Missions and Acts - Covenantal Approach?

Kaitiaki's picture

Basically this is just a "what do we learn about the Church from Acts?" thread. As we watch Paul and Barnabas and then Paul and Silas building the Church in Acts, what can we learn about their concept of the Church as a whole? Robert suggested my original plan was too cumbersome so asked me to create new threads.

Thread Moderator - Kaitiaki

Jesus said he was sent to seek and saved the lost sheep of Israel - yet he still had a place for Gentiles who were present when he was preaching. When the new Church began in Acts i took a sign from God before the Apostles were prepared to take the Gospel to the Gentiles at all. Then when Paul did, he went first to the Jews and then to the Greeks. We explore this aspect of his method of missions.

The process Paul used (The Jews first and then the Greeks) may set out a policy we should keep in mind for missions outreach. Do you think this was a deliberate policy? Do you think he began with those who, not only should have been the easiest to reach with the truth but also, were the ones who should join with him in the further work of outreach? What part did their greater accountability under the covenant have to play in his use of this policy?


spelling "G-d"

Misspelling anyone's, especially, JHVH's title or name, is disrespectful and disruptive. It also appears extremely egotistical.

So far, there is only one poster appears disrespectful, disruptive, and extremely egotistical. It is the poster who suggests the adaptation of a Jewish convention to the Protestant word for God is inappropriate and evidence that a Jewishly-oriented Christian doesn't belong in a public library open to everyone. Please read the forum guidelines regarding who is allowed to post, and what kind of respect should be observed even when you don't understand the customs of others.

Personally, I believe that spelling the name G-d may not be the identical to the word the Jews avoided spelling, but it does adapt their custom of reverencing God's person through his name. God is no longer just a title, because the Christian argument is that G-d is not one "god" or "L-rd" among many, but is THE G-d and THE L-rd of everything, that he is the ultimate and final G-d and L-rd. As the name Jesus might be rendered Yeshua, Joshua, or several dozen other iterations, so also must different iterations of the name/word God be accepted. Writing in English, there is nothing wrong with translating a non-English custom into the English treatment of a word.

In a religion that carries the Judaic-Christian message to the world, which is full of different languages transliterating words quite differently from culture to culture, it is not all that radical to try and preserve the sacred reverence of the original group towards their universal G-d. And while I myself do not follow beemanlee's custom, I can respect his right to observe the 10 commandments in anyway he would like, especially since he deals with a portion of the Christian community that might care about the way their habits are remembered.

Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life;
And these are they which bear witness of me;
And ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. (John 5:39-40)