Chapter 7
1. What does it mean the spiritual life is a “cooperative effort” and what do you believe this implies?
I believe what Scott is saying is that life with Christ is participatory. It involves us actively pursuing growth and understanding of ourselves, God and others better. This process does not just happened automatically but only after we chase after God and what He desires.
2. Some denominations believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit can be gained and lost. Can human‟s affect the work of the Holy Spirit to the point where it can be lost and regained in one‟s life?
I do not believe that we can lose the Holy Spirit. Once He comes He is there to stay.
3. What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount as presented by Scott? How does Scott's understanding contribute to the sanctification process?
Scotts understanding of the Sermon on the Mount leads us to understand that it was there to help us know how to live according to the law. As the theme of this chapter was sanctification, I believe the Sermon on the Mount is there to help us through the process of sanctification.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Ch. 7 Timothy Fatheree
1) When I was younger in my faith I often fell into the rut that it was only the Holy Spirit working inside of me that brought about sanctification. Of course, the negatives to this way of thinking is that there were times in my life when I did not grow as rapidly as other times because I myself was not striving along with the Spirit to bring about my sanctification. Now let's get it straight that when we grow to be more like Christ it is all God. There is nothing we could do to become more like God without the Holy Spirit. So God receives all of the glory. However, it is necessary that we take the changes that the Holy Spirit brings about inside of us and put them into practice. It is also necessary that we work along side the Holy Spirit in doing things such as keeping ourselves out of situations which would probably lead to our own sin.
2) No, we can not lose the Holy Spirit. Once the Holy Spirit has been gained by a believer he belongs to God forever. If there is nothing that we can do in and of ourselves to gain salvation then there is nothing that we can do to lose our salvation either. I believe that this way of thinking, that we can lose our salvation based on something wrong we have done, is just as wrong as someone believing if they can just be a good enough person they can make it to heaven. It all revolves around Christ. He and His work on the cross did away with this whole line of thinking. It is not for us to lose the Holy Spirit. Christ has already assured us through His work on the cross that we are forgiven of our sins and justified, belonging to the Lord for all eternity.
3) "A careful study suggests that the Sermon on the Mount is a selected sampling of Jesus' teachings which demonstrate in general and by example the type of life and attitudes expected of those who are citizens of the Kingdom of God." Scott's understanding of the Sermon on the Mount would open the way for a believer to view what it is that he/she has in store for him/herself when they are before Christ and glorified/perfected. To be a little bit more straightforward, Jesus' sermon on the Mount is a great set of guidelines for Christians to strive to follow seeing as how they are the details of how people are expected to act in the Kingdom of God. So, seeing as how we as Christians are continually seeking to grow closer to being like Christ, which would be putting into practice the lessons taught in the Sermon on the Mount, we can use the Sermon on the Mount as something which points us in the right direction on our journey towards sanctification.
2) No, we can not lose the Holy Spirit. Once the Holy Spirit has been gained by a believer he belongs to God forever. If there is nothing that we can do in and of ourselves to gain salvation then there is nothing that we can do to lose our salvation either. I believe that this way of thinking, that we can lose our salvation based on something wrong we have done, is just as wrong as someone believing if they can just be a good enough person they can make it to heaven. It all revolves around Christ. He and His work on the cross did away with this whole line of thinking. It is not for us to lose the Holy Spirit. Christ has already assured us through His work on the cross that we are forgiven of our sins and justified, belonging to the Lord for all eternity.
3) "A careful study suggests that the Sermon on the Mount is a selected sampling of Jesus' teachings which demonstrate in general and by example the type of life and attitudes expected of those who are citizens of the Kingdom of God." Scott's understanding of the Sermon on the Mount would open the way for a believer to view what it is that he/she has in store for him/herself when they are before Christ and glorified/perfected. To be a little bit more straightforward, Jesus' sermon on the Mount is a great set of guidelines for Christians to strive to follow seeing as how they are the details of how people are expected to act in the Kingdom of God. So, seeing as how we as Christians are continually seeking to grow closer to being like Christ, which would be putting into practice the lessons taught in the Sermon on the Mount, we can use the Sermon on the Mount as something which points us in the right direction on our journey towards sanctification.
nathan ch 7
1. What does it mean the spiritual life is a "cooperative effort" and what do you believe this implies?
Scott's definition gives that the responsibility relies not only on the Spirit, but on the believer for continuing growth. We cannot just sit on our tail and expect growth. There must be effort and learning on our part to continue to grow in the Lord.
2. Some denominations believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit can be gained and lost. Can human‟s affect the work of the Holy Spirit to the point where it can be lost and regained in one‟s life?
Tim F. and I have talked about this numerous times this Semester. I believe that a true believer will (as Tim puts it) perservere to the end. If no they might not have ever been a believer. This is a tough question that I wanted to get everyone else's opinion on this question.
3. What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount as presented by Scott? How does Scott's understanding contribute to the sanctification process?
Scott communicates that the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount was for Jesus to instruct on HOw to fulfill the Law. He stresses that the disciples will be governed by their relationship with God and not what they do. Jesus is saying that believers are to have the same mature of the nature and intent of the Law the way God veiws it.
Jesus is giving specific instructions on how to communicate with the Father. This contributes to the sanctification process in that He teaches us how to have a reationship with the Father. Spiritual lessons that will continue to challenge a believer t no matter how mature they are in their faith.
Scott's definition gives that the responsibility relies not only on the Spirit, but on the believer for continuing growth. We cannot just sit on our tail and expect growth. There must be effort and learning on our part to continue to grow in the Lord.
2. Some denominations believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit can be gained and lost. Can human‟s affect the work of the Holy Spirit to the point where it can be lost and regained in one‟s life?
Tim F. and I have talked about this numerous times this Semester. I believe that a true believer will (as Tim puts it) perservere to the end. If no they might not have ever been a believer. This is a tough question that I wanted to get everyone else's opinion on this question.
