Jan 29, 1759
"By repeated experiments we learn, that though a man preach like an angel, he will neither collect, nor preserve a society which is collected, without visiting them from house to house."
June 4, 1759
"After preaching I rode on to Newcastle. Certainly if I did not believe there was another word, I should spend all my summers here; as I know no place in Great Britain comparable to it for pleasantness. But I seek another country, and therefore am content to be a wandered on earth."
June 24, 1759 "What marvel the devil does not love field-preaching. Neither do I: I love a commodious room, a soft cushion, a handsome pulpit. But where is my zeal if I do not trample all these under foot, in order to save one more soul?"
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Back...
Hi All,
Something tells me it is time to start posting here again. We'll see how it goes. For the moment, some research I am doing gives me material for this blog. I look forward to giving us some meat from Wesley and the early Methodists!
Something tells me it is time to start posting here again. We'll see how it goes. For the moment, some research I am doing gives me material for this blog. I look forward to giving us some meat from Wesley and the early Methodists!
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
A Brief Look Into Emmaus
On the Mondays after communion on Sunday, Jessie and I go to an assisted living facility where a number of our church members live. Actually, the only reason they let me come is because I bring Nadia! One time I did not--she was out of town with Jessie--and they told me not to do that again.
It is a wonderful time of sharing communion and ministry.
I shared briefly today from Luke 24, the disciples on the road to Emmaus:
Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him
He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”
They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
“What things?” he asked
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
This passage has critical importance for Christian doctrine and preaching, insomuch as Jesus is speaking about the Scriptures.
“How foolish you are and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” This is the content of the Apostolic Preaching, what we ought to teach even today, that Jesus is revealed in the Old Testament, and Jesus is the fulfillment of all the purposes, promises and power of God.
“And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” This is the purpose of preaching, the teach the truth about Jesus as revealed in the Scriptures. Christianity has at its core a stable teaching, not a range of possible interpretations.
When He broke bread, their eyes were opened-- indeed, the sacrament can do this for us.
“Were not our hearts burning within us while He talked with us on the road and opened the scriptures to us”-- The power of the revelation in the written word mediates the presence of Christ to us, even as the sacrament does. The faith is not known by reason, but by revelation and encounter with Jesus, from which we have, among other things, lots of reasoning to do.
It is a wonderful time of sharing communion and ministry.
I shared briefly today from Luke 24, the disciples on the road to Emmaus:
Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him
He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”
They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
“What things?” he asked
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
This passage has critical importance for Christian doctrine and preaching, insomuch as Jesus is speaking about the Scriptures.
“How foolish you are and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” This is the content of the Apostolic Preaching, what we ought to teach even today, that Jesus is revealed in the Old Testament, and Jesus is the fulfillment of all the purposes, promises and power of God.
“And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” This is the purpose of preaching, the teach the truth about Jesus as revealed in the Scriptures. Christianity has at its core a stable teaching, not a range of possible interpretations.
When He broke bread, their eyes were opened-- indeed, the sacrament can do this for us.
“Were not our hearts burning within us while He talked with us on the road and opened the scriptures to us”-- The power of the revelation in the written word mediates the presence of Christ to us, even as the sacrament does. The faith is not known by reason, but by revelation and encounter with Jesus, from which we have, among other things, lots of reasoning to do.
Friday, December 23, 2011
A Problem 50 Years in the Making
A question on my mind a lot lately, if you look at the previous few posts on this blog, is whether or not Wesley held to the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura.
The interest comes from hearing here and there people say things like, "Wesley held to prima scriptura."
In a few previous posts, I pointed out that just from a cursory read of the standard edition of Wesley's Works you can see that Wesley affirms the doctrine of sola scriptura.
So why do some persist in saying Wesley held to prima scriptura?
Perhaps it comes from Albert Outler's compendium of some basic Wesly writings in his great book "John Wesley," published in 1964.
