The bible and debt

[Bible John]

Many have helped me critique my website and I appreciate this. However I believe some get topical and exegetical messages confused.

Based on what I learned in school.

1. Exegetical- In depth look at the bible text.
2. Theological- A look at a theme in the bible, or within a passage, or within history.
3. Apologetics- A defense of the faith
4. Topical- Practical application messages and studies. Is it biblical to be in debt? Learning how to love one another, Building a teachable spirit,etc..

I recently wrote a brief message on debt. I know I will step on toes with this one, but this was not my intention, however people seem to interpret this issue very differently. Some of you will congradulate me on this mini message, and some of you will find all kids of problems with it.


I'd appreciate good feedback.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Topical/debt.htm


Thank you


John

 

[StefanM]

I don't think it's that anyone is getting confused. IMO, complete division of "types" of messages can sometimes miss the boat.

It is not that there is a purely "topical" message. All topical messages should be based on solid exegesis. Unfortunately, whenever one is engaging in rapid fire proof texting, solid exegesis sometimes fails to surface. This is one reason why many people emphasize "expository, verse-by-verse preaching."

How many types of messages you have depends on what book you're reading. The definitions of "expository," "topical," and other types of preaching overlap each other, contradict each other, and just generally defy all sense if you take all opinions at face value.

As far as your website goes, there is a big difference between preaching and presenting something online, so what may be acceptable in the pulpit may need to be trimmed down a bit for online presentation.

 

[StefanM]

Critique

I'm really not trying to follow you around, but you asked for critiques, so I'm giving 'em!

Aside from grammatical "snags" that you need to work out, I'll discuss the merits of the page.

1) I'd avoid the conservative/liberal terminology if for no other reason that liberal is basically worse than a four-letter word in fundamentalist circles.

2) You need to substantiate your claims on your first verse.

A) You wrote, "There are many problems with their argument, since it usually bypasses the culture context, demographic, grammatical and theological hermeneutical factors to interpreting a translation. One must always consider such issues when interpreting the scriptures, even more useful with controversial verses and passages such as Romans 13:8. " Show which factors they are ignoring.

B) You wrote, "The more liberal side of the argument does not interpret Paul as saying that debt is prohibited, so they very easily abuse their credit cards, and take on many loans so very quickly they have a massive debt that they cannot hope to repay in their lifetime. Obviously there are different extremes of interpretation of this verse." So are you trying to claim that every person who believes that debt isn't necessarily a sin is going to max out their cards and have debt up to their eyeballs? You're throwing out the main issue. There isn't a need to create a caricature about extreme debt. The question is whether ANY debt is allowed. Stick to the topic.

3) You need to correct errors.

A) You wrote, "I think that its interesting that the KJV seems to communicate that its perfectly okay to be in debt to a woman, while the NIV says to let no debt remain outstanding, indicating that one can have debts." While your analysis of the NIV may be supported, to say that the KJV supports debt to women is to miss the point entirely. For one who is so fervently against gender-equal translations, you should know that "owe no man" means "owe no one." It's using the generic "man."

B) You wrote, "The NKJV eliminates the singular noun voice in this verse and changes it to the plural "no one" instead of "no man." "No one" isn't a true plural. It's basically functioning as a singular indefinite pronoun.


===============-
1) I thought your rejection of the Israel argument to be spot-on.

2) Your consideration of both sides of the argument is commendable.

3) Your acknowledgment of interpretive factors indicates that you are approaching the text correctly.

-------------------
Just a suggestion about your stories...

You may want to clearly set them apart from the exegetical portions of your page (a different paragraph maybe?). It's a bit difficult to follow the argument when everything is jumbled together.

Keep going :thumbs:

 

[Bible John]

Re

David Jeremiah, Osteen, Swindall, and a number of other non fundamentalist peachers preach topical sermons. These topicla sermons (especially in Osteens case) are based far more on experiences than on scripture.

While I say there is nothign wrong with personnel examples, as they type of sermons or writings take far less time to produce and present than a analyitcal message.


John

I don't think it's that anyone is getting confused. IMO, complete division of "types" of messages can sometimes miss the boat.

It is not that there is a purely "topical" message. All topical messages should be based on solid exegesis. Unfortunately, whenever one is engaging in rapid fire proof texting, solid exegesis sometimes fails to surface. This is one reason why many people emphasize "expository, verse-by-verse preaching."

How many types of messages you have depends on what book you're reading. The definitions of "expository," "topical," and other types of preaching overlap each other, contradict each other, and just generally defy all sense if you take all opinions at face value.

As far as your website goes, there is a big difference between preaching and presenting something online, so what may be acceptable in the pulpit may need to be trimmed down a bit for online presentation.

 

[StefanM]

I recognize what a "topical" sermon is. I was just saying that there is no way to be 100% topical. If you use any scripture at all, you're attempting some form of exegesis/exposition.

 

[Bible John]

Thanks

I should take a look at this. On topical messages I try to focus more on stories as these messages are far easier to write or preach or teach and intellectual messages.

Anyone can get up and blab for an hour using their stories, but not anyone can preach verse by verse.

Thanks for the tips. I do have much to work on. But my website is coming along.


John

I'm really not trying to follow you around, but you asked for critiques, so I'm giving 'em!

Aside from grammatical "snags" that you need to work out, I'll discuss the merits of the page.

1) I'd avoid the conservative/liberal terminology if for no other reason that liberal is basically worse than a four-letter word in fundamentalist circles.

2) You need to substantiate your claims on your first verse.

A) You wrote, "There are many problems with their argument, since it usually bypasses the culture context, demographic, grammatical and theological hermeneutical factors to interpreting a translation. One must always consider such issues when interpreting the scriptures, even more useful with controversial verses and passages such as Romans 13:8. " Show which factors they are ignoring.

B) You wrote, "The more liberal side of the argument does not interpret Paul as saying that debt is prohibited, so they very easily abuse their credit cards, and take on many loans so very quickly they have a massive debt that they cannot hope to repay in their lifetime. Obviously there are different extremes of interpretation of this verse." So are you trying to claim that every person who believes that debt isn't necessarily a sin is going to max out their cards and have debt up to their eyeballs? You're throwing out the main issue. There isn't a need to create a caricature about extreme debt. The question is whether ANY debt is allowed. Stick to the topic.

3) You need to correct errors.

A) You wrote, "I think that its interesting that the KJV seems to communicate that its perfectly okay to be in debt to a woman, while the NIV says to let no debt remain outstanding, indicating that one can have debts." While your analysis of the NIV may be supported, to say that the KJV supports debt to women is to miss the point entirely. For one who is so fervently against gender-equal translations, you should know that "owe no man" means "owe no one." It's using the generic "man."

B) You wrote, "The NKJV eliminates the singular noun voice in this verse and changes it to the plural "no one" instead of "no man." "No one" isn't a true plural. It's basically functioning as a singular indefinite pronoun.


===============-
1) I thought your rejection of the Israel argument to be spot-on.

2) Your consideration of both sides of the argument is commendable.

3) Your acknowledgment of interpretive factors indicates that you are approaching the text correctly.

-------------------
Just a suggestion about your stories...

You may want to clearly set them apart from the exegetical portions of your page (a different paragraph maybe?). It's a bit difficult to follow the argument when everything is jumbled together.

Keep going :thumbs:

 

[bapmom]

ok, I dont usually do this but.......

personnel - office staff or employees of some type

personal - referring to yourself (ie., my own personal opinion)


Otherwise, I would agree with StefanM.
There is quite a difference between preaching a sermon and presenting it to an audience, and OTOH writing an article on the internet. Your paragraphs need to be shorter, just break them up some. The content doesn't need to be less in order to do this. But most people have far less patience sitting and reading a page online than they do sitting and listening to their preacher. Remember, they know you only from your articles. They love their preacher.....they aren't going to be so "forgiving" of someone who they really don't know.

I don't think you can compare your articles to preaching anyway really. Preaching ought to be on the Bible, and while you use Bible in your articles, the subjects tend to be varying cults and belief systems, or general life topis. You have to switch gears to writing articles, not preaching a sermon.