The last post dealt with a general scenario about what was clear and explicit in scripture being extended to a similar position in which the Bible was granted to be silent. Nice discussion so far as hypothetical general scenarios go. Now, perhaps a specific case study that is actively and sometimes contentiously debated to put into practice what we have as yet handled just theoretically.
1 Timothy 3:2,4 and 12 says the following: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect...," and "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must handle his children and household well." This is a clear and explicit establishment of men in the position of overseer (elder, bishop) and deacon in church leadership. The Bible, however, is silent on the issue of women in the same position of leadership. By silent we mean that we do not read explicitly worded anywhere in scripture something like "the overseer who is a woman must be the wife of but one husband, faithful to her children and husband;" nor do we read something like "only men are allowed to be elder or deacon, women shall not be allowed in positions of elder or deacon." So what are we to believe about women as elder or deacon. Well we look through the Bible and find the general principle of loving God, serving God and effective leadership to be a good thing. We also find the general principle of working together in the church as a body, each with their own part to make the whole body function. We also find the general principle of spiritual gifts, of individuals being called to specific gifts and functioning within those gifts. We find principles of love and grace toward one another. We look to churches thoughout the nation and see with ever-increasing regularity embracing women in positions of elder and deacon. Therefore, since the Bible is silent on women as elder and deacon, and since we see many general principles and our observation of church operation today, we fix our position that God is pleased when capable, and responsible adults serve joyfully in positions of leadership in the local church. We therefore endorse and celebrate women in the position of elder and deacon. We further purpose to defend this position against all who would draw some line of non-compromise on an issue in which the Bible is silent and which encompasses so many general qualities otherwise stated to be good throughout scripture, and to encourage those holding to such hardline positions to see the danger in their uncompromising belief.
What do you think about this position? Totally agree? Any problems?
Think about it carefully and then scroll down for my take, and let me know your thoughts.
Suppose you ask me to play chess. I've never played chess before, but I like your company and have always wanted to learn. You bring out your board (made of etched glass), your pieces (a nice hand carved ebony and ivory set) and your rule book and spend hours teaching me the rules, the spaces on the board the vernacular of the game, the pieces names, their strengths and weaknesses and how they move around the board, and how the end result can be a win or draw and what compromises either outcome. I thank you for your time and ask you to come to my house the next day to play our first game. You arrive at my house and i'm excited to see you express how ready I am to play and lead you into my living room where I have everything set up. You take a look around and ask me what's going on. I tell you I don't know what you mean, I have the board and pieces ready to go. You point out that I have the gameboard for SORRY! set out with sixteen "good" Lego Star Wars figures and sixteen "bad" Lego Star Wars figures scattered all over the board. And so naturally I ask you what the problem is, you told me explicitly what chess was (board, pieces, goal of the game, rules) but I noted that generally speaking games are fun, that there are lots of different kinds of games, that games are meant for two people to have a good time and since you never told me that a SORRY! board and Lego Star Wars pieces couldn't be used, obviously this is just legitimate an arrangement as what you went over with me yesterday.
The principle is very simple. If a single set of explicit standards or arrangements are presented, implicit in that explicit establishment is the understanding that one need not exhaustively reject all other possible arrangements. The fact that it is established in the Bible that the office of elder and deacon are set out for men (of but one wife, who handles his family well and children show him proper respect, etc.) implicitly leaves out all other arrangements. One doesn't even have to spend time saying - "The Bible condemns women in all places of such leadership." It is obvious and explicit as well as implied that the only arrangement for church leadership established by God through the revealed Word is men, not women. The arrangement simply should not be recognized.
Now, having established men who are husbands of one wife, and who manages his family well, and meets the other requirements for either elder or deacon; one can ask questions about what qualities a married man that handles his family well might bring to church leadership that God felt important in the local body; about how that structure agrees with other arrangements throughout scripture; about how that arrangement should impact other members of the body and how it should augment our worship of God who set those established framework in place. In short, we should not look at general principles and what we observe around us as common practice to see what arrangements that are not clearly and explicitly established we can incorporate into what is clear and explicit. Rather, we should read what is clear and explicit, endorse and celebrate that which is clear and explicit and spend our time meditating on why God established it in that clear and explicit manner. To do otherwise is to run the risk of endorsing and celebrating that which is in direct opposition to what was clearly and explicitly established by God; to stand on dangerous ground.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteTherefore, since the Bible is silent on women as elder and deacon, and since we see many general principles and our observation of church operation today, we fix our position that God is pleased when capable, and responsible adults serve joyfully in positions of leadership in the local church.
What do you think about this position?
To consider that, based on the 1. Silence in the Bible on the topic, 2. the general notion of approving the general arrangement (in this case, of positions of ministry/leadership), to 3. then reach the conclusion that God is generally pleased when we fill these positions/perform these tasks seems reasonable to me.
That some churches have done so is not a pertinent factor in this equation at all (and so, if you were trying to make a parallel between what I mean by real world evidence and this particular case, it's not an apt comparison, for what it's worth).
Some problems with this approach, though, beyond the general conclusion, which I think is fair...
1. It appears to me that you are treating the Bible as a rule book. Thus, when this NT passage describes the role of the deacon, to reach the conclusion that this is the one and only possible set of "rules" for what a deacon must be for all times and in all circumstances does not seem to me to be rational or biblical.
The Bible makes no claim to be a rule book for all people and all time. It is a series of God-inspired books that are profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correction and training in righteousness, but it says nothing of being a rule book about how to fill such positions in all circumstances. To treat it thusly seems to me to be anti-biblical and minimizing its actual teachings and the work of the Holy Spirit.
2.That a set of rules put in place in a patriarchal society thousands of years ago does not mention women leadership would say more about the society at the time than it does about hard and fast rules and God's preferences on church leadership.
3. To presume an opposing position to women in roles such as deacons and elders would be contrary to other biblical teachings, thus not a consistent understanding of the teachings found within the Bible.
What do you think?
As to this...
ReplyDeleteThe fact that it is established in the Bible that the office of elder and deacon are set out for men (of but one wife, who handles his family well and children show him proper respect, etc.) implicitly leaves out all other arrangements.
A. As noted earlier, this begs the question: Is the Bible a rule book with specific list of behaviors implied for all times in all circumstances for all people? IF the Bible is a strict rulebook, this MIGHT make sense. But who says the Bible is a strict rule book? Not the bible.
Agreed?
B. The fact that a list of qualifications specifically mentions some characteristics does not implicitly leave out all other arrangements. MAYBE, IF the Bible was a strict, hard and fast rule book AND this text said, "This and only this is applicable now and for all times and circumstances," you could say it is implicit. Short of that, calling it implicit is too strong, I'd suggest. You might reasonably say, "IT suggests TO ME that these are rules that would preclude women leadership," but the text does not demand that interpretation, I'd suggest.
Consider this: In Lev 20, the text says CLEARLY "Men shall not lie with men. If they do, you must kill them." Now, just because the text outlines a general guideline, do you think it is implicit that we ought to actually kill men who lay with men? Or, might there be other considerations to toss into the mix?
OR, consider that Jesus clearly and specifically tells his disciples, "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven..."
IF the Bible is a strict rule book, then would you say it is implicit that all Jesus' disciples in all times/circumstances must sell all our possessions and give them to the poor?
Would it not be more reasonable to conclude, 1. that the Bible is NOT a hard and fast rule book and 2. just because a behavior is mentioned in a list of how to do something, does not mean that it is implicit that this way AND ONLY THIS WAY is the way to do it?
Dan T.,
ReplyDelete"That some churches have done so is not a pertinent factor in this equation at all (and so, if you were trying to make a parallel between what I mean by real world evidence and this particular case, it's not an apt comparison, for what it's worth)."
I'm glad to hear you agree that it is not pertinent, but some people make extensions. When you say real world evidence, observable moral values, and observable phenomena some might interpret that to mean "look around at other churches at see what they are doing. Yeah, there are a lot of churches with well-intentioned believers with women as elders and deacons that have a lot of members. That, in addition to all the other reasons is really compelling." That part wasn't directed at you or your position, just those who might make extensions from what is your position. Since you brought it up, I did ask if commentaries, work of Biblical scholars and research from the teams of people who critique the original documents we have to study translations, things like that was the full extent of what you do consider "real world evidence" but you never answered. Would you care to clarify what exactly you mean by that term. Not an exhausitve list, just some more detailed clarification for those who might make extensions.
"It appears to me that you are treating the Bible as a rule book."
Luckily you know that I don't. If you recall we wrote about this very topic. We both agreed that the Bible is the Word of Truth that did contain some universally applicable rules to follow, but is not exclusively a "book of rules."
Continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteContinued...
"3. To presume an opposing position to women in roles such as deacons and elders would be contrary to other biblical teachings, thus not a consistent understanding of the teachings found within the Bible.
What do you think?"
I think I probably won't accept an invitation from you to play chess.
You seem stuck on the OT laws and you asked what I think so i'll just present an approach that might help out. The Bible is sufficient for knowing God's will and obeying his commands (the way to love Him). So interpret the Bible with the Bible. Think about this question: What does the Bible say beyond that? So for your example of "Men shall not lie with men. If they do you must kill them." What does God say beyond that? For the Isrealites when that was established by God, nothing. If men lay with men then they should be killed, that is what was prescribed and that was all God said. What about for us today? What does God say beyond that? Re-read my last comment in the previous thread. Behavior still sexual immorality - not a man and woman in a marriage covenant relationship so the guilt remains, but the penalty has been paid. The law has not been abolished, just satisfied (I know, I know we're back to Jesus as a sacrifice again, but you see how important that clear understanding is). So, the behavior is still wrong, but we don't kill the perpetrators any more because the penalty has been paid - Christ on the cross.
Works the same way for your dietary restrictions. What about for the Isrealites at the time? What did God say beyond the restrictions - nothing. They were forbidden to eat of those items. What about for us now? What did God say beyond that? Nothing is restricted if it is taken with thanksgiving. OK, so no Isrealite had the option to decide that God created food as part of His creative work and food is intended for nourishment and food tasted good so it was OK then to decide that a specific mollusk was OK to eat because it wasn't specifically mentioned, and today we have what God said beyond that so we can eat lobster, shrimp, etc. if we take it with thanksgiving.
Now the example of elders. What does the Bible say? Men must be the husbands of but one wife. What does the God say beyond that? Nothing. Then Men as elder and deacon is how God established the church to be arranged with no further revelation. The fact that it was given to the people of the 1st century has absolutely no bearing on its applicability. What matters is what God has said. The Bible is not just a book of rules, it is far more precious - it is God-breathed and useful for training in righteousness. So we don't just approach it as a set of abstract rules to follow, we look at what God has said and see any violation of that a violation of a person. Seems based on that and the above logic that making extensions where God has not said anything beyond what we read would be hypothetically and specifically dangerous.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteWould you care to clarify what exactly you mean by that term. Not an exhausitve list, just some more detailed clarification for those who might make extensions.
I'm speaking of any reasonable real world evidence, Jeremy. Here, you tell me specifically if you agree or disagree with the idea of trusting the source and, if not, why not...
Scholarly research into ancient language usage?
Scholarly research into architectural studies into ancient places?
Scholarly research into the age of the earth/universe?
Scholarly research into ancient cultures of biblical times?
Scholarly research into ancient storytelling styles?
Scholarly research into human psychology?
Scholarly research into human physiology/biology?
Scholarly research into historic events?
A better understanding of any of these can help better understand the Biblical context and God's ways, it would seem to me. I can't imagine how it wouldn't.
Jeremy, this is a little confusing, but I think I get what you're saying, so let me proceed...
ReplyDeleteBehavior still sexual immorality - not a man and woman in a marriage covenant relationship so the guilt remains, but the penalty has been paid.
And I'd have to say, “Hold on. WHAT behavior is still “sexual immorality?” You appear to be making a presumption that “men shall not lie with men” - which is a law specifically for ancient Israel – means any and all gay behavior in any/all times is wrong. But you've jumped a bit. WHO SAYS that is a rule for any/all gay behavior in any/all times?
To make that presumption is stepping way beyond what the text says. It's adding to the text what isn't there. How did you get from this ancient rule for an specific people to it being a universal rule?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteTo your first point: help to understand Biblical context, yes - better understand God's ways, probably not. His ways are not our ways and no amount of scholarly research can effect that. I am making a distinction between knowing the context and the requirement for understanding God's will, and i've done so previously by stating my belief that the Bible is sufficient for understanding God's will and how to live a right moral life. Perhaps it would be best explained by illustration. I believe that if a person were locked away in prison for his/her beliefs and had nothing but the Bible, that the Holy Spirit could work in that believers life and he/she could understand God's will with the Word of Truth and the Holy Spirit working in and through his/her conscience. The only things are helpful but not necessary, that is why the Bible is sufficient. The other things are nice if you have them, but oftentimes because we have them we elevate them and feel like we cannot really know God without them. That is too high a place to elevate reference material, in my opinion.
Having said that, if the list you gave is all you are thinking relative to "real world experience" then I did misunderstand and did attribute that wrong understanding to your position, for which I apologize. I will make that connection relative to your position no longer (at least not intentionally).
Continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteContinued...
You wrote: "WHO SAYS that is a rule for any/all gay behavior in any/all times?
To make that presumption is stepping way beyond what the text says. It's adding to the text what isn't there. How did you get from this ancient rule for an specific people to it being a universal rule?"
Who says...God says, if all scripture is God-breathed and useful for instruction in righteousness. I referred you to my previous response as I thought it would have been fresh in your mind, but I will copy it below for your immediate reference.
"As to the behavioral aspect of physical intimacy (what is legitimate in terms of physical legitimacy):
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number: fill the earth and subdue it.'"
"It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
From this it is clear we are to honor God with our bodies, sexual immorality is a sin, a man and woman are to marry to avoid sexual immorality because it is rampant and that the married man and woman are to be physically intimate to be fruitful and multiply and except in times of prayer. Therefore, sexual activity other than a married man and woman is considered to be sinful."
The law was given at the time to ancient Israel, but it was universal so long as God said nothing else. That is the point. Go back to 100 years before Christ and that law was still applicable because God had not said anything else. For the early church and for us today, however, God said something beyond that law, see above. So the act and attitude of sexual immorality applies anywhere outside a married man and woman and the guilt remains, but the penalty has been paid so we don't kill the perpetrators who commit those acts (again, because of what God said beyond the initial given law). This is not a leap or presumption, just looking at what God said. If you can show where God said anything beyond that, where any other arrangement outside a married man and woman is not sexual immorality, then I would be willing to consider that. Otherwise, no other argument from man will sway me here or there.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteI believe that if a person were locked away in prison for his/her beliefs and had nothing but the Bible, that the Holy Spirit could work in that believers life and he/she could understand God's will with the Word of Truth and the Holy Spirit working in and through his/her conscience.
I'll go you one step further, my brother: I would say God alone is sufficient and, even with no Bible, God can and does make God's Self known through all of Creation, through our own conscience, through the Holy Spirit.
Agreed?
The Bible is helpful, and knowledge in general is helpful, but none of it is required or a necessity. Nonetheless, knowledge and wisdom and the Bible are all helpful.
Agreed?
Jeremy...
Having said that, if the list you gave is all you are thinking relative to "real world experience" then I did misunderstand and did attribute that wrong understanding to your position, for which I apologize.
Thank you, it is appreciated. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteWho says...God says, if all scripture is God-breathed and useful for instruction in righteousness.
This sounds presumptive, to me. God has not said that "THIS FORM OF MARRIAGE as spoken of in ancient Israel and even in the early church, THIS FORM is the one true accepted way for all humanity in all times..." It sounds like you are adding to the Bible what is not there, making a presumption that the Scriptures don't endorse.
To use your chess game analogy, it's as if you found an ancient game that was similar to chess and you found ancient rules to that game, written in an ancient language that was translated to English and YOU THOUGHT you had a pretty good understanding of the ancient rules for that ancient game and said, "Let's play chess!" but then started playing the game based on your understanding of the ancient rules, not modern chess rules.
Why would we presume the ancient chess-like rules are the rules to play by today? Did the chess-like game creator TELL us that "THESE are the rules for this and any other chess like games that will be played in the future..."?
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but it sounds like to me there is a lot of presumption that modern rules should comply to SOME folk's understanding of SOME ancient rules, but not ALL ancient rules.
Who decided we should stick to the ancient rules (but only SOME of the ancient rules) given specifically to a particular time and people? Who decided who gets to determine WHO gets to decide which rules are still good rules and which rules are no longer needed?
It seems to me that we err if we say, "We should let GOD decide which rules still apply... And GOD thinks the same as I do on this point..."
Do you see the potential for going astray in that scenario?
One more...
ReplyDeleteThe law was given at the time to ancient Israel, but it was universal so long as God said nothing else. That is the point.
Who says? God NEVER said anything to contradict that we should not cut the hair on the side of our heads, so we should still abide by that ancient rule? God NEVER said anything to contradict the accepted practices of polygamy or concubinism, are those still valid? God NEVER said that farmers ought not set aside a portion of their farms to be harvested by the poor, is that still valid?
You get the point, I'm sure: I could give a list of ancient rules that were never "dismissed" anywhere in the Bible and yet which no conservatives think still apply.
Who says these laws are - or aren't - universal any more?
Again, this seems a bit presumptive to me and that we'd be in danger of conflating our opinions with God's in making such blanket statements about these ancient rules.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI don't know that you can move to no need for the Bible. God has established it as His revelation of Himself to His creation. We at least are told in scripture to test the spirits, which means there are some number of multiple spirits and there must be some means against which to measure them. That is the Bible. I have heard testimony of people who have no Bible who see visions of Christ and come looking for someone to tell them who this Christ is. God can certainly, in complete absence of everything else work through the Holy Spirit, but even in the beginning there was the Word and so the Word is sufficient even if not in every case necessary. Not really worth quibbling so long as we understand that the Bible is sufficient. Ultimately salvation comes in only one way and anyone who is in heaven will be there based on what Christ has done, regardless of what they have available at the time in terms of physical resources.
Second, I fail to see how refusing to do anything other than obey what God has said can be presumptive. The only two questions I am asking are (1) What has God said?, and (2) What has God said beyond that? This is God establishing the arrangements and so as long as we don't deviate from what God has established my analogy holds for the cases I have presented, so far as analogies go.
Third, you completely skipped over the case in point you proposed to me and the one I presented in the post. You can go on and on for days with length of hair, how to treat aliens, treatment of the diseased, what to do on the Sabbath, etc. Before we move on to any other "OT laws" could you please address what I presented with respect to elders and deacons, or my response to your "men shall not lie with men, if they do then kill them" issue. If we cannot come to agreement on how to handle those two issues which are so commonly discussed today then we will never get to an understanding by moving all over the map to other more obscure or less discussed matters, it seems to me. You can begin by answering the following:
Is it presumptuous to base your position solely on what God said as it is clear in the Word?
Do you believe all scripture to be God-breathed and useful for training in righteousness?
What did God say beyond 1 Timothy regarding the establishment of church leadership that would include any other arrangement than men who are husbands of one wife? Put another way, what scripture do you go to to determine that God only intended that arrangement for the 1st century believers and that the structure could be changed in future generations? Without such scriptural support how would making such an extension be less presumptuous than just taking what is clearly written as what God intended?
Do you disagree with the explicit writing of 1 Corinthians that I presented regarding marriage and any other arrangement for sexual intimacy?
Where is the logic wrong to ask what God says (what is explicit in the Word), and then once determined what did God say beyond that and taking as applicable the point at which God says nothing else (applying the last revelation)?
That's a lot of questions and would be a great start if you would handle those before moving on to hair cutting or any other example. I believe once we can come to a reasonable way to look at these two it should be applicable to any others you might have. (Assuming we can agree to what is reasonable.)
Jeremy...
ReplyDelete(1) What has God said?, and (2) What has God said beyond that?
About homosexuality, in general?
God has said nothing about homosexuality in general. Not in the Bible, not anywhere else of which I'm aware.
In the OT, God condemns "gay rape," as well as straight rape.
Beyond that, in the OT, God has said that ISRAEL should not be like the pagans around her, engaging in various sexual rites and practices.
What has God said beyond that?
In the NT, not much. In Romans, we see again that gay pagan rituals are condemned.
Beyond that? Nothing.
