David Fish

@keithrobphil Note how the word "service" refers to "service to God" while the word "experience" is centered around the individual.

@DavidFish7 This is why a church near me (and many others, I'm sure) calls their gatherings worship "experiences." To them, that's the point.

How much of the demand for flowery paraphrases of the Bible has been driven by a particular Evangelical/Pietistic expectation that we should always be "moved" by our daily Bible reading? Don't get me wrong: I'm not against emotional experiences with God, nor am I dogmatically opposed to paraphrases, per se. However, I question the wisdom of creating such an expectation for the Scriptures to produce a pre-determined emotional response in people that the lack of such a response causes one to question whether their Bible translation is "doing it for them." There are now people choosing versions like the Message and the Passion Translation as their primary Bible because they have been sold an expectation of what their "quiet time with God" is supposed to look like. The priority should be: am I reading and engaging with God's actual word? If I am, my subjective response to what I read comes a distant second. If am actually reading a faithful rendering of God's word, I can trust that I am being sanctified by what I read because God's "word is truth." (John 17:17)

Pastors: in my humble opinion, it's high time we stop telling our people that certain English versions are "fine for devotional reading, but not for establishing doctrine." Moving between different philosophies of translation/paraphrase is something that pastors do intuitively based on our training. But we all know the statistics on Biblical literacy. People are barely reading their Bibles as it is. The average Christian is: 1. Probably not going to regularly engage with more than one translation, as much as we'd really love them to. 2. Not going to put up some kind of "Iron Curtain" in their mind to prevent themselves from "establishing doctrine" while reading that flowery language. 3. Going to subtly or not-so-subtly prefer the version that gives them the most emotional feedback. In certain cases, it may be wise to counsel specific individuals to supplement with a paraphrase, but I think we would do better to find the highest possible level that someone can feasibly read and have them stick with that.

My 4 year old son and my 7 year old daughter can recite the Apostles Creed from memory.

@jonharris1989 I don't understand why this tweet is not more viral.

Eh

@Connor_Shack Well played, Connor.

Exactly. There is evidence, you just can't see it

@benwright That acceleration was wild

🟡 15-yr-old Nashville SC winger Liam Stribling starts and scores in the MLS NEXT All-Star game (up 3-0 inside 12 minutes). A USMNT U16 international, he's the most highly-rated prospect in the academy. One to watch as a likely homegrown signing.

@IFFFMEISTER @ColtonYarbro As an exercise, I like substituting "pray the sinners prayer" for baptism in these kinds of situations. Give it a shot

Beeke going in on baptismal regeneration 😅

There still seems to be a common misapprehension that "it would be impossible for TPT to not copy language from other versions" and that the allegations of direct borrowing are "minor." I leave you with one of over 1500+ (thusfar) examples of why that's not the case. Ps 89:15 (TPT) "Sacred bliss fills those who learn the passwords of praise!" Ps. 89:15 (MSG) "Blessed are the people who know the passwords of praise" Ps. 89:15 (NIV) "Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you" Does anyone actually think the phrase "passwords of praise" is in the Hebrew text? This is combined with weird, hyper-spiritual language ("sacred bliss") and theological insertions to form the mish-mashed renderings of TPT. TPT copies hundreds of blatant insertions from The Living Bible (TLB) that were later removed when scholars came in to clean it up and make the New Living Translation (NLT). Why did the scholars remove them? Because they were Kenneth Taylor's creative renderings and they do not belong in an actual Bible translation. But 50 years after the fact they were copied into TPT which claims to be a "dynamic equivalent translation" translated "directly from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek manuscripts." The whole thing is a deception.

One of the weirdest parts of preaching multiple services every Sunday: I made a humorous comment in the 9am service that was met with hearty laughter. In the 11am? Identical comment and identical delivery...crickets,

@Ezekiel47v9 @boringfileclerk

@boringfileclerk Not sure he has admitted to his ignorance of Greek and Hebrew yet? But I agree that he lacked all three: theriveroflife.com/2017/11/29/is-…

How successful was Brian Simmons in convincing the world that The Passion "Translation" was translated from "Aramaic?" He had some of the most well-known Charismatic leaders hyping up his "Aramaic translation" all over the world. TPT only exists because of this deception. And now, we are being told that the final "Bible" will have almost no references to this secret "Aramaic." Why? Because various individuals have now exposed the fact that most of the "Aramaic" was just the ramblings of an amateur filmmaker who claimed to have a secret manuscript in a secret language that he refused to show anyone. The endorsements page for TPT is still a "Who's Who" of the Charismatic church.

@joyouslawyer I think you know the answer to this question. The point is not that Jesus is only a model for men. But in His providence he came as a biological male and thus uniquely reveals to us what masculinity looks like.

@DavidFish7 Who, then, should women emulate?

I think we need a strong emphasis on healthy, Christian masculinity within the Church. That said, many of the red pill Masculinity Bros™ would read Augustine's Confessions and conclude that he was "feminine."

The definition of masculinity is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The man who took children in his arms and blessed them. The man who did not shame the Samaritan woman for her "body count" but instead revealed Himself to her as the Messiah who redeems and restores. The man who fearlessly cast out demons and resisted temptation. The man who wept at the tomb of his friend. The man who made a whip of cords turned over tables when his Father's glory was at stake. The man who healed Malchus' ear when Peter cut it off. The man who "laid down His life for His friends." The man who forgave his enemies on the Cross. The man who will come again as a righteous Judge to rule the nations. This man was neither effeminate nor chauvinistic. He was the perfect man, worthy of emulation in every way.

The definition of masculinity is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The man who took children in his arms and blessed them. The man who did not harp on the Samaritan woman's "body count" but instead revealed Himself to her as the Messiah who redeems and restores. The man who wept at the tomb of his friend. The man who made a whip of cords turned over tables when his Father's glory was at stake. The man who healed Malchus' ear when Peter cut it off. The man who "laid down His life for His friends." The man who forgave his enemies on the Cross. The man who will come again as a righteous Judge to rule the nations. This man was neither effeminate nor chauvinistic. He was the perfect man, worthy of emulation in every way.

@DavidFish7 The challenge seems to be that most can't agree on what constitutes healthy, Christian masculinity. On the one hand are the Masculinity Bros that you mention. On the other hand are those whose definition of masculinity is indistinguishable from femininity.

@NealGardner_ His injury record is atrocious.

Why exactly aren’t we in on this? Would’ve made so much sense to *not* renew Christensen and sign Stones on a free.

@ferrismattic Would you equate belief in baptismal regeneration with legalism?

I'm not sure that one can identify a moment or one person, because the early church fathers were inconsistent. You have Polycarp, who wrote that “Almsgiving sets free from death”—but who also said “Knowing that by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.” Torrance has a multitude of citations which show many of them teaching a kind of salvation by moral example, rather than by grace. It isn't that they denied Paul or his teaching as much as they added to it, diluting it. The Epistle of Barnabas, for example, has “work with your hands for a ransom from your sins.” But you also have 1 Clement saying we are “not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith.” In other words, these existed concurrently. Perhaps one reason why books like the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Polycarp are not canonical.

Thomas Torrance wrote his doctoral dissertation on "The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers" and his conclusion was that many of the post-apostolic writers quickly lapsed into legalism, and compromised the kind of grace one finds in the NT. A statement from the Didache seems to confirm what Torrance found: 4:6 "If you earn something by working with your hands, you shall give a ransom for your sins."

@IFFFMEISTER To be fair, two of Ryan's sons are Roman Catholic. I really don't think he has some wild agenda against RC's.