Sunday, December 21, 2008

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Movie Premier - "Theological Studies!"

Just passing through "Founders Blog" last week I caught a glimpse of what I thought was a 'Teaser Trailer' for a unique cinematic experience. So before I spoil it (and tell you how you can be in it!), have a peek:



Now if you visit the "Midwest Center for Theological Studies" website you will soon find that Eschatology is not the not the only subject on offer. Furthermore, you will also find that for those who don't live in the 'U.S. of A.' (Ie. those who attend Timothy Fellowship), the Midwest Center for Theological Studies (MCTS) provides distance education. Very handy! Not only for those who don't live near the seminary, but also for those (like many of you reading this) who work full-time, raising families, etc. If you have been considering Theological studies (even just a few subjects) and have been wondering where would be a solid, trusted place to learn, that is flexible to those with limited time, MCTS is one place to consider. Faculty include: Tom Ascol (Founders), Tedd Tripp, Donald Whitney, Dr. Sam Waldron (Academic Dean of MCTS).

There is also "Reformed Baptist Seminary" in South Carolina (U.S.A.) if your searching around for other places (also has distance learning, well, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it!).

Of course, for all you Adelaidians, if your keen to drop everything and study full-time Adelaide College of Ministries is where it's at!

Oh, and just a side note:- Grasping more of the Truth of God's revealed Word unto mankind, IS more satisfying than a cutting edge film, don't you agree?!

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Wisdom from above, wisdom from below...

How often it is, that I find my worldview is still not fully captivated to Word of God. So much residual human philosophy is contained even within the most sanctified of believers (how I long to be that sanctified!). How did I come to this discovery? I was visiting Ligonier Ministries website, and being attracted to the asthetic looking media player with Dr R. C. Sproul setting to the left. I clicked on "Video" and found some interesting titles as I scrolled down. Names like "Sarte and Heidegger", "Nietzsche", "Kiekergaard", "Marx", "Hegel", and "Kant" all sounded familiar. They are, of course, the names of the most well known Philosophers of modern times.


Dr R. C. does a wonderful job summarising the philosophical theories of each man. It is supremely helpful and will equip you in the basics, with regards to philosophy. Hope you get the chance to watch the video's. It is also a good reminder that man, on his own cannot discover the truth about himself, God or eternity (1 Corinthians 1-2).

The video's are part of the DVD collection: "The Consequences of Ideas", check it out!

Sunday, November 23, 2008

John Calvin - How then should we serve?

Psalm 119:112
"I have applied mine heart to fulfill thy statutes always: even unto the end."


"Now when he saith, that he inclined his heart to observe the commandments of God: he showeth us, what service it is that God requireth: that is a voluntary and willing service. See here yet a point which ought well to be considered of, to the end we should not think that we are ever able to please God, when as we serve him constrainedly, as we see the miserable and wretched faithless do, which greatly torment themselves. And why so? For all that they do, they do it constrainedly
because they would the better escape the hand of God, but when they come near unto him as well as they may, it is but as it were enforced and constrained, because he is their judge. Now if we have such a constant desire (as we term it) that we are enforced to do that which we are commanded: our whole case is little worth, and God will never allow of it. And why so? because he liketh of nothing else but of obedience, and would have us come unto him with frank and willing minds. See then why David saith, that he hath inclined his heart to keep the commandments of God: not that he protesteth, that he hath done it of himself, nor of his own mind: but because that God hath given him both the will and the power to do the same. And to prove it to be so, we shall never see that David braggeth of himself in any one place, that he willed any good, being so led of his own proper mind: he will never say, that it was his natural inclination, but saith clean contrary, I was conceived in sin, saith he, (Psalm 51:5) he reserveth nothing to himself but all that which is naught. When then in this behalf he protesteth that he had inclined his heart, he only showeth what the grace of God was in him. And for conclusion he addeth: That he did it forever, or, even unto the end, or, this is it which we have touched heretofore: to wit, we must not be like sudden blasts which pass by and by, but we must be constant, and that when we shall have once begun, we must pray unto God that he will continue the same our well doing which he hath begun in us, and to hold us
by the hand until such time as we have finished our course."

(Taken from John Calvin's 14th Sermon on Psalm 119)

Thursday, November 6, 2008

A Palestinian State – Part 8

The final installment has arrived! I hope you've been blessed by reading my review of From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters and have been awakened to these important issues facing Israel and the church, and what looks to be on the near horizon. Maranatha!

~

In conclusion, I want to make a few points.

First, I am not, and Peters certainly wasn’t, trying to absolve Israel of the wrongs they have perpetrated in the Arab-Jewish conflict, or try to paint them as only innocent victims to the Arab world. They certainly have been responsible for evils through the years in regard to the “Palestinian refugee” situation, and many other situations. The popular media continues to make sure we are well informed of those! (Though, as you should now be aware, we should be careful not to unquestioningly accept the picture that the media paints of Israel).

Second, this isn’t a call to political arms. This topic is highly political, but I am not calling on Christians to start lobbying our government for intervention in Israel or a military response to the Arab world. I do hope, however, that your perspective on the Middle East has been challenged by what I’ve presented of Peters’ research. Perhaps you will be motivated to let others know about the realities of the situation when the topic comes up.

Third, even if we were to intervene in Middle Eastern affairs, it is naïve to think that we can somehow be responsible for bringing Jesus’ return forward on God’s calendar. Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only—Matthew 24:36. All of these things happen according to God’s sovereignty. In the passage at the beginning, God said that it shall happen in that day that I WILL make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples, and in one I quoted further down, God said to Israel I WILL bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered. It is God’s willing, and God’s doing, that is responsible for the events of the future, including the time that Jesus will return. Our challenge is to be personally ready, because his return is imminent.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Psalm 122:6a


~

Friday, October 31, 2008

Dr MacArthur is Free!

If you are searching around on the internet for free MP3's by Dr John MacArthur, you'll discover what's commonly called "not muzzling the ox while he's treading out the grain", ie. you'll have to purchase most of John MacArthur's sermon (apart from a few on Sermon Audio and about 40 on Sermon Index), which is still absolutely worth doing, and has enabled the CD/Tape/DVD distribution ministry of sermon's by "Grace to You", to continue for nearly 40 years! (As well as books, articles, and other literature).

BUT!!! As of Wednesday the 5th November 2008 "Grace to You" - the ministry of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California, will be "opening up the vault" to enable FREE access to 3500 sermons (no registration or anything else required). Simply go to http://www.gty.org/ starting this Wednesday!!! Thankyou Grace to You!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

A Palestinian State – Part 7

It’s not my purpose here, but it would be useful to study several other topics in relation to this one, to further understand today’s situation in the Middle East:

~ The nature of Islam. While all Muslims are not terrorists, and in fact most are peaceful people, Islam according to the Koran and as practiced by Mohummad is a religious ideology that calls for violence—particularly against Jews. Mohummad is quoted in the hadith as saying, The last day will not come until the Muslims confront the Jews and the Muslims destroy them. In that day Allah will give voice to the rocks and the trees and they will cry out, ‘O Muslim, O Abdullah, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him! The Koran also contains many passages inciting Muslims to wage war on Jews who don’t submit to Islam. What also must be understood is that Islam is essentially political in nature, and Islamic countries draw no distinction between “church and state”, as the distinction exists in western nations. These factors must be understood if the agenda of the Arab world against Israel is going to make any sense to us.­

~ The Satanic roots of anti-Semitism. (A brilliant book addressing this topic is What On Earth is God Doing? by Renald E. Showers.) The Bible, and the history of the world, can be studied as an ongoing battle between God and Satan. Throughout history, Satan has inspired hatred against the Jews in an attempt to annihilate them—first, so that God could not provide the Messiah through Israel as he promised (examples of this include Cain killing Abel, Pharaoh commanding the murder of every firstborn Israelite son, and Herod commanding the murder of all male children under two years in and around Bethlehem), and second, so that God cannot fulfil the promises he has made about Israel’s restoration in the future (examples of this include the Romans driving Jews from the land, two thousand years of persecution of Jews in the Arabic world, the Nazi Holocaust, and the situation today in Israel).­

~ That all Israel will be saved. Since the dawn of Catholicism, and because of the influence of the writings of Oregon, Augustine, and others since then, the majority of the church has for the best part of two centuries allegorised the scriptures in which God promises national restoration and salvation to Israel. It is surprising that this tradition continues today, despite the many prophecies that were fulfilled in Israel’s rebirth last century. The Bible is clear when it says that Israel will first be regathered to the land in unbelief (Ezekiel 20:33-35), that many will fall under God’s judgement and be killed (Ezekiel 22:17-22, Zechariah 13:8-9), and that all those who remain will repent and believe in Jesus as Messiah and be saved (Jeremiah 31:31-37, Romans 11:25-27).

