"What's In a Name?"
Okay, so we left Paul with the Pagans in Lystra trying to patch up a horrible misunderstanding. (Acts 14). In the very next chapter, Paul is found defending the Gospel message in the face of Judaizing additions. Circumcision was being taught by many as the logical outcome of Christ's 'Jewishness', the law of Moses must be followed by the Gentiles. Paul strenuously opposed this, as he did the Gentile interpretation in Lystra. If you
"What's In a Name?"
In the first part I chronicled Paul's work in Athens and distinguished it from the earlier work in Thessalonica and Berea. Athens was somewhat of a cultural estuary that typified some of the attitudes among the cultural elite in the Hellenic settings of the world that Paul traveled in. Paul, the Pharisee, was able to communicate with the Greeks because he could become like 'one not under the law'. His experience there typifies what we
“What Is in a Name???"
I have recently started reading on religious history in America; and more specifically on 'Evangelical' history. The problem the author describes right from the very beginning is, 'How do you define an Evangelical?'. Would you know one if you passed him (or her) on the streets? How would you distinguish Evangelicals from other denominations? Viewed from this angle, the history becomes somewhat obtuse; the author follows a thread in
"God's Ultimate Concern"
In looking at creation, I have always seen the hand of God working to make something that He can love and receive love from at the same time. The whole history laid out in the bible, if we take it as a true revelation, seems to point to that one idea. If Jesus is the summation of what was started in Genesis one, than John 3:16 is more than just a banner at a sporting event, and shows us more than the eyes of Tim Tebow. (He has the verse reference painted
'The Importance of History'
In the last part, I talked about the broad difference between the Quran and the Bible. Simply put, the Bible, as an historic document, contains the background needed to interpret what is written. The Quran, as a book, does not. The historic interpretation, and indeed much of the interpretation of the Quran itself, must come from other documents called 'Hadiths', which are, basically, written by authors to explain the historic context of certain parts