Thoughts on Knowing vs Feeling in Worship

[Biker]

I am not convinced he's after any kind of music genre as you are.

Nor am I convinced anyone here, including myself, is defending him.

"Simple songs" aren't totally owned by the CCM movement.

He's comical, that's all I saw. In a scattered sort of way

If you must see Absurdity, read your own post.


.

 

[Biker]

He was trying to link scripture as the reason we feel this way. As if to be responsible for how we feel, ensure that are feelings are appropriate within scriptural guidelines. That's what I got. Not just incessantly babble about our feelings because it's not about us.

BUT... the problem is... THAT is NOT what the passage is addressing. It was NOT about worship.

Correct. It isn't what the passage was addressing. My guess is, this is the norm for him.

Biker and Alayman provide us with an excellent illustration of people willing to defend eisegesis when it is a popular preacher, of their persuasion.

I admit, I like him in some ways. But until now, I've not heard of him. I try to stay away from the world as best I can. NI'm not bragging about being "separated" but  have other hobbies /interests besides hellywood or these "preachers".

As much as we see a bashing of fundamentalism on this forum, perhaps we need to understand that popular personalities get an "Abuse Scripture Pass." This is part of the fallen human condition.

Fundamentalism has produced a bunch of perverts, including here. That's all they see. Nor do they attempt to clarify anything after their mind goes wandering and they obsess upon their sexual perversions for years. Don't tell me there isn;t anything wrong with fundamentalism. That's what all this open toed, bright red lipstick, pants to the thigh stuff is. A dirty mind seeing stuff normal people don't give a second thought to. And no one bothers to even look up where the other posters live, that would explain a heck of alot of these responses from non fundies. Culture. But to be fair, there are also a few very solid, Christian, Godly fundamentalists here. So they do exist.

Oh that we had Bereans today that are willing to filter EVERYTHING they hear from ANYBODY and make sure it is what the Bible teaches.

Having visited hundreds of churches these past 4 years with my kids, I keep raising the questions with my kids, "How was the sermon? Do you understand the passage better?"

Begg did NOT help us understand 2 Corinthians 5:1 better.

No he did not. It was another useless "Sermon" from someone I'll probably forget. Someone I'd never post here anyhow. The world is becoming a joke, last days are here. I gotta take off for work now

 

[FSSL]

FSSL: Begg did NOT help us understand 2 Corinthians 5:1 better

Biker: No he did not. It was another useless "Sermon" from someone I'll probably forget.

FSSL: Since Begg was not using Scripture properly, doesn't this mean that he was the one who disconnected the crowd's feelings from Scripture?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Fortunately we have the line drawn for where "superficial" starts and stops. Hair length and pants on women. Kids, it just don't get no deeper than that.

I didn't see where Alistair said anything about pants or hair.  Maybe your A.D.D. is kicking in?

 

[subllibrm]

Fortunately we have the line drawn for where "superficial" starts and stops. Hair length and pants on women. Kids, it just don't get no deeper than that.

I didn't see where Alistair said anything about pants or hair.  Maybe your A.D.D. is kicking in?

Begg is a compromising liberal. That's why he didn't mention either.  ;D

 

[ALAYMAN]

Hmm... this forum is filled with people from superficial Christianity and they don't like CCM.

Again, your bias shows.  Begg wasn't saying that all CCM is superficial, but rather that whatever music was superficial (lacking knowledge) should be avoided.  It's pretty simple really.  And to repeat myself, until you give the whole context of his talk, I'll count you as somebody of the Dan Rather school of criticism.

It is not a problem of a particular style of music that makes one superficial... it is the lack of biblically informed emotions.

For the last time, Begg never indicted any single form or genre of music whole-cloth.  You're simply imagining, and projecting that.

 

[subllibrm]

You're simply imagining, and projecting that.

You have no idea what has been imagined and projected on to me here. Well, except for the stuff you imagined and projected.  ;D

 

[prophet]

He was trying to link scripture as the reason we feel this way. As if to be responsible for how we feel, ensure that are feelings are appropriate within scriptural guidelines. That's what I got. Not just incessantly babble about our feelings because it's not about us.

BUT... the problem is... THAT is NOT what the passage is addressing. It was NOT about worship.

Biker and Alayman provide us with an excellent illustration of people willing to defend eisegesis when it is a popular preacher, of their persuasion.

As much as we see a bashing of fundamentalism on this forum, perhaps we need to understand that popular personalities get an "Abuse Scripture Pass." This is part of the fallen human condition.

Oh that we had Bereans today that are willing to filter EVERYTHING they hear from ANYBODY and make sure it is what the Bible teaches.

Having visited hundreds of churches these past 4 years with my kids, I keep raising the questions with my kids, "How was the sermon? Do you understand the passage better?"

Begg did NOT help us understand 2 Corinthians 5:1 better.

This is a huge problem on Earth.

