We're going to talk a little about the concept of 'redemption' on Sunday.
When I was a kid, soda used to come in returnable 10- and 12-ounce bottles, and you could redeem them - that is, take them back to the store for .10 each. The store redeemed them by buying them back.
The theological term is just a little different. It denotes an act that secures the release of a person by paying a ransom.
So here's my question: To whom was the ransom paid that secured our release and so our redemption?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
A Word on Application
I had some additional thoughts regarding the idea of practicing and applying what we are learning...
It seemed to me that there was a little bit of struggle with practical application yesterday. People were putting up some good stuff, but there was a decent amount of more theoretical stuff as well. What I mean by that is, saying things like "we need to share the gospel with pagans" rather than "I need to do such and such..."
It can get tricky.
Taking Paul's point about the wrath of God being justified against the moralist as an example, to apply the actual point of the passage is a bit difficult. Essentially, a "pure" application of that passage would involve the way I communicate to moralists. After all, that is what Paul was doing at that point in his diatribe.
What if I don't run into any moralists for a month? What if I do, but am not in a position to communicate with them at that level?
The application I suggested yesterday for that point was actually more indirect and derivative. It was attempting to see where I am a moralist. That is not the point of the passage, and too often I have seen Scripture used (or misuesd) to teach in that very way. A person might teach against Christians acting like moralists by using Romans 2, when that is not what the passage is trying to communicate. There are other passages for that, and a teacher who wants to communicate that point ought to use them.
Nonetheless, when the application is more intangible, I do believe it is legitimate to apply a derivative point, such as the one I suggested. Paul was talking about the problems that moralists have - a HUGE blind spot to their need for the gospel - but moralism can creep into the life of the believer if one is not careful, and Paul's point is an occasion to ask myself questions.
Does that make any sense?
Steve
It seemed to me that there was a little bit of struggle with practical application yesterday. People were putting up some good stuff, but there was a decent amount of more theoretical stuff as well. What I mean by that is, saying things like "we need to share the gospel with pagans" rather than "I need to do such and such..."
It can get tricky.
Taking Paul's point about the wrath of God being justified against the moralist as an example, to apply the actual point of the passage is a bit difficult. Essentially, a "pure" application of that passage would involve the way I communicate to moralists. After all, that is what Paul was doing at that point in his diatribe.
What if I don't run into any moralists for a month? What if I do, but am not in a position to communicate with them at that level?
The application I suggested yesterday for that point was actually more indirect and derivative. It was attempting to see where I am a moralist. That is not the point of the passage, and too often I have seen Scripture used (or misuesd) to teach in that very way. A person might teach against Christians acting like moralists by using Romans 2, when that is not what the passage is trying to communicate. There are other passages for that, and a teacher who wants to communicate that point ought to use them.
Nonetheless, when the application is more intangible, I do believe it is legitimate to apply a derivative point, such as the one I suggested. Paul was talking about the problems that moralists have - a HUGE blind spot to their need for the gospel - but moralism can creep into the life of the believer if one is not careful, and Paul's point is an occasion to ask myself questions.
Does that make any sense?
Steve
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The importance of Jews to us as Gentiles?
A question came to me this Sunday in the Young Adults' Roman's class:
what are the benefits of hearing the problems & instructions Paul has to say to Jews, if we are not Jews ourselves?
Of course, it helps us to see the whole story of the Jews from the beginning to present. It also can be applicable to us because we have been grafted into Abrahams family tree. Sometimes its even important to understand them, because we may struggle with the same things... but do more reasons remain that God would address the Jews & expect us Gentiles to learn from it??
what are the benefits of hearing the problems & instructions Paul has to say to Jews, if we are not Jews ourselves?
Of course, it helps us to see the whole story of the Jews from the beginning to present. It also can be applicable to us because we have been grafted into Abrahams family tree. Sometimes its even important to understand them, because we may struggle with the same things... but do more reasons remain that God would address the Jews & expect us Gentiles to learn from it??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)