay. He knows what's best for us. It says how to worship him (eg intellect, emotions and deed are "in"), and says what displeases him (eg child sacrifice, temple prostitution and pride are "out"). It says there are unpleasant consequences for those who choose to disobey him. ("Not fair" perhaps, but he *is* the potter, and we *are* but clay.)
So ... *if* we take the bible as God's word, we need to think in terms of worshipping God the way *he* chooses, rather than the way *we* choose. (Eg, why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say ...)
Yeah you have to watch that temple prostituiton, tends to be a deal breaker in God's sight. What I mean is, is there any reason why we still have to worship God the same way we did in 1964? Surely a lot of things in church are cultural and not biblical at all, and it often depends on a person's age. Most older people I know cannot stand contemporary christian music, find it much too loud, prefer older hymns and feel they are the only songs that should be sung in church. That doesn't automatically make them right though. Its a preference.
I know some churches that of course have youth services, which I think is a good thing to cater for everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
Galien
|
139#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 00:21:40)
Brolga,
Oh I don't know, that is what I find if I go to an Anglican service for example. And really, do things always have to be done the way they have always been done?
That’s a turn around, it’s the first time you have mentioned about going to an Anglican church, have you really? Things do have to be done according to God’s Word.
I have been to several different churches. When I lived in Sydney in the early 80's I used to go to the church of St Thomas at Nth Sydney. My friend was on the parish council there at the time. Sometimes we would attend different anglican churches around the north shore where certain of his friends went. For a time about 20 years ago, and when still in revival I went to a few services here at St john's church where I was doing volunteer work in the office during the week. For a while when living on the central coast I went to the baptist church at Ettalong where I attended girl's brigade.
I found it very different from what I am used to in church considering I have mostly been to pente churches. I find the anglican church boring and old fashioned compared to what I am used to, it is almost like stepping back in time, quite odd really.
Are people not free to worship God whoever (how ever?) they choose?
I don’t think so. Scripture tells us we are to worship him in spirit and in truth
Yes well that could mean all kinds of things really. I remember in revival they almost used to have a conniption fit if anyone was rude enough to raise thier hands during worship. I wonder what they thought would happen?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
brolga
|
140#
|
Registered:12/09/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 00:31:34)
Epi The Catholic Charismatic Movement when it began did bring the laity into action and the laity enthusiastically took it on board, gathering often without clergy (many clergy reservedly later entered the fray) using their Holy Spirit given gifts as in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 of faith, knowledge, prophecy, tongues etc although sometimes forgetting the gift of self control in their enthusiasm and freedom. According to the bible every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ has experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit, but not all necessarily speak in tongues. In the book of Acts, baptism in the Holy Spirit sometimes resulted in speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4; 10:44-46; Acts 19:6). However, in other instances, people believed and therefore received baptism in the Holy Spirit, but nothing is said of tongues (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 8:17; 13:12, 48; 14:1; 17:12, 34; 18:8). Again, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that every believer has received the baptism in the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), but not every believer speaks in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:27-31). As a result, there is no specific sign that a believer should expect when they are saved and receive baptism in the Holy Spirit. To summarize, baptism in the Holy Spirit does two things. First, it identifies us spiritually with the death and resurrection of Christ, uniting us with Him. Second, baptism in the Holy Spirit joins us to the body of Christ, and identifies us as united with other believers. Practically, baptism in the Holy Spirit means we are risen with Him to newness of life (Romans 6:4), and that we should exercise our spiritual gifts to keep the body of Christ functioning properly as stated in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Experiencing baptism in the Holy Spirit serves as an exhortation to keep unity of the church (Ephesians 4:5). Being identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection-through baptism in the Holy Spirit-establishes the basis for realizing our separation from the power of indwelling sin and our walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-10, Colossians 2:12). My question is; why is there suddenly a movement in these latter days which changes the meaning of scripture that has been established and proven over decades by the Christian church and claim to still hold onto the salvation God has ordained?
--------------------------------------------------------------
'It is for God above all things that we are born, and not for ourselves.' (Calvin)
|
|
Talmid
|
141#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 00:59:29)
Galien,
Are people not free to worship God whoever they choose?
If we take the bible as God's word, he's the potter; we're the clay. He knows what's best for us. It says how to worship him (eg intellect, emotions and deed are "in"), and says what displeases him (eg child sacrifice, temple prostitution and pride are "out"). It says there are unpleasant consequences for those who choose to disobey him. ("Not fair" perhaps, but he *is* the potter, and we *are* but clay.)
So ... *if* we take the bible as God's word, we need to think in terms of worshipping God the way *he* chooses, rather than the way *we* choose. (Eg, why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say ...)
Yeah you have to watch that temple prostituiton, tends to be a deal breaker in God's sight. What I mean is, is there any reason why we still have to worship God the same way we did in 1964? Surely a lot of things in church are cultural and not biblical at all, and it often depends on a person's age. Most older people I know cannot stand contemporary christian music, find it much too loud, prefer older hymns and feel they are the only songs that should be sung in church. That doesn't automatically make them right though. Its a preference.
I know some churches that of course have youth services, which I think is a good thing to cater for everyone
Cultural issues? Obviously. Eg, the "music wars" have been going on for centuries. Youth services, children's services, open air services, liturgical services, "waiting on the Spirit" services, "foreign language" services - sure there's a variety of ways of Christians "formally" fellowshipping.
