Lonnie Oldag's guest appearances

Lonnie Oldag

Citizen of Heaven

Jordan Peterson

Donald Trump

Greta Thunberg

Mike Rowe

Max Lucado

Jonathan Edwards

Carli Lloyd

Stephen Russell

Phil Robertson

Scott Taylor

Brie Larson

Jack Reacher

Aaron Burr

Alison Balsom

James Bible

OwlTail

Steve Wolfgang

A pattern is a template, a plan used to construct something — whether it’s a dress, a house, or in our case, a Christian. It can be specific, it can be general. But to build the item in question, it must be followed.Today I’m joined by Lonnie Oldag, who shepherds and preaches for the Quinn church of Christ in Russelville, Alabama; and Steve Wolfgang, the evangelist for the Downer’s Grove church of Christ in suburban Chicago; We will discuss whether Biblical patterns exist, and if so how we identify and follow them.I’ve been preaching about types and antitypes. Hebrews 8:5 reminds us how worship during Moses’ day was done “according to the pattern.” And since Hebrews is all about putting the old law into a Jesus framework, we should be as meticulous about our worship today in the church, God’s holy temple, as they were in their day. That’s the argument I’ve heard all my life and made for most of it. Is it a fair use of Scripture? And what other examples can we see of old covenant theology fleshed out in the gospel?I’ve been reading two books. The first is “Searching for the Pattern,” by John Mark Hicks, which describes how he came to reject what he calls a “pattern hermeneutic.” The second is “The Simple Pattern,” a collection of essays edited by Jim Deason. Perhaps someone should have introduced these brethren to one another; the complexity of the pattern, especially the use of “approved examples,” is one of the main reasons Bro. Hicks wound up rejecting it. What exactly constitutes an example? And does example constitute binding law?I’ve been playing New York 1901. Players participate in the vertical growth of Manhattan Island. “Bronze era” buildings, perfectly fine at the beginning of the game, eventually are razed to build “Silver era” and ultimately “Gold era” ones to accommodate modern times and preferences. It’s the American way. Why keep something simply because it’s old when something cleaner, stronger and more efficient can be built in its place?Most Americans look at the church in the same way. The idea of going back to the days of traveling on donkeys and writing on papyrus seems ridiculous on the face of it, in any context. And no one would argue against evolving tactics and technology. But should doctrine evolve as well? And can we stop it even if we want to?

A pattern is a template, a plan used to construct something — whether it’s a dress, a house, or in our case, a Christian. It can be specific, it can be general. But to build the item in question, it must be followed.Today I’m joined by Lonnie Oldag, who shepherds and preaches for the Quinn church of Christ in Russelville, Alabama; and Steve Wolfgang, the evangelist for the Downer’s Grove church of Christ in suburban Chicago; We will discuss whether Biblical patterns exist, and if so how we identify and follow them.I’ve been preaching about types and antitypes. Hebrews 8:5 reminds us how worship during Moses’ day was done “according to the pattern.” And since Hebrews is all about putting the old law into a Jesus framework, we should be as meticulous about our worship today in the church, God’s holy temple, as they were in their day. That’s the argument I’ve heard all my life and made for most of it. Is it a fair use of Scripture? And what other examples can we see of old covenant theology fleshed out in the gospel?I’ve been reading two books. The first is “Searching for the Pattern,” by John Mark Hicks, which describes how he came to reject what he calls a “pattern hermeneutic.” The second is “The Simple Pattern,” a collection of essays edited by Jim Deason. Perhaps someone should have introduced these brethren to one another; the complexity of the pattern, especially the use of “approved examples,” is one of the main reasons Bro. Hicks wound up rejecting it. What exactly constitutes an example? And does example constitute binding law?I’ve been playing New York 1901. Players participate in the vertical growth of Manhattan Island. “Bronze era” buildings, perfectly fine at the beginning of the game, eventually are razed to build “Silver era” and ultimately “Gold era” ones to accommodate modern times and preferences. It’s the American way. Why keep something simply because it’s old when something cleaner, stronger and more efficient can be built in its place? Most Americans look at the church in the same way. The idea of going back to the days of traveling on donkeys and writing on papyrus seems ridiculous on the face of it, in any context. And no one would argue against evolving tactics and technology. But should doctrine evolve as well? And can we stop it even if we want to?

PATTERNS: Guests Lonnie Oldag and Steve Wolfgang.