As far as I can see, God has said nothing about homosexuality in general.
With respect to elders and deacons IN THE DAY AND TIME of the early church, Paul wrote that IN THAT DAY AND SPECIFIC PLACE, that they should be men with the qualifications listed.
But is that a rule for all times and places or was it situational?
What does the Bible say beyond that?
The Bible cites and demonstrates women leaders and women deacons (deaconesses), so clearly, if women can assume leadership roles IN THAT TIME and patriarchal society, then women CAN AND SHOULD assume leadership roles, IF that is where God is leading them.
Beyond that? The Bible tells us that we all have gifts and we should use those gifts in service to God. So given what the Bible says about deacons being male (in one or two places) but what it also says about gifts and women leaders in other places, one can reasonably conclude that even within the patriarchal world of Bible times, women could have leadership roles.
And of course, none of that was extended within the Bible as a universal rule. Circumstances and times change. We see that clearly in the Bible. Rules change because circumstances change.
To assume or demand that a rule's presence in a verse in the Bible means that this is a universal rule is poor exegesis, I think we can agree on that.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteIs it presumptuous to base your position solely on what God said as it is clear in the Word?
No, Jeremy. What is presumptive is to assume that, because this is clear TO ME, then everyone will agree with my understanding and my understanding must be the one true understanding.
As to your point about the Bible...
I don't know that you can move to no need for the Bible. God has established it as His revelation of Himself to His creation. We at least are told in scripture to test the spirits, which means there are some number of multiple spirits and there must be some means against which to measure them. That is the Bible.
Says who? On what basis should we assume that the Bible (meaning the 66 books of the protestant Bible?) is the One Accepted Way of "testing the spirits..."? Does the Bible make this claim?
I would hope that you could agree that it does not.
Don't get me wrong: I love the Bible, I do believe it is useful for instruction and correction and training. But I want to keep it in perspective. It is not a magic book that removes all questions perfectly. It does not remove our inherent errant nature as humans. It does not make us perfect in our understanding. And it does not claim to do any of this.
I fear that sometimes, people assign meaning to the Bible that neither God nor the Bible has assigned to it. Or, in other words, they've added to it that which is not there.
Something to be careful of.
Jeremy, on this particular question of church leadership being male, the Bible is not silent, nor is it limited to "conjecture" from the passages you list. While these are fairly conclusive, Paul was not shy about stating his position openly. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12). Of course, that grates on 21st century Americans inundated with radical feminism, but Paul said it, not me.
ReplyDelete"Now, wait," the argument is offered, "that was then; this is now. Paul said that because women in his day didn't have the education to teach or lead men. Now they do." I'm stunned at how popular this argument is today. Further, "Besides, God gifts everyone and anyone who believes they are gifted to teach or lead ought to teach or lead regardless of Paul's 1st century statement." Interesting position to take, but I won't pursue it. I will pursue Paul's reasoning. He doesn't stop with the "second principle" here, but gives the "first principle". "First principles" offer the basis for a position. These principles offer grounds for changing "second principles". If the conditions of the "first principle" change, so would the "second principle". On what does Paul base His statement regarding women exercising authority over men? "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim 2:13-14). Paul's "first principle" for banning women from leading men is based on the order of creation and on the fact that Eve was deceived. Now, when that condition changes, I will be glad to entertain the notion that women may now take leadership roles over men in churches.
This, then, supports the conclusions from the 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 passages regarding male leadership.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteYou and I are not going to agree on much of anything. In all our discussions we have agreed to is that we are saved by Grace alone through faith alone and that it is right to be civil in conversation and I am thankful for that.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth...If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples . Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 1:1, 2, 14; 8:31.
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer...Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and teaching..." 1 Timothy 4:1-5, 13
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:14-16
The Bible is not a magic book, it is the Word of God. It does not remove our errant nature, but the Word is not in error and we read it so that we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. If it is impossible to get anything other than hunches and opinions from the Word then it is also impossible to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. It is possible to know things that are clearly written in scripture, Dan.
You write: "(1) What has God said?, and (2) What has God said beyond that?
About homosexuality, in general?
God has said nothing about homosexuality in general. Not in the Bible, not anywhere else of which I'm aware."
The question was what did God say. Did you read the scripture I re-posted, cut and paste from the previous thread? Why do you continue to either dismiss or choose to ignore acknowledging what is written? What God did say in explicit and certain terms is that any sexual activity outside a married man and woman is immoral and sinful. Is it your contention that this which is clearly written in scripture is not true, is unclear, is only an opinion or hunch based on what is clear, or something else? What did God say beyond this clear word that any sexual activity outside a married man and woman was immoral and therefore sinful specifically with regard to homosexuality? Nothing. Therefore homosexual behavior, by virtue of it not being activity by a married man and woman is sexual immorality and sinful.
You begin with what the Bible doesn't say, skip what the Bible does say and endorse and celebrate a lifestyle outside what is clearly and explicitly established as legitimate for keeping the body holy. You may call this my opinion or my hunch if you like, but that will end our discussion. I am dealing specifically with what is written, and I am only asking that you deal with what is written also, not skip it to go on about what is not written.
We clearly have a stark difference in approach and so again, I fear there is much on which we cannot agree.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the input. The post was intended to have the reader think about what scripture actually did say and then decide whether we would take that explicit word about men in leadership and accept it, or make an extension beyond it. You are quite right that the Bible is not silent, in fact, based on my chess example, by the fact that God specifically lays out the "first principle" there is an implicit rejection of any other arrangement even without Paul's follow-up teaching.
You are also correct about the roles of men and women and the order of creation which is clearly and explicitly established with no refining word beyond it. It seems there is a choice for us all to make. Read the Bible and change ourselves based on what it says, or come up with another "better" way and attempt to change the Bible. I, for one, am content to stick with what the Bible says and pray the Holy Spirit will give me strength and ability to change accordingly.
I did, by the way, really like the chess/Sorry! analogy. It was a fun read. Now I'm going to have to see if I can play chess on a Sorry! board. Challenge accepted. (Just kidding about that.)
ReplyDeleteJeremy, sorry it's taken a while to get back to this. You say...
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is not a magic book, it is the Word of God. It does not remove our errant nature, but the Word is not in error and we read it so that we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. If it is impossible to get anything other than hunches and opinions from the Word then it is also impossible to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. It is possible to know things that are clearly written in scripture, Dan.
I would just repeat my question: You appeared to earlier admit that we can't/won't know everything perfectly by reading the Bible, that we will remain fallible human beings capable of being mistaken. In this last comment, you appear to be saying that there are at least SOME topics in the Bible where it is impossible for us (you?) to be mistaken. To "know things that are clearly written in Scripture..."
1. I'd ask you if you could tell me WHICH topics are ones we can't be mistaken on? (Is there a biblical list or how do you know which ones you can't be mistaken on?)
2. On what would you base this? (ie, does the Bible somewhere SAY, "on THIS topic, you can't be mistaken..."? or how?)
3. I'm not sure how you get around this point: IF you believe there are some topics on which we can't be mistaken, then that would mean that both of us are right on, for instance, women in ministry or marriage equity. IF both of us have sought God's will on the topic and IF both of us have come to a conclusion about what is and isn't "clear," then we both must be right, but surely that is not what you're saying, is it?
It sounds like you're saying, "I, Jeremy, CAN'T be mistaken on this passage/topic because the bible is clear on this point, but Dan CAN be mistaken..." if so, I'd ask on what rational/biblical basis you reach this conclusion?
Or, put another way, "WHO can't be mistaken on WHICH 'clear' passages?"
If you could answer those three-ish questions, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteIf it is impossible to get anything other than hunches and opinions from the Word then it is also impossible to be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Why? I mean, I gladly admit I'm a fallible human being, capable of being mistaken. I think this is true for all of humanity, don't you?
Do you think that it is impossible for fallible human beings to be equipped for every good work? Why? (I'm sure that's not what you're saying, I'm just trying to unpack that claim.)
Of course, fallible human beings can be equipped for every good work. We can't be PERFECTLY equipped, because of our own fallibility/imperfections, but we can be equipped, right? I mean, even a child or one with limited understanding who has accepted Jesus as Lord can be equipped to know that we are to love God and love people, that we are to look out for the least of these, that we are to be kind, compassionate, truthful, seek justice, oppose oppression, etc. Do we know perfectly how to do all of that? No, but that doesn't mean we aren't equipped to prayerfully try, by God's grace, to do so, right?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteDo you know that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, or is it that your hunch or opinion?
Do you know that God would have us to love our neighbor as ourselves, or is that just your hunch or opinion?
Do you know that Jesus is the only Way for salvation, or is that just your hunch or opinion?
Is it your contention that you can be mistaken on these points? If not, how did you decide that these were on the list of things on which we cannot be mistaken while we can be mistaken on all the rest?
My point in these questions is not to avoid your questions (in part because i've answered them before) but rather to illustrate another fundamental difference. It seems I believe that the Truth can be known, not just guessed at, based on a standard of necessity and sufficiency of scripture. It seems you believe that the Truth can only be guessed (except for a few points that you, and/or others, have somehow determined are definitive) but never really known based at least in part to an attitude that the Bible should be read and should be loved but is not necessary or sufficient.
I also noticed you didn't answer my question for a second time. Since it goes directly to my point here I will cut and paste the question and the original statement in a separate comment so you can address the above and then answer to the question without it getting lost inside another comment:
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteAnd here is the original comment as well as the original question and follow-up question(s):
""As to the behavioral aspect of physical intimacy (what is legitimate in terms of physical legitimacy):
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number: fill the earth and subdue it.'"
"It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
From this it is clear we are to honor God with our bodies, sexual immorality is a sin, a man and woman are to marry to avoid sexual immorality because it is rampant and that the married man and woman are to be physically intimate to be fruitful and multiply and except in times of prayer. Therefore, sexual activity other than a married man and woman is considered to be sinful."
"The question was what did God say. Did you read the scripture I re-posted, cut and paste from the previous thread? Why do you continue to either dismiss or choose to ignore acknowledging what is written? What God did say in explicit and certain terms is that any sexual activity outside a married man and woman is immoral and sinful. Is it your contention that this which is clearly written in scripture is not true, is unclear, is only an opinion or hunch based on what is clear, or something else? What did God say beyond this clear word that any sexual activity outside a married man and woman was immoral and therefore sinful specifically with regard to homosexuality? Nothing. Therefore homosexual behavior, by virtue of it not being activity by a married man and woman is sexual immorality and sinful.
You begin with what the Bible doesn't say, skip what the Bible does say and endorse and celebrate a lifestyle outside what is clearly and explicitly established as legitimate for keeping the body holy. You may call this my opinion or my hunch if you like, but that will end our discussion. I am dealing specifically with what is written, and I am only asking that you deal with what is written also, not skip it to go on about what is not written."
Please make special note of the two questions directly pertinent to the topic you initiated:
1) Is it your contention that this which is clearly written in scripture is not true, is unclear, is only an opinion or hunch based on what is clear, or something else?
2) What did God say beyond this clear word that any sexual activity outside a married man and woman was immoral and therefore sinful specifically with regard to homosexuality? (In your presentation of what God said beyond the 1 Corinthians passage please provide the chapter and verse for reference)
"
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteDo you know that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, or is it that your hunch or opinion?
Do you know that God would have us to love our neighbor as ourselves, or is that just your hunch or opinion?
Clearly, these are my opinions. I have NO WAY of showing objectively, YES, my opinion on this matter is objectively right. I FEEL CERTAIN of it, but it is absolutely my opinion. I act on that opinion based upon faith.
Opinion (MW): 1. a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2. belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
Jeremy...
ReplyDelete1) Is it your contention that this which is clearly written in scripture is not true, is unclear, is only an opinion or hunch based on what is clear, or something else?
It is my contention that I THINK what is clearly written in Scripture IS true, and that it IS clear enough for me to decide it's true, but that YOUR INTERPRETATION of it is not a valid/logically or biblically sound interpretation.
Do you understand my point? It's not that I don't think the Bible is true, I don't think your interpretation of some few texts (which are roughly the same as what I used to believe) is a rationally or biblically cohesive interpretation.
Jeremy...
2) What did God say beyond this clear word that any sexual activity outside a married man and woman was immoral and therefore sinful specifically with regard to homosexuality? (In your presentation of what God said beyond the 1 Corinthians passage please provide the chapter and verse for reference)
I think the Bible is clearly expressing a pro-marriage point of view. (Do you want references for that or will you concede the point?)
I don't think that the interpretation of text that says "any sexual activity outside a married man and woman" is apt or biblical. Clearly, there are multiple examples of polygamy, for instance. There are instances of concubinism. All of which were accepted with NOT A SINGLE CONDEMNATION as part of the culture of the day. (Do you need a source for that or will you concede the point?)
Treating the Bible as a rule book where one says, "Oh, look, here are three verses that appear to condemn some form of homosexuality. Therefore, short of any other verses clarifying it, I shall assume that all forms of homosexuality are wrong," is not good biblical exegesis. Agreed?
Treating the Bible as a rule book where one says, "Oh look, here are mentions of male/female marriage. Anything that does not look like that must be wrong," is again poor exegesis. Agreed?
On the other hand, clearly commitment, love, fidelity, respect, family in the form of marriage are good things. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible to suggest otherwise. Agreed?
I can't point you to a verse that says "Marriage between the gays is good," it does not exist. Similarly, you can't point to a verse that says "Only male/female marriage is good," it does not exist.
To argue that because a behavior is not endorsed in the Bible, it must be wrong is arguing from silence. It's poor biblical exegesis.
On the other hand, arguing that a behavior not specifically endorsed in the Bible, but which behavior is all about love, faithtfulness, commitment, family, etc, that is NOT arguing from silence but arguing from points which are valid in the Bible and self-evident in the real world.
Where I think you are primarily veering away from what seems rational to me is the assumption that sexual behavior outside of marriage is wrong AND that since the bible only mentions male/female, that is the only acceptable form of marriage. That is presumptuous and stepping beyond the bounds of sound bible exegesis, it seems to me.
Now, how about addressing the questions I asked of you, because I think they point to a pretty big hole in a good part of your arguments?
And, just in case any of my comments come across as harsh-sounding, please know that's not my intent. I'm just saying that this is how it seems TO ME. FOR ME, there seems to be some logical and biblical problems in the arguments being made. Maybe they make logical sense to you and I'm just not seeing it, but I'm just saying this is how it seems TO ME.
ReplyDeleteNo offense intended.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI take no offense with what you write, although if you don't want to give the impression of being upset or harsh-sounding you could probably just go without all the full caps. I know you want certain things to be stressed so it's more for emphasis than to display anger in word form, but it does look like yelling. For my part, I read every word you write so that I can respond. If I want to stress or bring specific attention to anything in particular I will write parenthetically something like "please make special note...," or "notice please the following..." That's just because you brought it up so you can just take that as my observation.
I must say first off that I give you full marks for consistency. Having said that, I am also shocked that your view of salvation is a position of less than positive knowledge. If you are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, chosen by God to be one of His, empowered and endwelled with the Holy Spirit, and have been justified, saved and are being sanctified what on earth would you consider to know more positively than that you are saved by grace through faith? You must also hold that Jesus being Lord is not something rising to the level of positive knowledge; nor that all men ought to have no other God before the One true God; nor that Christ is the Way, Truth and Life; nor that we are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. These are not questions, just statements of complete and utter disbelief on my part.
You continue on about treating the Bible as a rule book even though I have written twice that I do not view the Bible as a rule book but as the Word of Truth with some principles that are universal and gave my way of thinking based on what God said and then what God said beyond that. I would thank you in advance for not bringing that up as associated in any way with my view.
Continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteContinued...
You also took the text of 1 Corinthians in which the text clearly and explicitly says "Flee from sexual immorality...But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each women her own husband." What I will concede is that the text says that all are to turn from sexual immorality and because it is so rampant a man should take a woman to be his wife and a woman take a man to be her husband. I don't have to be God to be able to read, Dan (this answers your question about perfect knowledge, by the way. I am not God so I am not all-knowing, but I can read. I can know what the Bible says just like I can know that when my son writes me a card that says "I love you and I miss you" he means he loves me and he misses me. You mistakenly associate directly having the possibility of making a mistake and complete inability to know anything) You say my interpretation is not valid-logically or biblically sound, which is interesting since my view is to really do no more than regurgitate exactly what is written in the text. You choose to ignore the explicit text that refers specifically to a man and woman and move on to a more general all marriage is to be celebrated based on a genearl set of qualifiers (commitment, love, fidelity, respect, family). I'll ask you the same question you have asked of me, who says? Show me where those qualifiers for marriage in general are anywhere in scripture directly/explicitly associated with marriage? Man and wife. Woman and husband. That is what is explicitly written (can you not concede that point?) You keep accusing me of adding the word only, which is false. I have said over and over that I am recognizing what is explicit and simply not recognizing anything else - that is not adding or subtracting just following what is explicitly written. You seemingly cannot even acknowledge what is explicit.
I really don't see how we can move any further on any biblical topic. You are making comments as if you really know that what you believe is true, then say what you believe and read in the Bible can never rise to what could be considered positive knowledge, and dispute with me about explicit passages in scripture because I claim to be able to know what I read to be true. I cannot make an argument for something you have already determined beforehand to be nothing more than a hunch. So for future matters of the bible I will just respond with "I appreciate your sharing your opinion, you are welcome to it, I agree(disagree) with your hunch." What else could I possibly do?
Thanks for the thoughts, Jeremy. A few more thoughts from me.
ReplyDeleteI bring up the "Bible as rule book" thing because I fear that too often we all veer towards that direction. What if I put it like this...
There are at least three ways we might treat the Bible as it relates to rules...
1. The bible is a rule book. Period.
A. Therefore, each line that gives a command, that is a rule and we can know the right behavior by adhering to all the various rules in the Bible.
B. There is no interpretation involved here, just a straightforward reading.
C. Thus, if the Bible says, "men shall not lie with men," then that can only mean that then and for all time, any instances of men laying with men is morally wrong. If the Bible says, "men shall not lie with men, if they do, kill them," then that can only mean that it is morally right for all of time to kill any men laying with men.
This would be a woodenly literal reading of the Bible-as-rule-book. We can agree that no one (or very few) actually reads it like this.
2. The Bible is a book of Truth, but it contains many moral rules. Those rules may or may not be universally applicable, it is up to us to figure out which ones are universal moral rules and which ones were temporal rules for a particular time and place and purpose. We do this by using our discernment/reasoning.
A. Therefore, if there is a rule given specifically to Israel, we might reasonably think that this COULD be (but isn't necessarily) a moral rule that is true for all time. SOME bible rules were given ONLY for Israel, for instance.
B. The rule about how to cut your hair, that is a rule only for Israel at the time, not for all people in all times.
C. The verse right AFTER the "hair cut" verse is about tattoos - some Christians think this is a universal rule and some disagree. We have to use our reasoning to figure that out, prayerfully seeking God's will.
D. The rule after the tattoo rule bans making your daughter a prostitute. THAT is a rule for all times and all peoples.
E. We have to use our reasoning to sort out that, of these three rules in a row, one is specifically for Israel and not immoral at all, one may or may not be - Christians disagree, and the other DEFINITELY is for all people and all times. We can know this because it is "obvious" (except for the tattoo rule - some rules may not be as obvious as others).
F. The point here is that we must take rules given in the Bible as PROBABLY true for all time, unless it is "obvious" to us, for various textual and contextual reasons, that it ISN'T a universal rule.
This would be a relatively literal, straightforward approach to the Bible as truth book that contains some rules which are universal. This would probably fit most of evangelicalism, I'd guess. Would this be fairly close to your approach?
more...
3. The Bible is a book of Truths. Period. There ARE rules in the Bible, but they were all given in specific times and circumstances and don't necessarily represent universal moral truths.
ReplyDeleteA. The Bible teaches us TRUTHS - that it is good to love our neighbors, love our enemies, to share with the poor, to help the poor, that we ought not shed innocent blood, it is good to speak truthfully, respectfully... etc. General truths about what God's Way/Will is for God's people.
B. There ARE rules in the Bible, but these are ways of living out the TRUTHS taught. The TRUTHS are to be taken literally, but the rules were given in specific times and circumstances.
C. We should be wary, then, of trying to apply specific rules given specifically to a particular people in a particular time.
D. That is, we should be faithful people, not given to cheating on our loved ones or otherwise harming them. That is the general Truth. Now, SOMETIMES in the Bible, the way that was taught to do that included concubinism, polygamy, giving your daughter in marriage to a rapist, etc. That was how it seemed best at the time to those specific people to live out those Truths.
E. However, one of the Truths that Jesus taught us was that the Sabbath (ie, the Sabbath rule) was given for humanity, not humanity for the Rule. If we get too caught up in rule following that we miss the Truth, then we're missing the important thing.
F. Thus, rules have latitude in the Bible, while Truths are to be adhered to.
This would be an approach that takes the Bible EXTREMELY seriously, strives seriously hard to adhere to the TRUTHS taught, but recognizes that rules given in specific times and places may or may not have universal applications. This would be closer to my approach to reading the Bible. It seems to me to be the most logical and biblically apt way of treating the teachings of the Bible.
I'm not sure if that helps sort things out any or sheds any light on what I think may be our differences, but hopefully maybe it does.
So, returning to my questions and your answers, I had asked...
ReplyDeleteI'd ask you if you could tell me WHICH topics are ones we can't be mistaken on?
On what would you base this?
Your literal response to me is, I think, this line...
I don't have to be God to be able to read, Dan (this answers your question about perfect knowledge, by the way. I am not God so I am not all-knowing, but I can read. I can know what the Bible says just like I can know that when my son writes me a card that says "I love you and I miss you" he means he loves me and he misses me.
Thus, your answer appears to be (correct me if I'm mistaken)...
I can't be mistaken on the topics that are "clearly" written in a way that is "obvious." If the clear words of the text say, "men shall not lie with men," I take that to mean that all gay behavior is sinful, up to and including a marriage relationship in which sexual activity is involved.
Is that a fair representation of your answer to me?
If so, then a follow up question I would have would be:
Well, it is clear to me that given the obvious and clear context of these two Leviticus rules, that it is speaking NOT of all gay behavior, but of some specific pagan worship practices. So, given that it is "clear" and "obvious" to me, I can't be mistaken, by your reasoning. Is that right? (I'm asking, not saying definitely that it is your position, since I doubt that it is).
You see, the problem is that I don't think any of us approaches the Bible with the attitude, "If a line clearly condemns behavior X, then that behavior and anything associated with it must be wrong in all times and in all peoples." We don't do that, because if we did, then that would also mean we would condemn cutting the hair on the side of our heads, right? We don't take a woodenly literal approach to reading the Bible, we HAVE to use our reasoning to make extensions from what, in that case, the OT says to a specific people and how it may or may not apply to us today.
Thus, it's NOT as simple as "well, the bible says it and I can read it and understand it's literal meaning, therefore I 'know' its meaning and thus, I can't be mistaken on that topic..." Do you see where I think the problem lies?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteOf the three possibilities you presented for dealing with the Bible, number two would most closely approximate my own view. However, although it most closely approximates it is still pretty far away from what I have written and expressed. It breaks down in the second sentence where you list us figuring out which to apply and which not to apply. I think dealing with the Bible is pretty simple and I can break it down into two statements:
What did God say?
What else did God say (or, what did God say beyond that)?
So for any one of the numerous Levitical laws you bring up wondering if the apply today or not I would answer the same. Every single one where God did not speak to amend the law still applies. Every single case where God addressed it further, the latter case of God's address applies. You see, there is no involvement of me deciding myself which to apply and which to not apply. It is up to God, not me. This brings us back to the I can read statement. In biblical matters the only thing that has bearing is the whole council of God.
This is what concerns me about your stated position (your enumerated list under version 3 of the three you presented). You speak of "TRUTHS" and that "The TRUTHS are to be taken literally, but the rules were given in specific times and circumstances.
C. We should be wary, then, of trying to apply specific rules given specifically to a particular people in a particular time." Strangely I don't see that mandate in scripture anywhere...to wave away the particular in favor of the general.
In the case of your "men shall not lie with men" example I have provided you with a scriptural basis for forming a biblical position. I asked you on three separate occasions to address the scripture I provided and you responded with "I think the Bible is clearly expressing a pro-marriage point of view. (Do you want references for that or will you concede the point)." You waved away the particular scripture that clearly and expressly speaks of man and wife, woman and husband as the means to flee from sexual immorality. The scripture is clear that monogamy or a man and woman in marriage is acceptible. That is it. Yet you seem to be content to ignore that clear scritpure for the general "TRUTHS" of love, fidelity, faithfulness, commitment, etc. The Bible does not claim to be a book of "TRUTHS" it states that it is the Word and the Way, the Truth and the Life. It contains the "TRUTHS" of which you speak because it is the Truth.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteContinued...
Since you have continued and did ask, I would like for you to list for me the scripture references you have for marriage that tell of a general requirement of love, fidelity, commitment, faithfulness that does not specifically give man and woman as the arrangement. Any general arrangement not specifically calling out bride and bridegroom, man and woman, husband and wife. Or you could just go back to the passage in 1 Corinthians 7 and instead of waving your hand and moving on to general good for marriage address the scripture as written. I will copy and paste it again:
""It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
We have been at this for a long time and I have thought hard about these topics. I stand by the proposition that the Bible is necessary and sufficient for understanding God's will and how to be obedient to His precepts.
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight."
Your approach number three, as you wrote it, requires you to ignore (or otherwise discard or skip over) the particular words, laws, commands, explanations and teachings for more general ideas that you then appropriate as seems obvious to you. This is not taking the Bible "extremely seriously" as you would suggest, but rather arrogating to yourself the arbitor of when these general "TRUTHS" apply to the particular God-breathed scripture. I'm sure how this could be more clear than in the case you make with regard to homosexual marriage. You see general "TRUTHS" of love, fidelity, faithfulness, commitment, etc. in marriage because they are given in scripture as Truth for the particular case of man and woman, bride and bridgegroom, husband and wife. You pull a general explicitly given in scripture for the particular and then apply it to general cases and call it biblical. With respect, there is nothing biblical about that. To be true to scripture, why not just read scripture and be content with what God said? Why do you insist on being a part of the determination of where things apply and where they do not?
I have no more time tonight and have said all I can to make this clear and implore you to reconsider your position. If you can produce scripture references relative to marriage with a general good not particularly mentioning man and woman, husband and wife, bride and bridegroom, to support your assertion that you see only a general truth then we can continue. Aside from those references, you may stick with you hunch and opinion that leads you away from the particular to the general to apply at your discretion as it seems obvious to you, and I will be content to consider what God says, and what else God says.
Blessings.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteIt breaks down in the second sentence where you list us figuring out which to apply and which not to apply. I think dealing with the Bible is pretty simple and I can break it down into two statements:
What did God say?
What else did God say (or, what did God say beyond that)?
So for any one of the numerous Levitical laws you bring up wondering if the apply today or not I would answer the same. Every single one where God did not speak to amend the law still applies.
Do you really think this? The hair cutting passage, for instance. "God says" in that passage NOT to cut the hair on the side of your head. God never says otherwise anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, by your approach to Bible study, it would seem like you would still hold to that command. Do you and, if not, why not?
Putting the question another way: By what criteria does anyone "know" their understanding of a given passage is right and that they can not be mistaken?
Your answer appears to be, "if it appears as a command from God anywhere in the Bible, and that command is no where later changed, then that is 'knowable' as a universal rule and you can't be mistaken based on that understanding..." Is that your measure?
If so, then, it would seem that you'd have to not cut the hair on the side of your head, that you'd have to pluck out your eye if it offends you, etc. and I don't think that you do this. A little help?
Dan T.,
ReplyDelete"A little help?"
No, not really. You didn't address 1 Corinthians 7; you didn't provide any scripture reference for marriage as a general good with no mention of man and woman, husband and wife, bride and bridegroom; you didn't address pulling a general from a specific and applying it as seems obvious to you.
Until you address those, and since I have written out my position many times, I don't see how addressing every single levitical law you might bring up will be beneficial. I am comfortable relying totally on what God has said and seeing the Bible to be necessary and sufficient for knowing God's will and living in obedience. Therefore continuing to provide you explanations for point after point will not be helpful. If you would like to address any of the above, feel free. Otherwise, I appreciate the discussion and look forward to our next.
I've addressed this generally, Jeremy, but will address it again, specific to 1 Cor 7.
ReplyDeleteIF the Bible is a woodenly literal rule book, then yes, the answer for "burning with passion" (as i mentions specifically in 1 Cor 7) is to marry, a man literally, woodenly marrying a woman. That is the rule.
IF the Bible is a literal rule book.
But, if the Bible is, as I think we have agreed, a book of Truths, then what is the Truth being offered in 1 Cor 7? That marriage is a good and appropriate place for our sexual urges. So, Paul says, if you have the gift of celibacy, then Paul suggests remaining celibate. But, if you "can't control yourself," then marriage is the right outlet for those sexual urges.
And given that Truth, what good would it do for a gay guy to marry a gal, since his passions are not towards gals, but guys? No, given the Truth taught by Paul, the only obvious answer is in marriage with those towards whom you're attracted - between guys if you're gay, between gals if you're lesbian and a man for a woman and a woman for a man if you're straight.
I do appreciate you asking me for this specifically, because it serves to reinforce to me the biblical and logical soundness of my position, further convincing me of its righteousness.
As to this...
you didn't address pulling a general from a specific and applying it as seems obvious to you.
Since I don't treat the Bible as a rule book, but a book of truths, then why would I pull a specific from an ancient specific? The point is the Truth being taught, not the specific rule in an ancient time to an ancient people. The Truth being taught is that a faithful, committed, loving marriage is the appropriate place for sexual expression, and that would logically apply to gay folk as well as straight folk.
Does that answer your questions?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI see, so if someone were to read the Bible with the approach that all scripture is God-breathed and useful in training for righteousness and therefore expect that what is written to mean what it actually says is guilty of treating the Bible as a "woodenly literal rule book" and using a biblically unsound, illogical method of treating scripture and is headed down a path of unrighteousness.
On the other hand, if one reads the Bible always looking beyond the written text for one of the broader general "TRUTHS" and then extend those general "TRUTHS" where they deem appropriate then that reader is handling the text in a logical, biblically sound way and is righteous in their approach.
Whether taken as written or in a more general sense, that is completely ludicrous. I wouldn't treat what you write that way, much less the scripture that is God-breathed. I'll ask again where you find that God even intimates we are to handle scripture that way - look beyond the text to decide what the general "TRUTHS" are behind it and then apply it where it seems obvious? You don't see how in doing so you arrogate to yourself the position of arbiter of the Truth? Furthermore it seems much less than gracious to assign to everyone who does not view the Bible in the same way to be readers of the Bible as a "woodenly literal rule book." It's very interesting to me that we have been conversing for over a year, over a range of topics in some cases where I have shared my heart about my love of God being the driving force behind how I approach everything in life and three times that I can immediately recall specifically told you that I do not view the Bible as a book of rules (the last time specifically requesting you not attribute that position to me again) and yet you not only assign that motivation to me but announce the righteousness of your position which cannot but directly imply the unrighteousness of mine. Because we have written back and forth so much I have a pretty good idea how you would respond if I were to treat you in the same manner.
You said, "Since I don't treat the Bible as a rule book, but a book of truths, then why would I pull a specific from an ancient specific? The point is the Truth being taught, not the specific rule in an ancient time to an ancient people. The Truth being taught is that a faithful, committed, loving marriage is the appropriate place for sexual expression, and that would logically apply to gay folk as well as straight folk."
The Truth being taught is the text, Dan. What is written is the Truth, why are you searching for something deeper "beyond" or "above" what is written? The Truth being taught is the text because the text is God-breathed and the Word, and the Word is God. The Truth is what is written. Why do you assume beyond what is written? Your last sentence only applies if you ignore what is written in the text - "...each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." You may take away from scripture if you wish. I see scripture plainly teaching that the Word is Truth, not the general truths beyond what is written that we can gather and apply where we deem appropriate. That is a difference we will not be able to overcome in our communication, I don't believe.
Continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteContinued...
Pull a specific from an ancient specific - like:
"...it [the gospel] is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes...'The righteous will live by faith.'" This is Paul's ancient specific to the ancient church at Rome - so which of the general "TRUTHS" are we to go beyond that ancient specific for application more broadly? Salvation is good and faith is good so as long as one has faith, salvation is the result?
How about the verse i've been quoting lately, "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that every man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." That to you is an ancient specific from Paul to Timothy in the 1st century from which we need to find one of the general "TRUTHS", like the Bible is a document to be loved so that we can develop some hunches about what God's opinion might generally have been on some topics?
Paul didn't view scripture that way. Let me cut your question ["Who says"] off before you ask it and go ahead and answer it. Paul does with what he writes. In Romans, and relative to Abraham he writes, "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about - but not before God." Now catch very carefully this part of the argument. "What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'" Please consider this carefully. Paul did not write in his argumentation of the issue of justification (and since Paul's letter is in the Bible I will take this line of reasoning to be biblical) his question to establish his point was, "What does the Scripture say?" Not what general truth do we derive from what the Scripture says. Not what general concept do we pull from the ancient specific text written by Moses some hundreds of years ago. Not what broader point beyond what is written do we extrapolate out to extend to this other issue as it is obvious to me. None of that is biblical, and Paul didn't rely on any of that reasoning. His argument for justification, what does the scripture say. If that is not reasonable, then move down just three verses and Paul again references what is written in scripture, by David this time in Psalm 32:1,2. For what it's worth, I think you would do well to consider that carefully.
My position, like Paul's which is biblical and is useful for training in righteousness is to ask, "What does the Scripture say?" Or just as well, "What does God say?" Once again, if that position is deemed by some to be simplistic, illogical or any other label then I will gladly accept it.
I do believe we are clear on each other's written position on this issue. If you have anything further I will do my best to address it, otherwise I think we have probably exhausted this thread.
To answer at least one of your questions...
ReplyDeleteI'll ask again where you find that God even intimates we are to handle scripture that way
Jesus, our Lord and Savior and Great Teacher. He told folk who were taking a woodenly literal meaning of the command "Don't work on the Sabbath" and pointed out that their woodenly literal interpretation, while literally correct, was missing the TRUTH of the teaching. The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. The rules were for Israel's benefit, to guide them in the way of loving God and loving humanity. But the religious were so stuck on holding fast to the literal rule (which they did VERY well) that they missed the point.
Now, I've answered several of your questions, could you answer my one question before abandoning this topic please?
By what criteria does anyone "know" their understanding of a given passage is right and that they can not be mistaken?
IF your answer, "What did God say? and what did God say later?" then the follow up question that remains unanswered...
On what basis do you set aside all the rules spoken of in the OT that are never specifically dismissed by God later ("what did God say later?")?
There are many of those sorts of rules, including the hair cutting one, the Sabbath and Jubilee rules, etc. None of those rules are set aside by God later on, on what basis would you do so?
Thanks, brother.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteYou only answered to one of my questions, not several, and i'm not suggesting abandoning a topic just having mercy on the poor horse.
Also, I have already addressed marriage and homosexuality, dietary restrictions and the ordering of leadership in the church. I do not see any benefit in writing out a full description for each and every OT law so that you can see the applicability of the principle in every single case. If you cannot see its applicability and merit in the cases I have presented then we will just have to remain in disagreement.
Now, on your example of the Sabbath I see this as going to my point, not yours. Here's how: What does the Scripture say? You skipped over writing any text to move on to your derived general position that the Pharisees mistake was in holding on to a literal written rule (woodenly held in fact). Well what does the Scripture say (Matthew 12:3 and following):
"He [Jesus] answered, 'Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?...Or haven't you read the in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath...Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
What the Scripture says is not that the Pharisees looked woodenly at the literal law, but that they (and please take special note here) didn't hold woodenly to what was written. Jesus does not rebuke them for failing to discover some general "TRUTHS" beyond what the Word said, but rather rebukes them for failing to read the Word and understand it. So we have Paul writing, "What does the Scripture say?" and Jesus saying, "Haven't you read...," and "Or haven't you read the Law..." Jesus also said in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." And you can read further in the text for following the smallest letter and the least stroke. Jesus didn't abolish the Sabbath, He reminded the Pharisees of the Truth of the Sabbath which had already been written and which they had not read. Here again, the text is the Truth we need only to read it and see that Jesus did not abolish, but fulfill what is written. Jesus is the Word made flesh so it stands to reason He would not contradict or abolish Himself. If you have another instance where it might be possible to reason that it is suggested we ignore the specific for a more general set of "TRUTHS" beyond the Scripture to apply to all cases we deem appropriate, perhaps we can deal with those as well.
Jeremy, the reason answering my specific question is important is because it seems (at least to me) to point to a clear hole in your position.
ReplyDeleteIF you are saying, "My criteria for 'knowing' I can't be mistaken is by interpreting the Bible by, 1. what did God say? and 2. What else did God say?..." then having instances (and there are many, I'm quite sure) such as the hair cutting rule where you do not hold to that criteria, deflates that criteria as a valid, logical biblical hermeneutic.
What I'm saying is that you don't (correct me if I'm wrong) hold strictly to that criteria, but rather, you have other criteria and your own reasoning that influence your decisions.
It is a mistaken and presumptuous view to say, "My understanding of what the Bible says is without error and thus I can't be mistaken..." There is no biblical support for such presumption and, in fact, the Bible assures us that we only see as through a glass darkly, NOT perfectly.
And so, I'm trying to get to the root of your reasoning as to why you think you can have perfect understanding - ie, an understanding without error - on some points by a fairly literal read of a given text.
There simply is no logical or biblical support for such a conclusion and, by answering the question asked, I think we shall see this to be the case and, God willing, come a bit closer to understanding and agreement.
Please consider answering this question, brother Jeremy.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteThis is why I don't think it beneficial to respond to this additional case that is problematic for you. Because you haven't understood my view to begin with. Here are a few of things you just wrote that I have specifically addressed before:
"IF you are saying, "My criteria for 'knowing' I can't be mistaken is by interpreting the Bible." I'm not saying that.
"...you don't (correct me if I'm wrong) hold strictly to that criteria, but rather, you have other criteria and your own reasoning that influence your decisions." I have stated that the way I read and interpret the Bible is by reading the text and that it alone is sufficient. So I do in fact hold to the criteria I stated that I hold to. This is not to say that other reference material is not considered. I have written previously that commentaries, concordance's, bible dictionaries, research of biblical scholars are all useful as references but not necessary. The main point is that all the items in the list should be in agreement with the Scripture. I do not arrogate to myself the authority to decide where Scripture is true and applicable and where not - I read the text as being the Truth. I have a problem only when the references are put on par or elevated above scripture, or used to reinforce a position that contradicts scripture.
"...I'm trying to get to the root of your reasoning as to why you think you can have perfect understanding - ie, an understanding without error..." I don't reason that way. I have admitted not being perfect or understanding in all areas without error. I also do not equate the possibility of making mistakes with a complete inability to know with confidence. I can repeat again here the Word is Truth because that is what it claims to be. I have the Holy Spirit operating in me so that: firstly I can know any truth in the first place and secondly so that I can better understand the Truth and be transformed into the likeness of Christ and have my mind renewed so that I might be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good pleasing and perfect will. I believe that because that is what is written in the text, going to the point from before.
"There simply is no logical or biblical support for such a conclusion..." I have given you both logical and biblical support for concluding that as believers we should see the Word as the Truth not just words to look beyond to arrive at other general "TRUTHS" for us to apply as seems obvious to us. The only case you have presented for moving beyond the text to other general "TRUTHS" was the Sabbath which I addressed with scripture and showed where the very case you suggested had Jesus asking the question "Have you not read..." The problem is with not seeing the text as being the Truth, the problem is with not holding the text to be Truth as instead arrogating to ourselves the authority to decide what portions are believable.
continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeletecontinued...
All the above, in addition to the fact that I have already addressed the specific cases of marriage and homosexuality, biblical eldership and dietary restrictions lead me to believe that it will not be beneficial to address yet another specific case. What will be the situation that points to the clear hole in my position after I address the hair cutting issue?
Please just consider what I have already written, as i've written it not how you choose to interpret it (I don't see the Bible as a book of rules for example, admitting to being mistaken doesn't mean I am unable to know anything with any degree of certainty for another). If I can clarify anything on these points - or if you can provide any scripture that intimates marriage as a general good without reference to man and wife, woman and husband, bridge and bridegroom; or scripture that would indicate we look beyond the text to a more general set of "TRUTHS" to be applied as seems obvious to us - or respond to the scriptural issues presented without such an approach if no support can be provided - then I would be happy to continue.
I will leave it to you to provide a serious and founded objection to my position or to provide some reasonable support for yours. I think there is plenty to be gained from dealing with what remains that has yet to be answered to without running off to another one among the long list of specific cases where the same general position is to be applied.
What will be the situation that points to the clear hole in my position after I address the hair cutting issue?
ReplyDeleteBecause you, in fact, DON'T "read what God says, then what else God says" on that point. You simply don't do that. IF that was truly your criteria, THEN you'd choose to not cut the hair on the side of your head because God never said anything else. That is taking the woodenly literal approach to that text and I don't believe you do that. Rather, you use your REASON to get around that, thus, your criteria is not all of your criteria.
This is a huge gaping hole in your stated approach to scripture and ignoring it suggests you have no answer and you're ignoring for the reason that you CAN'T rationally, biblically explain your position.
The problem with this is that it lets you keep saying "all I do is read Scripture and go with what it says..." (ie, a wooden, irrational, unbiblical approach to exegesis, based more on eisegesis and cultural prejudices than deep Scriptural truths) and it lets you suggest (incorrectly and presumptuously) that YOU "know" stuff because you "only" read woodenly what is there and others who disagree with you are wrong because they don't do exegesis the "right" way (ie, the way that you do, but can't explain or defend).
If you can simply answer the question, then we could pursue whether there was any solid rational biblical support for that answer. I would suggest there is not, clearly so. (And WHY is it a problem answering the question? That you can't/won't answer it should be a red flag to you that there is a problem with your approach to serious bible study - it certainly is a red flag to many who will read your words - "hey, this guy can't defend his position because, it appears, there is no solid rational support for it...").
Further, the question remains, "How can I (the generic "I") 'know' that I'm not mistaken on a given point?"
Your answer, "What did God say? What else did God say?" is not a reliably consistent source. After all, I HAVE read what "God said," and "what else God said," and I do not reach the conclusion that you do. But, by your suggested rationale, I can't be mistaken, right? I asked myself, "What did God say?" and "what else did God say?" and clearly (ever more clearly the more I talk with brothers and sisters like you) I am convinced I am right and you are mistaken. By answering that question, you are saying, "Dan can't be mistaken," but clearly you think I'm mistaken. Where is the disconnect there? Where is the consistency? Where is the reliable objective criteria?
The truth is, we are all reading and INTERPRETING our understandings, the best we can, but they remain OUR understandings. And to say that "MY understanding can not be mistaken" is an exercise in obvious presumption and arrogance.
Tell me this, Jeremy, do you think I can rightly say, "I can't be mistaken..." on some of the points we have discussed? By your measure, clearly I can.
So, the defense of your position is what you will have gained by answering a straightforward and simple question.
Why avoid it?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you are frustrated with me. For that I am sorry as my intention is not to provoke you to anger, but please read what I am about to write carefully and consider it before shooting back a reply.
The holes you write that are present in my position are as follows (directly quoted from your last comment):
"Because you, in fact, DON'T "read what God says, then what else God says" on that point. You simply don't do that."
"The problem with this is that it lets you keep saying "all I do is read Scripture and go with what it says..." (ie, a wooden, irrational, unbiblical approach to exegesis, based more on eisegesis and cultural prejudices than deep Scriptural truths) and it lets you suggest (incorrectly and presumptuously) that YOU "know" stuff because you "only" read woodenly what is there and others who disagree with you are wrong because they don't do exegesis the "right" way (ie, the way that you do, but can't explain or defend)."
"Your answer, "What did God say? What else did God say?" is not a reliably consistent source. After all, I HAVE read what "God said," and "what else God said," and I do not reach the conclusion that you do."
"...to say that "MY understanding can not be mistaken..."
"...do you think I can rightly say, "I can't be mistaken..."
Dan, your list of holes in my argument is that:
(1) I don't do what I say I do,
(2) I take a wooden, irrational, unbiblical approach to reading and interpreting scripture
(3) I feel like I can't be mistaken on anything
And now please pay special attention to the following: If you have already decided I am a liar, irrational and unbiblical in my handling of scripture and refuse to accept what I have responded to more than once relative to my feeling on possibility of error how in the world is using the same method to evaluate another circumstance in scripture going to clear anything up for you? My defense of my position through the use of scripture alone (as I have stated in my previous responses) in the cases of marriage and homosexuality, eldership and dietary restrictions were not good enough for you, why would defending it again in another area settle the issue?
I am sorry you feel like I am a liar and cannot believe what I write about my own approach to scripture even though I have provided ample description of my approach for the three topics I routinely list and in all cases you have notably not responded once my answer has been positioned solely from scripture and reading the text (please review just my last presentation of the Sabbath for the most recent example). I am also sorry you feel compelled to carry on assigning positions to me that I have directly denied on multiple occasions. I feel like you are getting frustrated and are treating me pretty ingraciously by continuing on this track.
Here is how we can continue:
Dan T.,
ReplyDeletecontinued...
Show me where in my past responses to your direct questions I have not answered with the text of scripture (as this is my stated position).
Show me where your position of going beyond the text to other general "TRUTHS" is supported by scripture (other than the Sabbath teachings of Jesus to which I have already responded without reply).
Provide the scripture references you said you would for places where marriage is defined as a generally good thing without specific reference to man and woman, husband and wife, bride and bridegroom.
Explain why the possibility of making a mistake is equal to an complete inability for positive knowledge. I do make mistakes, I can still know things. Show me where there are holes in what I have written (marriage and homosexuality, eldership, dietary restrictions), not in what I haven't written (hair cutting).
Do one of those and we can continue. Otherwise we are finished here.
You are handling God's Word wrongly, you are skipping over the Truth of Scripture for more general "TRUTHS" that you can apply as you wish to situations and circumstances not endorsed by scripture and then celebrating those situations and circumstances. You need to repent and turn from that position to one of the whole council of God, the Word is Truth.
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." John 1:1-2,14.
"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free...So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed...Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word." John 8:31-32, 36,37
Some points of clarification:
ReplyDelete1. I am not getting especially frustrated. I'd like you to answer a simple question. The fact that you can't would, I think, point out to you that there is a hole in your argument. I do find that you more conservative brothers tend to like to ask questions and tend not to answer direct questions with direct answers, even when they're easy questions. That saddens me, but I have come to expect it, so I'm not especially frustrated at all.
2. I did not call you a liar. I do not think you are a liar. If you will look at my words, you will see that I never once called you a liar.
3. I DO think you are mistaken. I think you probably think that you are interpreting scripture the way you think you are, but if you'd simply answer (or try to) the question I've asked, I think you could see that you aren't able to answer that question with your suggested rubric.
Clearer?
More clarifications to your questions/comments...
ReplyDeleteShow me where your position of going beyond the text to other general "TRUTHS" is supported by scripture
My position is not "going beyond the text," but going to the Truths found clearly in the text. Thus, I'm not going beyond the text when I say clearly loving faithful adult committed relationships seem obviously good to me and I see no rational or biblical reason compelling me to not accept marriage between gay folk as somehow different than marriage between straight folk.
I think that is what the text teaches. Clearly so.
Where you say...
Provide the scripture references you said you would for places where marriage is defined as a generally good thing without specific reference to man and woman, husband and wife, bride and bridegroom.
You appear to be asking me to argue for a woodenly literal rule as I treat the Bible like a rule book to prove my point. But that is closer to your position and it is not my position. For what reason would I embrace your methods of (what I consider to be) flawed Bible study?
Do you see what I'm saying? You appear to be asking me to argue a position in the manner that you would, but I think your method is flawed biblically, so why would I do that?
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteShow me where there are holes in what I have written
I've done this. But, looking again at the gay issue...
You argue "what does God say? What else does God say?"
Now, correct me if I'm wrong...
Then you look at Lev 18 and Lev 20. There, God says...
Here are my rules for Israel, who is living amongst pagan peoples, people who worship idols, who sacrifice their children to idols, who have ritualized sex for their idols. Israel, if any of you have men who lay with men (you know, like they do in those ritualized sex orgies in pagan nations surrounding you, ancient Israel), it is wrong. Kill them.
You see that God says "men who lay with men are wrong. Kill them" and you THINK "hmm, that sounds like TO ME, that all gay behavior is wrong." This is your first mistake.
You further err in writing off the rule to kill them because that is not part of "what did God say? what else did God say?" (WDGSWEDGS?) God said "Kill them." God never changed God's position anywhere else in the Bible. Thus, if you were truly holding to WDGSWEDGS?, you would affirm that "men who lay with men," should be killed. You don't hold to that position.
That is a sign that you aren't really using WDGSWEDGS? as a rubric.
Moving on, beyond those two passages, What ELSE did God say?
You then look to Romans 1 where Paul says to the early church (who were amidst more pagan temple sex practitioners) "don't abandon natural sexual practices, like the pagans around you. Men abandoning natural desires to have sex with women (and vice versa) is wrong..."
You err in thinking, "Huh, that sounds ALSO like all gay behavior is wrong," when it is clearly speaking of specific pagan practices.
Additionally, you fail to note that the TRUTH being taught is that it is the abandoning of natural desires that is the error. Thus, rightly understood, you'd acknowledge that gay guys would rightly desire gay guys, not abandon their natural desires.
More later...
Okay, I believe you look at those three passages (the entire biblical argument against homosexuality) and decide - based upon your interpretation, but not a right reading of the Bible, I'd say - that it sure looks like to you that all gay behavior is wrong (even though that is specifically not what the text says). Then, you also consider what the Bible has to say on marriage.
ReplyDeleteYou find several texts that all mention male/female marriages in the Bible - polygamy, concubinism and regular male/female marriages. But no mention of healthy gay relationships. You note that as if it were somehow significant, but it is, of course, an argument from silence, not very compelling.
You see Paul saying that it is not good for people to burn with passion and so, marriage is a good, healthy outlet for sexuality. And, because Paul only mentions male/female marriages, you conclude that gay/lesbian marriages would not also be good. But that would be treating the Bible as a rule book. IF Paul were saying, "Here is the rule: Men should only marry women and vice versa and that is the only thing acceptable to God...," and Paul were speaking for God, you might have a point. But that is making presumptions that are not biblical. They are your opinions and your interpretation and, as is obvious, our human opinions are subject to error.
And that is what this comes down to: You are drawing conclusions based upon the text, but they are YOUR opinions. You are making assumptions about how to correctly read the text, but they are YOUR assumptions. The Bible does not tell you to make these conclusions or assumptions. They're yours and you can be mistaken, unless you want to offer the opinion that your opinions are not subject to error, but I don't think you're wanting to go there...
Which brings me back to your suggested criteria: What did God say? What else did God say?
ReplyDeleteI've answered that and the answer is God is good with committed healthy relationships. And, since I've answered those two questions, then by your measure I can not be mistaken.
Do you want to go there?
Now, can you honestly look at the question that I've been asking of you and admit that you just can't answer it? There's no shame in admitting an error in one's position. It is a good thing, confession and humility are the Way of God.
ReplyDeleteHow about it?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI read your six-comments this morning and have been praying since about how to characterize your statements and how to respond. The only word that seems to capture what you've done here is distortion, which in my dictionary means: deformed; twisted or disfigured from the true meaning. I specifically did not settle on duplicity because that has a component of intentionality of deception and I do not know your heart so I will speak only to what you've done - not to what you intended to do.
You wrote: "I'd like you to answer a simple question. The fact that you can't would, I think, point out to you that there is a hole in your argument." I explained that I did not see the benefit in providing you another case to describe my position because I had provided you at least four previously which you still do not accept. I am willing to stand on four examples for support of my argument for my method of scripture reading and interpretation. That you would not read what I wrote and go beyond that to assume that I cannot answer a question you've asked instead of taking what I wrote - that I will not answer for the reasons given - is to destort the truth of the matter.
Next you wrote: "I do not think you are a liar. If you will look at my words, you will see that I never once called you a liar." You did not use the word liar but you wrote that I did not do what I said I did. However, you did clarify when you wrote, "I think you probably think that you are interpreting scripture the way you think you are." I am glad you don't think I am a liar but I take little consolation in the your alternative of incompitence.
You ended you first comment with: "if you'd simply answer (or try to) the question I've asked, I think you could see that you aren't able to answer that question with your suggested rubric." I have explained several times why I have not forged ahead with another example using the same methodology. I do have an answer using the same method but again, don't see the need to provide five examples instead of four. Further, you'll have to provide me your definition of rubric because the one I have doesn't make any sense in this context.
Continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeletecontinued...
Now more to the matter at hand and your second thru sixth comments.
First of all, you do go beyond the text. I have presented you the text copied from scripture for the case of marriage which clearly and explicitly states man and wife, woman and husband in all cases. You have consented to this. Yet you say you apply a principle of a general good which applies to cases other than man and wife, woman and husband. This is going beyond the text - because the text does not say that. I do not expect you to agree with the idea that it is wrong to go beyond the text (you clearly believe it to be right), but you could at least acknowledge that your position of general application is not in the text. It is also a bit confusing that you would say that your position is found clearly in the text "clearly so" you write. Does this mean you know it is in the text, or do you mean it is clearly your opinion or hunch? It sounds an awful lot like you know the general truth is found in the text, but that would contradict your position that all you can have is a hunch about what is found in the text.
Secondly, you say that you don't argue like I do so you don't need to provide any textual support for your position. I cannot let this go any further because the issue of argumentation and the concept of an argument from silence comes up again later. You are not making arguments, I am. You have stated that your position is one of opinion. An argument is a method of reasoning to support an assertion (or truth claim) to come up with a logical conclusion. So, one states a truth claim then makes an argument for that truth claim and comes to a conclusion. You are holding to a position of opinion, which means you are not making any truth claims, which means you are listing out a series of opinions and hunches. Now, I am making a truth claim - that the Bible establishes and celebrates marriage between man and woman and that no other arrangement is presented as legitimate. So, in my argument for that truth claim I have provided several reason, all biblical quoted from the text, Old Testament and New, in support. I have then drawn the conclusion based on the textual evidence that the claim is in fact true. All scripture establishes and celebrates marriage between a man and woman and for no other arrangement. IF you were to make a truth claim (which you haven't since you have stated your position is one of opinion) then it would be a claim FOR homosexual marriage to be established as legitimate to be endorsed and celebrated. You would have to provide some reasons why that would be the case for the conclusion to follow. It is a minor point but an important one, without making a truth claim you cannot make an argument. My argument in not one from silence because I am arguing FOR marriage between a man and woman which is established from text from scripture (and which you have already capitulated) so my conclusion holds for the truth claim I am making. It is a disortion therefore, to continue to claim my argument is from silence. I have now spelled out again what I am arguing for and can re-post my scriptural text from Genesis, 1 Corinthians and the number of others you have agreed with if you like. But it is a distortion to say I have made an argument from silence.
Continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteContinued...
Here is the text from Leviticus 18, 20.
"The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow in there practices. You must obey the laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord...Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Lev. 18:1-5, 22
"Conscrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord you God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy...If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev. 20:7-8, 13.
Beyond this text you write: "(you know, like they do in those ritualized sex orgies in pagan nations surrounding you, ancient Israel)" What I read clearly in the text is that God is holy, God makes man holy, man must follow Gods laws and decrees, men lying with men is wrong and the punishment for the practice of what is declared by God to be "detestable" is death because their blood is on their own heads (they pay the price of shed blood for their disobedience). This is what the text says, not what I think it sounds like. Paul asks, "What does the scripture say?" This is what the scripture says. There was no doubt rituals of pagan all around but there is no indication in the text that the laws here only apply to pagan rituals. The text is clear that the practice is detestable, without qualification. You must go beyond the text to make a qualification like, what God was really saying is don't have men lay with men in a pagan ritual. You must go beyond the text to get that type of hunch.
Now, in the New Testament we have the following: "But now a righteousness from God, apart form law, has been made known, to which the Law and Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as an atonement, through faith in his blood...You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" Romans 3:21-25, 5:6-9
Continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteContinued...
The Old Testament law decreed by God establishing the practice of homosexual relations as detestable without qualification has a penalty of death which is on the heads of both participants in the act. The New Testament grace establishes that Christ has taken shed the blood for both participants. This is what the text says, and so we do not kill sinners for having sinned. The penalty has been paid, Christ is the atonement. The blood was placed on His head, He who knew no sin became sin and paid the penalty. So we do not kill sinners for having sinned, either the blood of Christ is applied or not based on their faith in Him. This is from the text, not beyond it.
Now back again to marriage. You say "IF...Paul were speaking for God." This is exactly the point. If you believe 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.." then you would also believe that Paul is speaking for God - or more accurately God was speaking through Paul. Christ is the Word, the Word is Truth. If that is the case then to read the 1 Corinthians passage or any other as the Truth and hold that what is written is God-breathed and not to be skipped over for more general "TRUTHS" that are up to the individual reader to decide, in his/her opinion are clear, and where to apply them is to misappropriate the Truth and to mishandle scripture.
This is why you are mishandling scripture and have no basis to make any claim of being biblical when you do it. You have stated that all you are operating on is your opinion so that isn't a problem, unless you claim to be biblical - which you have. This is why you need to repent and being handling scripture correctly.
I do not treat the Bible like a rule book. It is the Word of God. I love my Lord and will not arrogate to myself the authority to go beyond His Word and the Truth. I only have life because of His Truth. If I go off to my own opinions I am walking headlong away from the Way, the Truth and the Life. I cannot do that. Please understand what I am writing and change your ways. Please let it be telling that in this entire 10 comment thread about how to read the Bible that I am the only one quoting Scripture. Please see that you haven't shown there to be any holes in my argument, just distorted my argument and poked holes in a straw-man. Please understand that I must stand on the Word of God, I can do no other. Please accept that I do not believe myself to be incapable of mistakes but that having said that it is still possible to know what the text says. If you cannot accept this, then we are at an end because I will not move from the Truth.
Jeremy, I began looking at your responses, but I see that it does not appear to matter how many of your questions I answer, you keep dodging my simple straightforward question. You could settle this by answering my question, but you won't. I think it is obvious that you won't answer because you can't.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that for sure, but from where I sit, that's how it looks.
I will pass on even reading the rest of your response until I hear from you that you have answered my still unanswered questions.
Thanks for trying. I pray that you would consider the fact that it appears you can't answer this simple question and pray for humility and openness to the possibility to that you are deluding yourself. I'm sorry, but from where I sit, that's what it seems like.
If you want to email me that you have answered my question, I'll be glad to revisit this post.
God's peace and wisdom, my brother.
Dan
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunate. I read carefully all six of your comments and spent the time to consider and respond to all points, including a reason for not responding to the one question (which I have answered in four other identical cases using the same methodology) and you won't even do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote.
Unfortunate that by your own admission you cannot know anything with positive knowledge about a God who provided the Word of Truth, but you can know my mind and heart even when I write differently.
Unfortunate that you speak of only having opinions, but demand all others agree with your opinions over the clear text of Scripture.
Unfortunate that you write: "I pray that you would consider the fact that it appears you can't answer this simple question and pray for humility and openness to the possibility to that you are deluding yourself. I'm sorry, but from where I sit, that's what it seems like." I have considered that you feel like even though I have written that I can answer your question (for the reasons I gave above) you will not accept that my only source is what the Scriptures say, not my own intellect and ability. I am open to correction from those who would show me where I am deviating from God's instruction in His Word. Your distortions and blustering about not meeting your demands for answers to an endless list of particular examples while continuing to miss the overall point do not rise to biblical correction. I'm frankly not concerned with how things look from where you sit. My interests are in how things are with God, based on His Word. I will continue to defend the Word of God with what the Scriptures say. On that I will make my stand. If that is delusional from where you sit, so be it, I will take that to be your opinion and leave you to it.
Please consider your lack of biblical support for your opinions, repent for mishandling the Word of God, and begin to ask yourself as did Paul, 'What does the Scripture say?' My prayer is that God will shine the light of Truth into your heart and give you a love for the Scripture, not your opinion on what "TRUTHS" beyond what is written seem good to you for your application where it seems obvious to you.
Until next time, if there is a next time.