Outler is the great Methodist historian who single-handedly made the study of Wesley respectable and available. Outler's influence on United Methodism is huge.
Outler writes: "The great Protestant watchwords of sola fide [by faith alone] and sola scriptura [scripture alone] were also fundamental in Wesley's doctrine of authority. But early and late he interpreted 'solus' to mean primarily rather than exclusively." (p. 28) Now, Outler drops this on us without much else, other than a footnote, in which he says,
"we are justified by faith alone, but by such a faith as is not alone.... In the year 1730 when I began to be 'homo unius libri [a man of one book]' regarding none comparatively but the Bible". Outler then asks in the footnote, "why comparatively if unius libri meant 'exclusively?' (footnote 101)
Now, I'll set aside the sketchy nature of asking rhetorical questions in footnotes. What I am interested in is why Outler seems to think sola scriptura means the Bible is the only thing we can read?
That, I think, gets us to the meat of the issue. I suspect that we are allowing some of our cultural struggles to determine how we understand a crucial doctrine. Put another way, some might be thinking we must reject sola scriptura because otherwise we have to believe in a literal 6 day creation.
But does sola scriptura mean that the Bible is all you can read? Or that we cannot learn anything outside of it? The very work of the Reformation was built on investigating what early Christian writers had to say; the Bible is seen as the only text that can speak authoritatively about what is necessary for salvation; the life and governance of the Church; and the standard of morality for the believer. But nothing in that precludes studying what others have said. It means that whatever else we may do, in the critical matters of the church, scripture is the determinative, authoritative voice.
I hope we can remain clear on that, and not allow what we think about the Creation Museum, for example, or other current controversies, to impact our thinking on a timeless doctrine.
If we pull back from sola scriptura, we will also pull away from the others. Bt, of course, we already have. We can see a shift towards a desire to believe, teach, and preach salvation by some faith and some good deeds on our part.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
The interest comes from hearing here and there people say things like, "Wesley held to prima scriptura."
In a few previous posts, I pointed out that just from a cursory read of the standard edition of Wesley's Works you can see that Wesley affirms the doctrine of sola scriptura.
So why do some persist in saying Wesley held to prima scriptura?
Perhaps it comes from Albert Outler's compendium of some basic Wesly writings in his great book "John Wesley," published in 1964.
Outler is the great Methodist historian who single-handedly made the study of Wesley respectable and available. Outler's influence on United Methodism is huge.
Outler writes: "The great Protestant watchwords of sola fide [by faith alone] and sola scriptura [scripture alone] were also fundamental in Wesley's doctrine of authority. But early and late he interpreted 'solus' to mean primarily rather than exclusively." (p. 28) Now, Outler drops this on us without much else, other than a footnote, in which he says,
"we are justified by faith alone, but by such a faith as is not alone.... In the year 1730 when I began to be 'homo unius libri [a man of one book]' regarding none comparatively but the Bible". Outler then asks in the footnote, "why comparatively if unius libri meant 'exclusively?' (footnote 101)
Now, I'll set aside the sketchy nature of asking rhetorical questions in footnotes. What I am interested in is why Outler seems to think sola scriptura means the Bible is the only thing we can read?
That, I think, gets us to the meat of the issue. I suspect that we are allowing some of our cultural struggles to determine how we understand a crucial doctrine. Put another way, some might be thinking we must reject sola scriptura because otherwise we have to believe in a literal 6 day creation.
But does sola scriptura mean that the Bible is all you can read? Or that we cannot learn anything outside of it? The very work of the Reformation was built on investigating what early Christian writers had to say; the Bible is seen as the only text that can speak authoritatively about what is necessary for salvation; the life and governance of the Church; and the standard of morality for the believer. But nothing in that precludes studying what others have said. It means that whatever else we may do, in the critical matters of the church, scripture is the determinative, authoritative voice.
I hope we can remain clear on that, and not allow what we think about the Creation Museum, for example, or other current controversies, to impact our thinking on a timeless doctrine.
If we pull back from sola scriptura, we will also pull away from the others. Bt, of course, we already have. We can see a shift towards a desire to believe, teach, and preach salvation by some faith and some good deeds on our part.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
John Nelson and Micah 6:8
A great twitter account to follow is UMCHulk; who knew The Hulk was a Methodist? Anyway, Hulk said that if you talk about Micah 6:8 without talking about Jesus, you make yourself the Savior.
This is a critical point, as often as people glibly and smugly quote Micah 6:8, "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to lover mercy and walk humbly with your God?"
Hulk's comment brought to mind one of my favorite sections of John Nelson's Journal. John Nelson was an early Methodist preacher, 1740s, in Yorkshire. Of all the early preachers, he is my favorite. I quote at length from his autobiography, found in volume 3 of Wesley's Veterans:
I met a gentleman as I was riding to Leeds, who said something about the weather. I answered, "The Lord orders all thins well." He presently said, "I know you, for I heard you preach, but I do not like you; you lay a wrong foundation for salvation. Do you think the blood of another man will save me?" I replied, "St. Paul says, 'other foundation can no one lay but Christ Jesus,' but you say that is a wrong foundation. Upon what terms do you expect to be saved?"
He said, "By good works."
I answered "You will be the first that got to heaven that way. But suppose you could, what would you do when you got there?"
He said, "What do others do there?"
I answered, "They sing, 'glory to God that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever, that was slain and hath redeemed us by His blood!' But your song will be, 'Glory be to myself, for I have quickened my own soul and qualified myself for heaven!' O Sir! What a scandalous song you will sing. It will make discord in heaven."
He turned pale and said nothing for some time. When he had rode a while, he said, "All the Lord requires of us is to do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with God."
I answered, "Do you expect to stand or fall by that Scripture?"
He said, "I do."
"Then," I replied, "you are lost forever, if you are to go to heaven for doing justly for loving mercy and walking humbly with God. I appeal to your conscience if you have not come short in every one of these duties. Have you dealt with every man as you would have him deal with you, in all circumstances ever since you knew good from evil? Suppose you have; have you dealt justly with God and employed every talent that He has committed to your charge to His glory--both time, wisdom, and learning; house, land, wealth, and trade? If you have used any one talent not to His glory, you have robbed Him." Then I spoke to the other two [loving mercy and walking humbly with God]
He said, "There is repentance."
But I replied, "Not for you, for you are to be saved by doing justly, for loving mercy and walking humbly with God; if you come short of these duties, you must be damned."
He said, "Lord have mercy on me! You are enough to make any man despair"
"Yes," I said, "of saving himself, that he may come to Jesus Christ and be saved."
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
This is a critical point, as often as people glibly and smugly quote Micah 6:8, "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to lover mercy and walk humbly with your God?"
Hulk's comment brought to mind one of my favorite sections of John Nelson's Journal. John Nelson was an early Methodist preacher, 1740s, in Yorkshire. Of all the early preachers, he is my favorite. I quote at length from his autobiography, found in volume 3 of Wesley's Veterans:
I met a gentleman as I was riding to Leeds, who said something about the weather. I answered, "The Lord orders all thins well." He presently said, "I know you, for I heard you preach, but I do not like you; you lay a wrong foundation for salvation. Do you think the blood of another man will save me?" I replied, "St. Paul says, 'other foundation can no one lay but Christ Jesus,' but you say that is a wrong foundation. Upon what terms do you expect to be saved?"
He said, "By good works."
I answered "You will be the first that got to heaven that way. But suppose you could, what would you do when you got there?"
He said, "What do others do there?"
I answered, "They sing, 'glory to God that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever, that was slain and hath redeemed us by His blood!' But your song will be, 'Glory be to myself, for I have quickened my own soul and qualified myself for heaven!' O Sir! What a scandalous song you will sing. It will make discord in heaven."