I believe that if we can grasp these three things, today’s situation in the Middle East makes infinitely more sense.

Monday, October 13, 2008

This Coming Fellowship - 01/11/2008

For you "Timothy's":

Timothy Fellowship has been in existance for one year now! We hope that so far our meetings have been equipping, exhorting and uplifting for your theological/spiritual growth. You may have already received an invite for the 1st of November (2008) in the post. However, you may prefer to have your invite electronically. So here 'tis:

When: Saturday the 1st November 2008, 5.30pm till 9.30pm
Where: Aldgate Baptist Church (South Australia).
Teacher: Rev. Andrew Klynsmith (http://www.afes.org.au/ & http://www.newcreation.org.au/)
Topic: "On Being A Theologian Of The Cross - Why God Is So Interested That You Still Know You're A Sinner".
Cost: $20 (includes 2 course dinner, drinks, supper and free resources)

Any questions? Have you crashed into this web page somehow and would like to know more? Would you like to attend? Please email: timmyfellows@gmail.com

Remeber to visit this website regularly for updates, and to comment on what you read.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

A Palestinian State – Part 6

So, in summary, here are the popularly believed stories compared to the historical realities:

The “Palestinian people” had an identity with the land, and this identity goes back thousands of years.
ON THE CONTRARY: Apart from famous highlights of conquest, the land remained desolate for much of the period between AD70 and 1917, and had few inhabitants. Jewish populations did however remain in the land continuously throughout the intervening period—so among others, Jews of this time were “Palestinian people” who maintained a continual identity with the land.
In 1948, “alien” Jews returned after two thousand years, displacing these “Palestinian Arabs” and forcing them to flee their homeland.
ON THE CONTRARY: Jewish claims to Palestine are based on continual Jewish presence in the land from the time of the Diaspora until today. The “Palestinian Arabs” were displaced by the war of 1948, but this was largely the result of Arab world leaders advising them to flee (and despite Jewish pleas for them to remain) so that allied Arab armies could defeat Israel without harming Arab brethren.
It is Arab land—the Arabs were there first.
ON THE CONTRARY: Jews have maintained a continual presence in the land for thousands of years, since the time of Joshua. The claim that Arabs have maintained a “Palestinian national identity” in the land is false, as admitted by Arab leaders. Peters doesn’t use this argument as she comes from a secular perspective, but the land is God’s land (Leviticus 25:23) which he gave to Israel as an “everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8), “for all time” (Deuteronomy 4:40)—a covenant that God “remembers [i.e., honours] forever” (Psalm 105:8-10).
The modern-day state of Israel comprises the totality of Palestinian land (and there is no other Palestinian land in which the “Palestinian refugees” could resettle).
ON THE CONTRARY: 83% of the land set aside for a Jewish national home in the Palestine Mandate was surrendered to appease the Arab world. This land is the Palestinian state known as Jordan, and would have provided (and still does provide) an appropriate location for the “Palestinian refugees” to resettle.
The “Palestinians” who today suffer poverty and oppression in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are Arabs, and descendants of Arabs who had lived in the disputed land for thousands of years before Jews displaced them.
ON THE CONTRARY: The “Palestinians” that came to be refugees in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were largely illegal immigrants, or descendants of illegal immigrants, who entered Palestine unlawfully from foreign Arab lands during the British mandatory period. Before this time, Palestine was a wasteland, with very few inhabitants.
Israel is responsible for the current plight of the “Palestinians refugees”—therefore Israel is principally responsible for the ongoing strife in the Middle East today.
ON THE CONTRARY: The “Palestinian refugees” have suffered immensely, and it would be unfair to forget this. However, they have been victims not so much to Israel as to an Arab agenda that has caused them to remain refugees for sixty years instead of being resettled in their original Arab homelands, or in alternative resettlement locations in the Arab world (which would parallel normal resolutions of refugee situations). Arab world leaders call for another “Palestinian state”—and it is with this agenda that the Arab world continues to discriminate against the “Palestinian refugees” by only allowing them this option, and not the option of resettlement elsewhere in the Arab world. To resettle them elsewhere would be to admit defeat to Israel, and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Militant Atheism and Logical Fallacies

If you live in a cave by yourself, you would firstly not be reading this, and secondly you would not have a noticed a significant increase in adherents to a religion commonly known as "Atheism".

Evangelism has been the main work of Christians through the ages, however, today there are many "Militant" Atheists bent on soul winning for the god of random chance and purpose-less existance. And the only reason they can speak in public so freely in this way, is thanks to an established Christian morality that Atheists are sitting in the "lap" of. While they slap the face of that Christian morality all the day long. Perhaps they should try preaching the same philosophy in Saudi Arabia or in Iran and see what happens then.

Evangelical Brain and Southern Baptist Seminary President, Dr Albert Mohler has recently released another book (in quick succession with about 5 other books) dealing with the "New Atheism" called:

(Just over $10 at Koorong or Word in Adelaide, or if your the online shopping type, go here: Atheism Remix)

At first glance a Christian may get a little worried about this Evangelistic Atheism that has had the likes of Richard Dawkins bring his bubonic plague of irrational philosophy to the shores of Australia earlier this year. However, when you actually hear the arguements put forth, there is a sweet calm in the air! In fact Richard Dawkins uses about three "Logical Fallacies" in answering this question:

The sader thing [listening to the clapping] in this clip is that people actually think that was an answer to the young ladies question! It is unbelievable how illogical many minds have become in our society today. Yet these are the sorts of answers and arguements that Atheists use!

James Patrick Holding from Tektonics, has compiled a HUGE list of arguements that Atheists use, including many that are just for fun, but also many that are actually used by Atheists and Agnostics too.

Here is a sample (for the full list of 300 arguements click HERE [some are very funny]):

ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
1. Millions and millions of people don’t believe in God.
2. They can't all be wrong, can they?
3. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
1. Telling people that God exists makes some televangelists filthy rich.
2. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
1. I define God to be X.
2. Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
3. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

It is interesting how there really isn't a grain of logic used in many of these arguements. And I personally think it is okay to use a bit of satire to refute the clear and abvious sillyness of the Atheist Philosophy. Maybe you have some good apologetics you might like to add in the comments below.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

A Palestinian State – Part 5

There are several other factors that are important to understand when looking at the origin of the Arab-Jewish conflict.

First, that although the Jewish Diaspora of AD70-135 was comprehensive, it was not total. Peters’ research uncovered that “the Jewish presence in ‘the Holy Land’—at times tenuous—persisted throughout its bloody history. In fact, the Jewish claim—whether Arab-born or European-born Jew—to the land now called Palestine does not depend on a two-thousand-year-old promise. Buried beneath the propaganda—which has it that Jews ‘returned’ to the Holy Land after two thousand years of separation, where they found crowds of ‘indigenous Palestinian Arabs’—is the bald fact that Jews are indigenous people on the land who never left” (p. 81-82).

