Comments for salternlite

Comment on When Will Jesus Return? by Martin Salter

Martin Salter — Tue, 21 May 2013 09:28:27 +0000

Thanks David. I have to say I’m a partial preterist myself. That is to say I do think a preterist interpretation makes good sense of Matt 24: 1-28; Mk 13:1-23; Lk 21:3-24; Rev 4-20. The context of those passages is helpful, and this, interestingly, is also the view of eminent NT commentator R.T.France in his volumes on Matt and Mark. The events of AD 70 were truly shocking and appalling – a little read through Josephus will begin to give you a sense that the strength of Jesus’ words could easily refer to those awful events. I wouldn’t go as far as many ‘full’ preterists and would be doubtful of some of their exegesis of Paul or Peter for example. But I wouldn’t chuck the baby out with the bath-water – the case is more compelling with Jesus’ words about the temple in the passages referred to above, and John’s apocalyptic vision in the main chunk of Revelation. There’s lots of ‘good’ preterist folk out there who do believe Jesus is coming back; my beef is with the liberal preterists who use that view to deny that Jesus will come again.

Comment on When Will Jesus Return? by David White

David White — Tue, 21 May 2013 08:58:15 +0000

An opportune comment, Martin – thanks. I’m currently in discussion on Facebook with the view espoused by ‘Preterists’, and there are a significant number of them out there. They say, to varying.degree, that all or most of the Lord’s prophecies concerning the end times have already been fulfilled. The hard-liners even say that Jesus actually returned in AD70. So we must be clear, from Scripture, on what we understand, and clear on what we can’t be clear on! Let no-one think this is just academic. Preterists demolishes our future hope – it is error.

Comment on When Will Jesus Return? by Phil S

Phil S — Tue, 21 May 2013 08:39:28 +0000

Helpful summary Salts.

Comment on More FOAM less beer by Dave Williams

Dave Williams — Thu, 16 May 2013 11:07:48 +0000

Thanks Martin, you’ve encouraged me as I’m thinking about preaching for Pentecost Sunday. We’ve been working through Romans and are now at chapter 6. So I’m planning to stop and look specifically at what Romans says about the Holy Spirit so far. I’m probably going to focus in on 5:5 -The love of God has been poured out into your heart through the Holy Spirit. Particular as we’ve been that way already with an exposition of the passage I think I’ll be working hard on illustrating what the verse means ..what difference will these words make Monday morning when you’re tempted to lose your temper with someone, Wednesday when someone’s going to tell lies about you. Friday when you’re tempted to date the non-Christian …

Comment on More FOAM less beer by Stephen Watkinson

Stephen Watkinson — Thu, 16 May 2013 08:29:55 +0000

Like the last para. I’ve been trying to gradually up my illustration quality and quantity, because I think illustration is a form of explanation and may work better for lots/most people than standard explanation. Or perhaps more accurately you need the two to work together.

That said I still state, explain, illustrate, apply

Comment on How to communicate with SUCCESH by Stephen Watkinson

Stephen Watkinson — Tue, 14 May 2013 17:51:49 +0000

Reading it at the moment and it’s both interesting and a good read. BTW you “write” it down I think.

Comment on The aesthetics effect by plasticcustard

plasticcustard — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:48:27 +0000

In reply to martins last blog post:
Couldn’t agree more Martin.
We have become so visually sophisticated that we can find ourselves disregarding things if they aren’t up to scratch – if they’re not bothering to communicate clearly or relevantly or failing to inspire.
At Grace Community Church on Sunday we were hearing about being “all things to all men” for the sake of the gospel, I believe it applies here. We live in a visual culture and so i’d go as far as saying that churches have a *responsibility* to take their visual communications seriously, therefore becoming credible in the eyes of onlookers.
After all the gospel is better than any Merc you saw in that show room, and its better than any other product we may aspire to possess. If we’re serious about executing Jesus’ Great Commission & passionate about the salvation we’ve found, too right we shouldn’t just care, we should look like we care!

Comment on The aesthetics effect by Martin Salter

Martin Salter — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:22:13 +0000

now that’s a good question. I visited a church recently which had outstanding aesthetics in one sense, but communicated all the wrong things with it. The auditorium had no natural light so seeing others was very difficult – they might as well have not been there. So you’re dead right to say that good aesthetics must include something about what is being communicated. BTW Starbucks with Spirit will be in the new creation I’m sure.

Comment on The aesthetics effect by Stephen Watkinson

Stephen Watkinson — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:13:17 +0000

I’m with you on this – that Chris Green has influence! But the question that I find hard to answer is what kind of aesthetic should a church have and maybe we need to be more specific, what aesthetic should my particular local church have? Presumably we don’t just aim at Starbucks with the Spirit

Comment on The aesthetics effect by maxbroadbent

maxbroadbent — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:59:30 +0000

Can totally see where your coming from Martin. Deffintley think it can be a huge aid to the Gospel when visuals and aesthetics are done well. People do seem to respond better to it and at the very least, it can help not to put people off even if it doesn’t become the reason why people are intrigued.