SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Is The Shack symptomatic of a deeper issue?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1727
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

These other means are not made illegitimate because they are not the written or preached Word.

But, all forms of communication come with inherent biases that shape the content of the message. That is a truism that was expressed by 1960's communication philosopher Marshall McLuhan who said, rightly, "the medium IS the message". Jesus personifies that as the Living Word. "I am the message," is His....message.

God chose preaching. He chose words as the containers of truth. Jesus, again, is the Word, the perfect, complete expression of truth (message) as God the Son made flesh (the medium or, if you will, the container of truth). Still, by reason of Himself in us (Christ in you, the hope of glory) and by reason of the truth-mediating work of the Holy Spirit ("He ... shall be in you" and He shall "teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you") He anoints men and ordains WORDS (preaching) as the medium of His own choosing to propagate the gospel.

The biases of the spoken word are biases that God prefers over other forms of communication, and He so empowers that form that by it men are saved.

Can those words be spoken through non-preaching means? Yes. Is it the same? No. Is it a substitute? No. May it supplement? I won't answer that. Intuitively, I think yes, but I would know more about the actual efficacy of movies like the Jesus film as a missionary tool and how it is used in conjunction with true gospel Preaching. My guess is that more cinversions and deeper commitments result from preaching when it is done with the film rsther than the film and a mere invitation. Maybe I am wrong.


_________________
Tim

 2017/3/6 22:11Profile









 Re:

""Can movies and other digital medium be used to communicate spiritual truth?"

Is not SI a digital medium? Ah, you say, but it is used to promote the preached word. But can a video tape carry the anointing of God or must the preached word be heard as it is uttered? I am sure we can agree the Word does not say that the Word was to be video taped and then shared millions of times. Yet it is. I wonder. When Peter spoke his sermon in Acts 2 and someone videotaped it ,would men , re-watching it, be stabbed in the heart?............bro Frank

 2017/3/6 22:31









 Re: Frank

.
Quote...When Peter spoke his sermon in Acts 2 and someone videotaped it ,would men , re-watching it, be stabbed in the heart?...End quote

Very good question my brother. My guess would be only if the tape is anointed by the Holy Spirit?

Bro Blaine

 2017/3/6 22:53









 Re:

I guess it goes to the deeper question of the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Sinners in the hands of an angry God had little to no effect when it was first preached. Yet, the second time preached while Edwards was on the road, then down came the Spirit. Why not the first time? The Spirit of God moves as He pleases and where the wind shall blow next none of us know............bro Frank

 2017/3/6 23:40
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 6650
NC, USA

 Re:

I think we have to be honest- when Paul was preaching there were only two ways I can think of for people to to learn the gospel- preaching and reading. Since a great number of people were likely illiterate, preaching was it.

So when we say the Bible stresses preaching, what else could it possibly stress?


_________________
Todd

 2017/3/7 7:21Profile
StirItUp
Member



Joined: 2016/6/4
Posts: 949
Johannesburg, South Africa

 Re: Is The Shack symptomatic of a deeper issue?

I believe just about any medium can be used to communicate the gospel, as long as...

the message communicated stays true to that which has already been revealed in the scriptures.

Once we use "artistic licence" we are in danger of changing the message and "taking away from" or "adding to" the revealed truth.

The bible is clear enough on every subject of the human need.

That being said, one of the most effective ways of communicating by Jesus, was illustration, parable etc.


_________________
William

 2017/3/7 8:19Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1727
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

Todd, the upshot of that question is that God was pleased to leave it that way, or else He would have commanded literacy in the New Testament. Scripture says He chose preaching as the means of communicating the gospel. Preaching is powerful only because God ordains it as that means.

But, it is also instructive about His nature. He forbade images to depict Him or His work. Image based knowledge is not a form of knowledge that reflects God's nature. To the extent that God reveals Himself in non-verbal forms, He has done so in nature. Read Psalm 19:1-4. Even there, the writer of the Psalm compares the revelation in nature to spoken verbal expression. Romans 1:20 confirms the sufficiency of this "speech of nature" as enough revelation of God to make men accountable for rejecting Him.

It is, though, still considered a word-work. And, when we consider that those things in nature that "declare" Him are themselves the product of His own word (Psalm 33:9, Hebrews 11:3, Romans 4:17) and that they were brought into existence through the person of the Son who IS the living Word (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16) it is clear that this idea of preaching and oration is closely related to WHO God is, His nature and being and less related to simply HOW the truth of Him is communicated.


All that is not to say that illiteracy was a non-factor in how people could hear the gospel, but it is irrelevant to God's revelation of Himself as the Word and His ordaining the spoken declaration as the vehicle of power to pierce the heart and convert sinners from death to life.


_________________
Tim

 2017/3/7 8:27Profile









 Re: Tim

.
He forbade images to depict Him or His work. Image based knowledge is not a form of knowledge that reflects God's nature.

______________________________

Then Tim it seems like you wouldn't not be in favor of media like the Visual Bible. Bruce Marciano portrays Jesus. The gospel of Matthew is taken word for word from the 1983 NIV Bible. In your mind would this be an acceptable means to portray scripture truth?

Also the movie The Gospel of John was taken from another contemporary translation of scripture. I think Good News for Modern Man. Again a word for word dialogue from the Good News New Testament. Yet someone is portraying Jesus?

If we're going to say that images are not acceptable to portray Christ. then that begs the question of the illustrated Bible that Todd spoke of earlier that led to the conversion of two illiterate slaves. For that matter what about illustrated children's Bibles that portray Jesus?

Brothers and sisters should we not have some common sense that dictate our understanding of how scripture truth is to be communicated?

Bro Blaine

 2017/3/7 8:50









 Re: The Jesus Video

.
Bretheren unless we're going to dispel the conversions that are happening from the Jesus video that is based on the Gospel of Luke. Then we're going to have an issue since the Gospel of Luke portrays the image of Jesus.

Again just some thoughts to the discussion.

Bro Blaine

 2017/3/7 8:58









 Re:

Bro Todd writes..........

"So when we say the Bible stresses preaching, what else could it possibly stress?"

That is a very valid point. We are to share the message of Jesus. Whether orally, or written , or preached or through sermons on SI or through texts, or through e-mails or through you-tubes or though however you are led by the Holy Spirit of the living God. Many of us fly to different countries and when there share the Gospel, now when the Scriptures were written it did not say to fly to different countries, it did say that we were to go to all the nations.

Should we not fly there because the Apostles walked or rode there or sailed by ship? Ridiculous I know, but if we must be that literal then surely we should be consistantly literal? I know and understand the fears that many have, legitimate ones of how the Gospel is shared and many, rightly so, are highly suspicious of Hollywood or any other secular entity sharing truth. But for the most part , it is Godless entities sharing some elements of truth with the mass Godless. If they secular world looked at Christendom with the same eye as some look at them, then they would see a world of division and infighting and lack of love and schism. Sad, for the most part Christendom is no witness at all unless it is a witness to disunity. That is the greatest problem of them all.............bro Frank

 2017/3/7 9:26





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy