Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Didaktikon
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Date Posted:24/08/2009 10:55 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, all.

Given that most of the people who visit here have been (or are) Revivalists of one sort or another, and consequently, place a significant premium on the Acts of the Apostles; I thought it prudent to introduce the following topic for general discussion. I'd like to propose that one of the features that's particularly significant in the writings of Luke, both with respect to his Gospel and to the Acts, is that he perceives "salvation" in two distinctive ways. First, that "salvation" is understood as a 
physical reality, in the "saving" of the person from bodily harm. Second, and in light of recent conversations here perhaps more significantly, Luke understands "salvation" to involve the joining of people into the community of God: as a corporate reality.

In my opinion one of the basest of errors propagated by Revivalism is the mistaken view that "salvation" is a strictly "personal" matter. It's my position that such an erroneous perspective owes more to the Western penchant for "individualism" than it does to the biblical witness, and that as such it's a particularly dangerous and destructive approach, spiritually. And I offer here and now that Luke's writings provide a very good starting point for considering the matter in detail.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #51
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 4:06 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Rob.

Joey's a cute kid, whilst the opinionated GRC-er was clearly socially inept and theologically under-informed.

Anyway, you're perfectly correct in assuming that Luke intended for all people to turn to Jesus in order to be "saved". However, such isn't necessarily (or expressly) his intent in our current passage. As I hinted to Chips, consider the specific circumstances that Luke relates, and the inferences that result when viewed from a corporate perspective.

Blessings,

Ian 

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #52
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 4:28 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Hi, Eric.

Sure, but I already knew what the BDAG lexicon stated (and Moulton-Milligan, and Souter, and Liddel-Scott-Jones for that matter). Lexical works such as these exist to provide synchronic and diachronic "glosses" to the Greek vocabulary of the NT; consequently, they are necessarily interpretative when it comes to according specific meaning to specific words, by specific authors, in specific passages. It is for this reason that you'll frequently find different lexicographers applying different nuances to the same words, with different Bible translations following suit. Given that I'd previously affirmed that our word's broad semantic range included the concept of restoration to physical well-being, I think it likely that you've not quite grasped what I was getting at

Blessings, bro'.

Ian


The point that I urge is the "restorative" nature of sozo but ambiguity must rest on context. In this case the man was blind and now his sight is restored but sozo is a far ranging and far reaching word and it seems to me that it is a descriptor of the character and nature of Jesus..

To Prezy, tell the GRC to take a hike !!

blessings..

Metanoia
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #53
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 4:45 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Eric.

Context is indeed "king". The very fact that a goodly number of English translations (both ancient and modern) have understood "sozo" to mean "save" rather than "heal" in our current passage, is of itself, illustrative. The fact that you apparently understood Luke's emphasis in our passage to be on physical healing is also illustrative. The fact that I've been hinting of the need to consider the matter more broadly should be, to you, reeeally illustrative smiley9

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
spitchips Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #54
  • Rank:Rookier III
  • Score:2050
  • Posts:98
  • From:Australia
  • Register:25/10/2008 4:59 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 6:40 AMCopy HTML

Rob

What a dear little bloke! Thanks for posting the picture. Hope you spoiled him with ice-cream after the toncilectomy.

Chips
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #55
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 12:08 PMCopy HTML

Luke  18:35-43

The blind beggar (the gospel of Mark identifies him as Bartimaeus) knew what he had to do to get what he wanted and persistently did it - much like the previous two stories of the women.  All three of these people were social outcasts, were persistent in getting the attention of Jesus, knew WHO he was and sought him out. All three had faith to believe for the miracle and reached out or called out, knowing that they would be made whole/saved.

Bartimaeus called out "Jesus Son of David, have mercy on me" and the crowd told him to be quiet. It seems that he knew that he HAD to get Jesus to hear him regardless of what 'the crowd' said because He KNEW that Jesus was the answer - his healer, his saviour. He acknowledged WHO Jesus was - the Messiah, the Son of David.

The other thing that stood out to me was that Jesus asked him a question "what do you want me to do for you" - my first thought was 'surely Jesus knew what he wanted'! On reflection, I wonder if Jesus wanted to hear of the man's faith and wanted others to hear of his faith. Jesus said in v 42  'Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.'  When his sight was restored he immediately followed Jesus, praising God and when others saw his joy, they also praised God.

I still feel that I'm missing something important though?

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.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #56
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 12:16 PMCopy HTML

Rob, what a gorgeous son you have, you must be very proud of him. Thank you for sharing Joey with us - glad his op went well!

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.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #57
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 12:24 PMCopy HTML

The blind man knows that Jesus is able to heal him but his petition speaks of more; his cry is an acknowledgement of Jesus Kingship and would have been done in the light of all that he knew of King David and his desire to be part of this new Kingdom. The healing like in the other stories places the blind man within the safety of God’s kingdom. That’s why the response of Jesus to the blind man makes a lot of sense translated as “saved” not “healed”. This man had faith in Jesus ability to and expressed his faithfulness by following his king.
          ________________________________________________________________________________________________

That's great Shoes, you seem to be able to see and express it all so well and have a real gift for 'kingdom' thinking!

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.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #58
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 9:03 PMCopy HTML

Ian

I think I see where you're leading us....

In each of these three examples of salvation, the people had FAITH in Jesus and were therefore saved by HIS grace. (Eph 2:8-10) Not by works lest any man should boast.

According to the revvers, these people couldn't have been saved because they had not 'done' the 'required' (by them) works of the 1, 2, 3 salvation message that they preach. Where, in these three examples do we see any of them being baptised, speaking in tongues etc? We don't! There is also the story of the thief on the cross who was saved and many other examples of people having faith in Jesus.

It is their faith in Him and His grace towards them that saves them. There is nothing else required.

I think you're leading us on to the second part of Luke, Acts.

But I still think I'm missing something vital - that there's more I'm not quite seeing?

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.
spitchips Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #59
  • Rank:Rookier III
  • Score:2050
  • Posts:98
  • From:Australia
  • Register:25/10/2008 4:59 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 9:19 PMCopy HTML

Ian

The man was once able to see ('.....let me see again'). Something had happened to him to cause his blindness. He becomes saved and his sight is restored.

We are restored to God our Father when we are saved and brought (and bought/redeemed by Christ) back into the family of God.

The Jews were waiting for their Messiah but didn't recognise Him.

Chips

Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #60
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 9:31 PMCopy HTML

That's good Chips, I hadn't notice that he was once able to see! Yes, we are brought back or 'bought' back into the family of God.

We once were blind but now we see - as John Newton wrote.

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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #61
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:03/09/2009 11:32 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, all.

Undertaking exegesis (i.e. the study of a biblical passage in depth) is invariably rewarding spiritually, as the practice enables us to begin to "see" (pun fully intended) far more than we otherwise would, should we read a biblical text at a more superficial level. Each person who has responded thus far has teased out certain aspects of our text, very important aspects, all of which help to inform the overall message that Luke intended for Theophilus to grasp. I wonder though, has anyone yet given consideration to the fact of this particular member of the Roman elite being the recipient of Luke's gospel account? And furthermore what this significant detail might actually imply? Something further to ponder, perhaps?

Anyway.

There's considerably more to our story than first meets the eye. But I'll content myself to this point, with interacting with specific aspects of what's been shared by others, recently. I'd simply ask that people continue to reflect on what I've suggested were key considerations that Luke had in mind when he penned his gospel account and Acts. Doing so will invariably lead to further discoveries, which will result in a mull full-orbed appreciation of the biblical concept of "salvation".

Ian mentioned already that the blind man who couldn’t see, saw Jesus as the Son of David, The Messiah. There is a wonderful symbolism in someone who the world would class as blind being one of the few to see who Jesus really is. I believe throughout the early part of the Gospels, the blind man is one of the few who are able to see Jesus as the fulfilment of the covenant with David so early in his ministry.

and

Bartimaeus called out "Jesus Son of David, have mercy on me" and the crowd told him to be quiet. It seems that he knew that he HAD to get Jesus to hear him regardless of what 'the crowd' said because He KNEW that Jesus was the answer - his healer, his saviour. He acknowledged WHO Jesus was - the Messiah, the Son of David.