3. What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount as presented by Scott? How does Scott's understanding contribute to the sanctification process?
Scott communicates that the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount was for Jesus to instruct on HOw to fulfill the Law. He stresses that the disciples will be governed by their relationship with God and not what they do. Jesus is saying that believers are to have the same mature of the nature and intent of the Law the way God veiws it.
Jesus is giving specific instructions on how to communicate with the Father. This contributes to the sanctification process in that He teaches us how to have a reationship with the Father. Spiritual lessons that will continue to challenge a believer t no matter how mature they are in their faith.
Ch. 7 - Ana
Chapter 7
1. What does it mean the spiritual life is a “cooperative effort” and what do you believe this implies?
This means the believer must be actively involved in furthering his/her own spiritual growth. The believer does his/her part and thus cooperates with God to reach spiritual maturity. It is a conscientious human effort.
2. Some denominations believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit can be gained and lost. Can humans affect the work of the Holy Spirit to the point where it can be lost and regained in one’s life?
I don’t believe one can lose the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that we are sealed with the Spirit once we believe in Jesus and accept Him in our hearts and that the seal is the testimony of our mutual commitment and belonging to Him. Stating that we lose the Holy Spirit is as much as saying we lose our salvation and the Bible clearly tell us that “nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus” Rom 8:37-39.
3. What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount as presented by Scott? How does Scott's understanding contribute to the sanctification process?
The purpose is to help believers on their growth and development. Sanctification is and intellectual commitment which involves faith or in other words trust in the truth. The Sermon on the Mount is where Jesus provides us with some guidelines to help us in the process of sanctification which came with blessings, but those also imply faith; as we trust in God’s sovereignty and allow the Holy Spirit to do His job in us we will be blessed.
1. What does it mean the spiritual life is a “cooperative effort” and what do you believe this implies?
This means the believer must be actively involved in furthering his/her own spiritual growth. The believer does his/her part and thus cooperates with God to reach spiritual maturity. It is a conscientious human effort.
2. Some denominations believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit can be gained and lost. Can humans affect the work of the Holy Spirit to the point where it can be lost and regained in one’s life?
I don’t believe one can lose the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that we are sealed with the Spirit once we believe in Jesus and accept Him in our hearts and that the seal is the testimony of our mutual commitment and belonging to Him. Stating that we lose the Holy Spirit is as much as saying we lose our salvation and the Bible clearly tell us that “nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus” Rom 8:37-39.
3. What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount as presented by Scott? How does Scott's understanding contribute to the sanctification process?
The purpose is to help believers on their growth and development. Sanctification is and intellectual commitment which involves faith or in other words trust in the truth. The Sermon on the Mount is where Jesus provides us with some guidelines to help us in the process of sanctification which came with blessings, but those also imply faith; as we trust in God’s sovereignty and allow the Holy Spirit to do His job in us we will be blessed.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Ch. 6
1. A believer should live in relationship. in relationship with others, self and God. Additionally and ultimately I believe a Christian ought to live in Christ, under the sovereignty of God whose purpose is to live for the praise of His glory.
2.Its goal is the restoration of the divine image, of Gods purposes and eventually, glorification. And of course I agree, I like many others believe that God intended our relationship with Him, our entire being to be in union with Him. This includes bearing the image that He intended from the beginning which was blameless, fully complete and absent of sin. However we know that it didn't work out that way until Christ made it possible for us after His death and resurrection.
3.We are in constant battle! The battle between the old and the new creation is part of this world as a result of sin and a new life found in Christ. If this tension was left out of the story how much more people might be confused; not knowing that this tension was part of this life and then not knowing how to react to such tensions. Not knowing that this tension exists could lead people down some very rough roads of unfulfilled expectations and major disappointments.
1. A believer should live in relationship. in relationship with others, self and God. Additionally and ultimately I believe a Christian ought to live in Christ, under the sovereignty of God whose purpose is to live for the praise of His glory.
2.Its goal is the restoration of the divine image, of Gods purposes and eventually, glorification. And of course I agree, I like many others believe that God intended our relationship with Him, our entire being to be in union with Him. This includes bearing the image that He intended from the beginning which was blameless, fully complete and absent of sin. However we know that it didn't work out that way until Christ made it possible for us after His death and resurrection.
3.We are in constant battle! The battle between the old and the new creation is part of this world as a result of sin and a new life found in Christ. If this tension was left out of the story how much more people might be confused; not knowing that this tension was part of this life and then not knowing how to react to such tensions. Not knowing that this tension exists could lead people down some very rough roads of unfulfilled expectations and major disappointments.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
nathan ch 6
1. How does the author seek to answer the question, "How should believers live?" (p. 132)
The authors answer to this consists of a believer having relationships with God, others, their self and with the world. A believer will alsio have commitment, purpose, and meaning that relfect God and are diffrent from the world. He also describes it as a life of tension between what god wants and what the world wants. A believer loves justice, righteousness, and mercy. He also strives for peace and holiness.
2. According to Scott, what does he define as the GOAL of the Christian Life? Do you agree or disagree and why? (p. 133)
The goal is the restoration of the divine image, of God's purposes, and eventually glorification.
When going back to creation before the fall of humanity. This is what God had in mind for us from the beginning. I agree with this goal. As James puts it, we are to be mature and complete, not lacking anything." Though impossible with our current bodies, it is something that we strive for in this life and will attain in the life to come.
3. After all the good things the author lists in regards to what the Christian life is, why does he land on "the Christian life is a life in tension"? (p. 134)
Why would he not include this? It is a constant fight between the human nature and what the Lord has commanded. He mentions that we are foreignors in this world. It is a tension to continue to choose to live according to His purposes and not ours.
The authors answer to this consists of a believer having relationships with God, others, their self and with the world. A believer will alsio have commitment, purpose, and meaning that relfect God and are diffrent from the world. He also describes it as a life of tension between what god wants and what the world wants. A believer loves justice, righteousness, and mercy. He also strives for peace and holiness.
2. According to Scott, what does he define as the GOAL of the Christian Life? Do you agree or disagree and why? (p. 133)
The goal is the restoration of the divine image, of God's purposes, and eventually glorification.
When going back to creation before the fall of humanity. This is what God had in mind for us from the beginning. I agree with this goal. As James puts it, we are to be mature and complete, not lacking anything." Though impossible with our current bodies, it is something that we strive for in this life and will attain in the life to come.
3. After all the good things the author lists in regards to what the Christian life is, why does he land on "the Christian life is a life in tension"? (p. 134)
Why would he not include this? It is a constant fight between the human nature and what the Lord has commanded. He mentions that we are foreignors in this world. It is a tension to continue to choose to live according to His purposes and not ours.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Ch. 6 - Ana
Chapter 6
1. How does the author seek to answer the question, "How should believers live?" (p. 132)
According to the author, believers should grow, as Jesus did, in different areas: intellectually, spiritually, socially and physically. Socially one needs to grow in one’s relationship with God, with oneself, with others and with the world. Living in Christ is to have a commitment, purpose and meaning in life; is living under the sovereignty of /god, the Lordship of Christ and under the power of the Spirit. Believers should live a life characterized by the fruit of the Spirit; an observance of the 10 commandments but ultimately a life that pleases God.
2. According to Scott, what does he define as the GOAL of the Christian Life? Do you agree or disagree and why? (p. 133)
The goal of the Christian Life is the restoration of the divine image of God’s purposes and eventually glorification according to the book.
I completely agree because as the Word says we are God’s ambassadors, we represent Him here on earth, we are His hands and feet on His perfect purpose to restored humanity. His goal is to shape us, mold us and fashion us to the image of His perfect and obedient Son who pleases Him. His purpose is to grow us to be more like Him so others can see all His attributes in us and by doing so glorify the Father in heaven as Jesus glorified Him with His life.
3. After all the good things the author lists in regards to what the Christian life is, why does he land on “the Christian life is a life in tension”? (p. 134)
First, the author uses this phrase when referring to New Christians. He compares them with: a child who kept falling down his bed; when his mother had asked him for the reason of this he had responded it could probably be because he sleeps to close to the edge. New believers as well live on the edge between the New Life Christ offers them and their old life; due to this, they face a constant struggle on attempting to left behind that old life and embrace the new life ahead of them. A struggle from living their old ways, habits, sins and relying on the power of God to overcome them and grow more to the likeness of Christ. Therefore the tension is between living their lives under the Lordship of Christ or holding on the control of their lives; as they grow they release the control of their lives more and more into the hands of their Lord, Savior and King.
1. How does the author seek to answer the question, "How should believers live?" (p. 132)
According to the author, believers should grow, as Jesus did, in different areas: intellectually, spiritually, socially and physically. Socially one needs to grow in one’s relationship with God, with oneself, with others and with the world. Living in Christ is to have a commitment, purpose and meaning in life; is living under the sovereignty of /god, the Lordship of Christ and under the power of the Spirit. Believers should live a life characterized by the fruit of the Spirit; an observance of the 10 commandments but ultimately a life that pleases God.
2. According to Scott, what does he define as the GOAL of the Christian Life? Do you agree or disagree and why? (p. 133)
The goal of the Christian Life is the restoration of the divine image of God’s purposes and eventually glorification according to the book.
I completely agree because as the Word says we are God’s ambassadors, we represent Him here on earth, we are His hands and feet on His perfect purpose to restored humanity. His goal is to shape us, mold us and fashion us to the image of His perfect and obedient Son who pleases Him. His purpose is to grow us to be more like Him so others can see all His attributes in us and by doing so glorify the Father in heaven as Jesus glorified Him with His life.
3. After all the good things the author lists in regards to what the Christian life is, why does he land on “the Christian life is a life in tension”? (p. 134)
First, the author uses this phrase when referring to New Christians. He compares them with: a child who kept falling down his bed; when his mother had asked him for the reason of this he had responded it could probably be because he sleeps to close to the edge. New believers as well live on the edge between the New Life Christ offers them and their old life; due to this, they face a constant struggle on attempting to left behind that old life and embrace the new life ahead of them. A struggle from living their old ways, habits, sins and relying on the power of God to overcome them and grow more to the likeness of Christ. Therefore the tension is between living their lives under the Lordship of Christ or holding on the control of their lives; as they grow they release the control of their lives more and more into the hands of their Lord, Savior and King.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
QUESTIONS
When I was doing my readings I start having these questions. I know we all are busy but if someone can give me a little bit of insight at least on one I will greatly appreciate it.
QUESTIONS:
1) If Jesus told Peter he will be the rock of the church, why the Scripture talks so little of his ministry and a lot of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles?
2) How Jesus could be from the lineage (family) of David if He was not the child of Joseph but only of Mary by the power of the Spirit?
3) If Mt 23:34 says that John the Baptist was the last prophet how is that Jesus continued prophesying?
Blessings,
Ana
QUESTIONS:
1) If Jesus told Peter he will be the rock of the church, why the Scripture talks so little of his ministry and a lot of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles?
2) How Jesus could be from the lineage (family) of David if He was not the child of Joseph but only of Mary by the power of the Spirit?
3) If Mt 23:34 says that John the Baptist was the last prophet how is that Jesus continued prophesying?
Blessings,
Ana
Ch. 5 - Ana
Chapter 5
1. Reconciliation: Are we reconciled to God, or is God reconciled to us, or both? Explain. (p111-112)
According to the author, reconciliation is the work of God through Christ, He changes us who were enemies into friends, and He brings us closer to Him. God is not our enemy, so He doesn’t need to be reconciled; it was us who rebelled and departed from His perfect plan and will and became His enemies. God is the initiator the Reconciler but He also reconciled himself with all of us.
2. How did Jews and Gentiles differ in their view of salvation? How should a Christian view salvation? (p103-104)
Besides the Greco-Roman view of salvation as a deliverance from dangerous and threatening situations or circumstances; such us a severe disease, battle, etc.; or obtaining a position of well-being, safety and security, Gentiles pursued salvation from fear of death, purposelessness, the insecurities of life and unseen powers. On the other hand Jews wanted to be saved from the penalty of breaking God’s Law; but the Bible tell us that Salvation is by faith alone in the work of Christ apart from good deeds. Jesus’ sacrifice in the cross was unique, powerful and perfect and does not need human deeds to be completed. So salvation is by faith.
3. What is “kerugma” and what is it made up of according to Scott? Would you agree or disagree with his position – justify your answer. (p106)
According to Scott, this means the proclamation or preaching; the content of the early Christians when they were attempting to make new converts. It answers the question: What must I do to be saved?. Scott states the Word of God contains the important points even if they are in different order; so this is the base for someone to reach salvation. I agree first because the Bible can not contradict itself; and then because when we go through the epistles we see those core points require for salvation: true repentance, acknowledgement of the need to be save, believe in Jesus, proclaim Him as Lord and Savior and follow Him.
1. Reconciliation: Are we reconciled to God, or is God reconciled to us, or both? Explain. (p111-112)
According to the author, reconciliation is the work of God through Christ, He changes us who were enemies into friends, and He brings us closer to Him. God is not our enemy, so He doesn’t need to be reconciled; it was us who rebelled and departed from His perfect plan and will and became His enemies. God is the initiator the Reconciler but He also reconciled himself with all of us.
2. How did Jews and Gentiles differ in their view of salvation? How should a Christian view salvation? (p103-104)
Besides the Greco-Roman view of salvation as a deliverance from dangerous and threatening situations or circumstances; such us a severe disease, battle, etc.; or obtaining a position of well-being, safety and security, Gentiles pursued salvation from fear of death, purposelessness, the insecurities of life and unseen powers. On the other hand Jews wanted to be saved from the penalty of breaking God’s Law; but the Bible tell us that Salvation is by faith alone in the work of Christ apart from good deeds. Jesus’ sacrifice in the cross was unique, powerful and perfect and does not need human deeds to be completed. So salvation is by faith.
3. What is “kerugma” and what is it made up of according to Scott? Would you agree or disagree with his position – justify your answer. (p106)
According to Scott, this means the proclamation or preaching; the content of the early Christians when they were attempting to make new converts. It answers the question: What must I do to be saved?. Scott states the Word of God contains the important points even if they are in different order; so this is the base for someone to reach salvation. I agree first because the Bible can not contradict itself; and then because when we go through the epistles we see those core points require for salvation: true repentance, acknowledgement of the need to be save, believe in Jesus, proclaim Him as Lord and Savior and follow Him.
1) Reconciliation: are we reconciled to God or is God reconciled to us, or both?
There is an obvious need for us to be reconciled to God. We are the part of the relationship which has gone astray. We are the part of the relationship that has to live up to a standard. I know that Scott says God must be reconciled to us, and he uses the very highly esteemed Leon Morris as a source to back his position, however, I think it is clear that the main ingredient in this issue is mankind being reconciled to God. There is a reason the New Testament never speaks of God needing to be reconciled to human beings. We are the ones who went astray. We are the part of the relationship that must brought back into a right relationship.
2) How did the Jews and Gentiles differ in their view of salvation? How should Christians view salvation?
Gentiles sought to be saved from a number of different forces in life, some being, death, purposelessness, the nameless insecurities of life, and the unseen powers. The Jews sought salvation from the penalty brought about from breaking God's law. From a Christian perspective, though, "salvation is to be delivered from sin, its guilt and punishment, from the separation and enmity it brings between God and a person, and all that it entails."
3) What is the "kerygma" and what is it made up of according to Scott? Would you agree or disagree with his position - justify your answer.
Scott borrows quite a bit from C. H. Dodd, which is very common, in his view of the content of the kerygma. The kerygma is the early teachings of the New Testament church, mainly Peter and Paul, about who Christ is and what is the foundation of beliefs that Christians are to hold. Scott lists the kerygma as follows:
A) The age of fulfillment predicted in the Old Testament has dawned, the promises have been fulfilled, the Messiah has come.
B) This has taken place in Jesus of Nazareth.
a) He was descended from the seed of David.
b) He went about teaching, doing good, and executing mighty works by the power of God through which God indicated His approval of Him.
c) He was crucified in accordance with the purpose of God.
d) He was raised by the power of God.
C) The Church is witness to these things.
D) He has been exalted into heaven at the right hand of God where He reigns as the Messianic head of the New Israel with the title Lord.
E) The Holy Spirit in the Church is now the seal of Christ's present power and glory.
F) Jesus will come again for judgment and the restoration of all things.
G) Therefore all who hear should repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
I agree with his standpoint on the kerygma. These teachings were what the early church was teaching about who Christ was. Dodd and Scott are correct in basing their findings on the kerygma from the sermons in Acts. That is where we find the absolute foundation of Christianity from its very earliest origins.
There is an obvious need for us to be reconciled to God. We are the part of the relationship which has gone astray. We are the part of the relationship that has to live up to a standard. I know that Scott says God must be reconciled to us, and he uses the very highly esteemed Leon Morris as a source to back his position, however, I think it is clear that the main ingredient in this issue is mankind being reconciled to God. There is a reason the New Testament never speaks of God needing to be reconciled to human beings. We are the ones who went astray. We are the part of the relationship that must brought back into a right relationship.
2) How did the Jews and Gentiles differ in their view of salvation? How should Christians view salvation?
Gentiles sought to be saved from a number of different forces in life, some being, death, purposelessness, the nameless insecurities of life, and the unseen powers. The Jews sought salvation from the penalty brought about from breaking God's law. From a Christian perspective, though, "salvation is to be delivered from sin, its guilt and punishment, from the separation and enmity it brings between God and a person, and all that it entails."
