Calvinism

Calvin was talking in a particular time and context. His approach was prophetic for a depraved, self indulgent, lazy, superstitious, idolatrous church in the Geneva of the time. He really laid it on thick. He needed to. (It worked - look at the effects on Geneva how many generations on !) Like Finney had to in the particular context he was speaking into. Like Jesus did to the Pharisees in that context. But to generalise from that teaching into everyone's situation is, in my opinion, more than unhelpful. Jesus would never say to the man in the street (or the field more like) you brood of vipers. He didn't talk to them about hell, only to the disciples and pharisees. He told them stories about a farmer with amazing quality seed, the employer who made sure no family starved, lost things and so on. As I saw in a recent study on Amos, God's wrath is for the spiritually complacent who take the letter of the law when it suits them but who crushed the poor, weak, foreigners etc. thus neglecting the heart of the law. So I think this way of looking at literal interpretation is very important. I think reading the Bible is so important it's worth doing properly. How many times have the seeds of revival been sown by those who are Bible translators - so called theological nerds who go back and find out what it actually says, now, in my language, understanding their language. Not just looking at what the words seem to say from their current meanings which was the mistake the well meaning Fundamentalists made.

The church is older than the bible how true is this? Moot

The church is older than the bible how true is this? Moot

(note to self, need to check some dates and some details in this reply)

• 
  
• 

  Liz Figures The earliest written parts of the Bible date back to the Bronze Age, at least 2000 BC and the parts in at the beginning of Genesis date back to an oral record and folk memory dating much further back. It says when there's the first written bit at the beginning of the first list of ancestors. That same genealogy also mentions the first metal workers in that clan - maybe at the beginning of the bronze age which would make it all much older than 2000 BC. Then of course different bits were added at different times. No one ever thought of it as 'a book' cos it's a collection of very ancient documents. The last document in the Old Testament was spoken and probably written down by a scribe about 400 years before Christ was born.

To compare, the Ancient Greek philosophers were writing largely from about 500 BC onwards. A lot of the Old Testament is in the context of Mediterranean and middle eastern politics. There was one great power base after another including the Egyptians (the Jews were there during the building of one of the great pyramids in about 1250 BC), Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians. When Israel had been bullying the weak in it's community and gone away from God they got handed over to who ever was the biggest bully around at the time till they'd learned their lesson. There are lots of archeological treasures being found from these times so we know even what the enemies looked like (or what they wanted to think they looked like!), what cups they drank out of and what their armour looked like.

The first of the eye witness accounts in the New Testament (those written down by Matthew and Mark) started to be written down very soon after the death of Christ in the AD 30s), probably before the first martyrdoms (James and Steven) or else they might have been mentioned - they do get mentioned in Acts. Then Dr Luke is sent in from the outside by a benefactor with a Greek name, Theophilus, and interviews all the key eye witnesses and writes that down, followed by the stories of what happened next in Acts. You can tell when he finished the other interviews and went to join Paul in Acts 17 where he changes from saying they did this and that to we went ...  The gospel written by John came last and is made up of the other bits that everyone else remembered and wanted put in, as well as his own memories. Remember all the disciples became the apostles and they had all known each other for at least the 3 years when they traveled round with Jesus and most if not all stayed in touch after until they dispersed to go to reach the world.

The first church was in Jerusalem, then they started to form all round the Mediterranean area. All the letters to the new churches and the prophecy from John were all written down before AD 70 when the Roman forces sacked Jerusalem. interestingly the prophecy that has sometimes been used by end times preachers in Mark was a clear warning about the Roman invasion and told them what signs to look for. Mark was being well circulated by at least the mid 60sAD. Some people believe that Revelation was a warning about the same thing. When the Roman armies arrived in AD 70 the Christians heeded the signs and did what they were told - run for the hills which was really counter intuitive. It's the opposite of what you should do if there's an invasion - people from the villages run for the walled city for protection, which is what the Jews did. The Christians begged them to leave too but they wouldn't. Huge numbers of Jews were massacred. There's no record of any Christian dying on that occasion. A very awful event but something that clearly dates the publishing of all the new testament before it happened or it would have been mentioned.

So the church started just as the Bible documents were being finished. After the Romans ransacked Jerusalem, even taking the newly finished temple to pieces again - lifting down the huge stones, all the Christians had fled. They went first to the outlying hills for safety then gradually spread out as far as they could travel sharing their amazing news about Jesus as they went. The word we use for church is a greek word used for a public meeting or gathering. The other word we sometimes translate as church is the word for fellowship - ie partnership/friendship. I hope what we experience today includes both aspects.

Churches gradually developed, sometimes meeting in secret when there was persecution, often meeting in houses - the central courtyard or centre of a sort of family compound.

The Church as an institution only gradually happened. It suddenly went public big way when in AD 350ish the Roman Emperor Constantine decided that the whole Empire was to become christian. This was brilliant in one way, it stopped the persecution and a number of other unpleasant things done by Romans and others. Suddenly wealthy people were donating money and wanting to build temples to appease the new God (and impress everyone)  so there is a sudden increase in christian art and architecture which in one way is great but in another it took the emphasis off giving to the poor and needy and put it into public appearance. Then the church in Rome started to take over, rules were made about standardising teaching - which was good and bad too - good cos there was some big differences of opinion which needed sorting out, bad cos it was the church in Rome that decided what everyone should believe and enforced it using force :-(

The Bible was accessible as documents that were passed from group to group who'd make a copy and pass it on. People relied on public readings and memorising.

Gradually languages change. We don't speak the same language as our grandparents. World power languages change. The Bible documents need re-translating regularly for the people to understand it. There have been special times in history of the church when the Bible has been lost into decaying language then gets rediscovered when it gets translated. The big reform movement in Europe came when the Bible was being translated into modern language and suddenly, it was just like when Ezra found the scrolls of the law which had been lost. he gathered everyone together and started to read. people began to sob cos they found out they'd offended God which began a period of revival. all over Europe and beyond there was revival. Sometimes this offends the established churches - they are the ones who were doing the bizz, where have all these outsiders come from messing up our nice tidy services ! But God still speaks now using his written word if we're willing to move with him and use the language that means something to the man on the street.

The new testament is one of the worlds most simple documents in some respects. It only uses about 4000 basic vocabulary words. Most school children know that many words when they are only 6 or 7 even. Children who speak a different language at home than at school may know a lot more words. We  ruin the Bible by letting it lapse into archaic language and by speaking a religious jargon.

How can you guess that I'm passionate about the Bible, well, not just the Bible, about having a God who wants to talk to us. He wants to communicate that he sends it in writing, then he sends his representatives and finally he sent his son, the fulfillment of all the Father wants to say to us, The Word of God in person !! Wow !!

 PS I don't want you to think I'm against modern day Roman Catholics. They're not to blame for what their ancestors did. I have difficulties with the role of The Vatican politically but there are many fellow believers in all sorts of church situations including them. Equally, to be fair, some of the churches started through the reform or other revival movements have become stagnant or worse. We all need to learn to move on with God, no one can claim to be best mates with God just  cos they can quote the bible like a pharisee. It all boils down to loving the Lord our god with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength and loving our neighbours as ourselves. lest we be like the foolish man who heard the word of God but didn't do it and built on sand.

Literal interpretation

Literal interpretation of the bible. Of what bible ? Taking a version in Shakespearean English and taking that literally with a 20th C understanding of the same words ? Taking elements of Middle Eastern texts without any understanding of Middle Eastern Culture ? not taking into account who elements were said to - what was written to employers or employees, the very religious or those excluded by the very religious ? taking one "verse" and making it into a one size fits all rule ?
I think 19th and 20th C western church history has a lot to answer for (very over simplified). European evangelicals were in the spear head of lots of wonderful movements including the labour movement, reform of prisons, work laws, child care and investigation of nature and archeology. I include Darwin himself in that, tho Darwin-ism is quite another matter.European theologians had a theoretically really good idea of applying modern archeology etc to the bible - but it wasn't far enough on to be helpful enough yet so they got rather negative (and maybe more than a little pompous). There was a back swing against this in rural North America. A really good idea to believe the Bible - but limited to an archaic translation, out of cultural context, interpreted with inadequate literacy skills - so they got a bit negative (and maybe more than a little pompous) This Fundamentalist movement had wide reaching effects till the Evangelical movement finally split with it in the 1940s. Both my parents were adversely affected by it. It has still left very deep roots in some denominations.

Wrath ?!

The working title for the thinking in my head is "What makes God really mad?" but it's not necessarily the best summary of the topic, just my starting point.

I had a problem with "wrath". I've read the bible through several times and my eyes sort of jump the nastiest bits. I finally decided I had to face it and so set myself a question. Why would the God is Love get that mad ? What on earth could make him act like that ? I picked a prophet at random and worked through the "because" verses. What an eye opener. Amos turned out to have been a good choice cos of the way it's laid out. I'd been put off cos of the odd (to me) imagery but in fact the "because" clauses are really clear ! and it turns out it's some of the things that I'm passionate about too so the answers please me rather ! I went on to Isaiah (link)- well the first half - the you naughty kids half . Same again. 

The needy, the poor, the fatherless and widow, aliens (I just love to use that word just to be naughty - like Sting, "I'm a legal alien, I'm an Englishman in New York) ok, foreigners, false weights and measures and rigged or biased 'justice'. 

Then there is the immorality and the false gods/idolatry etc. But I'd expected to find just that, and more of it. So God is not just concerned about private morality and his own public image and following. He gets so cross at how the weaker members of society are treated he's prepared to let bullies fall into the hands of even bigger bullies to get a taste of their own medicine. He gives them loads of warning in the hope they'll stop of course. 

Of course Amos and Isaiah were talking to particular situations but I've found it in many of the other prophecies too.

My lack of understanding about this had affected all sorts of things including feeling overly sorry for the Hebrew people being taken on off into exile. Yes they have been appallingly treated since and there is absolutely no excuse for that persecution plain and simple. However the second half of Isaiah is not comforting because God has to pay them to make up for the horrid Babylonians, it's just reassuring them that now they're on the receiving end it wont last for ever, they're not abandoned. They still deserved it. That isn't taken away !

This led on to thinking about what does God really like, what makes him happy ? Of course there are lots of things but the simplest answer has become even more clear to me. To love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind soul and strength and to love my neighbour as myself. The Westminster confession has not done us a service. Only worshiping God is half the story and if I only do that without the second half the first half is completely wasted. It's only paper roses (do you remember the song by Marie Osmond ? "paper roses, like your imitation love for me"). which leads on to James - Faith AND Works. 

It has so many practical out workings. Like how we treat employees. Do we pay our bills straight away ? I have a friend who is a decorator and can't live by it cos people don't pay for work until he's virtually taken them to court. Do we make sure our employees get a living wage ? the farmer who takes on ppl and pays the same what ever time of day they start - K Bailey says the wage was just enough to feed one family for a day - the crazy employer made sure that no family in that village went hungry that day. My home helps don't get enough to live on from the wage the social security gives them for my care so I top up their wage - I don't give it as a gift but as a right so they're not put in the position of keeping on thanking me. 

My baptism verse is in Isaiah 58 but it's a bit rich wanting the blessing of being a well watered garden without applying the first part of the chapter - this is the fast that I chose ... It's an "if" blessing like so many others. Same with Hebrews 13 - how many times have I sung we bring a sacrifice of praise - I led worship for many years and feel passionately about praising God (in all sorts of ways aswell as music) but it's a 2 halved verse : sacrifice of praise AND good works!

I'm sorry The Poor is not a "sexy" subject but the NT is so riddled with it. I reread early Acts again and there it is like Skegness through rock. What did the first ever Christian "Full Timers" do ? They thought that caring for the starving old ladies was important enough to not be able to get on with prayer and study !! The Jews, even the Pharisees who supposedly kept the law were letting them suffer. The first appointments in the early church were to take over. Not just one but SEVEN !! Cornelius was heard by God cos of his prayer AND his care for the poor. Paul went to see the brothers to check out he'd got his doctrine right - and they said fine but don't forget the poor. Galations 2

I did a little study on giving in the NT (link) - It's clear, no need for inferences from OT ideas. Relatives, leaders, brothers and the poor. The 4 areas of giving in the NT. No ambiguity. The Jesus mandate.