Later, during the seventh-century advent of Islam in Arabia, Jews there began to suffer enormous persecution and many were driven out or forced to flee. This resulted in many of them returning to the land of Palestine where they joined Jewish populations that had never left. Peters also cites records from the fifteenth century onwards that demonstrate continual Jewish presence on the land. Depending on the harshness of the current political power in the land, Jews would suffer varying degrees of persecution, but one thing is clear: that Jews, in one condition or another, lived in Palestine continually from the time of the Diaspora until the twentieth century.

This challenges the popularly-held view that the only basis for the Jews’ claim to the land of Palestine are the biblical promises, and an ancient history of presence there that is separated from the current day by two-thousand years of absence. (By the way, I believe that God’s promises to them also give them legitimate rights to land, as these promises were unconditional—see Genesis 17:8, Deuteronomy 4:40, Psalm 105:8-11, etc.). The international community may scoff at the Jews’ claim to the land because of their “religious” convictions based on biblical promises, but they should recognise Israel’s claim for political reasons—because Jews have maintained a continual presence in Palestine from the time of Joshua until today.

Secondly, before the return of many of the world’s Jews to the land in the twentieth century, Palestine was not a land inhabited by “throngs of Palestinian Arabs” who were indigenous to the land “from time immemorial” and who were later driven out by the Jews. For much of this time the land was in fact a wasteland with very few inhabitants. Peters quotes many descriptions given by various visitors to the land from the sixteenth through to the nineteenth century (pp. 158-161):
- “Nothing there to be scene but a little of the old walls, which is yet Remayning and all the rest is grasse, mosse and Weedes much like to a piece of Rank or moist Grounde”—an English visitor, of Jerusalem in 1590
­- “A house of robbers, murderers, the inhabitants are Saracens… It is a lamentable thing to see thus such a town. We saw nothing more stony, full of thorns and desert”—a Franciscan pilgrim, of Nazareth in the fifteenth century
­- “An inconsiderable village… Acre [the name of a town] a few poor cottages… nothing here but a vast and spacious ruin”—Nazareth in 1697
­- “Desolate and roamed through by Arab bands of robbers”—German encyclopaedia, of Palestine in 1827
­- “The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population”—The British Consul, of Palestine in 1857
­- “The north and south [of the Sharon plain] land is going out of cultivation and whole villages are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth. Since the year 1838, no less than 20 villages there have been thus erased from the map [by the Bedouin] and the stationary population extirpated.”—of Palestine in the 1860s
­- “Stirring scenes… occur in the valley [Jezreel] no more. There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent—not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings.”—Mark Twain, of Palestine in 1867
­- “I travelled through sad Galilee in the spring, and I found it silent, and, [In the vicinity of the Biblical Mount Gilboa], As elsewhere, as everywhere in Palestine, city and palaces have returned to the dust… This melancholy of abandonment… weighs on all the Holy Land”—Pierre Loti, French writer, of Palestine in 1895
­- “As a result of centuries of Turkish neglect and misrule, following on the earlier ravages of successive conquerors, the land has been given over to sand, marsh, the anopheles mosquito, clan feuds, and Bedouin marauders. A population of several millions had shrunk to less than one tenth that number—perhaps a quarter of a million around 1800, and 300,000 at mid-century”—David Landes in “Palestine before the Zionists”

Thirdly—and this is related to the second point—the idea “that Arab-Muslim ‘Palestinians’ were ‘emotionally tied’ to ‘their own plot of land in Palestine’—based upon a ‘consistent presence’ on ‘Arab’ land for ‘thousands of years’” (p. 137)—is a recent contrivance of Arabs as “an appeal to the emotions that would ‘counter Zionism’” (p. 138). In fact, Peters quotes Zuheir Mushin, the then Military Department head of the PLO (an organisation established to mobilise the “Palestinian people” to recover their usurped homes), who in 1977 said:
“Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.” (p. 137).

Until recently, Peters writes, “the Arabic-speaking peoples in Palestine were not motivated towards Palestinian nationalism, and that it was long after, not before, the Jews settled their new farms that the first claims of ‘Palestinian Arab’ identity and an ‘age-old’ tie to the land would be invented” (p. 170). Peters explains this fabrication as an attempt by the Arab world “to match the Jewish history by inventing an ‘identity’ for the ‘Palestinian Arabs’ that would, they reason, ‘counter Zionism’” (p. 171). She quotes an observer, Folke Bernadotte, who in 1950 said, “The Palestinian Arabs have at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specific Palestinian nationalism… it would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated into Trans-jordan” (p. 234).

The final point is one that has already been highlighted, but as I mentioned earlier, it is foundational to properly understanding the origins of this conflict. During the British mandatory period of 1917-1948, when the British facilitated the entrance of Jews to the land, there was also a massive illegal immigration of foreign Arabs that was not officially recorded, and which continued largely unhindered by the British. Peters spends five chapters documenting these figures, concluding that hundreds of thousands of Arabs illegally entered Jewish land during this time.

This illegal immigration is not the issue in itself. The issue is that these populations of Arabs later came to be called “Palestinian”—they were those who were warned by invading Arab armies to flee their homes so that they wouldn’t be harmed as the Arab world pounced to annihilate Israel, and then ended up as “Palestinian refugees” in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, when in reality they never were Palestinian. Since that time, a false thousands-of-years history of attachment to the land, and a “Palestinian national identity” has been fabricated for them by the Arab world to evoke international compassion—and international condemnation of Israel. This has been largely successful. And, as we have seen, the Arab countries from which these refugees originally came have denied them re-entrance for resettlement, in order to perpetuate the myth.

In her concluding chapter, Peters passionately writes:
“What must not continue, what cannot be allowed to continue, is the cynical scapegoating of the Jewish state and the Jewish refugees therein, or the sacrifice of the Arab refugees who are, in the name of ‘humanitarianism,’ being employed inhumanely as a war weapon against Israel by the Arab world. In the face of these major problems, too many politicians and persons of influence choose to shut their eyes to the facts. Too many refrain from critical analysis of propaganda in order to preserve their illusions about the price of oil. And far too many, the overwhelming bulk of us, had never been furnished with enough data to understand what the problem really was.” (p. 409-410).

Of her work, Peters says that “in the human sense, it is about the onrushing of peoples—about flight from conquest, from persecution, from corruption, from habit, and from poverty. But in essence, it is about the flight from fact.” (p. 10).

Monday, September 22, 2008

New Testament Theology of Atonement

For all those who were at the last Timothy Fellowship (6th September 2008), and for those who couldn't make it, here is the link to Dr Noel Due's Lecture on the New Testament Theology of Atonement:


All those who have commented already about the Lecture, have mentioned how the Lord used the knowledge gained in one evening to renew their mind (in a Roman's 12:2 kind of way!). May God add His blessings to all we learned at our last fellowship.

Friday, September 19, 2008

A Palestinian State – Part 4

Israel’s statehood was declared by the United Nations on May 14, 1948. The following day, the armies of Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Lebanon and Iraq declared war on the new Jewish state, and launched an offensive. In what can only be described as a miracle, Israel was victorious, and even gained land in a war that should have seen her crushed by far superior opponents.

Figures are difficult to verify, and were greatly inflated by the Arab League, but around 430,000-650,000 “Palestinian Arabs” were displaced during Israel’s “War of Independence”. It’s commonly asserted that Israel drove these Arabs out of their settlements, but Peters documents that they were “invited to leave while the invading Arab armies would purge the land of Jews. The invading Arab governments were certain of a quick victory; leaders warned the Arabs in Israel to run for their lives” (p. 12-13).

