Peter Krol | Knowable Word

Examples of Wrestling through the Prescriptive/Descriptive Debate

March 1, 2024 By Peter Krol

Last week, I brought up the debate that inevitably arises in a discussion of a narrative text: Is this passage prescribing something we should imitate (or avoid), or is it simply describing what the characters did in their setting? I proposed that we can often eliminate the need for such a debate if we focus on applying the passage’s main point. Commonly, the passage’s main point is clear enough to direct us in how to change; we don’t even need to decide whether a given detail or behavior in the text ought to be imitated or not.

Let me give two examples where the main point eliminates the debate (by rendering it irrelevant), and one example where it doesn’t.

Acts 15:36-16:5

In Acts 15:36-41, Paul and Barnabas have a sharp disagreement over whether to take John Mark with them on their second missionary journey. They cannot agree, so they split up and part ways. I’ve heard people use this passage to argue that parting ways is an unhealthy way to deal with conflict. And I’ve heard other people use this passage as an example of when parting ways is inevitable and perhaps even healthier than remaining together in constant strife.

So which is it? And it begs the question: Is this text even meant to prescribe a certain way of dealing with conflict (through either good or bad example), or is it simply describing what happened in the lives of those three men?

Notice that the narrative of this split comes immediately after the resolution of a major debate in the early church (whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to follow the law of Moses) and the delivery of the council’s verdict (Acts 15:1-35). And the very next scene (Acts 16:1-5) shows Paul circumcising a new protege on account of local Jewish sensibilities and the knowledge of Timothy’s Greek lineage on his father’s side (Acts 16:3). The narrator connects Timothy’s circumcision quite closely with the delivery of the Jerusalem council’s decision in that region (Acts 16:4).

That literary flow and context is a major factor leading me to conclude that the main point of Acts 15:36-16:5 is that the growth of Christ’s kingdom cannot be stopped, even when leaders must make trade offs in partners (Acts 15:36-41) and practices (Acts 16:1-5). In other words, partners and practices can change, but the grace of Jesus Christ remains the same.

So is the Paul/Barnabas split prescriptive or descriptive? In light of the main point, it’s both. And neither. The point of the text is not to provide direction on whether you ought to leave your church or split up a partnership (perhaps by demonstrating what sort of circumstances would warrant a split). The point of the text is to provide larger assurance that many things will change (and should change!) in service of the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ.

So maybe you should leave your situation and maybe you shouldn’t. But maybe an even more important question this text wants you to ask is whether you (and not your environment) should change. Or your methods should change. Or your expectations or objectives. We don’t need to answer the prescriptive/descriptive question in order to apply this text in personal and profound ways.

Jonah 3

The prophet Jonah, fresh off his three-night stay inside a 5-star seaside resort, finally makes his way to Nineveh to preach what God commanded him to preach. His message is direct and to the point: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4). Is that the sort of message God’s preachers ought to be preaching to the church’s enemies?

Maybe. And maybe not. But perhaps that’s not the question this text pushes us to ask.

Jonah 3 tells the story of a salvation too strange for satire. It could not be more extreme. Jonah gets spit up by the fish. He walks only a third of the way into the bad guys’ HQ, preaching a single sentence of judgment (with neither an offer of mercy nor a demand for repentance). The response is immediate and ridiculously unlikely: All people repent. Word gets ahead of Jonah to the palace. The king immediately halts all civil operations and declares a national mourning. Even the livestock must wear itchy clothes and join the public prayer meetings.

The plot builds to the climax of verse 9: “Who knows? Maybe, just maybe God will relent.”

As the plot conflict finally resolves, God sees what the Ninevites have done, and he does, in fact, relent. He doesn’t do what he said he would do.

The main idea is that God saves the wrong kind of people. It has nothing to do with the merits of the people, the message itself, or the preacher who delivered it. It has everything to do with the God who loads his gun with mercy and keeps it on a hair-trigger setting.

So is Jonah’s preaching style and message prescriptive or descriptive? It really doesn’t matter, because the point is not to instruct God’s people in how to preach to their enemies. The point is to paint a dramatic and outrageous picture of God’s proclivity to show mercy. When we apply that main point, we might draw implications for preaching or evangelism. But it is not crucial that we figure out how to do (or avoid) what Jonah did.

Acts 2

And now for a closing example where the main point does not sideline the prescriptive/descriptive question. Should churches speak in tongues like the apostles on the Day of Pentecost, or not? Is the text prescribing such behavior, or is it simply describing a unique thing that happened that day?

In Acts 2:1-4, the proclamation of God’s works in different languages provides a sign that the Holy Spirit has come upon the disciples. The body of the chapter is organized by the answers to two questions:

What does this mean? – Acts 2:5-13
- Peter’s answer – Acts 2:14-36
What shall we do? – Acts 2:37
- Peter’s answer – Acts 2:38-40

Then a narrative conclusion exhibits the new creation community launched that day (Acts 2:41-47).

This structure emphasizes the Q&A that makes up the body of the chapter, where Peter explains what all the stuff happening in the narrative frame means. And the main point of that explanation is that the arrival of God’s Spirit is proof that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible.

So, is the disciples’ speaking in tongues prescriptive or descriptive? This time, I can’t say that the question is beside the point. One person could argue that speaking in tongues is prescribed as a way of proving to people today that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible. Another person could argue that speaking in tongues is no longer necessary; that unique event provided the proof that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible. But both of those perspectives are trying their best to faithfully apply the main point.

Please note: I am not saying (and I wasn’t saying in the previous examples) that the main point answers the prescriptive/descriptive question. In the first two examples, I was saying only that the author’s main point makes the question irrelevant and unnecessary. In this third example, the main point actually makes the prescriptive/descriptive question highly relevant.

Much more work needs to be done in context, correlation, systematic and biblical theology to answer the question of speaking in tongues in Acts 2. But the main point confirms that the question itself is well worth asking.

Conclusion

Much of the time, it is not necessary for us to figure out whether particular behaviors in a text are prescriptive or descriptive. The text’s main point reveals an agenda to produce change in some other area, and we should focus on that area instead of our prescriptive/descriptive question. In these situations, when someone asks whether a narrative detail is prescriptive or descriptive, we can sidestep the question by asking instead: What’s the author’s main point?

But in a few cases, a text’s main point confirms the crucial importance of the prescriptive/descriptive question, and our time seeking to answer the question is well spent.

Why Read Scripture in Public?

February 28, 2024 By Peter Krol

Paul commands Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture (1 Tim 4:13). But was that just something unique to Timothy? Why do churches generally make a practice of reading Scripture when the assembly is gathered for worship?

Steve Burchett runs through the entire Bible, showing that public Scripture reading has always been the practice of God’s people. From Moses to Paul, one of the main things the people of God ought to do when they gather is to read God’s Word.

…throughout biblical history, God was very interested in his people hearing his word read when they came together. They often did this, sometimes for very lengthy readings. When we read the Bible in our gatherings, we are doing what God’s people have always been expected to do, and have consistently done.

Check it out!

One Way to Settle the Prescriptive/Descriptive Debate

February 23, 2024 By Peter Krol

When I study a biblical narrative with a group of people, I find it inevitable that someone will eventually ask: “Is this prescriptive or descriptive?” In other words, is this passage prescribing particular behavior, which we ought to imitate? Or is it simply describing what the characters themselves did, but we ought not to do it ourselves?

It’s a great and important question.

medication pills isolated on yellow background — Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

Not Always Clear

Sometimes the answer is clear: A narrative’s villains are not being held up as models to emulate. So don’t betray your Lord like Judas (Matt 26:47-49), and don’t blame everyone else for your sin like Saul (1 Sam 15:12-16). And when the narrator includes explicit instruction to emulate a character, then we are on strong ground to do so: Avoid idolatry and immorality, unlike the people of Israel (1 Cor 10:6-11), and serve others like Jesus (John 13:12-17).

But sometimes the answer is not clear: Should we delegate authority and establish middle management like Moses (Ex 18:24-26)? Should we test our abusers to determine the sincerity of their confession, like Joseph (Gen 42-44)? Should we try to walk on water like Peter (Matt 14:28-30)? Should we follow Jesus’ instructions to the 70 he sent out to minister in his name (Luke 10:2-12)?

The prescriptive/descriptive question especially comes up when a person’s near-and-dear theology is at stake, either in affirmation or suspicion. Should we speak in tongues and heal people, like the apostles in Acts? Should we set out the fleece to discern God’s will like Gideon? Should we include the children of believers in covenant membership like Abraham?

General Guidance

The prescriptive/descriptive debate on any given passage is closely related to two healthy instincts. We must hold these instincts in tension and not choose one over the other.

The primary purpose of biblical narratives is to proclaim Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44-47; John 1:45, 5:39-40; 1 Peter 1:10-12; etc.).
Biblical narratives present characters as examples to either imitate or avoid (1 Cor 10:1-14; Hebrews 11; Hebrews 12:15-17; 1 John 3:11-13; etc.).

Those with deep commitment to axiom #1 will lean toward viewing biblical narratives as descriptive. Those committed to axiom #2 will lean toward viewing biblical narratives as prescriptive.

Throughout church history, debates have raged over whether to adhere to axiom 1 or axiom 2. But to affirm either one and deny the other is to make a sucker’s choice. We must adhere to both.

A Way Forward

But that only leaves us where we started. How are we to decide whether a passage is prescriptive or descriptive? Whether a character ought to be imitated or not? When should my church start casting lots to fill open leadership positions (Acts 1:26)? And when will our Christian generation learn that “grace” is not implicit permission for rampant divorce, abuse, or sexual immorality (1 Kings 9:1-9)?

I don’t have the final answer that will solve every instance of the question. But I do have a suggestion that—for most passages we study—might just eliminate the need for even asking the question.

Here it is: Focus on applying the passage’s main point and not incidental details.

Now I’ll immediately qualify that guidance by acknowledging that it is possible to apply sub-points, secondary points, or minor details in the text. However, when we do so, we are usually on shakier ground. It’s easier to get the application wrong, since not every detail in a text is equally applicable or even intended by the author to be applied.

In fact, seeking to apply minor details in the text undermines all the work we’ve done up to this point in our study. Why bother doing all that observing and interpreting, if not to understand the author’s main point? Why bother getting to the main point, if we’re just going to apply the passage any which way that seems right in our own eyes?

If the main point is—by definition—the main thing God wants his people to understand from the text, why wouldn’t we focus our application on putting that main point into practice? We could spend all our time applying secondary things and miss the most important thing.

In the next post, I plan to give some examples of how this approach often settles the debate. But in the meantime, I urge you to try it on your own. Study a narrative passage sometime in the next week. Do your best to determine the author’s main point. Then seek to apply that main point and see what happens. Does it make the prescriptive/descriptive question disappear?

I guarantee it won’t answer all your questions about whether particular characters or parts of the text are prescriptive or descriptive. But it will enable you to land on solid ground in your application, in a way that may be highly motivating and might just change lives for God’s glory. Try it and let me know what happens!

Whose Body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit?

February 21, 2024 By Peter Krol

I’ve argued before, from the context, that 1 Cor 6:19 is not a catch-all prohibition against anything and everything a person can do to their body (tattoos, alcohol, smoking, etc.). Nicholas Piotrowski and Ryan Johnson take it another step further to clarify what exactly Paul means by “your body.”

They carefully observe the grammar, context, and flow of thought through the entire letter of 1 Corinthians to conclude that “your body” is not, after all, your own body but the larger community (the body of Christ).

The trouble is that the Bible consistently speaks of one temple for the one God. So if each Christian’s individual body were a temple in and of itself, then that would mean God has millions of isolated temples all over the world. There is a bit of a theological problem with this.

I need to consider this further myself, especially since the “body” appears to refer to an individual’s physical in 1 Cor 6:18, the immediately preceding sentence. But perhaps my familiarity is clouding my observation of that verse as well!

Piotrowski and Johnson give four very good reasons for reading the verse in a corporate way, and I encourage you to give their reasons your own consideration.

Check it out!

Why “What Does it Mean to Me?” is a Bad Question

February 16, 2024 By Peter Krol

Our method for Bible study can be summarized with just three letters—OIA—which represent three skills that govern all human communication: observe, interpret, and apply. Those three skills provide the answers to three basic questions:

What does it say?
What does it mean?
How should I change?

Over the years, I’ve regularly heard well-meaning folks ask that third question—the question of application—in this way: What doest it mean to me?

That question has the benefits of rhythm and resonance. It flows right off the tongue to recite: “What does it say, what does it mean, what does it mean to me.” And that rhythm can certainly aid with memory.

However, the costs we pay in clarity and accuracy are not worth the gains of memorability, for at least four reasons.

a bearded man pointing at his plain white shirt — Photo by MART PRODUCTION on Pexels.com

It confuses application with interpretation.

By asking “what does it mean?” we are doing the work of interpretation. We are figuring out why the original author says what he says, and what that meant to the original audience. By using the same verbiage of “what does it mean,” despite the qualifier “to me,” we communicate that we are doing the same thing, only with a different audience in view.

Why does that matter? Who cares if we do (or communicate that we are doing) the same thing for different audiences? That leads me to the second reason that “what does it mean to me?” is a bad question.

It relativizes truth.

The question presumes that meaning is a matter of indifference. That a text’s meaning depends on who reads it. On how they perceive it. And so a text can mean one thing to one person or community, and another thing to a different group.

When we relativize the truth in this way, we ought not be surprised when the realities of Scripture are brought into question whenever they grow too inconvenient. For example, many who once stood for the Bible’s definition of marriage have come to interpret those pesky passages to have a different meaning, now that severe cultural pressure has been exerted.

And while I’m a fan of relativizing application, we must not do the same with interpretation. A passage doesn’t mean what any reader believes it means. A passage means what the author meant by it. For this reason, the concept of meaning carries much weight and is not something with which to tamper.

Wi to the intent to apply, it makes sense to ask “what does the text mean for me?” That question prods for implications and applications. But to ask what the text means to me is to tamper with its meaning.

You can choose to agree with the text or disagree with it. You can like it or dislike it. But you can’t change what it means. Do you see what I mean?

It makes application an exercise in self-fulfillment.

I recently wrote a thank-you note to a generous person who did something extraordinary for my family. In that note, I said, “it means so much to me that you…” That phrase, “what it means to me,” has a particular force and use in modern English, which has more to do with inspiration and delight than with truth or understanding.

The average person in today’s Western world, hearing the question “what does that mean to you?” doesn’t naturally hear a challenge or stimulation toward life change. That person hears an expression of self-fulfillment.

And self-fulfillment is not always a bad thing (as long as it’s not a godless or ultimate thing). I hope many people find great satisfaction and delight in their study of God’s word. But such satisfaction and delight is not the same thing as robust application.

It predisposes application to only one direction.

By asking “what does it mean to me,” we communicate momentum from the text to the individual reading it. Perhaps unintentionally, this frames what is happening as something that terminates on the reader. Therefore, even if the question itself is understood as one of application and not interpretation, it sets the reader up for inward application alone. The reader is not likely to consider outward application as well.

And since many of us are already naturally inclined to forget application’s second direction, we don’t need to reinforce the inclination with the way we frame the question.

Conclusion

For these reasons, we have never recommended “what does it mean to me” as a way to summarize the application step. We prefer to ask “How should I change?”

That doesn’t mean I’ll start flipping tables if I’m in your Bible study and you ask “What does this text mean to you?” I promise I’ll do my best to be polite. But I’ll also do my best to reframe the resulting discussion in a more useful way.

Help with Zechariah

February 14, 2024 By Peter Krol

I’ve been leading my church’s preaching team through series on Jonah and Nahum over the last few months. I’m really enjoying the Lord’s messages for us in the minor prophets.

And I once considered Zechariah to be the most difficult book of the Bible to grasp. Perhaps it is, but Steven McCarthy is here to help.

McCarthy broadly walks through the book’s structure, explaining the main idea of each of the visions before covering the oracles of the book’s second half. Here is a taster:

Zechariah, along with his counterpart Haggai, speaks from this period of return from exile in Babylon and rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. (Ezra 5:1-2) He does so with a broad scope and a heavily symbolic style. Whereas Haggai’s burden is laser-focused on the specific priority of rebuilding God’s temple, Zechariah’s burden is more generally for the people to be spiritually and morally disposed for God’s renewal and fulfillment of his covenant relationship with them. Indeed, God’s grace trains us “to renounce ungodliness”. (Titus 2:11-14) The book of Zechariah leads us to the conclusion that only Christ’s coming itself will make God’s people into a fitting community for the LORD’s dwelling.

My only hesitation is that McCarthy is quick to suggest that the second half of Zechariah is “about” Jesus and his work. Certainly, the New Testament shows the fulfillment of Zechariah in the work of Christ. But I would prefer to first clarify what the text meant to the original audience (who did not know who Jesus was), and only then talk about the fulfillment in Christ.

But despite this minor qualification, McCarthy’s brief comments are well worth your time. He will enable you to get your bearings in this important book.

Check it out!

3 Implications of the Fact that Bible Application is for Everybody

February 9, 2024 By Peter Krol

In the “longer ending” of Mark’s gospel, Jesus says, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). Though some dispute the authenticity of Mark’s longer ending, I’m not aware of anyone disputing this fundamental instruction for the Christian Church (Matt 28:18-20, Col 1:23, Rev 14:6).

From this command, we can deduce that the Bible (which preserves and explains the gospel) has relevance to all people in all the world. That, in turn, means that anybody, anywhere, at any time in history can apply the Bible.

Perhaps that fact seems obvious. But what are some of its implications?

flowers and fruits on a table — Photo by Jill Wellington on Pexels.com

1. The same application will land differently in different cultures

Jesus warns that “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Practical applications of this warning are generally not terribly controversial in western dignity cultures, but they are far more difficult and excruciating for those in eastern honor cultures.

By contrast, Jesus said that “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt 5:32). Eastern honor cultures may tend to follow this command more closely, while those in western dignity cultures sometimes tend to focus more on the exceptions than the rule itself.

2. Different people may legitimately adopt opposite applications

Jesus told one person that following him meant leaving his family behind (Luke 9:59-60). He told another person that following him meant returning to his family (Mark 5:19-20).

He told one guy to sell everything and give it to the poor (Mark 10:21-22). He told others to make different use of their money (Luke 16:9).

The point is that many applications that fit your situation will not fit other people’s situations. The same principle (e.g. investing in eternity) may take different expression for different people. Let each be fully convinced in their own mind (Rom 14:5).

3. Particular applications may mature along with the person

A child-like faith is to be commended (Mark 10:15). A childish approach to human relationship is not (1 Cor 13:11, 16:13).

For one person, simply saying “hello” to a stranger might be an act of selfless obedience to Christ. But as that person matures, that “hello” ought to grow into more mature expressions of evangelism and love for neighbor.

Bible application is for everybody. What other implications of that fact can you think of?

Piper on Finding the Main Point of a Chapter

February 7, 2024 By Peter Krol

The climax of the interpretation phase of Bible study is to determine the author’s main point. I have observed that skill to be one of the most difficult things for people to learn.

So here is some additional advice from John Piper. He describes his general process, using the metaphor of a 500-piece puzzle, and then he models it with the example of Psalm 8.

So, the point is to look at the pieces very carefully, to fit them together in midsize units, to jot down the main points of the midsize units until you have them all on a half sheet of paper, and then to think and think, and pray and pray, and think and pray and think and pray, and to organize and draw lines, and to try to fit them all together until they fall into place and you see how these five, six, seven, eight, nine points of the midsize units are in a flow that make one big overarching point. You will be surprised, if you take up pencil and paper and do this, what you will see.

Check it out!

Why You Can’t Ditch the Old Testament

January 31, 2024 By Peter Krol

Michael Kruger has a fabulous article explaining why recent attempt to ditch or diminish the Old Testament in the teaching of the Christian church are wrong-headed.

Kruger explains:

I think it’s worth taking a deep breath and stepping back for a moment to remind ourselves of the big picture. Regardless of how one handles these individual objections from the OT (and I am not trying to answer them here), we need to remember why the OT matters in the first place. Here are three reasons why the OT might actually matter a lot more than we think.

His three reasons are:

The Old Testament is the Framework of the Work of Christ
The OT is the Framework for Our Identity as Believers
The Old Testament is a Guide for the Christian Life

In short: Without the Old Testament, you cannot understand who Jesus is, what he has done, or what he wants you to do to follow him.

Check it out!

Application Positive and Negative

January 26, 2024 By Peter Krol

I’ve been trying to help you stretch your capacity for Bible application. Application is like a muscle; the more you overwork it, the greater your strength for it.

So I’ve highlighted the fact that application involves not only doing but also thinking and loving. I’ve encouraged you to press into all three spheres, especially heart application. We’ve looked at the chief opponents of legalism and license. And most recently, I urged you to consider not only yourself but also how you can better disciple other people.

The next exercise for stretching your application muscles is to consider both positive and negative applications.

Image by Rudy and Peter Skitterians from Pixabay

Paul’s Formula for Change

When you seek to apply the Bible, the key question is: How should I change? And wouldn’t it be great if the Bible described for us a clear process for change?

In the letter of Ephesians, Paul encourages his readers to change. He wants them to stop thinking and acting like unbelievers (Eph 4:17-19) and to live in light of their calling in Christ instead (Eph 4:1). To help them do this, he reminds them of how they first “learned Christ”—i.e. how they became Christians in the first place (Eph 4:20).

That process of change—regardless of whether the change is from non-Christian to Christian, or from less mature Christian to more mature Christian—is as follows:

Put off your old self (Eph 4:22)
Renew your mind (Eph 4:23)
Put on the new self (Eph 4:24)

We can restate these steps as:

Stop disobeying
Adopt God’s perspective of the world
Start obeying

Theologically, this process involves a continual transformation from being like Adam (the old man) and becoming like Jesus (the new man). But in practical terms, it involves simple disobedience and obedience, with a worldview adjustment in between.

Examples of the Process

Paul then provides four specific examples of the process (Eph 4:25-29) followed by a concluding summary (Eph 4:30-32). In each of the four examples he explicitly follows the three-step process, though he sometimes mixes up the order.

Example #1: Lies (Eph 4:25)

Put off: “put away falsehood”
Put on: “let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor”
Renew the mind: “we are members of one another”

It’s not enough for the compulsive liar to simply stop telling lies. He must replace lying behaviors with truthful ones, searching for opportunities to speak the truth to help others. The only way to do this from the heart is to change your view of other people: Don’t see them as adversaries you must defend yourself against, but as members of your body whom you are compelled to help succeed.

Example #2: Sinful anger (Eph 4:26-27)

Put on: “be angry without sinning”
Put off: “do not let the sun go down on your anger”
Renew the mind: “give no opportunity to the devil”

Have you ever tried to deal with your anger by just telling yourself “Don’t be angry!” Yeah, it doesn’t work. That’s because anger is a legitimate response to that which is wrong in the world. The problem most people have is not that they are angry, but that they allow their anger to justify sinful treatment of others. One effect of anger is that it just makes us feel so right.

Paul’s solution is to be angry without sinning. There is such a thing as patient anger. Gentle anger. Kind anger. Loving anger. Anger that doesn’t demand to be the last word (the sun going down on it). How does one cultivate such anger? Only by adopting the Lord’s perspective that sinful, demanding anger gives the devil a swift opportunity to rip relationships apart. You don’t really want him to do that, do you? Then direct your anger toward him instead of toward your fellow members of Christ’s body (cf. Eph 6:12).

I encourage you to work through the examples of theft (Eph 4:28) and rotten speech (Eph 4:29) on your own. How does Paul model the same three steps to produce change with respect to each of those sins?

Application Applications

How does Paul’s process apply to the process of applying the Bible?

First off: His step of renewing the mind is very much what I mean by head application. Paul shows us that application is more than doing; it must also impact our thinking, our faith, and our worldview.

Second, even when he speaks about doing, Paul provides application that is both negative and positive. He describes behaviors that must stop, and other behaviors that ought to replace the first ones.

The Bible’s chief word for negative, “put off” application is repentance. The Bible’s chief word for positive, “put on” application is obedience. Both repentance and obedience could properly be called “application.”

So you’ve now got a bunch of tools to help you get out of your application rut. If you find yourself frequently coming up with nothing but the big three—read the Bible more; pray more; share the gospel more—stretch your application muscles with some of the following exercises:

Consider not only the hands (doing) but also the head (believing) and heart (loving or valuing).
Consider not only inward application (for yourself) but also outward application (how God would have you influence or disciple others).
Consider both negative (repentance) and positive (obedience) applications.

More tools are still to come!

« Previous Page