The fact that the blind beggar could recognise Jesus as the anticipated Messiah is crucial. Our man was Jewish, and as such he was a covenant member of God's Israel. He understood his nation's current dilemma, but he also understood God's longstanding promise of restoration. At some point during his life the man had become physically blind (kudos to Chips for noting that he had once been "sighted"). Due to this physical deformity, he was reduced in status to that of beggar, and placed on the periphery of the worshipping community. The net effect of such a "humbling"; however, proved to be, overall, positive: his circumstances sharpened the man's resolve to be restored to the full life of the community, and it honed his spiritual insight in the process. The beggar, being Jewish, understood that the only person who could restore him to the Kingdom of Israel was Israel's King. And as Shoes rightly noted, this necessitated the delivering of a plea, a petition that had to be laid before the feet of the King for consideration. Consequently, our beggar put his faith into action. He sought out a place where he knew that Jesus would eventually pass, and when the Saviour did so, the beggar threw himself upon the mercy of the Messiah. He cried out in spite of his status. He cried out in spite of the opposition that he faced. He cried out because he knew that Jesus would listen, and that was all that he cared about. In this action the "blind beggar" represented the community itself. Israel, like him, had once been "sighted". However, Israel, like him, had subsequently been blinded, and had been reduced in state to that of "beggar" among the nations. Israel, like him, consequently needed to be restored. But the question that needs to be asked, especially in light of where our passage fits in Luke's narrative, is this: would Israel recognise, as the beggar had done, the King in their midst?

The other thing that stood out to me was that Jesus asked him a question "what do you want me to do for you" - my first thought was 'surely Jesus knew what he wanted'! On reflection, I wonder if Jesus wanted to hear of the man's faith and wanted others to hear of his faith. Jesus said in v 42  'Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.'  When his sight was restored he immediately followed Jesus, praising God and when others saw his joy, they also praised God.

I think we can safely acknowledge that Jesus knew precisely what the man sought. However, public confession and/or petition invariably equals active faith; transformative faith; restorative faith, which very frequently leads to a reinforcing of, and growth in, corporate faith. One man who had been dispossessed by the worshipping community exercised a tangible and "grasping" faith in Jesus as Messiah, the eventual result being not only his restoration, but the transformation of the community itself! Given such, how should we interpret his subsequent actions, and those of his compatriots? 

The healing like in the other stories places the blind man within the safety of God’s kingdom. That’s why the response of Jesus to the blind man makes a lot of sense translated as “saved” not “healed”.

It does, doesn't it? The story is not so much one of a physical healing as it is one of restoration into the safety that is the corporate Kingdom of God. Hence my general "objection" to the NIV's rendering of the Greek verb "saved", as "healed".

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
spitchips Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #62
  • Rank:Rookier III
  • Score:2050
  • Posts:98
  • From:Australia
  • Register:25/10/2008 4:59 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:04/09/2009 4:35 AMCopy HTML

John,

That's a heartwrenching story. I'm so sorry you were treated so badly. The wounds run deep when they come from those we thought were our friends and spiritual family. I have friends who, having left RF, are all but being blamed for the global economic crisis.

I always enjoy reading your posts as you have a knack of summarising what it is some of us are thinking/trying to say. You are perhaps not as inept as you might think. We are all bungling along together and I couldn't think of a better lot to learn with.

Chips



Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #63
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:04/09/2009 5:18 AMCopy HTML

John

I was put out for my "rebellion" and because I had attended another Pente group's meetings nearby to where we lived. My wife Sharon, continued. Some months passed and one day at work Sharon phoned and said "I have something to tell you"..... my heart sank ..... I feared she was giving me the flick. She said "I phoned Pastor Neil and said to him that I believed my place was beside my husband, to which he then said "Goodbye" and hung up".

I already want to smack these idiots around, and I don't even know them. Go you for having the courage to stand up for yourself in such difficult circumstances, and your wife for standing by you. You have already said what a marvellous person she is.

All but one couple shunned us, started denigrating us and saying that our lives would be cursed etc etc.

Bastards. What kind of people do that to brethren they are supposed to love.

A couple with whom we were close friends, shunned us and conspired in my demise and the denigration of Sharon and I. Their child that had a cot death. Oh me oh my. We were blamed for just about all that went wrong long after we left. It was said that God didn't work in the new work in England because of me. Wow! Did they think I was able to stop God?!?

My my you are the clever one aren't you being able to push god around like that.

I must say that I am somewhat overwhelmed by the current discussion about faith and believing. I have moved way way away from the garbage Revivalism and Pentecostalism passes off for a belief system. Contextual analysis is not on the agenda. A guy I did Army Officer training with, recently commented that I (back then) was not a dab hand at navigation. Whilst wanting dearly to reach the destination of faith in Christ Jesus I am at present struggling navigating the current topic. That is not to say I am in disagreement, just struggling and find myself inept. A bit like the man who cried to Jesus "I believe, help thou my unbelief".i

I hear you there with that last bit John. Sounds to me like you are right on track.
drmont Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #64
  • Rank:Lurking
  • Score:70
  • Posts:2
  • From:Australia
  • Register:04/04/2009 11:22 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:04/09/2009 5:58 AMCopy HTML

 Hi all,

I have been reading the posts on salvation(not all as i find Lukes too long winded) and there is one thing that has always confused me.

