EarlyActs
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,485
- Reaction score
- 406
- Points
- 83
I believe there are three underused defenses of Christian truth which make our faith seem less rational than it actually is, that make it seem 'religious.' For clarity, the last person I spoke with who had an original defense of the term 'religion' said it was a mover who thinks that if they can find 10, then 100, then 1000 people to agree, then they have truth. NT truth is nothing of the sort.
1, the important handoff of identifying teaching of our faith is not in documents agreed upon 4 centuries later, nor even a 'private' doctrine of God-breathed. It is far more grounded. It is the 40 days of teaching what the OT actually meant, by Jesus in person. The narrative of Luke says so. The narrative of Acts gives us roughly the first 20 OT passages expounded by the apostles.
2, the Pentecost event was not a 'prayer language' experience, nor was the initial Christian teaching about the enthronement a mere confirmation of a future reign in Jerusalem. It was heard (not spoken) as normal languages for visitors at once. The message, besides the forgiveness in Christ, was that the unusual event was to demonstrate the celebration in heaven of the accomplishment of the Son; and that all people from rulers to the most common, were to 'honor the Son, lest he be angry.' This launched the mission to the nations. The kingdom of God is not a certain form to debate over; it is that the Son deserves to be obeyed as king.
3, most of the future events mentioned by Jesus were about the destruction of Jerusalem in that generation, because most of Israel would not help in the above mission. The detail of what would happen, announced about 40 years head, was astonishing proof of Christ.
These are detailed in my newest book, THE COVENANT REVOLT, but these are the essentials, and if we do not use them, the shape or texture of Christian faith becomes very weakened and even divisive about inconsistencies.
1, the important handoff of identifying teaching of our faith is not in documents agreed upon 4 centuries later, nor even a 'private' doctrine of God-breathed. It is far more grounded. It is the 40 days of teaching what the OT actually meant, by Jesus in person. The narrative of Luke says so. The narrative of Acts gives us roughly the first 20 OT passages expounded by the apostles.
2, the Pentecost event was not a 'prayer language' experience, nor was the initial Christian teaching about the enthronement a mere confirmation of a future reign in Jerusalem. It was heard (not spoken) as normal languages for visitors at once. The message, besides the forgiveness in Christ, was that the unusual event was to demonstrate the celebration in heaven of the accomplishment of the Son; and that all people from rulers to the most common, were to 'honor the Son, lest he be angry.' This launched the mission to the nations. The kingdom of God is not a certain form to debate over; it is that the Son deserves to be obeyed as king.
3, most of the future events mentioned by Jesus were about the destruction of Jerusalem in that generation, because most of Israel would not help in the above mission. The detail of what would happen, announced about 40 years head, was astonishing proof of Christ.
These are detailed in my newest book, THE COVENANT REVOLT, but these are the essentials, and if we do not use them, the shape or texture of Christian faith becomes very weakened and even divisive about inconsistencies.
