Spike the Remote Eater And Open Forum

When we brought him home for a Christmas gift for my wife, I thought I had a “laid back” dog who would be sweet and gentle.  WRONG!!  He is a foot tall, ball of terror, I mean, “terrier.”  Yesterday while we were preparing supper, the crazy dog chewed the remote control to our DVD player.  To say the least I was beside myself.

After my reaction, he would not even get around me for the next day.  I put him in his crate and would not have let him out for a much longer time, but my son came to his rescue.  Anyay, pray for the dog and me.  If he chews up one more thing, he may have to eat it.
____________________

On a more serious note, please pray for my class that begins Sunday.  It’s the open forum class I spoke about several blogs ago.  The first question asked is, “How do we determine what is cultural and what is not in the scriptures?”  In order to deal with that and other questions, I’m going to begin with looking at how we view the scriptures.  I am reading “How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth”  by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart.  It’s really going to be a great help.  I hope to blog some aout it next week.  Thanks for your prayers blog family. 

Advertisements

7 responses to “Spike the Remote Eater And Open Forum

  • Greg England

    That’s a great read, by the way! Discovered that book 20+ years ago and have read it several times, and taught a class using it as a text as well. You’ll do fine at Creekside. Start with something simple, such as women keeping silent and then work up to the really difficult issues such as whether or not the “wine” of Scripture is fermented or not. 🙂

  • preacherman

    Believe me dog doesn’t taste good. I had some chinese food last week and didn’t set well with me. The resturaunt was named ding huaw: which means stupid dog in chinese. I had no idea.

    Your Sunday morning class sounds very interesting. I will keep you and the class in my prayers. God bless your minister and understand that God did not give you a spirit of timidity of Power!
    God bless you brother in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

  • cwinwc

    Perhaps you could name the dog “DVD?” Is there a “remote” chance of that happenning? One thing for sure, if “DVD” lives you may have discovered a “Greg like” blog cash cow.

    I’ve very interested in how your class turns out. I’d like to do one like it at Central.

  • Meowmix

    I’d like to BE IN THAT CLASS! Prayers offered for you, the class, and for your poor dog. I also offered one for Greg and Cecil: something more like a question directed to God, like what in the world are we going to do with them! 🙂

  • Trey Morgan

    I’m with Greg, that book is an awesome book. The class sounds challenging. Anytime we’re willing to take “an honest” look at cultural or spiritual, it’s eye opening, but also a breath of fresh air.

    Blessings brother

  • Randy

    Start your class by reading Ephesians 4:31-32 and tell them unless these principles infuse the discussion it doesn’t matter the conclusion you eventually reach. Also, feed that dog sunglasses — much cheaper!

  • John P. Crowder

    There are a lot of religious folks who continually search to find “cultural” reasons for side-stepping doctrinal requirements and prohibitions. Most egregious among these is the gay-advocacy crowd, which seeks to “explain,” for instance, the homosexual advance on the household of lot and his guests as not being condemned for its obvious homosexual implications, but rather for the lack of “hospitality” shown by those who demanded that Lot send his angel guests out into the streets of Sodom so that the perverts at his door could “know them.” ( and by that they clearly did not mean that they simply wished to make their acquaintance). The would-be theologians and the gay apologists who make this argument from “culture” obviously have not paid much, if any, attention to II Peter 2: 7 & 8, which condemns the sins of the original Sodomites in language that is obviously stronger than that which would apply to mere inhospitality (“the filthy conversation [i.e way of life]of the wicked” (v.7); “vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds” (v. 8).

    Today, there are all kinds of folks in the Lord’s church who stretch arguments based on “culture” to attempt to stretch the church to fit their own Procrustean notions of what is and what is not permissible. I suggest that in one realm of inquiry, there are “cultural” elements that, if honestly considered, should disabuse those brethren who of late have gotten soft on the instrumental music issue. Consider this–in the First Century church, converts either were Jews or Gentiles. The Jews were accustomed to using musical instruments in their temple worship and at other times. The pagan Gentiles similarly used instruments of music in their worship. But the historical record is absolutely clear to the effect that in the church, for about the first 600 years, only vocal music was employed! (hence “a capella”–in the manner of the church). If it was part of the “culture” to use instruments (and for both Jew and Gentile, it certainly was), then WHAT caused both Jew and Gentile to ABANDON that element of their cultural heritage? It is not “normal” or common for folks steeped in tradition and culture about such things as music in worship to suddenly cut themselves off from practices long used. Is it not valid to ask whether such abandonment of instruments of music must have had its origin in some apostolic instruction? And if that is the case, is not that an indication that it was God’s will that only vocal music be used?

    Brethren looking for justification for the instrument contend that instrumental music is not overtly prohibited in the New Testament, but they need to look not at what is NOT prohibited, but at what is expressly authorized, which is “Singing and making melody in your hearts.” God wanted it in the Old Testament and authorized it there. If He had wanted in in New Testament worship, one would expect that He would have authorized it THERE. But He did not.

    Brethren who attempt to use “culture” to expand the role of women from that which is scripturally prescribed cite “culture” as a basis for Paul’s writing on that subject. They argue that Paul’s teachings reflected the “culture” and that since the “culture” has changed, so ought the church to change relative to the role of women. What these innovative brethren neglect to consider is that Paul himself expressed the basis for the roles of husbands and wives NOT in any frame of reference that attaches to “culture,” but in terms of eternal verities, as is clear in Ephesians 5:22-24, the passage most often assaulted by revisionist “progressives” seeking to place man and woman on the same plane of authority. Paul based his teaching NOT on “culture” but on the principle that “…the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church…” and on the conclusion from that: “Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” If Christ cesast to be head of the church, then the Pauline teaching on this matter might be reconsidered, but don’t hold your breath on that one!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: