Posted by: proregno | September 29, 2016

Die Kerk (3): Die kentekens van die kerk – prof. WJ Snyman

DIE KENTEKENS VAN DIE KERK

deur prof. WJ Snyman

(Sien die inleiding (nommer 1) en die res van die reeks hier.)

Die kentekens van die kerk.

Die eienskappe sê wat die ware kerk is, die kenmerke waar die ware kerk is.

Hier moet onderskeid gemaak word tussen die dinge waaraan die kerk gemerk en die dinge waaraan hy geken kan word.

Na die “merktekens om die ware kerk te ken” handel die Ned. Geloofsbelydenis (Art. 29) ook oor die “merktekens van die Christene”. Dit is die wandel van die gelowiges. Die bestaan van die kerk word gemerk in die kragte en invloede wat daar uitgaan van die gelowiges op elke gebied. Hierdie kragte en invloede moet ook georganiseer word om elke lewensgebied vir Christus te verower. So word die kerk sigbaar in die (georganiseerde) aksie van die gelowiges. Die kerk laat hom merk as strydende kerk. Daar is egter “nog groot swakheid” in die gelowiges, waarteen hulle ook moet stry. Daarom is die “merktekens van die Christene” nie genoeg om die ware kerk te ken nie.

Die ware kerk is:

(a) waar die evangelie suiwer gepredik word.

Die kerk kom alleen tot openbaring waar die Woord van God is. Die kerk kom alleen suiwer tot openbaring waar die Woord van God suiwer bedien word. Daarom is suiwere bediening van die evangelie die eerste en vernaamste kenmerk van die ware kerk.

Die Woord van God is vir ons onfeilbaar gegee in die Skrifte van die O. en N. Testament.

Die woord van God soos dit tot afsluiting gekom het in die apostoliese prediking sal uitmaak wat geglo moet word en wat nie, en wie gelowiges is en wie nie (Matt. 16:19; Joh. 20:23; Matt. 28:19). Hierop sal Christus sy gemeente bou (Matt. 16:18).

Om suiwer te wees is alle verdere prediking aan hierdie geopenbaarde Woord van God gebonde.

So is die gelowiges nie oorgelewer aan die amp (Rooms); die prediker is ook nie net mondstuk van die gemeente nie (Independentisme). Ook is die prediker en gelowiges nie onderling van mekaar afhanklik nie (Luthers), maar albei, prediker en gelowiges, is saam afhanklik van die Woord van God. Die prediker bring die Woord van God. Die gemeente het die mag om te oordeel of die prediking “eenvoudig volgens Gods Woord” is.

(b) Waar die sakramente suiwer bedien word.

Die sakramente word suiwer bedien as dit bedien word in Naam van die Insteller. Verder, as dit bedien word aan diegene vir wie dit ingestel is. Eindelik, as alleen die sakramente bedien word wat inderdaad ingestel is.

Die insteller is Christus. Dit word in die naam van Christus bedien, wanneer dit amptelik bedien word deur sy kerk, aan wie Christus dit toevertrou het, en daarom ook in die kerk.

Dit is ingestel alleen vir die gelowiges (Mark. 16:16).

Daar is net twee sakramente deur Christus ingestel: die Doop en die Nagmaal.

So teken die sakrament nie net die geestelike daad waardeur God die kerk in aansyn bring (Doop) en dit bewaar (Nagmaal) nie, maar bekragtig dit ook vir die gelowige.

Die Doop beseël die wedergeboorte, waardeur die kerk geestelik ontstaan.

Die Doop onderskei hom ook deur sy omvattendheid. Soos die volk van God deur Johannes die Doper afgesonder is van Israel na die vlees, so moet die apostels deur hul prediking en doop ook die volk van God afsonder uit alle volke (Matt. 16:16; Matt. 28:19): Die Doop teken die kerk af in sy wêreldwye omvang en omvat die gelowiges ook in hul geslagte (Hand. 2:39).

So vergader Christus sy kerk uit alle geslagte, volke, tale en nasies (Openb. 5:9; 7:9). Die Doop kenmerk die kerk as “algemene kerk”.

Die Nagmaal kenmerk die kerk as liggaam van Christus in sy geestelike eenheid.

Met die instelling van die Nagmaal het Christus sy wil uitgespreek dat daar ‘n onderlinge samelewing en ‘n gereelde samekoms van gelowiges sal wees. Die Nagmaal bepaal die kerk in sy plaaslike afgrensing.

In verband met die Nagmaal ontstaan die plaaslike ampte van ouderlingskap, omdat die Nagmaal nie anders as onder toesig met stigting gevier kon word nie; en ook van die diakenskap, omdat die geestelike eenheid ook uiting moes vind in onderlinge steun.

Hierby kom die bediening van die Woord as plaaslike amp in noue samehang met die ouderlingskap (1 Tim. 5:17), as die apostoliese amp verdwyn. Al drie hierdie ampte is oorspronklik opgeslote in die apostoliese: die predikamp (Hand. 6:4), die ouderlingamp (1 Petr. 5:1) en die diakenamp (Hand. 6:2).

(c) Waar die kerklike tug bedien word.

Hoewel geen vereniging sonder dissipline kan bestaan nie, is die eienaardige van die kerklike tug dat dit ‘n daad van Christus is deur die gemeente (Matt. 18:18). Hier is dan ook net sprake van die bediening daarvan. Dit kan alleen suiwer bedien word in samehang met die apostoliese woord (1 Kor. 5:3 vv.).

Hierdeur word die kerk gehandhaaf as ‘n vergadering van ware gelowiges, en as sodanig gaan die toesig nie alleen oor die wandel van die gelowiges nie, maar ook oor die bediening van die Woord.

Ook dit is ‘n uitdruklike verordening van Christus tot plaaslike organisasie (Matt. 18:17). Hierin wortel die amp van die ouderlingskap, en deur hierdie instelling is die suiwere bediening van Woord en sakramente enersyds, en die kerk as vergadering van gelowiges die beste gewaarborg.

Uit die suiwere bediening van die evangelie, die suiwere bediening van die sakramente en die kerklike tug kan “met sekerheid die ware kerk geken word, waarvan niemand hom mag afskei nie” (Art. 29, Ned. Geloofsb.) en waarby “iedereen skuldig is om hom te voeg” (Art. 28).

Dit is die kentekens deur Christus self ingestel.

_____________________________

Bron: Nuwe en Ou Dinge, prof. WJ Snyman

Volgende keer: Verskillende aspekte van die kerk

Die reeks is hier beskikbaar: Die Kerk – prof. WJ Snyman

IS DAAR BELANGRIKER DINGE AS OM

GROND EN BESITTINGS TE VEROWER ?

Skriflesing: Deut.27:1-26; Josua 8:30-35 en 1 Kor.16:22-24

Preekteks: Josua 8:30-35

Preekopname (GK Carletonville, 2016-09-25):

Aflaai: Josua 8:30-35 (regs kliek en dan ‘save as’)

Preeknotas (let wel, dit is net notas, die volledige preek is die opname hierbo):

Geliefdes in ons Here Jesus Christus,

In v.30 tot 35 leer ons daar is baie belangriker dinge is as om fisiese oorlog te voer,

as om die land in besit te neem, as om grond te besit,

om die land van melk en heuning te ontvan,

spesifiek ook Ai wat ingeneem is en waarvan ons geleer het in v.1-29 ‘n vorige keer.

Ons sien dat die verbondslewe self,

‘n lewe totaal oorgegee aan die Here,

in aanbidding en dankbare gehoorsaamheid,

wesentlik is en moet wees vir die Here se volk.

Om dit anders te stel: die bevestiging van die verbondslewe met die Here,

is die belangrikste aspek van die volk se lewe,

vir die kerk se lewe vandag.

Ons wil dit dan leer, onder tema:

Die doel van die Here se verbond,

die doel van sy redding,

is dat ons Hom sal aanbid in oorgawe,

en in dankbaarheid sal lewe volgens sy wet/bevele. 

Ons let op 2 sake,

  1. die Here in sy verbondstrou verlos ons om Hom te aanbid, v.30-31, en
  2. die Here in sy verbondstrou verlos ons om Hom dankbaar te gehoorsaam volgens sy bevele, v.32-35

Read More…

Posted by: proregno | September 22, 2016

Die Kerk (2): Die eienskappe van die kerk – prof. WJ Snyman

vermaak_church

DIE KERK (2): DIE EIENSKAPPE VAN DIE KERK

deur prof. WJ Snyman

Sien die inleiding en nommer 1 in die reeks hier.

2. Die eienskappe van die kerk.

“Volk van God” sê vir ons eers wat die kerk wesenlik is. So noem die apostel die kerk dan ook telkens “gemeente” (kerk) van God (Hand. 20:38; 1 Kor. 10:32; 11:16, 22 ens.) en versier dit met die heerlikste eienskappe:

gemeente van heiliges (1 Kor. 14:4), heiliges (Ef. 1:1), in Christus Jesus (Fil. 1:1), geroepe heiliges (Rom. 1:7, 1 Kor. 1:7), heilige en gelowige broeders (Kol. 1:2), geliefdes van God (Rom. 1:7), liggaam van Christus (Ef. 1:23, 4:16, Kol. 1:18, 24), bruid van Christus (Ef. 5:25-32, 2 Kor. 11:2 vg. Openb. 21:2), tempel van God (1 Kor. 3:9, Ef. 2:20, 21). Dit is ‘n uitverkore geslag, ‘n koninklike priesterdom, ‘n heilige volk, ‘n volk as eiendom verkry (1 Petr. 2:9), en word deur ons bely as “‘n heilige, algemene, Christelike Kerk”.

(a) Die kerk is heilig.

Die heiligheid van die kerk mag nie beperk word tot instellings, of tot ‘n sekere stand (“geestelikheid”), soos die Roomse doen nie. Die kerk is die volk van God en daarom is die volk heilig. Die vólk is die klerus (= die erfdeel van die Here, 1 Petr. 5:3). Onder die heiligheid van die kerk verstaan ons dus: die heiligheid van sy lede.

Die heiligheid is ook nie ‘n ideaal nie, wat die kerk moet word en nog nie is en moet nastrewe nie. Dit is ‘n eienskap, d.w.s. iets wat sy lede eie is.

Dit is dus ‘n (geestelike) werklikheid, wat ons glo en nie nog moet hoop nie.

Die heiligheid kom nie tot stand deur ‘n uiterlike afsondering van die wêreld nie (Kol. 1:20-23), maar is deel van die gelowiges in Christus, wat hulle gewas en gereinig het deur sy bloed, en ook in beginsel, deur die inwoning van die Heilige Gees.

Ons het hier te doen met ‘n geestelike werklikheid wat nie gesien nie en juis daarom geglo moet word.

Tog bly die heiligheid van die kerk nie in die onsigbare terug nie, maar word sigbaar, hoewel onvolmaak, in die bekering van die gelowige en sy vlug vir die bose.

(b) Die kerk is algemeen.

Die woord “algemeen” beteken “wêreldomvattend”. Die kerk is wêreldkerk.

Dit is ook ‘n wesenlike eienskap van die “volk van God”, dat dit nie tot ‘n enkele volk beperk mag wees nie, maar al die volkere van die wêreld moet omvat (Matt. 28:19, Luk. 24:47). Die Belydenis gaan hier direk in teen die gedagte van ‘n “volkskerk”. By Israel het ons nie te doen met ‘n volkskerk nie, maar met ‘n kerkvolk wat slegs beeld was van die ware volk van God, wat alle volkere omvat.

Maar in hierdie belydenis van ‘n wêreldkerk sit nog iets opgeslote: hoewel die volk van God, en derhalwe heilig, vorm die kerk tog nie ‘n teenstelling met die wêreld nie. Die wêreld is die skepping van God. Daarom, al is die kerk met God verbonde, bly dit nogtans ook met die wêreld verbonde.

Deur die Roomse Kerk is hierdie “katolisiteit” van die kerk veruitwendig en gevind in die opperhoofdigheid van die pous, en in oorheersing van die wêreld.

Deur die Skrif word dit gestel in Christus, aan wie alle mag gegee is in hemel en op aarde (Matt. 28:18) en in die roeping van sy kerk om as ‘n lig en sout die ganse wêreld en elke gebied van die lewe te deurdring (Matt. 5:13-16).

(c) Die kerk is Christelik.

Dit druk die verband uit tussen Christus en sy kerk.

Ook hier het ons te doen met ‘n eienskap van die kerk, en nie met ‘n ideaal nie: die verband tussen Christus en sy kerk is nie die los verband van ideaal en navolgers van die ideaal nie.

As eienskap van die kerk sê dit ook vir ons dat die kerk nie die verband moet tot stand bring tussen die gelowige en Christus nie. Daarom is dit ook nie reg om te spreek van ‘n saligmakende kerk nie. Jesus is ons Saligmaker, en Hy alleen (Sondag 11). Die kerk is die gemeenskap van verlostes in Christus.

Christelik as eienskap druk uit die eenheid tussen Christus en sy kerk. Dit kom tot stand deur die Heilige Gees (Sondag 20). Die apostel spreek hiervan as ‘n “groot verborgenheid” (Ef. 5:32). Die Here Jesus verklaar dit met die beeld van die wynstok en die ranke (Joh. 15:1 vv.). Op grond hiervan word die kerk genoem: die bruid van Christus, en: die liggaam van Christus.

Dit sê vir ons wat Christus vir sy kerk is, nl. die Hoof in wie hulle begrepe is, en in wie hulle besit: “die vergewing van sondes”, en verwag: “die wederopstanding van die vlees, en ‘n ewige lewe”.

Christelik beskryf die kerk dus as ‘n gemeenskap van geloof en van hoop.

Maar dit sê vir ons ook wat die kerk vir Christus is: die lede van Christus, sy organe deur wie Hy werk (1 Kor. 12:12-31). Daartoe is hulle die salwing van Christus (=die Gesalfde) deelagtig, en “deur die Gees gedoop tot een liggaam” (1 Kor. 12:13): Dit is wat plaasvind op Pinksterdag.

Hierdie salwing is tot onderlinge diens, om elkeen “sy gawes tot nut en saligheid van die ander lede gewillig en met vreugde aan te wend” (Sondag 21: gemeenskap van die heiliges) tot opbouing van die liggaam van Christus (Ef. 4:12): die kerk is nie alleen ‘n gemeenskap van geloof en van hoop nie, maar ook van liefde (1 Kor. 13:13).

So is die “Christelike kerk” dan ‘n “koninklike priesterdom, ‘n heilige volk …. om te verkondig die deugde van Hom wat hulle uit die duisternis geroep het tot sy wonderbare lig (1 Petr. 2:9).

Elke poging om hierdie amp van die gelowiges aan te tas, tas die kerk in sy Christelikheid aan.

(d) Die kerk is een.

Dit word deur die Apostoliese Geloofsbelydenis onderstel: “Ek glo ‘n heilige, algemene, Christelike kerk,” en deur die Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis uitgespreek: “Ons glo en bely ‘n enige, katolieke of algemene kerk . . . .”

Die eenheid kan gesien word soos dit voortvloei uit die algemeenheid van die kerk, nl., dat daar net één kerk kan wees. Daar is dan ook net één Middelaar tussen God en mense, die mens Jesus Christus (1 Tim. 2:5); so is daar net één kerk vir alle tye. En, soos Israel enig was onder die nasies van die wêreld, so kan die kerk as “volk van God” ook net een wees uit al die nasies van die wêreld.

Die eenheid kan ook gesien word soos dit voortvloei uit die Christelikheid van die kerk, en beskryf dan as eienskap die innerlike eenheid van die kerk. Dit is ook eienskap en nie ideaal nie. Die eenheid is iets wat bestaan, wel onsigbaar, maar as ‘n geestelike werklikheid in Christus: sy liggaam. Die eenheid bestaan ook in die apostoliese Woord, waarop Christus sy gemeente bou (Matt. 16:18).

Kerkverband bring dus nie hierdie eenheid tot stand nie, maar bring ‘n bestaande eenheid tot openbaring. Dit kan egter alleen op die gegewe grondslag van Gods Woord.

Hierdie eenheid is ook gegee in die woord “kerk” = “vergadering” (kahal). In “kerk” sit dus opgeslote die gedagte van “byeenbrenging”, en wel in “een liggaam”. Die middelmuur van skeiding is hier afgebreek tussen Israel en die nasies (Ef. 2:14 vv.) en alle skeidsmure tussen mens en mens (Gal. 3:23; Kol. 3:11).

Hierdie eenheid in Christus staan teenoor die valse eenheidstrewe om al die nasies in een wêreldryk of sisteem saam te dwing: die Pinksterwonder teenoor Babel.

_____________________________

Bron: Nuwe en Ou Dinge, prof. WJ Snyman

Volgende keer: Die kentekens van die kerk

Die reeks is hier beskikbaar: Die Kerk – prof. WJ Snyman

Posted by: proregno | September 21, 2016

Islam evangelisasie (7)

Ek plaas met erkenning aan die bron (RFPA) ‘n reeks wat gaan oor die verkondiging van die Evangelie van ons Here Jesus Christus aan ons Moslem bure. Hopelik kan dit ons toerus om die Groot Opdrag na te kom daar waar die Here ons elkeen geplaas het (Matt.28:16-20):

ISLAM (7)

 by Rev. Martyn McGeown

Arguably, among the most complicated questions in Christology (the doctrine of Christ) are those that concern the natures of Christ. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is both divine (He is the eternal, only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Godhead) and human (He is the man Jesus of Nazareth, with a real, physical human body and a real, spiritual human soul).

Confusion arises when we try to understand how the divine and the human are related in Jesus. The Qur’an says nothing about this, which is understandable—the Qur’an teaches a merely human Jesus (Isa). Although the Jesus of the Qur’an is virgin born and performed miracles, he is a mere human prophet like Moses, Elijah or some other servant of God. It is true that Jesus (Isa) is highly esteemed in Islam, but the Qur’an falls far short of honoring Jesus as the Son of God, a truth that the Qur’an vehemently denies. The New Testament, however, is not satisfied with faint—and false—praise for Jesus. “All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him” (John 5:23).

In the last blog post we mentioned certain questions that the Muslim might raise in objection to the truth of the Incarnation of the Son of God:

“If Jesus is God, how could He be hungry?”
“If Jesus is God, how could He be tired?”
“If Jesus is God, how could He pray to God?”
“If Jesus is God, how could He die?”

“If Jesus is God, who was ruling the universe when He was in the grave?”

The simple answer to those questions is that Jesus was hungry, tired, suffered, and died only according to His human nature; and that (while a human being) Jesus still ruled according to His divine nature. That is simple to state, but less simple to understand.

When you observe Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, you are observing one who is the eternal Son of God (that is His person) in the human flesh. “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). When the baby Jesus lay in the manger, He was the Son of God or the Word made flesh. When the boy Jesus grew up in Nazareth, He was the Son of God or the Word made flesh. When the young man Jesus worked as a carpenter, He was the Son of God or the Word made flesh. When the adult Jesus walked around Galilee, or sat in a fishing boat, He was the Son of God or the Word made flesh. When after a long day, Jesus sat down to a meal, ate food, drank water or wine, and then fell asleep, He was the Son of God or the Word made flesh. When Jesus suffered and died on the cross, He was the Son of God or the Word made flesh.

He never ceased to be the Son of God—His deity or divinity was not diminished in the Incarnation.

He never ceased to be man—His humanity was not changed in its union with the divine Son of God.

Jesus was both God and man. Even today, in heaven, Jesus is still both God and man.

Each of those two natures in Jesus has its own distinct properties. Those two natures must not be confused, therefore.

It is the property of humanity to be finite. Therefore, Jesus’s human nature (exactly because it is a true human nature) is finite.

The human body of Jesus, therefore, grew. He grew as a child until He reached His adult height. To speak of an infinite human body that fills heaven and earth by its immensity is nonsense. No human body can be immense, infinite or omnipresent.

The human mind of Jesus, therefore, developed. Jesus was ignorant as a child, just as we were, so He had to learn. Of course, His mind was sharper and keener than ours, simply because His mind was unimpaired by sin, but Jesus never reached a stage in His development when He was omniscient in His human mind. Omniscience is not a human characteristic. (Jesus is omniscient, but only according to His divine nature). That explains, for example, why Jesus was ignorant of certain things not revealed to Him by the Father.

The human body of Jesus, therefore, was not omnipotent. An omnipotent human body is a contradiction in terms. (Jesus is omnipotent, but only according to His divine nature). That explains, for example, how Jesus was able to experience fatigue, pain, hunger, thirst and other natural human weaknesses. He experienced such sensations in His real, finite, non-omnipotent human nature.

It is the property of divinity to be infinite, unchangeable, eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, Jesus is and remained infinite, unchangeable, eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. For example, when Jesus perceived the thoughts of the Pharisees, He displayed His omniscience (Mark 2:8). When Jesus calmed the storm of the Sea of Galilee, He displayed His omnipotence (Mark 4:9). Indeed, in all of His miracles Jesus displayed His omnipotence as the Son of God. However, for the most part, during His life on earth Jesus’ glory as the Son of God was hidden behind the infirmity of His flesh. Nevertheless, when Jesus showed His power, not even His enemies could deny it.

As I have indicated more than once, the questions concerning the true divinity and perfect humanity of Christ were settled at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, over a century before Mohammed’s birth. That Mohammed was unaware of these things and makes no effort to interact with Christianity’s official creeds is remarkable.

A much later Christian confession, the Belgic Confession, explains the relationship this way:

We believe that by this conception, the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature; so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single person: yet, that each nature retains its own distinct properties. As then the divine nature hath always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth: so also hath the human nature not lost its properties, but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body… (Article 19).

The next question we must face is why did Jesus come? Why did the Son of God become incarnate? And the answer is quite simply at the very heart of the Christian gospel: He came to suffer and die for the sins of His people.

To that subject we turn next, DV.

__________________

This post was written by Rev. Martyn McGeown, missionary-pastor of the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Northern Ireland stationed in Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
__________________

Die res van die reeks: Islam evangelisasie

Posted by: proregno | September 20, 2016

Skrifoordenking: Markus 1:35-39 – Predikers wat bid

set

Skrifoordenking: Markus 1:35-39 – Predikers wat bid

En vroeg in die môre, nog diep in die nag, het Hy opgestaan en uitgegaan en na ‘n eensame plek vertrek en daar gebid.
En Simon en die wat by hom was, het Hom gevolg.
En toe hulle Hom vind, sê hulle vir Hom: Almal soek U.
En Hy sê vir hulle: Laat ons na die naburige dorpe gaan, sodat Ek ook daar kan preek; want daarvoor het Ek uitgegaan.
En Hy het die hele Galiléa deur in hulle sinagoges gepreek en die duiwels uitgedryf.

Hier volg JC Ryle se Skrifoordenking oor hierdie gedeelte, waar hy wys op die twee sentrale sake waarmee bedienaars van die Woord besig moet wees, en waarin Jesus ook ons voorbeeld is, soos ons daarvan lees in Hand.6:3,

... maar ons sal volhard in die gebed en die bediening van die woord.

__________________________

Mark 1:35-39

Every fact in our Lord’s life on earth, and every word which fell from His lips, ought to be deeply interesting to a true Christian. We see a fact and a saying in the passage we have just read, which deserve close attention.

We see, for one thing, an example of our Lord Jesus Christ’s habits about private prayer. We are told, that “in the morning, rising up a great while before day, He went out and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.”

We shall find the same thing often recorded of our Lord in the Gospel history.

When He was baptized, we are told that He was “praying.” (Luke 3:21.)

When He was transfigured, we are told, that “as He prayed, the form of His face was altered.” (Luke 9:29.)

Before He chose the twelve apostles, we are told that “He continued all night in prayer to God.” (Luke 6:12.)

When all men spoke well of Him, and would sincerely have made Him a King, we are told that “He went up into a mountain alone to pray.” (Mark 14:23.)

When tempted in the garden of Gethsemane, He said, “Sit here, while I pray.” (Mark 14:34.)

In short, our Lord prayed always, and did not faint. Sinless as He was, He set us an example of diligent communion with His Father. His Godhead did not render Him independent of the use of all means as a man. His very perfection was a perfection kept up through the exercise of prayer.

We ought to see in all this the immense importance of private devotion.

If He who was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” thus prayed continually, how much more ought we who are compassed with infirmity?

If He found it needful to offer up supplications with strong crying and tears, how much more needful is it for us, who in many things daily offend?

What shall we say to those who never pray at all, in the face of such a passage as this?

There are many such, it may be feared, in the list of baptized people–many who rise up in the morning without prayer, and without prayer lie down at night–many who never speak one word to God.

Are they Christians?

It is impossible to say so.

A praying Master, like Jesus, can have no prayerless servants. The Spirit of adoption will always make a man call upon God. To be prayerless is to be Christless, Godless, and in the high road to destruction.

What shall we say to those who pray, yet give but little time to their prayers?

We are obliged to say that they show at present very little of the mind of Christ. Asking little, they must expect to have little. Seeking little, they cannot be surprised if they possess little. It will always be found that when prayers are few, grace, strength, peace, and hope are small.

We shall do well to watch our habits of prayer with a holy watchfulness. Here is the pulse of our Christianity. Here is the true test of our state before God. Here true religion begins in the soul, when it does begin. Here it decays and goes backward, when a man backslides from God. Let us walk in the steps of our blessed Master in this respect as well as in every other. Like Him, let us be diligent in our private devotion. Let us know what it is to “depart into solitary places and pray.”

We see, for another thing, in this passage, a remarkable saying of our Lord as to the purpose for which He came into the world. We find Him saying, “let us go into the next towns, that I may PREACH there also–for that is why I have come.”

The meaning of these words is plain and unmistakable. Our Lord declares that He came on earth to be a preacher and a teacher. He came to fulfill the prophetical office, to be the “prophet greater than Moses,” who had been so long foretold. (Deut. 18:15.) He left the glory which He had from all eternity with the Father, to do the work of an evangelist. He came down to earth to show to man the way of peace, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind.

One principal part of His work on earth, was to go up and down and publish glad tidings, to offer healing to the broken-hearted, light to those who sat in darkness, and pardon to the chief of sinners. He says, “That is why I have come.”

We ought to observe here, what infinite honor the Lord Jesus puts on the office of the preacher. It is an office which the eternal Son of God Himself undertook. He might have spent his earthly ministry in instituting and keeping up ceremonies, like Aaron. He might have ruled and reigned as a king, like David. But He chose a different calling. Until the time when He died as a sacrifice for our sins, His daily, and almost hourly work was to preach. He says, “That is why I have come.”

Let us never be moved by those who cry down the preacher’s office, and tell us that sacraments and other ordinances are of more importance than sermons. Let us give to every part of God’s public worship its proper place and honor, but let us beware of placing any part of it above preaching.

By preaching, the Church of Christ was first gathered together and founded, and by preaching, it has ever been maintained in health and prosperity.

By preaching, sinners are awakened.

By preaching, inquirers are led on.

By preaching, saints are built up.

By preaching, Christianity is being carried to the heathen world.

There are many now who sneer at missionaries, and mock at those who go out into the high-ways of our own land, to preach to crowds in the open air. But such persons would do well to pause, and consider calmly what they are doing. The very work which they ridicule is the work which turned the world upside down, and cast heathenism to the ground. Above all, it is the very work which Christ Himself undertook.

The King of kings and Lord of lords Himself was once a preacher.

For three long years He went to and fro proclaiming the Gospel. Sometimes we see Him in a house, sometimes on the mountain side, sometimes in a Jewish synagogue, sometimes in a boat on the sea. But the great work He took up was always one and the same. He came always preaching and teaching. He says, “That is why I have come.”

Let us leave the passage with a solemn resolution never to “despise prophesying.” (1 Thess. 5:20.) The minister we hear may not be highly gifted. The sermons that we listen to may be weak and poor. But after all, preaching is God’s grand ordinance for converting and saving souls.

The faithful preacher of the Gospel is handling the very weapon which the Son of God was not ashamed to employ. This is the work of which Christ has said, “That is why I have come.”

Want aangesien in die wysheid van God die wêreld deur die wysheid God nie geken het nie, het dit God behaag om deur die dwaasheid van die prediking die wat glo, te red; want die Jode vra ‘n teken en die Grieke soek wysheid, maar ons verkondig Christus wat gekruisig is, ‘n struikelblok vir die Jode en dwaasheid vir die Grieke; maar vir die wat geroep is, Jode sowel as Grieke: Christus, die krag van God en die wysheid van God. … En toe ek by julle gekom het, broeders, het ek nie aan julle die getuienis van God kom verkondig met voortreflikheid van woorde of van wysheid nie, want ek het my voorgeneem om niks anders onder julle te weet nie as Jesus Christus, en Hom as gekruisigde. – 1 Kor.1:21-24; 2:1,2

_________________________

Bron: Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Nog Skrifoordenkings van JC Ryle

DIE HERE TUG ONS SODAT ONS DIE

WEG VAN GEHOORSAAMHEID SAL LEER 

Skriflesing: Josua 8:1-29 en Hebreërs 5:6-10

Preekteks: Josua 8:1-29

Preekopname (GK Carletonville, 2016-07-10):

Aflaai: Josua 8:1-29

Preeknotas (let wel, dit is net notas, die volledige preek is die opname hierbo):

Geliefdes in ons Here Jesus Christus,

Ons het in Ps.89:12,13 gesing dat die Here wat ons in ewige guns aanskou,

ons as sy kinders ook baiemaal tugtig met sy roede,

as ons afdwaal van sy weë.

En as dit dan begin swaar gaan, dan begin die vrae:

Maar is die Here my dan nie barmhartig nie, het Hy my nie vergewe nie ?

Het die Here my dan nie gered om alles vir my ten goede te laat meewerk nie,

hoekom nou hierdie tugtiging en strawwe wat oor my lewe kom,

 

Nou geliefdes,

Dit is presies waar die Here se volk hom nou bevind,

daar in die gebeure van hfst.6 en 7, nou aan die begin van hfst.8

Die toorn van die Here het ontvlam oor Israel,

vanweë die bangoed wat Israel hul aan vergryp het in Jerigo.

Die Here het beveel dat alles met die ban getref word in Jerigo,

maar Agan en sy familie het daarvan geneem,

en so die Here se oordeel oor Israel gebring.

Eers nadat Agan en sy familie gestenig is,

lees ons daar in v.26 van hoofstuk 7

Toe het die HERE Hom afgewend van die gloed van sy toorn

Die volk het opnuut hier geleer, en ons leer dit saam met hulle,

dat die Here wat hul in sy liefde,

in sy getrouheid aan sy genadeverbond met Abraham, Isak en Jakob,

die Here wat hul in sy genade en liefde gered het uit Egipte,

ook ‘n heilige regverdige God, Verlosser en Here is,

wat wil hê sy volk moet Hom nou dien in dankbare vrees,

volgens sy goeie bevele.

Sy genade mag nie misbruik word om sy gebooie,

sy wet, sy verbond te oortree nie.

Soos die woorde in Ps.130 wat ons gesing het,

….. Maar nee, daar is vergewing, altyd by u gewees,

daarom word U met bewing reg kinderlik gevrees.

Dit is wat ons dan vanoggend ook leer uit Josua 8,

Die HERE bemoedig en lei sy volk opnuut,

om Hom in dankbaarheid vir hul redding,

te dien volgens sy bevele. (x2)

Anders gestel: Die HERE tugtig sy kinders sodat hul kan leer dat Hy ons in die weg van gehoorsaamheid sal versorg en seën.

Ons sien dit in 2 sake hoe die Here sy volk seën:

1) In verse 1 – 29 hoe Josua en die volk,

trou volgens die Here se bevele die stad Ai verower.

2) In verse 30-35 hoe die hele volk hul opnuut verbind om die Here van die verbond trou te dien volgens sy bevele wat Hy gegee het deur Moses.   

 (Vanoggend kyk ons na v.1-29, en volgende keer van verse 30-35)

Read More…

Posted by: proregno | September 14, 2016

Die Kerk (1): Die woord ‘kerk’ – prof. WJ Snyman

vermaak_church

DIE KERK (1): DIE WOORD ‘KERK’

deur prof. WJ Snyman

Inleiding (deur S. Le Cornu)

Ek beplan om in die opkomende weke artikels te plaas van prof. Willie Snyman aangaande die kerk, DV.  Dit is seker nie nuwe nuus dat ons land al minder kerklik word nie.  Daar heers groot verwarring, en al meer mense word kerklos.  Mense is teleurgestel in ‘die kerk’, vir goeie maar ongelukkig ook vir slegte redes.  Allerlei alternatiewe vorme van ‘kerke’ word opgesoek. Daar is ook ‘n jonger geslag wat begin pleit vir ‘churchless christianity’ (sien bv. Kevin die Young se artikel oor hierdie tendens: Stop the Revolution. Join the Plodders).

Hopelik kan hierdie artikels mense help om opnuut te besin oor wat kerk is volgens die Skrif en waar ek my moet voeg by ‘n plaaslike kerk.

Prof. WJ (Willie) Snyman, was dosent in Nuwe Testament aan die Teologiese Skool, Potchefstroom (1946 – 1969).  Die artikels kom uit die bundel, Nuwe en Ou Dinge (Potchefstroom: Pro Rege, 1977), maar ek gaan my eie indeling volg waar nodig, om sy artikels hier op my blog te plaas, met hier en daar opmerkings bygevoeg. U is welkom om in die ‘comments’ afdeling saam te gesels oor hierdie baie belangrike onderwerp.

Hier is prof. Snyman aan die woord:

_____________________________________

1. DIE WOORD ‘KERK’ 

(a) Ons Belydenis verstaan daaronder: ‘n “heilige vergadering van almal wat waarlik in Christus glo”. Dus, die gelowiges as groot geheel, en wel “van die begin van die wêreld af …. tot aan die einde toe” (Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis, Art. 27). In die volgende artikel word “kerk” egter gebruik vir gelowiges in plaaslike verband, deur ons gewoonlik “gemeente” genoem.

Die Heidelbergse Kategismus vervang weer “kerk” deur “gemeente” (Sondag 21), en gebruik dan die woord “gemeente” vir al die gelowiges saam.

So ook die Kerkorde (Art. 1). Hier sien “gemeente” op die kerk as geheel, maar dan ook weer op ‘n “plaaslike gemeente” (Artt. 4 en 5). In hierdie selfde artikel word die “plaaslike gemeente” ook “kerk” genoem, en word gespreek van kerke (Art. 4) in dieselfde sin as van gemeentes (Art. 5).

Hieruit is duidelik: Die onderskeiding dat “gemeente” ‘n versameling sou wees van versone (gelowiges) en “kerk” ‘n versameling van gemeentes, is nie juis nie.

Ewemin die onderskeiding dat “kerk” die gelowiges as groot geheel sou wees, en “gemeente” die gelowiges in plaaslike verband.

Kerk is die vergadering van gelowiges (a) as groot geheel, en (b) ook in plaaslike verband — net soos “gemeente”.

In geen geval sien kerk op ‘n versameling van gemeentes nie.

(b) “Kerk” is ook nie ‘n samekoms van mense (gelowiges) sonder meer nie, maar ‘n samekoms met God.

“Kerk” is afkomstig van die Griekse woordvorm kuriakè, wat beteken “die Here s’n”, of “eiendom van die Here”.

Noem ons die gebou waarin die gemeente saamkom “kerk”, dan beteken kerk: “Die huis van die Here”, en dan beteken ons samekoms in die “kerk” ‘n samekoms met die Here.

In eintlike sin is egter die gemeente wat in die gebou saamkom, die “kerk”.

Hiermee word die gemeente dan beskryf as “die Here s’n”, “die volk van sy eiendom” (1 Petr. 2:9), wat Hy gekoop het deur sy bloed (Kateg., Sondag 1). Daarom is Hy onse Here (Kurios, Sondag 13), en ons sy eiendom (“Kuriakè”, “kerk”).

Dink ons verder daaraan dat die “vergadering van die gelowiges” self ook genoem word ‘n gebou van God (1 Kor. 3:9), dan is die verband duidelik tussen die kerk en die tempel, die plek waar God gewoon het onder sy volk, en hulle met Hom saamgekom het. So is die kerk nou self die tempel, “die woning van God in die Gees” (Ef. 2:22).

Hoeseer “kerk” en “gemeente” dus ook dieselfde mag beteken, wil ons tog die woord “kerk” behou, omdat hierin tot uitdrukking kom: Die samekoms met God, wat ons tot sy eiendom gemaak het deur die bloed van Christus, en onder ons woon deur sy Gees.

So is “kerk” dan (a) al die gelowiges saam, as gebou van God, maar ook (b) die gelowiges in hul samekoms, as samekoms met God.

(c) Kerk is nie alleen ‘n saamvergadering met God nie, maar ook ‘n saamvergadering deur God: deur God saamgeroep.

Ook hier sal die woord “kerk” vir homself spreek as ons weet dat waar die woorde”roep” en “roeping” voorkom in die Nuwe Testament, ‘n vorm van dieselfde woord staan, wat by ons vertaal is met “gemeente” (kerk). Die oorspronklike is hier “Ekklesia”, en as die apostel sy gemeentes toespreek as “geroepe heiliges” (Rom. 1:7; 1 Kor. 1:2) dan gebruik hy net ‘n ander vorm van dieselfde woord.

“Gemeente” lê nadruk op die gemeenskap van gelowiges.

“Kerk” lê nadruk op hul saamvergadering met God.

Die Nuwe Testamentiese woord “ekklesia” lê nadruk op hul sameroeping deur God.

Meer bepaald het die Grieke hierdie woord gebruik vir die vergadering van die volk, saamgeroep deur ‘n gevolmagtigde bode.

So is die verband duidelik tussen Kerk en “prediking”. Wat is predikant? Dit is om ‘n boodskap te bring namens God. Hier is dit die evangelie, die “goeie boodskap” (Jes. 40:9), eers deur God self geopenbaar in die paradys, verkondig deur die aartsvaders en profete, afgebeeld in die skadudiens van Israel, en ten laaste vervul in Christus (HK, Sondag VI). En so roep Christus nog deur sy boodskappers, die apostels, en in aansluiting aan hulle, deur sy predikers (2 Kor. 4:20).

Waar is die kerk? Waar God roep.

Sinds wanneer is daar ‘n kerk en tot wanneer?

Sinds God roep en solank God roep, d.i. van die begin van die wêreld af …. tot die einde toe (Matt. 16:18b).

Maar dan is ook duidelik dat die predikamp nog glad nie die kerk uitmaak nie (Luthers). Die boodskappers is nie die kerk nie, maar die geroepenes. Kerk is die “vergadering van gelowiges”.

(d) Kerk is: die volk van God.

“Ekklesia” (gemeente, kerk) in die Nuwe Testament is vertaling van die Ou Testament “kahal” (of “eda”): “vergadering”. en wel: die vergadering van Israel (vg. Ex. 12, en deurgaans) as ‘n vergadering (volk) van God.

Israel was “volk van God” omdat die Here onder hulle gewoon het, eers in die tabernakel (“tent van samekoms”, vg. Ex. 27:21, en deurgaans), later in die tempel waar hulle met die Here moes vergader. Maar ook omdat die Here hulle in Abraham geroep het, en uit hom op wonderdadige wyse geformeer het. Daarom was hulle syne (Jes. 43:1; 44:2). As “volk van God” is hulle daardeur onderskei dat hulle die woorde van God gehad het (Rom. 3:2) deur sy profete; die diens van die versoening in die tempel met die priester, en geregeer is deur ‘n koning, hulle van God gegee. Hulle was ‘n “koninkryk van priesters”, ‘n heilige nasie vir die Here (Ex. 19:6).

In die kerk sien ons egter die vervulling van wat in Israel slegs skadu was. Daarom geld van die kerk met geestelike verdieping, dat die kerk is wat Israel was: die volk van God (1 Petr. 2:9 vgl. Ex. 19:6).

Daar moet nog op gelet word dat Israel nie allengs die volk van God geword het nie. Hulle was die volk van God van die aanvang af. Die geskiedenis toon veeleer hoe hulle geword het van ‘n vergadering (Kahal) tot ‘n verstrooiing, omdat hulle die Here verlaat het.

Maar ook in die Verstrooiing is hulle weer beeld van die Kerk soos dit versprei is oor die ganse aarde. Nou kan Israel nie meer vergader om die tempel nie, maar net nog in aparte samekomste. So ontstaan sinds die ballingskap die “sinagoges”: niks anders as die openbaring van die kahal in die verstrooiing. Hulle eie samekomste noem die Christene egter kerke (ekklessia in die meervoud, o.a. Gal. 1:2), en gee daarmee te kenne dat hulle die ware voortsetting is van wat Israel was. Die kerk is die ware volk van God in die plek van Israel.

____________________________

Volgende keer: Die eienskappe van die kerk

Die reeks is hier beskikbaar: Die Kerk – prof. WJ Snyman

Posted by: proregno | September 1, 2016

Islam evangelisasie (6)

Ek plaas met erkenning aan die bron (RFPA) ‘n reeks wat gaan oor die verkondiging van die Evangelie van ons Here Jesus Christus aan ons Moslem bure. Hopelik kan dit ons toerus om die Groot Opdrag na te kom daar waar die Here ons elkeen geplaas het (Matt.28:16-20):

ISLAM (6)

 by Rev. Martyn McGeown

We have—for the benefit of the Muslim neighbor, who does not understand the Christian faith—been explaining the great wonder of the Incarnation.

We have noted that

(1) The one who became incarnate is the Son of God;

(2) His becoming the Son of God did not mean that He ceased to be fully divine;

(3) In becoming incarnate, the Son of God took to Himself a real, complete human nature of body and soul; and

(4) The human (nature) and divine (nature) in Christ (the eternal Son of God) are distinct.

This wonder took place in the virgin conception and birth. The Qur’an teaches the virgin birth, that is, it teaches that Mary give birth to Jesus (Isa) when she had not known a man sexually (Surah 3:47; 19:19-22). However, the virgin birth in Islam does not really serve any purpose; it is simply given to be a sign (Surah 19:21)—a sign of what, we might wonder.

The Bible gives very great importance to the virgin conception and birth, for in this very way the Son of God became a real human being, or “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14). (Incidentally, the Bible does not accord such importance to the virgin birth in order to honor Mary, who is but an instrument in God’s hand. We honor Christ by confessing His incarnation through the virgin birth).

Listen to the following exchange between the angel Gabriel and Mary in Luke 1:31-35,

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The goal or purpose of the virgin birth is not merely to be a sign—it is a sign, but it is more than a sign. The virgin birth is the vehicle of the incarnation. It is the way in which the Son of God becomes human. Notice that Gabriel identifies the son that Mary shall bear as

(1) the Son of the Highest;

(2) holy; and

(3) the Son of God.

Notice, too, that the wonderworker of this miracle will be the Holy Ghost (or the Holy Spirit).

Something deeply mysterious and wonderful took place in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Who can fathom it? The Holy Spirit took part of the flesh of Mary, part of her human nature. This was necessary so that Jesus might be related to the human race and a true descendant of King David. Then without the use of any flesh from a man (such as Joseph, Mary’s espoused husband, who is entirely excluded from this miracle), the Holy Spirit formed a real, complete human nature.

That human nature consists of body and soul.

Who can fathom the coming together of a body and soul when we are formed in our mother’s wombs? How much greater is that wonder by which a real human body (a human embryo at this point) and soul were formed in Mary’s womb for the Son of God! To that real human nature the person of the Son of God united Himself by the power of the Holy Spirit. The result is that the eternal Son of God, without ceasing to be God, became true man.

Jesus from the very moment of His conception was fully and true God, and fully and true man. When He was born, Jesus was fully and true God and fully and true man. Throughout His earthly life, Jesus was fully and true God and fully and true man. And in His death, Jesus was fully and true God and fully and true man.

Another sublime passage on the Incarnation is Philippians 2:5-8:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Consider briefly these words.

First, Jesus is “in the form of God” and “equal with God.” Those two expressions mean that He is God.