He turned pale and said nothing for some time. When he had rode a while, he said, "All the Lord requires of us is to do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with God."
I answered, "Do you expect to stand or fall by that Scripture?"
He said, "I do."
"Then," I replied, "you are lost forever, if you are to go to heaven for doing justly for loving mercy and walking humbly with God. I appeal to your conscience if you have not come short in every one of these duties. Have you dealt with every man as you would have him deal with you, in all circumstances ever since you knew good from evil? Suppose you have; have you dealt justly with God and employed every talent that He has committed to your charge to His glory--both time, wisdom, and learning; house, land, wealth, and trade? If you have used any one talent not to His glory, you have robbed Him." Then I spoke to the other two [loving mercy and walking humbly with God]
He said, "There is repentance."
But I replied, "Not for you, for you are to be saved by doing justly, for loving mercy and walking humbly with God; if you come short of these duties, you must be damned."
He said, "Lord have mercy on me! You are enough to make any man despair"
"Yes," I said, "of saving himself, that he may come to Jesus Christ and be saved."
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, November 19, 2011
The Focus is Sharp in The City
Some strange experiences with the Holy Spirit have happened to me on busy street corners. The first I remember happened at the Shell station on Harrodsburg and Broadway in Lexington. I was pumping gas after visiting in a nursing home. A man had expressed that he just did not know if he was saved, and I counseled with him about our assurance of salvation. It was a cold day, a drizzle was coming down and I just had this profound sense of love and peace... A love for all people.
That just happened again a little bit ago, trying to cross Man-o-War, not easily done on foot. That sense of love and peace, perhaps thinking about Steffi and Benji, but it really, again, began to be extended to all people and with this question: do I love them and God enough to give them the whole gospel, not just the pieces that they can accept?
I have a fear of being found cold, heartless and ruthless for withholding the pure Word. But in this moment, it was that Holy Spirit love, a love that comes from God and so does not allow for gaps or hesitation or holding back.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
That just happened again a little bit ago, trying to cross Man-o-War, not easily done on foot. That sense of love and peace, perhaps thinking about Steffi and Benji, but it really, again, began to be extended to all people and with this question: do I love them and God enough to give them the whole gospel, not just the pieces that they can accept?
I have a fear of being found cold, heartless and ruthless for withholding the pure Word. But in this moment, it was that Holy Spirit love, a love that comes from God and so does not allow for gaps or hesitation or holding back.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, November 11, 2011
Methodists and Sola Scriptura part 3
The first two posts in this series can be found here and here
In looking around Wesley's Works, I also came across this in his response to the Roman Catholic Catechism:
Where the catechism discusses the authoritative nature of Scripture AND tradition, the position sola scriptura agitates against, Wesley says: "The Scripture is a rule sufficient in itself, and was by men divinely inspired delivered to the world, and so neither needs nor is capable of, any further addition" (Works, vol 9, p 90).
In discussing the "magisterium," or teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, Wesley says, "As long as we have the Scripture, the Church is to be referred to the Scripture, and not the Scripture to the Church; and that, as the Scripture is the best expounder of itself, so the best way to know whether anything be of divine authority is to apply ourselves to the Scripture" (Works, vol 9, p 94)
In looking around Wesley's Works, I also came across this in his response to the Roman Catholic Catechism:
Where the catechism discusses the authoritative nature of Scripture AND tradition, the position sola scriptura agitates against, Wesley says: "The Scripture is a rule sufficient in itself, and was by men divinely inspired delivered to the world, and so neither needs nor is capable of, any further addition" (Works, vol 9, p 90).
In discussing the "magisterium," or teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, Wesley says, "As long as we have the Scripture, the Church is to be referred to the Scripture, and not the Scripture to the Church; and that, as the Scripture is the best expounder of itself, so the best way to know whether anything be of divine authority is to apply ourselves to the Scripture" (Works, vol 9, p 94)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)