3) What is the "kerygma" and what is it made up of according to Scott? Would you agree or disagree with his position - justify your answer.
Scott borrows quite a bit from C. H. Dodd, which is very common, in his view of the content of the kerygma. The kerygma is the early teachings of the New Testament church, mainly Peter and Paul, about who Christ is and what is the foundation of beliefs that Christians are to hold. Scott lists the kerygma as follows:
A) The age of fulfillment predicted in the Old Testament has dawned, the promises have been fulfilled, the Messiah has come.
B) This has taken place in Jesus of Nazareth.
a) He was descended from the seed of David.
b) He went about teaching, doing good, and executing mighty works by the power of God through which God indicated His approval of Him.
c) He was crucified in accordance with the purpose of God.
d) He was raised by the power of God.
C) The Church is witness to these things.
D) He has been exalted into heaven at the right hand of God where He reigns as the Messianic head of the New Israel with the title Lord.
E) The Holy Spirit in the Church is now the seal of Christ's present power and glory.
F) Jesus will come again for judgment and the restoration of all things.
G) Therefore all who hear should repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
I agree with his standpoint on the kerygma. These teachings were what the early church was teaching about who Christ was. Dodd and Scott are correct in basing their findings on the kerygma from the sermons in Acts. That is where we find the absolute foundation of Christianity from its very earliest origins.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
npenland Chapter 5
1. Reconciliation: Are we reconciled to God, or is God reconciled to us, or both? Explain. (p111-112)
I have a hard time with claiming that God is reconciled to us. He is the One who is perfect, which all other standards are measured again. It seems that we are striving toward that perfection as well (James 1:4). If God has to change so that we can be reconciled to each other, then is he becoming less than what He already is? There has not been a need for God to be reconciled, but there has been a need for man who is imperfect to be reconciled. So I think that we are reconciled to God, He brings us to Him through Christ.
2. How did Jews and Gentiles differ in their view of salvation? How should a Christian view salvation? (p103-104)
Gentiles sought salvation from purposelessness, fear of death, nameless insecurities of life, and unseen powers
Jews sought salvation from penalty of breaking God's law
Christians veiw slavation as being delievered from sin, it's guilt and punishment, and eternal seperation from God.
It is amazing that Christ brought this Salvation to all of these groups. He met the needs of those that He calls. I feel that the Christian view mentioned above is correct, it is not all that Christ was intending when He came to offer Salvation. He came so the my have life abundantly, or to the fullest. I think that Christians revert back to both the Jewish and Gentile way of thinking and worrying about doing things right or even being paralized spiritually by their insecurities. If we really grasp what Christ has done by delivering us from our sins, then it liberates us to follow Him in this abundant life.
3. What is "kerugma" and what is it made up of according to Scott? Would you agree or disagree with his position – justify your answer. (p106)
kerugma- proclamation or preaching
Accoring to Scott it is
1. The Age of fulfillment predicted in the Old Testament, the Messiah has come
2. This has taken place in Jesus of Nazareth
A. Descended from David
B. Taught and did good works by the power of God
C. Crucified according to God's purpose
D. Raised by the power of God
3. The Church is a witness to these things
4. He has been exalted to the right hand of God and is Lord of all
5. Holy Spirit in the Church is now the seal of Christ's present power and glory
6. Jesus will come again for judgement and restoration
7. Therefore all who hear should repent and be baptized.
Yeah, I would agree. It seems that we tend to focus on number two while we evangelize to others. I think that we tend to forget that this plan of slavation was planned throughout history. I even forget that Christ is seated at the right hand of God waiting for the time to come and judge the world. I think if I would focus on the whole of this account it would create more urgency in evangelism in my life.
I have a hard time with claiming that God is reconciled to us. He is the One who is perfect, which all other standards are measured again. It seems that we are striving toward that perfection as well (James 1:4). If God has to change so that we can be reconciled to each other, then is he becoming less than what He already is? There has not been a need for God to be reconciled, but there has been a need for man who is imperfect to be reconciled. So I think that we are reconciled to God, He brings us to Him through Christ.
2. How did Jews and Gentiles differ in their view of salvation? How should a Christian view salvation? (p103-104)
Gentiles sought salvation from purposelessness, fear of death, nameless insecurities of life, and unseen powers
Jews sought salvation from penalty of breaking God's law
Christians veiw slavation as being delievered from sin, it's guilt and punishment, and eternal seperation from God.
It is amazing that Christ brought this Salvation to all of these groups. He met the needs of those that He calls. I feel that the Christian view mentioned above is correct, it is not all that Christ was intending when He came to offer Salvation. He came so the my have life abundantly, or to the fullest. I think that Christians revert back to both the Jewish and Gentile way of thinking and worrying about doing things right or even being paralized spiritually by their insecurities. If we really grasp what Christ has done by delivering us from our sins, then it liberates us to follow Him in this abundant life.
3. What is "kerugma" and what is it made up of according to Scott? Would you agree or disagree with his position – justify your answer. (p106)
kerugma- proclamation or preaching
Accoring to Scott it is
1. The Age of fulfillment predicted in the Old Testament, the Messiah has come
2. This has taken place in Jesus of Nazareth
A. Descended from David
B. Taught and did good works by the power of God
C. Crucified according to God's purpose
D. Raised by the power of God
3. The Church is a witness to these things
4. He has been exalted to the right hand of God and is Lord of all
5. Holy Spirit in the Church is now the seal of Christ's present power and glory
6. Jesus will come again for judgement and restoration
7. Therefore all who hear should repent and be baptized.
Yeah, I would agree. It seems that we tend to focus on number two while we evangelize to others. I think that we tend to forget that this plan of slavation was planned throughout history. I even forget that Christ is seated at the right hand of God waiting for the time to come and judge the world. I think if I would focus on the whole of this account it would create more urgency in evangelism in my life.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Ch.5
1.) Reconciliation: Are we reconciled to God, or is God reconciled to us, or both? Explain.
According to Scott we are reconciled to God. To be honest I am not following the possibility of God being reconciled to us or the both argument. According to the Greek word reconcile, ‘katalla’, the process of reconciliation is a one sided action. Romans 5:8 demonstrates this one sided reconciliation process well, “…while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” In other words, reconciliation by definition includes both parties taking part in reconciliation; however, it does not play out like this in the process that occurred as a result of Christ’s death. We were sinning and God, in His great love, still chose to die in order that we might be reconciled to him.
2.) How did Jews and Gentiles differ in their view of salvation? How should a Christian view salvation?
The difference between Jewish and Gentiles belief in salvation varied little, in my understanding. The meaning of salvation generally meant that one would be spared from a dangerous physical circumstances, saved, at peace. Salvation also meant that one was not fearful of death; it gave men purpose, and meaning. Christians on the other hand can experience salvation in the same way that both Jews and Gentiles did in a literary sense but ultimately salvation, Salvation from God, is to mean “deliverance from sin, guilt, and punishment, from the separation and enmity it brings between God and a person.”
3.) What is “kerugma” and what is it made up of according to Scott? Would you agree or disagree with his position – justify your answer.
“Kerugma” is the term for preaching or proclaiming. According to Scott or C.H. Dodd, it is made up of the following:
1. The age of fulfillment has come, the Messiah is here.
2. Jesus of Nazareth
a. Descendent of David
b. He taught, did good works and carried out powerful works by God
c. He was crucified
d. He was raised
3. Church was witness
4. Christ was exalted into Heaven at right hand of God
5. The Holy Spirit is in the Church and is seal of Christ’s present power and glory
6. Jesus will return for judgment and restoration
7. All who hear should repent and be baptized of sins
I would completely agree. All aspects of ‘kerugma’ are truthful and needed for one to experience salvation in Christ Jesus. I’m not sure if I have answered according to the liking of Ana or the one who came up with this question, I’ll guess we’ll see…comment away.
According to Scott we are reconciled to God. To be honest I am not following the possibility of God being reconciled to us or the both argument. According to the Greek word reconcile, ‘katalla’, the process of reconciliation is a one sided action. Romans 5:8 demonstrates this one sided reconciliation process well, “…while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” In other words, reconciliation by definition includes both parties taking part in reconciliation; however, it does not play out like this in the process that occurred as a result of Christ’s death. We were sinning and God, in His great love, still chose to die in order that we might be reconciled to him.
2.) How did Jews and Gentiles differ in their view of salvation? How should a Christian view salvation?
The difference between Jewish and Gentiles belief in salvation varied little, in my understanding. The meaning of salvation generally meant that one would be spared from a dangerous physical circumstances, saved, at peace. Salvation also meant that one was not fearful of death; it gave men purpose, and meaning. Christians on the other hand can experience salvation in the same way that both Jews and Gentiles did in a literary sense but ultimately salvation, Salvation from God, is to mean “deliverance from sin, guilt, and punishment, from the separation and enmity it brings between God and a person.”
3.) What is “kerugma” and what is it made up of according to Scott? Would you agree or disagree with his position – justify your answer.
“Kerugma” is the term for preaching or proclaiming. According to Scott or C.H. Dodd, it is made up of the following:
1. The age of fulfillment has come, the Messiah is here.
2. Jesus of Nazareth
a. Descendent of David
b. He taught, did good works and carried out powerful works by God
c. He was crucified
d. He was raised
3. Church was witness
4. Christ was exalted into Heaven at right hand of God
5. The Holy Spirit is in the Church and is seal of Christ’s present power and glory
6. Jesus will return for judgment and restoration
7. All who hear should repent and be baptized of sins
I would completely agree. All aspects of ‘kerugma’ are truthful and needed for one to experience salvation in Christ Jesus. I’m not sure if I have answered according to the liking of Ana or the one who came up with this question, I’ll guess we’ll see…comment away.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
1.) The names of Jesus tell us more of what he did, according to Cullmann, “the names and titles provide clues to the individuality and nature of Jesus as well as give interpretation of his significance.” His character is revealed in names such as “Christ”, “The Son of God”, and “The Righteous / Just One”. One of the names of Jesus that means the most to me is “Savior”.
2.) Savior, reconciler, messiah, crucified, servant, creator, sustainer, ruler, redeemer, resurrected, shepherd, guardian, master, preserves, and glorifies. These are all the ways in which the New Testament reveals the fact that Jesus Christ was indeed relational.
3.) I believe that Christ functioned both in the role of the divine but was also indeed divine.
4.) Yes, the New Testament says much about the nature and background of Jesus. As I have mentioned in previous questions, Jesus is a servant, is the Messiah, is the ruler of all, is creator, is the shepherd, is the master and is resurrected… As for Jesus’ background, again, yes the New Testament speaks directly to His background. Most of the gospels and epistles are all letters that speak to both the nature and background of Jesus.
2.) Savior, reconciler, messiah, crucified, servant, creator, sustainer, ruler, redeemer, resurrected, shepherd, guardian, master, preserves, and glorifies. These are all the ways in which the New Testament reveals the fact that Jesus Christ was indeed relational.
3.) I believe that Christ functioned both in the role of the divine but was also indeed divine.
4.) Yes, the New Testament says much about the nature and background of Jesus. As I have mentioned in previous questions, Jesus is a servant, is the Messiah, is the ruler of all, is creator, is the shepherd, is the master and is resurrected… As for Jesus’ background, again, yes the New Testament speaks directly to His background. Most of the gospels and epistles are all letters that speak to both the nature and background of Jesus.
1) How do the names of Jesus in the New Testament help us to see God's character? Which of these means the most to you and why?