Second, Jesus “was made in the likeness of men” and “being found in fashion as a man.” Those expressions mean that He is truly human.

Third, Jesus “made himself of no reputation,” “took upon himself the form of a servant,” “humbled himself” and “became obedient.” Those expressions speak of His voluntary submission or humiliation. And the whole passage is designed to illustrate the virtue of humility.

Another passage in this connection is Romans 8:3:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Notice the precision of language. God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. God did not send His own Son in the likeness of flesh. That would be a denial of the reality of Christ’s human nature. God did not send His own Son in sinful flesh. That would be a denial of the reality of Christ’s sinless purity. God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. That perfectly encapsulates the truth of the Incarnation.

One final passage that speaks powerfully about the Incarnation is Galatians 4:4-5:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

The important expressions here are “made of a woman” (a reference to the Incarnation—Jesus was not merely made “in” but “of” [out of] a woman) and “made under the law” (a reference to His humiliation, for Jesus voluntarily placed Himself under the law in order to obey it, and in order to deliver us from the penalty of the law).

All of this makes Jesus Christ altogether unique. He is the only one who has ever lived who is both God and man. He is the eternal Son of God, and He is a true human being. That is the meaning of the Incarnation, which is so important for our salvation.

One final matter in this connection is the vital relationship between the human and divine in Jesus. If this is not understood, Jesus becomes inexplicable. It is exactly because the Muslim does not understand this that the Incarnation is such a stumbling block to him. It is exactly because of these misunderstandings that the Muslim will bring objections such as these:

“If Jesus is God, how could He be hungry?”
“If Jesus is God, how could He be tired?”
“If Jesus is God, how could He pray to God?”
“If Jesus is God, how could He die?” 
“If Jesus is God, who was ruling the universe when He was in the grave?” 
These questions might seem foolish to the Christian, but to the Muslim they are genuinely perplexing issues. (Incidentally, you will hear similar objections from cultists such as the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses). Some may ask the questions in a mocking, sneering tone, but we should not respond in kind:
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (I Peter 3:15).
To those questions we turn next time, DV.

__________________

This post was written by Rev. Martyn McGeown, missionary-pastor of the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Northern Ireland stationed in Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
__________________

Die res van die reeks: Islam evangelisasie

DISPUTATIONS ON THE JUDICIAL LAWS OF MOSES

Johannes Piscator (1546–1625) may not be a household name today, but that is hardly for want of an international, multi-generational legacy. His clear and firm stance on God’s justice as revealed in the judicial laws of Moses influenced giants of Reformed theology for nearly two centuries afterward. As the reader will learn, Piscator’s views were held by several key figures, helped shape the Puritan movements and governments in both England and America, and influenced the formation of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

It is time that this nearly-forgotten theologian, and his doctrine of the law, be resurrected and given a rightful consideration among the hall of fame of Reformers.

To that end, we present Piscator’s work on the judicial laws of Moses most often cited often by subsequent writers: the Appendix to his commentary on Exodus. Originally titled “Observations on Chapters 21, 22, 23, namely, an explanation of controversial questions about the abrogation of the judicial laws of Moses,” it is here published as a stand-alone book: Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses.

Content:

1. The Thesis

2. The Thesis Confirmed by Seven Proofs

To prevent arbitrary injustice

The abiding validity of the law (Matt. 5: 17)

Christ and the Lex Talionis.

A parallel to the unchanging moral laws.

The magistrate and the Word of God

3. Against Twenty-Two Objections.

1. The judicial law was for Israel only.

2. The judicial law as only an example.

3. The judicial law does not forbid revision of itself.

4. The judicial law requires revision of itself.

5. The judicial law is not detailed enough.

6. The judicial law no longer binds unless it is repeated in the New Testament.

7. Paul’s use of his Roman citizenship

8. Paul’s teaching in Romans 13

9. Must we become Jews first?

10. Jewish legislation ended with Christ’s Advent.

11. Jeremiah and the New Covenant.

12. The Gospel does not affect civil governments.

13. Caesar has the authority to make new laws

14. The judicial law existed only to distinguish Israel until the Blessed Seed should come.

15. Paul refutes the judaizing Ebionites and defends diverse civil customs.

16. The entirety of the law was abrogated after John the Baptist.

17. Christians are free from the yoke of the entire law.

18. Galatians establishes the abrogation of both the judicial and the ceremonial laws.

19. Paul and Peter require Christians to obey pagan magistrates.

20. Whatever laws may be are from God

21. Daniel, Nehemiah, and Mordecai

____________________

Bookreview

Die boek is hier beskikbaar in harde kopie, Kindle, e-pub en PDF:

Disputations of the Judicial Law of Moses

Posted by: proregno | August 22, 2016

Preek: Psalm 47 Alle volke moet die HERE prys

ALLE VOLKE MOET DIE HERE PRYS

Skriflesing: Gen.12:1-3; Psalm 47; Gal.3:7-9

Preekteks: Psalm 47

Preekopname (GK Carletonville, 2016-07-17):

Aflaai: Psalm 47

Preeknotas (let wel, dit is net notas, die volledige preek is die opname hierbo):

Geliefdes in ons Here Jesus Christus,

Die Psalmboek bestaan uit verskillende soorte Psalms,bv

lofsange (bv. Ps.100), klaagliedere (bv. Ps.70), dankseggings (bv. Ps.18), psalms van vertroue (bv. Ps.23), herinneringspsalms (bv. Ps.105), wysheidspsalms (bv. Ps.1), koningspsalms (bv. Ps.98), lydingspsalms (bv. Ps.22), Messiaanse Psalms (bv. Ps.2, 110).

Ps.47 is ’n kombinasie van veral die volgende 3 soorte:

Dit is ’n Koningspsalm, omdat ons daar lees en sing dat die HERE,

’n groot Koning is oor die hele aarde is, v.3

Dit is ’n Lofpsalm, omdat daar heeltyd die oproep is om die Here te

loof en te prys, v.1,7,8

Dit is ’n Messiaanse Psalm, omdat dit profeteer van die Here se Koningskap

oor die hele aarde deur Christus se troonbestyging, v.6 en 8.

Daarom wil ons vanoggend leer uit hierdie Psalm

Alle volke moet juig tot eer van God,

vir die reddingswerk wat deur Christus gedoen is

Ons let op 2 sake:

  1. Die Here se volk in die OT moet Hom prys vir sy reddingswerk
  2. Alle volke moet die Here prys vir sy reddingswerk

Read More…

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories