John UK wrote: Bro, I am limited in what I can read and listen to. I've no doubt Dr Masters will have some good things to say. Both Frank and Unprofitable Servant have got straight to the heart of what I was saying - it is a matter of the heart not the actions.......
No doubt bro, but that does not and cannot counter those who say that they should have choirs, bands, electric guitars, CCM etc, in church because for them (so they claim) it does not distract from the heart being engaged in worship. To them the so called worship wars are all about personal preference, and preferred music styles and nothing to do with the Lord's standards and requirements.
Anyways, as I said, I was only trying to be a help.
John UK wrote: I rather fear, bro, that it would end up too intellectual.
Brother John, you should know by now that in his public ministry Dr Masters does not do 'intellectual' but rather 'biblical' and practical. Dr Masters preached and then wrote a number of articles which later became a book which was entitled "Worship in the Melting pot". The first 4 articles are on the Met Tab website. The fifth I can't find in print but happened to come across the YouTube recording of his sermon which covers the ground of the fifth chapter. In this sermon he looks at the biblical evidence for what constitutes worship and how so much of what passes for worship is anything but. I appreciate it is an imposition on your precious time, but I was trying to be helpful in pointing to the sermon in the hope that it might offer some much needed clarity on the issue. It was not my intention to press the issue, but rather that it may make a contribution to the debate. Alas....it's not to be.
John UK wrote: Well bro, you know what it's like. A teacher of Israel was once told, "Ye must be born again" and he had not a clue what the Lord was saying to him. Now how are you going to define "worship"? Can it be defined, or is it something so deeply spiritual and heartfelt that it cannot be described? Five people are in a church, two are weeping, one has his arms in the air and is expressionless, a woman is singing with a big smile on her face, and one is mouthing words but no sound comes out. So which one is worshipping? p.s. This is not a trick question.
For clarity of thought we need definitions. When is prayer prayer and not worship or is all prayer worship? Is groaning worship? How would we know, if first we didn't seek to discover from the bible what is meant by worship? We want to be biblical but without biblical definitions?
Hence my gentle encouragement to hear the sermon first and then to discuss.
John UK wrote: Which, being interpreted, means, "I don't agree with your rather mystical, experiential description of worship, so why not listen to the good Dr and get straightened out on what true worship is."
John UK wrote: God bless you, bro! There are countless people in the world who have a little part of their house to be like an altar, and when they go there to worship, they light a couple of candles and go through their daily office, looking upon a crucifix or statue of Mary or a photo of the current pope, and they say the Lord's Prayer, recite a creed, do their rosary thing, and they have been told it is worship of God. When I was born again, I didn't need anyone to tell me what worship of God is, for the Lord Jesus Christ made me a worshipper of God, knowing that the deepest worship of all comes in the silence, with heart prostrated before the Majesty in Heaven, receiving life from the True Vine, energised by the Holy Ghost, trembling before the Mercy Seat sprinkled with blood of the Lamb, going within the veil into the Holy of Holies, looking upon the Great Spirit in admiration and thankfulness and joy and fear.
Be interested on your thoughts on Dr Masters' sermon.
John UK wrote: I'm surprised no-one has differentiated between the affections and the emotions; there is the source of the problem. Psalms only - no music? Ahem, check out the psalmist himself.
That is definitely one part of the problem. The more basic problem however is that no one is defining what the bible means by 'worship'. Which is why I posted up Dr Master's sermon on how God defines 'worship'.
Mike wrote: How does one experience awe, minus the experience or the senses? Could you describe it? I did read the article. Perhaps too quickly, for I found no condemnation of music as such. He did say this: "We cannot worship God with our eyes and ears, or nose and hands, for they are â€śfleshâ€ť not â€śspirit.â€ť â€śMust worship in spirit and in truthâ€ť excludes everything that is of the natural man." Way too general. Should we assume he never participated in corporate worship? Did he not see anything? Hear anything? What I find in Pink's writing that is agreeable is, he recognizes that worship is a heart matter, and not the externals people assume are worship. The condition of the heart determines whether that which is done is worship, and only the regenerate can do so.
"...Had this lion set upon the prophet for hunger, why did he not devour, as well as kill him? ...Since we know the nature of the lion such, that he is not wont to assail man, save in the extreme want of other prey. Certainly the same power that employed those fangs restrained them, that the world might see it was not appetite that provoked the beast to this violence, but the overruling command of God. Even so, O Lord! thy powerful hand is over that roaring lion, that goes about continually seeking whom he may devour : thine hand withholds him, that though he may shed the blood of thine elect, yet he cannot hurt their souls ; and while he doth those things which thou permittest and orderest, to thy just ends, yet he cannot do lesser things which he desireth, and thou permittest not...."
His contemplations on the Old and New Testament are overflowing with pithy and unusual observations such as you will not find anywhere else. I highly recommend that work to anyone interested. It is THE single best commentary I have ever encountered.
You may enjoy the following quote and especially its application to SteveR's beloved RCC and the Anabaptists
"..Violent events do not always argue the anger of God ; even death itself is to his servants a fatherly castigation.
But, O the unsearchable ways of the Almighty! The man of God sins, and dies speedily : the lying prophet that seduced him survives ; yea, wicked Jeroboam enjoys his idolatry, and treads upon the grave of his reprover. There is neither favour in the delay of stripes, nor displeasure in the haste ; rather whom God loves he chastises, as sharply, so speedily, while the rest prospers to condemnation : even the rod of a loving father may draw blood. How much happier is it for us, that we die now, to live for ever, than that we live a while, to die for ever!"
