Hey, I just wanted to give a shout out to my friend David Morse who started a new blog recently. He’s going to be writing about Christianity, theology, culture, social media, food, Minneapolis life, and much more. He’s a solid guy and a great friend of mine. Check his stuff out!
…Plus he’s using a Greek delta (Δ) in place of his middle initial. So, that’s cool. 🙂
I found this rather funny.
Paul’s thorn in the flesh pic.twitter.com/tGxsipLbTN
— Burk Parsons (@BurkParsons) February 27, 2014
I was having a conversation with some individuals yesterday regarding Old Testament hermeneutics and the relationship between the Old Testament and the New.
As we were discussing the interpretation of the Old Testament, and particularly an insistence on literal interpretation of the Old Testament, I brought up the fact that too often of this sort discussion neglects how the New Testament develops and progresses what the Old Testament said. Further, it ignores the New Testament’s very use of the Old Testament (e.g., citations, allusions, calling things “fulfilled,” etc.).
Although the New Testament doesn’t violate or contradict the Old Testament voice, it often interprets and applies the Old Testament in non-literal ways (if by “literal” we mean an exact correspondence in meaning). Again, I would argue that the New Testament doesn’t violate or contradict the Old Testament. But it does use it and relate to it in such a way that it develops it, complements it, and applies it in light of the progress and unfolding of God’s plan in Christ and the Church.
Let me be very straight-forward (as if that’s unusual).
Messianic Judaism is something that makes me feel… uncomfortable, not for ethnic or cultural reasons, but theological ones. I say “uncomfortable” because, although I’m not sure I could clearly articulate my thoughts very well at this point, I have a sense of theological uneasiness in regards to this movement. I may be able to identify some of my concerns, e.g., Messianic Judaism seems to be a practical outcome of viewing Israel and the Church as two separate peoples of God (clearly an unbiblical concept). But I need to do some more thinking about what’s causing this theological nervousness.
Within the baptist tradition, there seems to be a certain repulsion towards written prayers. For whatever reason (probably because of its association with certain other traditions or its abuse), it has a stigma. For example, the great Baptist Charles Spurgeon once said,
Be assured that free [i.e., unprepared] prayer is the most scriptural, and should be the most excellent form of public supplication. … a manner which is warranted by the word of God, and accepted of the Lord. The expression, “reading prayers,” to which we are now so accustomed, is not to be found in Holy Scripture … The phrase is not there because the thing itself had no existence. Where in the writings of the apostles meet we with the bare idea of a liturgy? Prayer in the assemblies of the early Christians was unrestricted to any form of words.[1]
I want to respond, “Eh, Spurgeon, don’t be so dogmatic here. Don’t be so harsh now.”
Kirk E. Miller 