Despite Jewish insistence that Arabs stay and not flee, many did flee, creating refugee situations in the areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In response, the UN set up relief programs for the refugees. Many Arabs not affected by the war came for hand-outs, and, exploiting the compassion of the UN, ended up being numbered among the refugees, and became dependant on the aid. In order not to exclude or discriminate, the UN changed the definition of a refugee from “a person normally resident in Palestine who had lost his home and his livelihood as a result of the hostilities and who is in need”, TO “one who had lived in Palestine a minimum of two years preceding the 1948 conflict”. These factors caused refugee populations to swell considerably, so that today, many of the “Palestinian refugees” are descended from Arabs who actually never were refugees from the war—or even necessarily Palestinian. Also, as you recall from earlier, vast numbers of illegal foreign Arab immigrants had been entering the land before the war because of the negligence of the British, and what becomes clear from a study of these figures is that a significant proportion of the genuine refugees themselves also weren’t Palestinian. Many of them had only recently entered Palestine, or were descended from those who had recently entered from other Arab lands during the British mandatory period of 1917-1948.

Many of the refugees were therefore in fact rightful citizens of surrounding Arab countries. The saddest fact of all about these refugees is that Arab governments of surrounding nations began deliberately denying refugees the right to return to their countries of origin—those places they lived in before illegally entering Jewish land. They did this for two reasons: first, to promote anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab and Western worlds; and second, removing the refugees from the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be conceding victory to Israel, and recognizing Israel’s right to the land.

[In looking at this issue, it is important to understand the attitude of many of the leaders of the Arab world towards Israel: Israel’s borders are not the issue—the issue is Israel’s existence. Many Arab leaders have boldly declared that they wish to wipe Israel off of the map. At other times Arab leaders may tell the UN or the US what they want to hear (Yasser Arafat was a shining example of this two-facedness), but the real conviction of many in the Arab world, including prominent Arab leaders, is that Israel has no right to exist as a nation. Consider the words of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) National Charter: “Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history… Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”]

This sad political refugee game continues today. Why have not all of the “Palestinian refugees” been resettled in other Arab nations, where language, culture, and religion are familiar to them, or are very similar to their own? Why have they not been resettled in the 83% portion of territory already conceded to Arabs for the Palestinian state of Jordan? It is now sixty years since the displacement of these refugees, and still the crisis is perpetuated by Arab governments, instead of a permanent solution being found—with blame being laid on Israel for not surrendering land that they legitimately took in a defensive campaign. And, as Peters asks, “why has UNRWA [the relief program set up by the UN] spent well over a billion humanitarian-contributed dollars—mostly from the United States—to perpetuate the refugee dilemma?” (p. 32).

Even if it was true that all of the “Palestinian refugees” were Palestinian, and not illegal foreign immigrants from before the war, a better solution than them remaining in the squalor of the West Bank and Gaza Strip would have been their resettlement into Arab lands, just as—paralleling this situation—Jews fleeing Arab persecution in 1917-48 were able to be resettled in Israel. Peters documents that “for every refugee—adult or child—in Syria, Lebanon, or elsewhere in the Arab world who compels our sympathy, there is a Jewish refugee who fled from the Arab country of his birth” (p. 25). If the small parcel of land allotted to the Jews was able to support six hundred thousand Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Arab lands (in addition to all of the other Jews entering the land of Israel during that era) then surely the Arab world—rich with oil money, and vastly greater in size—could also support the refugees of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Peters spends half a chapter demonstrating not only the availability of vacant land for farming in the Arab world during this era, but also the desperate need of Arab governments for migrant labour, particularly in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt—where the refugees could easily have been absorbed, even many times over (pp. 19-32). It is unthinkable that despite this, the remainder of the Arab world has for sixty years forced the refugees to remain refugees.

Some “Palestinian refugees” have been absorbed into Arab nations, but they are generally discriminated against, and often are not granted citizenship—again, the reason for this is that Arab leaders wish for them to remain as a political tool to be used against Israel.

Contextualization or Capitulation? (Part 4)

by Dr Noel Due

The matter that underlies all we have written in the preceding entries on this topic is that of the substance of gospel communication. Contextualization applies supremely to the message that the apostolic gospel is, the communication of which is essential to biblical Christianity. In much contemporary Christian communication the emphasis on style or mode of communication has blurred the matter of content. By its nature much westernized communication (being derived from the marketing psychology of a consumerist culture) majors on allurement and entertainment in an attempt to minimize barriers to receptivity. It is only a small step from this to removing the scandal that the gospel is, and will always be, thereby denuding the gospel of its power.

At the end of the last blog we indicated that the issue of contextualization is as much a live one for the church inside indigenous communities as for outsiders entering them. Cultural identity is strongest where worship, law and upbringing are mutually reinforcing. Where this is the case, the conscience operates with great power (albeit aligned to cultural norms that may be well wide of biblical ones), and the conscience (reinforced by social stigma and public shame) therefore presents a critical issue for indigenous Christians inside their own communities, as for all believers in all circumstances. What traditions may be continued? What social, dietary, funerary, matrimonial, worship or commercial practices may be legitimately observed? How may extended family relationships be honoured, without compromising participation in (for example) trips to an idol shrine which may have normally accompanied them?

The conscience is not ‘free standing’. Conscience (and the related concept of shame, which may be understood as sort of ‘public conscience’) must align itself with some law by which it will operate. Neither is the conscience inviolable. It is not the voice of God within us (though God may use the conscience through which he brings conviction of sin, righteousness and judgement, for example) and the conscience needs as much redemption and rehabilitation as the other elements of our fallen humanity.

Because of its function as judge, jury and executioner in relation to our status before whichever law the conscience is aligned to (shame works the same way in the public arena), conscience needs to be the place above all others where the reality of justification by grace is deeply known. In turn, this great biblical doctrine is irreducibly related to the content of the apostolic message. The conscience, rehabilitated by grace and working in tune with Spirit, will still nevertheless always need to be tutored in the gospel and its subsequent liberty in relation to prevailing cultural norms. Of course, it will be truly aligned to the law of God, but from the love of God which grace produces in the heart, rather than from the (false) necessity to keep the law as a means of justification.

In an earlier entry we mentioned the examples of Timothy (circumcised by Paul as a matter of necessity) and Titus (whose non-circumcision was equally important and vehemently defended by Paul as a matter of necessity). This is an example of the complexity that any new community of believers faces. Peter’s capitulation on the matter of eating with the Gentiles in Antioch and the necessity for this action to be publically rebuked by Paul is another example of the same principle. At every turn and in every culture new believers are confronted with issues of conscience. How does a new Hindu convert relate to her surrounding culture? How does a new materialist Australian convert relate to his? The principles are the same, only the issues are different. In each set of circumstances the conscience will be a key player in how the gospel is contextualized, from within one’s own people group.

The pivotal point in each instance is what the action means for the content of the gospel, and for the preservation of the content of the message expressed in the cultural relationships of the believing community. Syncretism compromises content so that the form of cultural expression of Christian life may be more acceptable to the surrounding culture and belief systems. Legalism creates such barriers (because of the power of self-justification involved with it) that cultural isolation and exclusivity is the norm. The New Testament gives us examples of both trends (see Colossians for the former and Galatians for the latter). In each instance the answer is a gospel answer.

In view of all this, the reality of Christian communication will depend on how closely and fully the essential apostolic gospel is understood, not only in terms of the structures of biblical theology, but in the vibrant experience of its truth, first hand. The one who has the fire of God’s gospel burning within his or her heart, who has known the forgiveness of sins, the overwhelming grace of God and the unutterably glorious joy of knowing God as Father in the Son by the power of the Spirit, this one will not only want to communicate the truth he or she has come to know, they will seek earnestly what time or method the Lord who has called them would want to use to bring that communication of the gospel to the nations.

In all this, he or she is contextualizing a message, a word, a proclamation, indeed, a command, which comes from Jesus the Lord of heaven and earth. The method of this communication is significant in that we do not want to affirm wrong cultural assumptions. For example, one of the groups of people against whom the apostle Paul had to battle was a group he ironically called the ‘super apostles’…these ‘sold’ their word according the principles of rhetoric and to the schools of persuasion they had learned. In addition, their retinues (being healthy, wealth, well attired and adulating) could attest to the success of the product. In our own society we can adopt methods of market appeal that major on style and image, necessarily minimizing content and substance, which can reinforce cultural expectations of a consumerist mentality. In such cases the conscience may be largely untouched, and so the tendency to syncretism is accelerated.


