"There is no military battle, no geographical exploration, no scientific discovery, no literary creation, no artistic achievement, no moral heroism that compares to it.
It is unique, massive, monumental, unprecedented, and unparalleled. The cross of Christ is not a small secret that may or may not get out. The cross of Christ is not a minor incident in the political history of the first century that is a nice illustration of courage.
It is the center."
when eugene peterson says this statement he is stating something that is true about Jesus and the cross and is supposed to be true about us. the gospel must be at the center. this is essential. it is at the center of our theology and our thoughts, it is at the center of beliefs and behaviors, it needs to be at the center of our understanding of grace and the center of our self-understanding.
if the grace of God through the work of Christ on the cross is at the center...then other items are de-centered...my ego, pride, preferences, opinions, actions, ambitions, prejudices, among other items are put in a different place. those things that are both good and the bad about those things are not significant enough to be at the center. they are the sand the foolish man built his house on, as opposed to the wise who built his house on the rock (Jesus)...everything else is sand.
td
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
children of God
"Suddenly we are free with God, like a child is free with a parent. We are not involved in stiff, formal protocols in relation to God. We don't have to be afraid lest we put our foot in our mouth, or embarrass ourselves, or get sent out of the room because we didn't use the right title. We can address God as freely as we address our parents. It is the kind of freedom that combines intimacy and reverence. We are still award of the majesty and awesome glory of God. We do not try to reduce God to the level of coziness where we can manipulate him. The intimacy is a freedom to share ourselves, to express ourselves fearlessly in God's presence. We are free to be spontaneous, personal and uninhibited. Faith is not a formal relationship hedged in with elaborate courtesies; it is a family relationship, intimate and free."
i really like this paragraph from peterson.
it reminds me of family...i wonder does it remind others of their own family?
paul uses family here so we can connect to a vital truth.
is it possible that if one has not experienced family like this in any way, or a parent like God that we might miss the point of God as loving father/parent and his acceptance and our freedom?
td
i really like this paragraph from peterson.
it reminds me of family...i wonder does it remind others of their own family?
paul uses family here so we can connect to a vital truth.
is it possible that if one has not experienced family like this in any way, or a parent like God that we might miss the point of God as loving father/parent and his acceptance and our freedom?
td
baptism in galatians according to scot mcknight commentary (a covenant guy)
in the galatian text 3:26--29 mcknight makes these comments in regard to baptism...
"Some will no doubt have problems with the observation that faith and baptism are parallel expressions for Paul. Among many free churches in the world, baptism has taken a secondary importance and is too often confined to 'nothing more than an entrance rite' into the church. While it is clear that Paul makes a fundamental difference between external rites and internal reality (cf. Rom. 2:25-29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11; cf. Gal. 5:6), and can even suggest that baptizing was not his purpose (1 Cor. 1:13-17), baptism was in the early church the initial and necessary response of faith. To be sure, their world was more ritual-oriented than ours and consequently got more out of rituals than we do. Nonetheless, we dare not make baptism "nothing more than a ritual of entrance," for it was for the earliest Christians their first moment of faith, and we know of no such thing as an "unbaptized believer." Baptism was not necessary for salvation, but faith without baptism was not faith for the early church. The Galatians knew this, and so Paul appealed to their experience."
he goes on to say:
"The early baptismal ceremony was, in effect, a dying with Christ and a rising with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14). This was its symbolic virtue: it dramatized salvation. Furthermore, the ceremony was frequently associated with two moral ideas: the putting away of sin and the putting on of a new life (cf. Rom. 13:12, 14; Eph. 4:24; 6:11-17; Col. 3:5-17). To be "clothed with Christ" perhaps refers to the early Christian practice of stripping and then reclothing oneself in a white, liturgical robe after the baptismal ceremony, thus symbolizing disrobing oneself of sin and then putting on the virtues of Christ."
and before you can say enough already:
"One more connection needs to be observed. As noted above, "sons of God" in verse 26 parallels the expressions "united with Christ" and "have been clothed with Christ" in verse 27. I would also suggest that the baptism of the Galatians (v.27) was the moment in which they all learned to call God "Abba" (cf. 4:6-7) and so, in effect, learned that they were all "sons of God" (3:26). Paul is now ready to make his point: the Judaizers are wrong because they do not realize that at their baptism the Galatian converts learned that they were sons of God."
it has always been a challenge to say enough in the weekend service and there are always things that we don't have time for...thought this might be an interesting extra...
td
"Some will no doubt have problems with the observation that faith and baptism are parallel expressions for Paul. Among many free churches in the world, baptism has taken a secondary importance and is too often confined to 'nothing more than an entrance rite' into the church. While it is clear that Paul makes a fundamental difference between external rites and internal reality (cf. Rom. 2:25-29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11; cf. Gal. 5:6), and can even suggest that baptizing was not his purpose (1 Cor. 1:13-17), baptism was in the early church the initial and necessary response of faith. To be sure, their world was more ritual-oriented than ours and consequently got more out of rituals than we do. Nonetheless, we dare not make baptism "nothing more than a ritual of entrance," for it was for the earliest Christians their first moment of faith, and we know of no such thing as an "unbaptized believer." Baptism was not necessary for salvation, but faith without baptism was not faith for the early church. The Galatians knew this, and so Paul appealed to their experience."
he goes on to say:
"The early baptismal ceremony was, in effect, a dying with Christ and a rising with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14). This was its symbolic virtue: it dramatized salvation. Furthermore, the ceremony was frequently associated with two moral ideas: the putting away of sin and the putting on of a new life (cf. Rom. 13:12, 14; Eph. 4:24; 6:11-17; Col. 3:5-17). To be "clothed with Christ" perhaps refers to the early Christian practice of stripping and then reclothing oneself in a white, liturgical robe after the baptismal ceremony, thus symbolizing disrobing oneself of sin and then putting on the virtues of Christ."
and before you can say enough already:
"One more connection needs to be observed. As noted above, "sons of God" in verse 26 parallels the expressions "united with Christ" and "have been clothed with Christ" in verse 27. I would also suggest that the baptism of the Galatians (v.27) was the moment in which they all learned to call God "Abba" (cf. 4:6-7) and so, in effect, learned that they were all "sons of God" (3:26). Paul is now ready to make his point: the Judaizers are wrong because they do not realize that at their baptism the Galatian converts learned that they were sons of God."
it has always been a challenge to say enough in the weekend service and there are always things that we don't have time for...thought this might be an interesting extra...
td
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)