The point is that the sentence I quoted at the start has priorities back to front from a Christian pov. To rephrase a principle that has been brought out before, Christian worship is on *God's* terms.
(Message edited by Talmid On 09/10/2009 01:07:09)
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
Galien
|
142#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 02:42:00)
Talmid,
The point is that the sentence I quoted at the start has priorities back to front from a Christian pov. To rephrase a principle that has been brought out before, Christian worship is on *God's* terms.
Which means what, exactly?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
brolga
|
143#
|
Registered:12/09/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 06:41:53)
Paul in his letter to those in Rome who is loved by God and called to be saints;
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual act of worship.”
mercies of God Love for the poor and needy and support for those who cannot support themselves in a sinful world. The doctrine of grace leads to a life motivated by gratitude (comment from TRSB)
True worship is to give yourself in the service of God’s work, not to be caught up in an orgy of emotional diatribe and self indulgence.
(Message edited by brolga On 09/10/2009 07:03:22)
--------------------------------------------------------------
'It is for God above all things that we are born, and not for ourselves.' (Calvin)
|
|
Episkopeo
|
144#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 06:46:20)
Reply to brolga
____________________________________________________________________________________________ My question is; why is there suddenly a movement in these latter days which changes the meaning of scripture that has been established and proven over decades by the Christian church and claim to still hold onto the salvation God has ordained? |
Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church or any other other orthodox church does not change the meaning of scripture and it is not in opposition to the established church. You might be looking at it from a Revivalist perspective. Tongues is not the all important and it is certainly not a requirement. They do not operate in the same way as Revival but look to a fullness of the person of the Holy Spirit in the lives of christians and in the life of the Church. I hope I've explained it adequately. Ian's comments in chat box explain it perfectly and I wish he would add more to the subject on the forum. I quote :- "All: There are significant differences between Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement of the Roman Catholic Church. Underpinning, which is a completely dissimilar understanding of pneumatology (the doctrine of the Spirit) anthropology (doctrine of humanity) soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) People who think that "tongues" unites them couldn't be more mistaken. Ian" God Bless. Epi
|
|
Episkopeo
|
145#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 06:52:14)
Oh dear, don't know what happened here. Please refer to my post on the actual thread.
Epi
|
|
brolga
|
146#
|
Registered:12/09/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 06:55:54)
Epi, You might be looking at it from a Revivalist perspective. Yes, I intentionally looked at it from Revivalist perspective to make a point; Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not essentially “speaking in tongues.”
--------------------------------------------------------------
'It is for God above all things that we are born, and not for ourselves.' (Calvin)
|
|
Episkopeo
|
147#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 07:05:58)
Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not essentially "speaking in tongues"
Brolga,
Agreed.
Epi
|
|
Galien
|
148#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:09/10/2009 08:31:09)
Brolga,
True worship is to give yourself in the service of God’s work, not to be caught up in an orgy of emotional diatribe and self indulgence.
God can see right into our hearts, and only he knows where are hearts are. He does not look at us with preferences, prejudices or a list of rights and wrongs. What we show on the outside is immaterial, only He can tell what is really going on inside us. One of the things I really hated about revival was the need for what I called "outward show", to be seen to be doing the "right" thing all the time. Uniformity was confused with unity, even if the heart was clearly hard as a rock.
I have friends who stand stiff as a board in church, right through to some who like to worship god in dancing with ribbons or flags. Everyone is different. Some people feel deep emotion during worship, some don't. I don't think it is fair to judge what we THINK is going on inside other people because they worship differently to us. Emotions are god given, not some kind of evil to be afraid of.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
Metanoian
|
149#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To Episkopeo
(Date Posted:10/10/2009 20:42:55)
Reply to Episkopeo
Reply to brolga
____________________________________________________________________________________________
My question is; why is there suddenly a movement in these latter days which changes the meaning of scripture that has been established and proven over decades by the Christian church and claim to still hold onto the salvation God has ordained? | Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church or any other other orthodox church does not change the meaning of scripture and it is not in opposition to the established church. You might be looking at it from a Revivalist perspective. Tongues is not the all important and it is certainly not a requirement. They do not operate in the same way as Revival but look to a fullness of the person of the Holy Spirit in the lives of christians and in the life of the Church. I hope I've explained it adequately. Ian's comments in chat box explain it perfectly and I wish he would add more to the subject on the forum. I quote :- "All: There are significant differences between Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement of the Roman Catholic Church. Underpinning, which is a completely dissimilar understanding of pneumatology (the doctrine of the Spirit) anthropology (doctrine of humanity) soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) People who think that "tongues" unites them couldn't be more mistaken. Ian" God Bless. Epi
Here is a link I recommend for your reading and perusal http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/e_pe-rc-info.html Do surf over to the Vatican link on the page as well
Blesssings
Metanoian
|
|
Talmid
|
150#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Reply to Galien
(Date Posted:11/10/2009 00:03:32)
Galien,
The point is that the sentence I quoted at the start has priorities back to front from a Christian pov. To rephrase a principle that has been brought out before, Christian worship is on *God's* terms.
Which means what, exactly?
Have another look at the 2nd para in post 136# (and various copies of the post). I don't think I can be much clearer than that. Maybe chat it over with your Christian friends if it's still unclear.
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