Each name given to Jesus in the New Testament reveals a characteristic of God. It is revealing of the character of God in that Jesus is the exact imprint of the invisible God. Therefore, when a name is ascribed to Jesus it should likewise be attributed to God Himself. They are not just names being given to Christ but they are describing the very nature of who He is. Among all of the wonderful names given to Jesus I come down to Jesus as Mediator and Jesus as Savior. I believe that Jesus as Savior is the name though that I connect with the most. It is Jesus as Savior that even makes it possible for us to have a relationship with God. I don't think I could ever overlook this fact.
2) How does the rest of the New Testament reveal Christ as a relational savior?
Among the many names that help to reveal Jesus as a relational savior are the names Savior, Mediator, High Priest, and Reconciler. Perhaps this is the reason I chose Savior and Mediator as the two names that mean the most to me. They reveal part of God's very character that makes it possible for sinful people like us to have a relationship with Him when we are so far from deserving. I believe the relational part of Jesus is what makes Him worth living and diving for, as well as everything in between.
3) What do you think of the statement on page 82 that Jesus was not really divine but functioned in that role ("Functional Christology")?
It is ridiculous. Heresy at it's height. It is necessary for Christ to have been divine. If Christ was not God he could not have been perfect, thus He would not have been a sufficient Savior for mankind. All of Christianity banks on the fact that Christ was both human and divine.
4) Does the New Testament say anything about the background and nature of Jesus? If so, what?
Of course it speaks about the background and nature of Jesus. John 1 is a wonderful passage which reveals to us that not only was Jesus with God from the beginning, but that he is in fact God Himself. Also, Colossians chapter 1 shows us that Jesus was preeminent from the beginning of the world and that all things hold together through Him. Also, Philippians 2 shows the humility of Christ, willingly emptying Himself of all of His rights as God to become a man. The question should not be whether the New Testament says anything about Christ, but what it says and how much.
On a side not, it is passages such as the ones that I listed which make the very prospect of Functional Christology insane. We know who Christ is IN HIS NATURE because the Bible reveals to us who he is. And to say there is nothing there which presents Christ's divinity is unfounded.
Each name given to Jesus in the New Testament reveals a characteristic of God. It is revealing of the character of God in that Jesus is the exact imprint of the invisible God. Therefore, when a name is ascribed to Jesus it should likewise be attributed to God Himself. They are not just names being given to Christ but they are describing the very nature of who He is. Among all of the wonderful names given to Jesus I come down to Jesus as Mediator and Jesus as Savior. I believe that Jesus as Savior is the name though that I connect with the most. It is Jesus as Savior that even makes it possible for us to have a relationship with God. I don't think I could ever overlook this fact.
2) How does the rest of the New Testament reveal Christ as a relational savior?
Among the many names that help to reveal Jesus as a relational savior are the names Savior, Mediator, High Priest, and Reconciler. Perhaps this is the reason I chose Savior and Mediator as the two names that mean the most to me. They reveal part of God's very character that makes it possible for sinful people like us to have a relationship with Him when we are so far from deserving. I believe the relational part of Jesus is what makes Him worth living and diving for, as well as everything in between.
3) What do you think of the statement on page 82 that Jesus was not really divine but functioned in that role ("Functional Christology")?
It is ridiculous. Heresy at it's height. It is necessary for Christ to have been divine. If Christ was not God he could not have been perfect, thus He would not have been a sufficient Savior for mankind. All of Christianity banks on the fact that Christ was both human and divine.
4) Does the New Testament say anything about the background and nature of Jesus? If so, what?
Of course it speaks about the background and nature of Jesus. John 1 is a wonderful passage which reveals to us that not only was Jesus with God from the beginning, but that he is in fact God Himself. Also, Colossians chapter 1 shows us that Jesus was preeminent from the beginning of the world and that all things hold together through Him. Also, Philippians 2 shows the humility of Christ, willingly emptying Himself of all of His rights as God to become a man. The question should not be whether the New Testament says anything about Christ, but what it says and how much.
On a side not, it is passages such as the ones that I listed which make the very prospect of Functional Christology insane. We know who Christ is IN HIS NATURE because the Bible reveals to us who he is. And to say there is nothing there which presents Christ's divinity is unfounded.
Ch. 4 - Ana
Chapter 4
1. How do the names of Jesus in the New Testament help us to see God’s character? Which of these means the most to you and why.
The names of Christ help us to see His character first, I believe, because they talk about a close relationship between God the Father and the Son as well as a unity; as such they help us understand better God’s love, mercy and desire to reestablish the relationship with His creation by sending His Son, who himself shows God’s glory as His name, own character, words and works revealed to us.
The one that means more to me is that Jesus is our “shepherd” because He gives me the assurance of God’s care, provision and protection.
2. How does the rest of the New Testament reveal Christ as a relational Savior?
Many of the names attributed to Jesus imply a relationship with God and with His people; such as: The Son of God, Savior, The Mediator, The High Priest, The Reconciler and The Son of Man among others. A son title implies a relationship or belonging to a father, a High Priest and a Mediator are intercessors between people, one in authority or superiority or to solve a disagreement or a separation, he reconciles to parties in conflict or separation; that is exactly what Jesus does for us before the Father since sin causes a permanent separation from God.
3. What do you think of the statement on page 82 that Jesus was not really divine but functioned in that role (“Functional Christology”)?
I completely disagree with the functional Christology; as well as Cullmann, I believe that not just Jesus’ names but His works, miracles, character and His very relationship with the Father are a testimony of His divinity. His life, from His birth fulfill the OT prophesies confirming the fact that He proceeded directly from God and is God. Many passages from the NT speak of Him being recognized as sent by God such us: when He was baptized, the demons recognized Him, Peter in the Spirit revealed who He was. We also find Him in every book of the Bible being part of creation, revelation, the perfect plan of Salvation, etc. The prophesies He spoke about Himself and different future events also showed His Deity. The fact that He was able to foresee the future tells us that He was more than doing a role, He is, was and will always be God.
4. Does the New Testament say anything about the background and nature of Jesus? If so, what?
The New Testament has a lot of information about who Jesus was and where He came from. For example in Revelation we find that He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, that everything was created for Him. John also tells us He was that Jesus existed from the beginning with God and that He is God. His names also give us a lot of information about His nature. He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, this tells us He came to save us, to rescue us from an eternal separation from God and by His sacrifice we who believe in Him are co-heiress with Him and children of God’s eternal family.
1. How do the names of Jesus in the New Testament help us to see God’s character? Which of these means the most to you and why.
The names of Christ help us to see His character first, I believe, because they talk about a close relationship between God the Father and the Son as well as a unity; as such they help us understand better God’s love, mercy and desire to reestablish the relationship with His creation by sending His Son, who himself shows God’s glory as His name, own character, words and works revealed to us.
The one that means more to me is that Jesus is our “shepherd” because He gives me the assurance of God’s care, provision and protection.
2. How does the rest of the New Testament reveal Christ as a relational Savior?
Many of the names attributed to Jesus imply a relationship with God and with His people; such as: The Son of God, Savior, The Mediator, The High Priest, The Reconciler and The Son of Man among others. A son title implies a relationship or belonging to a father, a High Priest and a Mediator are intercessors between people, one in authority or superiority or to solve a disagreement or a separation, he reconciles to parties in conflict or separation; that is exactly what Jesus does for us before the Father since sin causes a permanent separation from God.
3. What do you think of the statement on page 82 that Jesus was not really divine but functioned in that role (“Functional Christology”)?
I completely disagree with the functional Christology; as well as Cullmann, I believe that not just Jesus’ names but His works, miracles, character and His very relationship with the Father are a testimony of His divinity. His life, from His birth fulfill the OT prophesies confirming the fact that He proceeded directly from God and is God. Many passages from the NT speak of Him being recognized as sent by God such us: when He was baptized, the demons recognized Him, Peter in the Spirit revealed who He was. We also find Him in every book of the Bible being part of creation, revelation, the perfect plan of Salvation, etc. The prophesies He spoke about Himself and different future events also showed His Deity. The fact that He was able to foresee the future tells us that He was more than doing a role, He is, was and will always be God.
4. Does the New Testament say anything about the background and nature of Jesus? If so, what?
The New Testament has a lot of information about who Jesus was and where He came from. For example in Revelation we find that He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, that everything was created for Him. John also tells us He was that Jesus existed from the beginning with God and that He is God. His names also give us a lot of information about His nature. He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, this tells us He came to save us, to rescue us from an eternal separation from God and by His sacrifice we who believe in Him are co-heiress with Him and children of God’s eternal family.
npenland ch 4
1. How do the names of Jesus in the New Testament help us to see God‟s character? Which of these means the most to you and why.
I think the names of Jesus shows that he relates to all people and gives us a glimpse of how big He is. The word thst keeps coming to me (because of my joy for athletics) is versatile. He fits so many descriptions. He is the comple package. The first to be risen and be in the Glorified state. I would say that the one that means the most to me right now is Perfector. He knows all things and discipleship is the obedience to Him daily as he continues to perfect our faith. It will be great when we will be made mature and complete.
2. How does the rest of the New Testament reveal Christ as a relational Savior?
Different names that are given that depict a relational Jesus are Servant/ Child, Reconciler, The Great Shepherd. Also as Paul acknowledges having knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, being able to know Christ personally so that we are able to follow His example. These (not an exaustive list) are a few names that describe His relational being.
3. What do you think of the statement on page 82 that Jesus was not really divine but functioned in that role ("Functional Christology")?
This is diminishing who Christ is, almost saying that anyone could have done it. The nature of Christ is just as important as the life he lived. Without HIm being divine, Christianity doesn't uphold Salvation, a perfect sacfrifice who is able to take away the sins of the world. Without HIm being divine, he is not perfect.
4. Does the New Testament say anything about the background and nature of Jesus? If so, what?
I don't know if this question pertains to His boyhood, or existence before becoming flesh. The New Testament speak much about Christ existing before coming to earth. John 1 and Phillippians 2 are just two examples. Jesus also says that He was before Abraham. The names that Scott mentions also gives us an idea of who Jesus is. I feel this question being so broad that I don't know exactly what they desire fore an answer.
I think the names of Jesus shows that he relates to all people and gives us a glimpse of how big He is. The word thst keeps coming to me (because of my joy for athletics) is versatile. He fits so many descriptions. He is the comple package. The first to be risen and be in the Glorified state. I would say that the one that means the most to me right now is Perfector. He knows all things and discipleship is the obedience to Him daily as he continues to perfect our faith. It will be great when we will be made mature and complete.
2. How does the rest of the New Testament reveal Christ as a relational Savior?
Different names that are given that depict a relational Jesus are Servant/ Child, Reconciler, The Great Shepherd. Also as Paul acknowledges having knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, being able to know Christ personally so that we are able to follow His example. These (not an exaustive list) are a few names that describe His relational being.
3. What do you think of the statement on page 82 that Jesus was not really divine but functioned in that role ("Functional Christology")?
This is diminishing who Christ is, almost saying that anyone could have done it. The nature of Christ is just as important as the life he lived. Without HIm being divine, Christianity doesn't uphold Salvation, a perfect sacfrifice who is able to take away the sins of the world. Without HIm being divine, he is not perfect.
4. Does the New Testament say anything about the background and nature of Jesus? If so, what?
I don't know if this question pertains to His boyhood, or existence before becoming flesh. The New Testament speak much about Christ existing before coming to earth. John 1 and Phillippians 2 are just two examples. Jesus also says that He was before Abraham. The names that Scott mentions also gives us an idea of who Jesus is. I feel this question being so broad that I don't know exactly what they desire fore an answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)