(To be continued…)

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

A Palestinian State – Part 3

Managing the entrance of hundreds of thousands of Jews into the land was a huge task, especially during WWII when many of those seeking entrance were refugees fleeing Nazi death camps. Sadly, Peters documents that it was a task largely mismanaged by the British:
~­ The British kept strict quotas on Jewish refugees entering the land—much stricter than necessary. The land was able to support many more people than the number of Jews who were eventually allowed to enter. At times, the British went to great lengths to keep unwanted Jewish refugees from entering the land, including forcing ships at Palestinian ports full of Jewish refugees to turn around and take the refugees back—which for many, resulted in their extermination in death camps. There are reports of the British even firing on such ships to ward them off.
­~ The British kept official records only of Jews entering the land, and not also of foreign Arabs. It should have been a priority for the British to record both, because of their concern of overcrowding, and because the land had suddenly become an attractive destination for foreign Arabs because of the injection of western funds, infrastructure, and as a result, employment. Peters shows that vast numbers of Arabs did illegally enter the land during this period (this turns out to be a critical piece of information missing from the current popular understanding). In time, these illegal immigrants swelled the land’s population significantly, causing the British to place even greater restrictions on the number of Jewish refugees allowed to enter the land. This really was a tragic situation, because many Jews were obviously in desperate need of a place to live—unlike the illegal foreign Arab immigrants, who were generally just seeking better fortunes. Here the fault falls equally on both the Arabs, who should have respected the Jewish need of land, and the British, who should have recorded and controlled the entrance of both Jews and Arabs, and not so freely allowed illegal foreigners to enter the land, reducing the number of Jews able to find refuge from the horrors of WWII.
­~ The Palestine Mandate designated the boundaries of the land given to the British and approved by the UN as the Jewish national home. The narrow strip of coastal land that Israel occupies today is only a small fraction of what was set aside for them. Why? Surrounding Arab powers took great issue to the British giving this land to the Jews (even though it was rightfully England’s, taken from the Turks in WWI, and was for hundreds of years of little interest to the Arab world). So to appease the Arab powers, the British gave 83% of the Palestine Mandate—land that had been set aside for Israel—to the Arabs. That piece of land is today known as Jordan. Incredibly, today there is great uproar from “Palestinians” who demand a “Palestinian State”. But one already exists—Jordan. And it comprises more than three quarters of the land that was originally reserved for the Jewish national home.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

A Palestinian State – Part 2

You need to know at least a brief history of the land called Palestine as a background to Peters’ book:

In AD70 Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans, and for the next sixty-five years, Jews fled the land of Israel in droves (this in itself is a remarkable fulfilment of a number of prophecies—Daniel 9:26, Zechariah 13:7 and Luke 21:20-24, etc.). During their reign, the Romans gave the land the name Syria Palaistina, which is where the name Palestine came from and has since stuck. (The name the Bible gives this land is Judah, but I’ll use the name Palestine or simply the land to avoid confusion). Muslims, seeking to expand the rule of Islam, invaded the land and took it from Byzantine (Roman) rule in the seventh century. It was ruled by a number of different powers during the Middle Ages, including Crusaders invading from Europe who sought to expand the “Holy Roman Empire” (which by the way wasn’t holy or Roman). In the sixteenth century, the land passed to the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire, who ruled it until WWI. During the Great War the land fell to the British as they pushed back the Turks.

With the land now in the hands of England, Jews, who had lived scattered across the world since the Diaspora, pursued the idea of returning to the land to re-establish a national home. This goal won the support of many, and in 1917, England issued the Balfour Declaration, which proposed the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. In 1922, the Palestine Mandate was approved by the League of Nations (which later became the UN), designating the boundaries of the Jewish homeland and entrusting the facilitation of the process to the British. All of these events turned out to be invaluable to the Jewish people, as it provided a refuge for many Jews to flee the Holocaust of WWII, and the opportunity for a new start for those who lost everything—property, wealth, and family—to the reckless anti-Semitism of the war.

By the way, these events are remarkable from a Christian’s perspective. In many Old Testament passages, God painted a clear picture about the regathering of Jews to Israel in the last days. Humans were certainly involved in the process, but ultimately it was God who was responsible for the events of last century:

I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out. Ezekiel 20:34

Thursday, August 28, 2008

A Palestinian State - Part 1

The following is an article I wrote earlier this year as a summary of a book I read called From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine by Joan Peters (2002 JKAP Publications, USA). What was a 12-page article I have broken down into 8 parts to be posted over the coming 8 weeks. While it isn’t devotional reading, it relates to a topic that I believe should be a focus of every serious Bible student, namely, Jesus’ second coming. It of course also addresses a much-reported and hotly-debated issue in world affairs today: the ongoing struggle in the Middle East. I hope that this will prove informative reading and provoke you to further Bible study. I welcome any feedback and would be happy to email you the article in its entirety for you to print or pass on to others.

~

And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. Zechariah 12:3

Recently there have been renewed calls for a Palestinian state in the Middle East.

The ongoing struggle between Israel and the Palestinians—and all of Israel’s Muslim-Arab neighbours—has had far more news media coverage over the years than any other local conflict. The Middle East crisis weighs heavily not only on the nations involved, but every nation of international significance.

Thousands of years ago, God, speaking through Zechariah said that’s exactly how we should expect it to be in the last days. God’s work in the world is on an individual level with each of us, on a corporate level with us as the church, but (and we easily forget this) it’s also on a national level with all the nations of the world. This of course includes Israel. Since the rebirth of the Jewish nation in 1948, God’s words to Zechariah have been remarkably fulfilled—Israel, and in particular Jerusalem, really has become a very heavy stone for all peoples.

It can be easy to assume, and most do, that because it’s (generally speaking) one nation versus half a dozen others, the aggressor is Israel. But there is a lot more to the history of this conflict than most know about. I’ve recently finished reading a book called From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, written by secular journalist Joan Peters (first published in 1985). Being a historical book of almost six hundred pages and having been written by a very wordy journalist, it was a difficult read and very slow going, but what she uncovered and presented in her book is truly astounding. It has taken me some time to collect my thoughts and write a summary of her book, but I feel it is really important that I share this so that others can hear about the true origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict. Knowing these origins explains so much of today’s situation in Israel, and it is very important for Christians to have clarity on this issue in a time when there is great controversy in the church over Israel and her place in God’s plans for the future (eschatology).

You won’t find out about the origins of this conflict from the popular news media. The common understanding of events—the one presented by the press, and believed by the majority—goes like this: “The Arabs, Palestinian and otherwise, have nothing against Jews—Arabs and Jews lived harmoniously in Arab lands before 1948; it was only the alien European ‘Zionists’ who came back after two thousand years to usurp the property of the Palestinian Arab native throngs. AND when Palestine became Israel in 1948, Jews forced the exodus of millions of Arabs from their plots of land inhabited by them from time immemorial” (p. 5-6). This commonly believed scenario is based on the following premises:
­- The “Palestinian people” had an identity with the land, and this identity goes back thousands of years.
­- In 1948, “alien” Jews returned after two thousand years, displacing these “Palestinian Arabs” and forcing them to flee their homeland.
­- It is Arab land—the Arabs were there first.
­- The modern-day state of Israel comprises the totality of Palestinian land (and there is no other Palestinian land in which the “Palestinian refugees” could resettle).
­- The “Palestinians” who today suffer poverty and oppression in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are descendants of Arabs who had lived in the disputed land for thousands of years before Jews displaced them.
­- Israel is responsible for the current plight of the “Palestinians refugees”—therefore Israel is principally responsible for the ongoing strife in the Middle East today.

This was the perspective of Joan Peters as she approached her book. In fact, in her words, “the book was originally meant to be solely an investigation of the current plight of the ‘Arab refugees’” (p. 3). She explains in the introduction her original intentions for her research, but how the data she uncovered eventually compelled her not only to change her perspective on the Middle East, but the focus of her book entirely. So rather than documenting the plight of the “Palestinians”, what her book did was to document how far the popular understanding of the origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict is from historical reality. It’s these discoveries that she made that I want to share with you.

Prepare to have many of your assumptions challenged.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

This Coming Fellowship - 06/09/2008

For you "Timothy's":

Having received a "snail-mail" invite to this coming Fellowship, it's probably stuck on the fridge, or in your "in-tray". If you haven't received a invite in your post box, but you have been to a Timothy Fellowship before, please take this as your invite! So for your convenience (since we seem to plugged into the web these days), here are the details again:

When: Saturday the 6th September 2008, 5.30pm till 9.30pm
Where: Eddies Cafe, cnr Dorene Street & Rothesay Ave, St Marys (South Australia).
Teacher: Rev. Dr. Noel Due, Senior Pastor at Coromandel Baptist Church (http://www.corobaptist.org.au/), Noel was previously Lecturer in Pastoral Theology at Highland Theological College, Scotland (http://www.htc.uhi.ac.uk/).
Topic: New Testament theology of the Atonement.
Cost: $20 (includes 2 course dinner, drinks, supper and free resources)

Any questions? Have you crashed into this web page somehow and would like to know more? Would you like to attend? Please email: timmyfellows@gmail.com

Remeber to visit this website regularly for updates, and don't forget to comment on what you read.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

A Mighty Fortress...

The Reformation is not primarily dealing with the Doctrines of Grace, though the Reformation saw a return to Sovereignty. The Reformation was a reform of a group of "saved folks" (Protestants) who heeded the words of God: "come out of her my peoples". These chosen souls separated from the Roman Catholic system, protesting against that system, and they began to build their lives on one pillar alone - Scripture. Was that the end? Maybe not...

From the book "Is the Reformation over?" by Scott Manetsch:

"So, is the Reformation over? It depends on what one means by “Reformation.” If one means the particular constellation of religious, political, and social events in sixteenth-century Europe that brought renewal to western Christianity, then of course the Reformation is over. But if one means the fundamental doctrinal divide separating official Roman Catholic Christianity from classic Protestant Christianity, then most certainly “no,” the Reformation is not over."

So often we act as if the Scriptures no longer need defending, "let's just teach positive things" some say, but Jude said, "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered". This is not our bread and butter, but contending for the faith never stops. We need to ensure we stay "Protestant", that we stay seperate, that we understand the gap that exists and proclaim it, or we will (like many already today) be absorbed back into a religious life, dictated to us by a man, rather than God.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

John Newton on TV?

Introducing "Wretched TV". It's not available over here but some of the episodes are on Youtube. Mr Mr Todd Friel is the host, I'm not sure this is exsactly what John Newton had in mind when he wrote "that saved a wretch like me", but it is a good show. Though Mr Friel takes some getting used to with his sarcasm and big hand movements, the topics he deals with are important and even serious, especially a current show dealing with the Lakeland, Florida "Revival" under Todd (Bamm) Bentley.

Take a look:





Monday, July 7, 2008

Contextualization or Capitulation? (Part 3)

by Dr Noel Due

The balancing act in contextualization is to speak properly into the shared cultural context of speaker and hearer at that point (e.g. Paul with the philosophers on Mars’ Hill) without giving way to syncretism.

Depending on which dictionary you use, syncretism means ‘the fusion or combination of different forms of belief or practice’; ‘the reconciliation of differing systems of philosophy or belief’; or ‘the fusion of diverse religious beliefs and practices’. In the ancient world (now making a reentry in spades) Gnosticism was the prime example of syncretistic belief and practice. It is therefore no coincidence that this occupied much of the theological and intellectual battle ground of the first centuries of the church. That it demanded so much time and attention from the early church fathers indicates how pervasive and troubling syncretism can be.

Paul’s letter to the Colossians has much to do with the concepts of wisdom and mystery. This emphasis is largely necessary because (by a sort of reverse engineering) we can adduce that the problems in the Colossian congregation related to distortions of these ideas. Throughout the New Testament the gospel is spoken of in similar terms (the ‘wisdom’ of God in the cross is a ‘mystery’ to the wisdom of the world). On the one hand, any language and means of communication is open to misunderstanding which must be clarified, but on the other hand a subtle cultural shift can occur where language does not simply ‘adapt’ or ‘accommodate’ to the culture, but is captured by it. Syncretism captures all language and practice in this way.

In the example of the letter to the Colossians, we see an instance of how the apostolic gospel had to confront and clear away the syncretistic tendency that had sought to capture it. The wider socio-religious context of the Colossians was a world in which esoteric wisdom formed a way to ensure safe and secure existence in a cosmos full of hostile powers. It seems that the Colossians had started to syncretise the wisdom/mystery of Christ with their cultural understanding of wisdom/mystery as means for controlling hostile powers and manipulating spiritual forces magically. They were fusing gospel terms and apostolic practices with those of their own folk religion.

How do we know whether our contextualised communication has become captive to cultural syncretism? There are a few helpful indicators:

  • Firstly, syncretism by definition undermines the uniqueness of Christ and the finality of the revelation he has brought (or better, the revelation, which he is). Among the Colossians, Christ was in danger of being regarded as ‘one of many’ or perhaps the ‘greatest of most’, but the matchlessness of his person and work were alike under threat. Where the uniqueness of Christ is diluted we draw him into our human systems of philosophy and religion. In particular we seek to draw him into our own systems for our own ends, in that we attempt to bring the (now modified) person and work of Christ into a system by which we may gain his benefits without organic faith-union with him as the only Saviour and Lord.
  • Secondly, syncretism offers an alternative understanding of the universe and the way in which we are called to live within it. Among the Colossians, Christ was in danger of being ‘slotted into’ an existing philosophical system of cosmic beings and hierarchies. In the Colossians’ situation we have an example of an existing understanding of the universe to which the person and work of Christ was being brought captive. Such alternative understandings are finally shaped by the wisdom of this age rather than that of the age to come. Its drift in this regard will be twofold. On the one hand it will lead to utter pragmatism (how do I use this system to get what I want?) and on the other it leads to an interpretation of the person and work of Christ which is ‘from below’ rather than from above (i.e. the weight falls on interpretation not revelation).
  • Thirdly, syncretism confuses our worship. In the Colossians’ situation, Christ was being worshipped, along with other angelic/spiritual beings, and all were being given comparable devotion. In principle there is nothing new here, since all of the Old Testament ‘high places’ provided Israel with opportunities with syncretised Yahweh/Baal/Asherah worship for example. Wherever this trend emerges, the purity of worship in Spirit and in truth is undermined. The church is given competing (and finally, mutually exclusive) bases of trust, which then rob God of his glory and lead astray the hearts of the Bride to shower their affections on other lovers.

    The contextualization/syncretism continuum is not simply an issue for cross-cultural communication, but is a real issue for the development of Christian life and worship amongst indigenous believers of every culture. The complexities that cluster around the issue are not reducible to a simplistic solution, but wherever the apostolic gospel is taken seriously, they must be addressed. Finally, the matter must be addressed by the apostolic content of the gospel, rather than by questions of form or style.

    (To be continued...)

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The Reformation Continues...

You may be wondering, "When is Nathin going to post all his own material?". The answer is, "When I stop coming across great video's!".