In Revivalism we talked about the first resurrection( the one for the born again tongue talkers), not much was ever spoken about the second resurrection. Correct me if i'm wrong( i know you will)but if we are judged according to works in the second resurrection, wouldn't that mean that most decent people are saved anyway, they just miss out on the 'ruling and reigning' with JC part?
If this is the case, how can we say that someone is or isn't saved because no one can know another mans heart.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #65
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:04/09/2009 6:03 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Fremde



I was put out for my "rebellion" and because I had attended another Pente group's meetings nearby to where we lived. My wife Sharon, continued. Some months passed and one day at work Sharon phoned and said "I have something to tell you"..... my heart sank ..... I feared she was giving me the flick. She said "I phoned Pastor Neil and said to him that I believed my place was beside my husband, to which he then said "Goodbye" and hung up".

All but one couple shunned us, started denigrating us and saying that our lives would be cursed etc etc.


John

Hi John,

If you don't mind my asking.. What was/is your former revival fellowship pastor's name.

PM me privately if you feel uncomfortable stating the name publicly upon the boards..

blessings

Metanoian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #66
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:04/09/2009 6:30 AMCopy HTML

In Revivalism we talked about the first resurrection( the one for the born again tongue talkers), not much was ever spoken about the second resurrection. Correct me if i'm wrong( i know you will) but if we are judged according to works in the second resurrection, wouldn't that mean that most decent people are saved anyway, they just miss out on the 'ruling and reigning' with JC part?
If this is the case, how can we say that someone is or isn't saved because no one can know another mans heart.

You are not the first ex revival person I have heard say this. It is what a fair few of them believe that I know that are no longer in revival, or attached to any church. I guess Dr Mont it depends on what people believe "decent" to be, and what god thinks it is. 
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #67
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:04/09/2009 7:06 AMCopy HTML

Hi, DM.

My advice would be for you to disregard everything that Revivalism taught you about the "resurrection", whether first, second, third or forty-fifth! In simple terms there will be a general resurrection: either to eternal life in the presence of God, or to eternal damnation away from the presence of God. Being a "tongues-speaker"; however, doesn't accord anyone a "foot-up" into the Kingdom ahead of anyone else. In fact, it doesn't account for very much at all, in the greater scheme of things.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
drmont Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #68
  • Rank:Lurking
  • Score:70
  • Posts:2
  • From:Australia
  • Register:04/04/2009 11:22 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:04/09/2009 9:12 AMCopy HTML

 Hi Shoes,

Thank you for your reply, very well explained and thoroughly conceivable(how did you ever buy into revival world)? Often i have heard other Christians say that we have already risen with Christ ie the Kingdom is here and now and we are part of it, and Ians thoughts(i'm sure they're biblical) of one resurrection to eternal Glory or eternal torture seems to fit. Its funny how revivalists really push the first resurrection, and you are right about the live for tomorrow attitude.........who cares about now,JC will return soon and make everything better (because basically we are losers and cant cope). 

Ian, obviously everything Revival teaches you doesn't dissipate overnight, but the tongue talker resurrection thing was said sarcastically. I actually cant see any benefit in the upbringing that was forced upon me, apart from the freaks i met along the way.

Thanks

DM


MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #69
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:04/09/2009 10:33 AMCopy HTML

Reply to drmont:

Hiya there... nice to see a new face on the forum. 

"and Ian's thoughts... of one resurrection to eternal Glory or eternal torture seems to fit"

Torture? That'll fix 'em huh? I don't actually recall Ian using that word and I think to do so is a huge misconception, but that's for another thread.
 
Take care

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #70
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:05/09/2009 12:06 AMCopy HTML

Good morning, Shoes.

Let me begin by stating: not a bad start, overall.

In order to understand a written message, one needs to understand: (a) the author of the message, (b) the recipient of the message, (c) the provenance of the message, (d) the chronology of the message, (e) the idioms used in the message, and (f) the purpose of the message. Once someone has a reasonable grasp of all of these contextual features, then one stands a better than average chance of grasping the message itself. Hence, a little further reflection is needed to fill in the detail, but the broad brush-strokes on the canvas are more-or-less complete.

Reflect that Luke went to great pains to point out that Christianity wasn't a threat to the Pax Romana. He also went to great pains to differentiate between the Roman Kingdom (of this world), and God's Kingdom (in this world). The former was ordained by God to promote social peace and order; the latter would eventually fill the earth to bring everlasting peace. Again, the implications to Luke the Evangelist with respect to "safety", or "salvation" if you prefer, were inextricably and thoroughly corporate!

Blessings,

Ian



email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #71
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:05/09/2009 5:27 AMCopy HTML

Good afternoon, Epi.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. Both you and Shoes have indicated that you believe Theophilus to be a Christian convert. However, the text itself doesn't state that he was such, although it does indicate that Theophilus was interested in the Christian faith. I personally believe it more likely that our Roman friend was favorably disposed towards Christianity, and that perhaps Paul (through Luke) was hoping that he would serve as a patron for the Roman Christians. I suggest this given that neither the Gospel According to Luke, or his Acts of the Apostles, presents as being written expressly for a Christian audience; the indications seem that the intended audience comprised decidedly "well-heeled" Roman citizens, something that didn't define the composition of the Church at Rome in the mid 60's (acknowledging, of course, certain notable exceptions). What strikes me as determinative is that the Greek is too polished, the literary style too "high-brow", and the tone too deferential towards Roman authority in general. Furthermore, every New Testament letter that was clearly written to a named Christian related to a specific issue, circumstance or event that needed to be addressed. Luke-Acts, however, is considerably more general in content. I also find it telling that the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark and John weren't addressed (or dedicated) to individual Christians; Luke's is distinctive in that (a) it had a primary recipient--the man Theophilus--and, (b) it was a two-part/two-stage work. Too much seems to speak against the "Theophilus was a Christian" scenario to make the theory probable in my estimation.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #72
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:05/09/2009 11:55 AMCopy HTML

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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #73
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:05/09/2009 12:18 PMCopy HTML

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

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #74
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:05/09/2009 12:19 PMCopy HTML

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.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #75
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:06/09/2009 12:22 AMCopy HTML

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

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #76
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:06/09/2009 3:29 AMCopy HTML

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.

¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #77
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:06/09/2009 10:22 AMCopy HTML

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.


When you consider that from the Greek text, the word used to describe corporately is "ekklesia" - which simply means a gathering together or a coming together. Without writing copious amounts but to keep it simple, Paul often referred to the ekklesia with the possessive attributive quality of "tou Theou - i.e. of God or belonging to God"..  but how obvious or easy it is to see that "revivalist" congregations for what they are in that God doesn't own them - at all. But without love why come and gather together in the first place as a viable community as the people of God ???

A gathering together without love is like a car trying to drive without petrol..

blessings

Metanoia

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #78
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:06/09/2009 9:09 PMCopy HTML

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):

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #79
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:06/09/2009 9:27 PMCopy HTML

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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #80
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:06/09/2009 11:26 PMCopy HTML

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
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #81
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:07/09/2009 11:26 AMCopy HTML

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


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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #82
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:07/09/2009 11:00 PMCopy HTML

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

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #83
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:09/09/2009 12:46 AMCopy HTML

 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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #84
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:09/09/2009 12:52 AMCopy HTML

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

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #85
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:10/09/2009 12:52 AMCopy HTML

 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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #86
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:10/09/2009 1:45 AMCopy HTML

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. 
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
TBerry Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #87
  • Rank:New User
  • Score:610
  • Posts:26
  • From:Australia
  • Register:12/03/2008 10:03 PM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:10/09/2009 6:47 AMCopy HTML

 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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #88
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:10/09/2009 8:36 AMCopy HTML

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

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #89
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:10/09/2009 9:28 AMCopy HTML

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".
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #90
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:21/09/2009 6:13 AMCopy HTML

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

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #91
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:21/09/2009 10:36 AMCopy HTML

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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #92
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:21/09/2009 10:56 AMCopy HTML

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.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #93
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:22/09/2009 12:39 AMCopy HTML

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
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #94
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:22/09/2009 6:27 AMCopy HTML

 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 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #95
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:22/09/2009 11:16 AMCopy HTML

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.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #96
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:07/10/2009 6:30 AMCopy HTML

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.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #97
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:09/10/2009 2:37 AMCopy HTML

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?

Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #98
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:09/10/2009 5:17 AMCopy HTML

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 ...)
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #99
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:09/10/2009 6:10 AMCopy HTML

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.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #100
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Salvation according to Luke

Date Posted:09/10/2009 6:21 AMCopy HTML

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?

RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.