In my reading through Isaiah I came this morning to this passage, which I feel may be a message for the church in Britain (and maybe elsewhere) today:
You have forgotten God your Saviour;
you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress.
Therefore, though you set out the finest plants
and plant imported vines,
11 though on the day you set them out, you make them grow,
and on the morning when you plant them, you bring them to bud,
yet the harvest will be as nothing
in the day of disease and incurable pain.Isaiah 17:10-11 (TNIV)
Here is my comment on these verses, taken from the comments on Isaiah which I have been posting at qaya thoughts:
Human attempts to import new ways of producing fruit will look promising but ultimately come to nothing.
If the church is to produce any real and lasting fruit, it needs to avoid relying on imported techniques, and to remember God himself and rely on the growth which he will bring.
You are brainwashed by “the shadow government” to be a speaker of lies. Open your eyes before its too late! Religion is an excuse for power to the one that already got! Deep inside your mind you know the truth!
They must be stopped!
“Real speaker of truth” from Trondheim, Norway, I’m not sure whether to laugh, report you as a spammer, or agree with you that religion is destructive of true Christian faith and freedom. So I’ll just comment here. Anyway, I have given up the title “speaker of truth”, so use it yourself if you like.
peter–
you’re sending a ‘we hate syncretism’ message–is that your intent?
it denies that the kingdom of heaven is a work in progress.
many ‘human attempts’ are attempts by the body of christ, and at least deserve an honest look.
what human attempts were you referring to?
peace–
scott
peter–
you’re sending a ‘we hate syncretism’ message–is that your intent?
it denies that the kingdom of heaven is a work in progress.
many ‘human attempts’ are attempts by the body of christ, and at least deserve an honest look.
what human attempts were you referring to?
peace–
scott
peter–
you’re sending a ‘we hate syncretism’ message–is that your intent?
it denies that the kingdom of heaven is a work in progress.
many ‘human attempts’ are attempts by the body of christ, and at least deserve an honest look.
what human attempts were you referring to?
peace–
scott
peter–
you’re sending a ‘we hate syncretism’ message–is that your intent?
it denies that the kingdom of heaven is a work in progress.
many ‘human attempts’ are attempts by the body of christ, and at least deserve an honest look.
what human attempts were you referring to?
peace–
scott
peter–
you’re sending a ‘we hate syncretism’ message–is that your intent?
it denies that the kingdom of heaven is a work in progress.
many ‘human attempts’ are attempts by the body of christ, and at least deserve an honest look.
what human attempts were you referring to?
peace–
scott
I believe Peter was making the point that when we forget God, our attempts will not produce lasting fruit. at least, that is what the Scripture referenced seems to say. So, I am pretty sure he was noting that we need to remember/rely on God in our attempts, and not on “imported” ways of doing things.
Not that there is anything really sinful with trying a system that is working for someone else, but when one relies on the system instead of the power of God, stuff is going to fail. The difference is between “trying’ with the blessing of God, & “relying” while ignoring God. Negative human attempts would be relying on the system, while positive human attempts would be relying on God while using the system.
btw, Thanks for posting Peter. I love reading your blog when I get a chance. If I have erred greatly in reiterating what I think you meant, please let me know.
mary–
can you give me examples of your experience of:
‘human attempts’ that forget/ignore god; and
‘human attempts’ that remember/rely on god?
thanks–
scott
Mary, you put what I had in mind very well. Partly in response to Scott, I was thinking among other things of the tendency for some churches in the UK to latch on to the latest techniques for evangelism, church growth etc coming from US megachurches. There is nothing inherently wrong with many of these techniques, but they are often not appropriate here in the UK. If applied simply because they are the latest fashion, and not in prayerful response to God’s calling in a particular situation, they will certainly not bear lasting fruit.
Peter: Yeah! Glad I understood!
Scott:
Before I answer, let me ask: do you really want to know or are you just trying to pick a fight? If you really want to know, I could point out some. I don’t have time to waste though on trying to convince someone who is already convinced of an opposite viewpoint that mine is correct.* I just resort to Philippians 3:15 in those cases, & let God work on whoever’s heart–whether it is mine or their’s that needs to be worked on.
Your welcome,
Mary
*that doesn’t include issues directly relating to whether or not they go to heaven.
Hi again Peter
Sorry but I have just discovered your blog and I’m going through some of the topics.
Being a simple person I tend to read a verse and then an understanding comes to me, whether it is mine or not I do not know, but beneath the quoted verse I see the following:
We reap what we sow, if we plant the seeds of the world, and not the seeds of gods word, then all we will have is “yet the harvest will be as nothing
in the day of disease and incurable pain”
I see it aimed at the “fashion” of the church, the melodrama and traditions of the church. Not sure how to explain, but the way robes are worn and ceremonial regalia. Not sure if I’ve explained this well.
But I would be interested in your thoughts.
Simon, I make no claim that mine is the only application of these verses. If God is using them to point out to you the fruitlessness of robes etc, then that is good
Morning Peter
I did not mean to insinuate that my feeling for the words are correct and yours incorrect, its simply what I felt and was wondering what you thought.
thanks
simon
Have you read N. T. Wright on the parables? If so, what did you think?
Richard, no, I haven’t read this, but I would like to.