There is a reformed Baptist Missionary organisation Heart Cry Missionary (www.heartcrymissionary.com) that has reached out to many areas around the globe. Hope you can visit their website sometime. They've recommended an "African Spurgeon" named Conrad Mbewe on their sermon links. He's worth a listen:



Recently I've been hearing reformed preachers (in sermons that I podcast) state that they are seeing a steadily increasing amount of Christians adhering to the 'Doctrines of Grace'. If this is your observation, please comment below.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Contextualization or Capitulation? (Part 2)

by Dr Noel Due

Paul’s appearance before the philosophers of Athens at Mars’ Hill (recorded in Acts 17) is often taken as a prime example of the way in which apostolic preaching contextualized the gospel message. There can be no doubt that Paul’s preaching does here appear within a particular context, and there can also be no doubt that he was able to engage very effectively with his hearers on that occasion. That he was deeply familiar with the cultural setting in which he stood is also beyond doubt. But is this an example of no strings attached contextualization (in which Paul may be said to seek common ground with the pagan world views he was encountering); or even half way house contextualization (in which Paul was seeking to move in their direction a step or two so that they would move a step or two in his)? Or do we find something different happening here, something far more declaratory and kerygmatic than we may at first think?

In the wider context of Paul’s travels, we find that he did not end up in Athens because of a penchant to minimize misunderstanding and to maximize cooperation based on finding common ground with his Greco-Roman/Jewish hearers. Paul comes to Athens via Berea, after being almost lynched in Thessalonica, which, in turn, had followed on imprisonment in Philippi. The track record would suggest that Paul and his companions had not made the bridges formed by their contextualized ministry easy ones to cross!

In the closer context of the chapter we find that Paul’s ministry had begun, as it habitually did, with his own people, the Jews. Yes, his spirit was provoked by the idolatry of the city (Acts 17:16), but his response was to engage in direct evangelistic work among the Jews of the local synagogue and ‘God-fearers’ (i.e. Gentiles who had an interest in Judaism, who had abandoned certain aspects of paganism and who often supported local Jewish communities, but who had not converted fully to Judaism). The Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of the city encounter Paul in this phase of his ministry. They understood him to be speaking of two new gods, ‘Jesus’ and ‘Resurrection’. In Greek, the first is, naturally enough, masculine proper noun, and they had taken the second (a grammatical feminine noun) to be a female deity/consort of Jesus. Hence, they assumed he was proclaiming other gods who could be added to their pantheon (Acts 17:17-18). Paul was thus brought to the Council of the Areopagus in order to expound his existing evangelistic teaching (Acts 17:19-21).

The contents of Paul’s speech make interesting reading, given this setting. Firstly we notice that the ‘unknown God’ he has come to proclaim is probably the God of the Jews. He was ‘unknown’ because He had no image, and, from a Greek point of view, his knowledge was ‘closed’ to those outside of Judaism. Given that Paul had been at work among the Jews and God-fearers, this makes natural sense of the text. But even if another ‘god’ was in view (i.e. a god some how understood by general revelation), Paul does not let that ‘god’ go undefined for long. The ‘Unknown God’ is none other than the God of the Scriptures. Paul’s depiction of Him in Acts 17:24-28 is nothing less than a description of Yahweh. Moreover, this description ends with His absolute claim to exclusive worship (Acts 17:29), and this on the basis of the coming judgement (Acts 17:30-31).

Secondly, we notice that the proclamation does not end with Old Testament affirmations of God, but moves right through to the man, Jesus, and his resurrection. Paul has brought his hearers full circle. They heard him proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection. They asked what he was talking about and brought him to a Greco-Roman ‘please explain’ in a public assembly. And Paul answered. Jesus and the resurrection are the culmination of the actions of the God of the Jews. In Jesus the times of ignorance have both come to an end and been judged. Therefore there is no excuse for idolatry or unbelief. All people everywhere must turn from false religion to worship the true God, through Jesus whom he raised from the dead.

Thirdly, we notice that the use of the pagans’ own poets is thus in contradiction of their message, rather than in affirmation of it. Paul quotes two ancient poets (Epimenides and Aratus) ‘in him we live and move and have our being’ and ‘we are his offspring’ respectively. The significance of these quotations is that they do not apply to Zeus (to whom they most likely referred) or to any other ‘god’. Paul is using these poets to say that the worship rendered to Zeus or any of the other so called gods should have been rendered to Yahweh i.e. to the Father of our Lord Jesus, the man who would come to judge the world. Ultimately, embracing idolatry is a rejection of our true Father.

Fourthly, we notice that the proclamation of the resurrection was a cause for great division and ridicule. The Stoic and Epicurean philosophers had brought Paul there, and these had contradictory understandings of the universe. For the Stoics, there was a sort of post-material existence, but entirely devoid of matter. The thought of resurrected body was not just absurd, but abhorrent. For the Epicureans everything was made of atoms—the remote and apathetic gods included—and upon death the atomic substance of all things was reabsorbed into the (virtually eternal) realm of material things. The thought that (a) there should be a ‘god’ who was so concerned about human affairs that he would intervene (in judgement or grace) was ridiculous and (b) that he should raise up the dead for such a judgement was entirely meaningless.

Finally, we see that there were ‘some who believed’ (Acts 17:34). This means that the message he brought (and doubtless expounded in other settings as well) demanded a response and men and women actually were brought to new birth through it.

What may we take from all this? A few brief points:
Apostolic preaching created new conceptual categories and demanded that old ones be jettisoned.
Cultural communication does not leave culture ‘sovereign’ over the revelation of God.
Evangelistic work is full of content. It proclaims Jesus as the Christ, and this as the fulfillment of Old Testament revelation.
There will always be a mixed response and we should not capitulate to culture in the hope of avoiding conflict with it.
Preaching the gospel apostolically will of necessity involve the proclamation of things that existing cultural wisdom deems to be foolish.

(To be continued…)

Thursday, May 15, 2008

This Coming Fellowship - 28/06/2008 - Highlight for this year!

Attention all Timothy's:

Don't miss this Timothy Fellowship with Dr Allen P. Ross over from Alabama, U.S.A.

When: Saturday the 28th June 2008, 5.30pm till 9.45pm.
Where: Adelaide College of Ministries, 18A Fourth Avenue, Klemzig.
Teacher: Dr Allen P. Ross is professor of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School, Stamford University, Birmingham, Alabama (http://www.beesondivinity.com/).
Topic: Old Testament Covenants.
Cost: $20 (Dinner, desert & supper).

Please RSVP by Wednesday 25th June

Please take some time to check out some of the books Dr Ross has written (see 'Recommended Reading' on the left hand side of this page), book of note titled "Recalling the Hope of Glory".

See you there!

Any questions about the coming event? Do you know someone who may like to become a member of Timothy Fellowship? Please email: timmyfellows@gmail.com

Don't forget to write your comments on the articles etc. posted on this website.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The 11th commandment

Tolerance. Diversity. These two words, when used in their proper context, are helpful tools for guidance in the non-essential areas of Christianity. Things like: what food we eat, what car we choose to drive, what books you read, Biblical or none Biblical names for your children, watching a movie, etc. You might call them “grey areas”, areas in the Christian faith where the Bible does not have clear-cut admonition/instruction.

BUT! For these two words above, a Christian needs to add Biblical principles, example: “not everything is profitable” 1 Corinthians 10:23, “I will not be mastered by anything.” 1 Corinthians 6:12.

Back to our topic; tolerance & diversity are not always used in their proper context. Often these words are called down like fire from heaven on those who seek the Spiritual growth of others, or these words are called down on those who are preaching the Gospel to the unconverted. Christians are told to “judge not lest you be judged”, as if this was the 11th commandment. Is this really what Jesus meant by “judge not”? Or is this 11th commandment just a person’s way of self justification?

Hear what Dr John MacArthur has to say:

Friday, May 2, 2008

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Change a society - Preach the Gospel!