Note especially: "Taiping Christianity placed little emphasis on New Testament ideas of kindness, forgiveness, and redemption. Rather it emphasized the wrathful Old Testament God who demanded worship and obedience." This is more akin to Presbyterian Dominionism.
the art of teaching, going from the known to the unknown. ...Thanks again for all the helpful posts you put out.
You are a gracious man, and I thank you for the interaction. I always appreciate your posts, even if sometimes I disagree with them. You bring great value to this website, and I for one am glad to make your acquaintance.
I do hope that you appreciate that I was not trying to point score, but genuinely trying to understand your hermeneutic in respect of the first ever prophecy recorded in the Bible.
The principle that I discern in the interpretation of that prophecy I believe can be applied to much of the prophetic genre. So we know from the passage that Christ was to be a man (the seed of the woman), and hence we see the incarnation. We also know that he was to engage in battle against Satan, that serpent, and be the victor, albeit that in the process he would be wounded, intimating that Christ must suffer etc.
As you say, we must let the word of Christ dwell in us richly in all wisdom. May the Lord help us all to know the depths of the riches that are laid up for our blessings.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: The passage in Genesis talks about the seed of the women. Eve certainly took it literally when she had Seth. If something is stated figuratively, we take it figuratively. I don't see that as inconsistent with a literal approach.
Thank you for clarifying that "literal" does not mean a literal face value, or carnal interpretation. I also accept that figurative language may be used to describe literal events.
However, even given all you say, I cannot see how the use of the word "seed" should prompt you to read Gen 3:15 in a figurative way. With the benefit of hindsight of course one can see the figurative nature of that verse, but taken in isolation as a prophecy I can understand Eve's mistake. The point is that it was a mistake nonetheless. In this I see a parallel not just in Jewish hermeneutics, but also in dispensational hermeneutics - the desire to accept the literal face value instead of the spiritual reality of verses. This is especially true in the prophetic genre where more often than not, especially in relation to the spiritual work and kingdom of Christ, the carnal or face value is used to communicate the spiritual reality. The Lord uses things we can understand to describe realities in the spiritual realm.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ... I believe that Christ bruised Satan's head at the same time Satan was bruising His heel. The crucifixion was both a bruising of the seed of the women, when the Lord of life, died and was laid in a borrowed tomb. And a crushing of Satan's head by the finished work on the cross and the glorious resurrection of our living Lord. ... I see a difference between interpretation and application which I view as manifold. God bless.
Thank you for your post. I agree with your understanding of Gen 3: 15, however, I am still struggling to understand why you would move away from a crudely literal interpretation of it when the prophecy is found in a historical book.
By crudely literal, I mean a carnal understanding that the Saviour would literally crush a serpent's head and would in the process receive a bruise.
What, in the context, makes you move away from the literal interpretation?
How would you defend your view if someone were to approach you and argue that this did not happen at Calvary, because the Lord received more than just a bruised heel and there is no record of any serpent present, let alone the Lord treading on one's head?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Off the top of my head, and this will probably incur the wrath of Lurker, but he is a nice guy so it won't be too bad, I would say the answer to your question is yes.
UPS, I hope you will forgive the intrusion into this discussion. May I ask, how do you decide whether something is to be taken figuratively or literally?
For instance, do you recognise the proto-evangel at Genesis 3:15? If so, how did you decide to see the figurative here and not the literal; in other words how is it you did not expect the Saviour to literally step on a serpent (Satan), and the serpent bruise the Lord's heal only in the work of salvation?
This could have been the case literally, if we had not known the events that passed in the New Testament. But clearly a dispensationalist's literal expectations would have been somewhat disappointed, just as the Jewish literal expectation of a deliverer King was disappointed.
I am curious to learn how a body of believers who distinguish themselves from others based on their "literal" approach to the Bible decide when the text is literal or figurative.
I hope you will not read into this post anything other than curiosity.
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker... Amos 9:11-12 NKJV â€śOn that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,â€ť Says the Lord who does this thing. The source says the Gentiles who are called by His name are also going to be with Israel when He rebuilds the tabernacle of David. This is important because it showed the early Christians how God had a plan which included Gentiles also, so they shouldn't try to make them Jewish.
What relevance would James' version of the quote have in the situation, since according to your carnal understanding of the prophecy David's tabernacle was not raised up etc?
If you look carefully at his citation (not the same words used by Amos) the clear implication is that Gentiles would seek when David's tabernacle was raised etc this being one of the reasons for it being raised!
John for JESUS wrote: Amos 9:8, 11, 14-15 NKJV â€śBehold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom, And I will destroy it from the face of the earth; Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,â€ť Says the Lord . â€śOn that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them,â€ť Says the Lord your God.
cf Acts 15.16. James explains that the in gathering of the Gentiles is the fulfillment of this prophecy!
So much for your literal hermeneutic!
Or are you saying that James did not know what he was talking about?
Mike wrote: You aren't surprised, are you bro John? That an amill reformed writer should come to a amill reformed writer's conclusion? The presentation of the various eschatological positions is not nearly objective, and having a list of "Some key facts to bear in mind" at the end to make sure you come away with the "right" thoughts proves it. The bias against the other positions is too obvious for these comparisons to be taken seriously. On a lighter note, I was wondering if, in order to keep the eschatology right, the amill reading of 2 Peter 3:8 would be: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as two thousand years.?
John for JESUS wrote: Helps... Isaiah 7:14 NKJV Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Micah 5:2 NKJV â€śBut you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.â€ť When these prophecies were fulfilled, they happened just like it says and it wasn't no dream!
How else would it have been communicated? Whereas matters relating to the spiritual realm, the unseen realm, does not and often cannot be communicated in a carnally literal way. Hermeneutically a major flaw with dispensationalists.