We are slipping back into the Dark Ages, willing to accept persons rather than reason.

We are post-enlightenment here.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Alayman... did Begg help ya understand 2 Cor 5.1 better?

He helped me to understand how to push your buttons with ease.


Now, rather than you continuing to try to evade the issue and redirect the conversation, can you tell me what the full context of the sermon was?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Now, rather than you continuing to try to evade the issue and redirect the conversation, can you tell me what the full context of the sermon was?

As I said above...

You don't have the full sermon either and you were able to make a judgment call.

I made a statement of agreement with Begg regarding the fact that emotions ought to be subordinate to truth, nothing more.

As we can see, you are unwilling to answer the question "Do you understand 2 Corinthians 5.1 better?" No you don't.

I don't consider the blurb you posted to be the final say on the matter.  The full context of his statements would render a more accurate ability to judge.

The passage DOES NOT teach "knowledge vs. feelings." It teaches true knowledge vs. the "knowledge" of the incipient gnostic heretics who denied physical realities.

The passage is about knowledge.  Yes, specifically it is about the knowing of the assurance of the resurrection.  Simply because he didn't expound and exposit that in the small clip you provided does not negate the reality that knowledge of God is the simple cornerstone thought within the text.  And of course that simple point (knowledge of God) was Begg's launching point to encourage us to not be shallow in our knowledge/theology.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I made a statement of agreement with Begg regarding the fact that emotions ought to be subordinate to truth, nothing more.[/quote]

God is Love. vs. I am the Truth.

Seems to be pretty equal, but people have been making either/or statements out of both/and statements for eons. Not really surprised here.

Or to put it another way: can a husband truly love the wife he doesn't know? Not really. Can he truly know a wife he doesn't love? Again...no.

 

[rsc2a]

" And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. "

 

[rsc2a]

Hmmm... sounds like emotions and truth are inseperable and trying to prioritize these things just makes for error.

It is just as wrong to say Love has priority over truth as saying truth has priority over love.

Exactly!

HOWEVER 1 Corinthians 5.1 is not about that at all. It is wrong to take a meaning of a word in a text and make a completely different application.

It's from that textbook Biblical Interpretation for the Modern Man. I think it's a best seller.

 

[ALAYMAN]

No matter how many words you use... you said he was "spot on."

Right, he was spot on by indicting shallow knowledge, and shallow teaching via songs.  That ain't hard to understand.

You defend Begg knowing that his comments have ZERO to do with the context.

Is the context the knowledge of God?

He could have used the passage, "Adam knew Eve..." and you would defend him.

To the extent that knowledge of a person means that we understand and relate better, you are correct, the application would be legitimate in a rudimentary sense.

 

[ALAYMAN]

" And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. "

Biblical love is an attitude that results in an action, as the context and Paul demonstrates by speaking of agape in the preceding verses in such terms.  Nobody is divorcing one from the other, nor making them inequalities, but rather speaking of the order of things, much the same as the ordo salutis.  Or speaking of repentance and faith, both are necessary and coexistent, but depending on your theological persuasion, one precedes the other.

 

[rsc2a]

" And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. "

Biblical love is an attitude that results in an action, as the context and Paul demonstrates by speaking of agape in the preceding verses in such terms.  Nobody is divorcing one from the other, nor making them inequalities, but rather speaking of the order of things, much the same as the ordo salutis.  Or speaking of repentance and faith, both are necessary and coexistent, but depending on your theological persuasion, one precedes the other.

Or they are simultaneous, but again either/or is very popular among some folks...

 

[ALAYMAN]

Or they are simultaneous, but again either/or is very popular among some folks...

Saying that feelings ought to be subordinate to truth is not an "either/or" statement.

 

[rsc2a]

Or they are simultaneous, but again either/or is very popular among some folks...

Saying that feelings ought to be subordinate to truth is not an "either/or" statement.

"Either feelings out to be subordinate to truth or truth ought to be subordinate to feelings."

:-X

 

[ALAYMAN]

Or they are simultaneous, but again either/or is very popular among some folks...

Saying that feelings ought to be subordinate to truth is not an "either/or" statement.

"Either feelings out to be subordinate to truth or truth ought to be subordinate to feelings."

:-X

So you want my to choose the both/and, rather than the either/or?


lol

We think, we feel, and we do.  They shouldn't be separated, but there is an order that leads to logical harmony.  Begg's reformed faith leads him to his conclusions, and you being reformed and all, well, umm, erm, never mind.  8)

 

[prophet]

Hmmm... sounds like emotions and truth are inseperable and trying to prioritize these things just makes for error.

It is just as wrong to say Love has priority over truth as saying truth has priority over love.

Exactly!

HOWEVER 1 Corinthians 5.1 is not about that at all. It is wrong to take a meaning of a word in a text and make a completely different application.

It's from that textbook Biblical Interpretation for the Modern Man. I think it's a best seller.

It is widely read and re-published.