Government, Laws, Regulations. God has ordained these as earthly graces to kerb the human heart from reaching its full potential, that potential of utter lawlessness, the opportunity for man to reach ravaging murderous fits of hellish proportions. If he was "let go", an unrestrained youth would achieved as much as Adolf or Stalin, if not more. I could not bear to think of the consequences.
But does Legislation or Policy that is friendly to the Christian Worldview foster a culture that makes the conversion of the unregenerate easier? This is a question worth asking.

Consider this scenario:
A feminist Member of Parliament is spending all her time putting forward bills to legislate rights for abortion, gay marriage and various other things consistent with that worldview.

Will she change her mind about this worldview if she is debated in parliament? Maybe? Stranger things have happened.

But what would happen if she was met by a Christian, witnessed to, the Holy Spirit convicted her of sin, righteousness and judgment. Then at home she fell on her knees before God with true contrition and sorrow for her offences to Him, and our Lord granted her repentance? Would she change her views about abortion? Or rather, would her heart be so changed, that she has new views and new desires? The desires that a Christian has.

Approaching the issues of Government and Gospel Biblically is essential. It also helps us to decide how we spend our time.

Dr John MacArthur has more to say:

Monday, April 28, 2008

Together for the Gospel

Essential Listening! The Sermon's delivered at this Pastor's Conference (2006 and 2008) are so full of wonderful truth's expounded from God's Word and application for the Christian, that you'll find yourself rewinding because you thought you'd missed one second. This Conference (not unlike the www.shepherdsconference.org or the Ligonier Conference) is sure to delight, exhort, encourage and uplift you. The "Together for the Gospel" conference comes highly recommended from Timothy Staff, go to:

www.t4g.org

All sermon's are free, please comment once you've had a chance to listen to some.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Contextualization or Capitulation? (Part 1)

by Dr Noel Due

Over recent decades (especially from the mid 1970s onwards) the concept of contextualization has moved to front and centre stage in the theatre of world mission. While the initial impetus and focus of the concept was cross cultural world mission, it has quickly migrated to find its home in every sector of Christian ministry. In reaching every age group, sub-culture or sub-group of society we are told that our message and method must both alike be properly contextualized.

There are a number of significant and weighty biblical and theological arguments in favour of contextualization, which we would be foolish to ignore. The most foundational of all is the fact of the Incarnation of the Son of God. He not only took human nature to himself in the act of Incarnation, but that human nature was expressed in a particular person and at a particular time and at a localized place in history. Jesus looked like his contemporaries; he spoke their language; ate their food; shared their life; and taught according to the prevailing methods of his day. Jesus’ disciples in many ways shared this ‘incarnational’ model, expressed eloquently by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

For this reason Paul had no problem in keeping his vows according to Jewish custom (e.g. Acts 18:18 cf. Acts 21:20-24); or using contemporary terminology, poets and themes to explain the gospel message in a pagan setting (e.g. Acts 14:8-20; 17:16-34); or feeling at home in the world of Greek and Jew alike, not least in terms of ‘table fellowship’ (e.g. the matter of eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14). Moreover, it is clear that the Gospels and New Testament letters are written with particular audiences in mind, with the focus on particular questions that were needed to ‘contextualize’ the message in relation to the hearers. And, throughout the history of biblical revelation, God has accommodated himself to human thought forms and language, expressing himself in terms that ancient world cultures (for example) could easily understand. He is indeed the living God, who acts in history to reveal himself. Such revelation is entirely intelligible and perspicuous, to the point that it leaves no man without excuse.

On the other side of the argument, the impetus for contextualization comes from the desire to avoid any form of cultural imperialism and to ensure that cross cultural mission takes place without any clutter from the colonialist past. While (in my view) the “Christian missionary = cultural imperialist” argument is both overstated and simplistic, there have no doubt been many instances of cultural confusion and wrong cultural overlay in the history of Christian missions. We must indeed avoid any communication of the gospel that suggests that it is finally found in matters of eating, drinking, attire, manners or anything else that is associated with being western.

All this being said, however, there are elements in the carte blanche acceptance of contextualization that raise concern. The issues are doubtless complex, and any discussion of them immediately raises a substantial body of questions to do with culture, communication and the means by which the gospel makes its way in the world. I hope that we might address some of these matters in later blogs, and give some particular focus to passages that have become much used in the hermeneutics of contextualization (such as Acts 17), but by way of general introduction we may say the following.

Firstly, culture is not sovereign. In any culture we find not only elements that witness to the truth of God (a la Don Richardson’s Eternity in Their Hearts), but we will also find that cultures express an inevitable suppression of the truth which must be overturned. For this reason neither Jesus nor the prophets or apostles allowed culture to be elevated to the point of sanctity. While the incarnation brought the Son into our midst, he did not let us stay in the cultural mire of our sin and rebellion! He was one with his ‘own’, who ‘received him not’, but also was able to stand against his ‘own’ where the teaching, culture or ethical mores were not aligned with that of the Kingdom of God. To be one with us, does not mean that his incarnation allows us to stay where we are.

Secondly, in the desire for contextualization, we must not lose sight of the fact that the gospel actually creates new thought categories and challenges the content of existing cultural systems. It is my contention that every culture has a ‘cultus’ (i.e. a system of worship and sacrifice) at its heart, and that the surface expressions of culture in the artifacts and actions of any particular people group are but the outcrop of deeply held but unexpressed assumptions about the nature of the cosmos, the meaning of the world in which we live, and our place within it. The gospel does not leave this cultural core untouched, but rather exposes its idolatry and calls us to repentance.

Thirdly, there is an overarching conformity to which we are called. The Incarnate Son does not provide a mere model of ethical life to imitate, but the plan and purpose of God is that the whole of redeemed humanity would be conformed to his image. This image, then, trumps culture at every turn, and provides us with the parameters of what is legitimate contextualization and how it is to be done. The gospel will always be transformative because it will always bring to bear the power of the Spirit to conform persons and communities into the image of the Son of God, to the glory of the Father.

Fourthly, the matter of contextualization and the interface with culture often becomes a flash point for deeper issues. For example, in Antioch the issue was a simple one: should Peter continue eating with the Gentiles or should he not? The issue was not one of mere ‘table fellowship’. So significant was the theological issue at stake, that Paul had to oppose him directly because the cultural context had over shadowed the gospel reality. In like manner the related question addressed in Galatians and elsewhere is ‘Should Christian believers be circumcised, according to the Jewish law?’ The answer is ‘Yes, if you are Timothy’, but ‘Not by any means, if you are Titus’, and ‘Absolutely never if you think you are going to commend yourself to God by so doing’! In other words, the cultural expression (to circumcise or not) is tied to deep theological issues about the nature and meaning of justification.



(To be continued…)

Sermons by Sinclair Ferguson

Timothy's,

Pastor Due send through the following link http://sinclairferguson.always.org.uk/

If you haven't heard Sinclair Ferguson before, you will be encouraged to keep the centrality of the Cross always in view. He comes highly recommended!

If you get to listen to some of his sermons, feel free to write your comments here on this blog!

Blessings brothers, earnestly contend for the Faith.

Timothy Staff.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

This Coming Fellowship - 03/05/2008

For you "Timothy's":

Having received a "snail-mail" invite to this coming Fellowship, it's probably stuck on the fridge, or in your "in" tray. So for your convenience (since we seem to plugged in to the web these days), here are the details again:

When: Saturday the 3rd May 2008, 5.30pm till 9.30pm
Where: Sunset Rock Uniting Church, 34 Spencer St, Stirling.
Teacher: Rev. Dr. Noel Due, Senior Pastor at Coromandel Baptist Church (http://www.corobaptist.org.au/), Noel was previously Lecturer in Pastoral Theology at Highland Theological College, Scotland (http://www.htc.uhi.ac.uk/).
Topic: Biblical vs Secular Wisdom: Counselling and Identity.

Any questions? Please email: timmyfellows@gmail.com

Watch this blog for for articles, sermon links, video links, book reviews, etc. coming soon!