Our text yesterday was 1 Timothy 5:1-16 and there were several points from the sermon that really hit home.
First, the blessing that expository preaching is to a body of believers. Our pastor was able to say, "For any visitors, this is not 'Widow Sunday' at Antioch, we are simply working through 1 Timothy and this is where we are in the text this week." (my paraphrase). No wondering about who called the pastor this week to complain about a member or family member of a church member that did not feel enough attention was being paid to widows and so the text of 1 Timothy 5 was brought up as a message meant to "convict" (synonymous here with scold) the body and bring out how everyone needs to set their priority for this week to go visit someone (which would probably last about a week, since there would be another priority to set after next week's scolding). No, instead last Sunday's text was 1 Timothy 4:12-16 and so, we look in our Bibles and, yes this week it is chapter 5. Not to mention the fact that if we the membership are doing our due diligence and reading and studying ahead with what we know is ahead then we have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that we have work to do before the preacher even opens his mouth. So no one who is a member at Antioch was surprised at this week's text, and hopefully like me was convicted of his/her shortcomings (at least in part based on our reading and prayer about the text) before ever darkening the door of the sanctuary. Let me be quick to state that the above is not a writing based on a belief that the Bible demands all preaching be done expositionally else it not be 'of God.' I'm just really glad Antioch preaches through the Bible in an expository fashion and would strongly recommend it as a practice for others.
Next, the church is a family and so to deal with others in the body we should "show honor yet love enough to correct." (again my paraphrase) This is applicable not just to the local body of believers but to our 'extended family', the Church. In dealings outside the four walls of the local church, and in large part due to the reach of the internet, it is a strong reminder of showing honor to other believers with whom we have even strong disagreements and yet loving them enough to correct them (correction of course coming by way of the Word of God not our own persuasions, as 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches reads, "All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.") We also know that the Word of God is a two-edged sword so we also need to be open to correction, again based on the Word of God as it is presented, by a brother or sister who would love us enough to correct us if we are wandering off course. Did I make special note of the need for such correction to be biblical? If not, let me be quick to state that all correction should be based on that which is useful for correction, namely all scripture.
Responsibility falls on the family, and on the church when there is no family or anyone else to act as caregivers. This point has very far-reaching impact. Think of what a culture steeped in a mindset demanding familial responsibility would look like? How many parents would be left for some other person or group to provide care for the rest of their days, after reaching a point of little to no productivity? How many runaways or deadbeats would be allowed to be comfortable, or even enabled in their irresponsibility? There are some societal and cultural pressures that are good as they do promote principles that are clear in the text of scripture. "If families were doing their jobs, and if the church was doing its job with regard to the sick and the poor, the government would have no job to do in that area." (my paraphrase) There is a real quantifiable sense in which the government in our country has overstepped its bounds and participates in the enabling previously mentioned, but there is an equally problematic failure on the part of families and the church that has aided and abetted such a mindset and neglect of the boundary.
All that and widows, too. "Widows and orphans are the most vulnerable in a culture." (my paraphrase) There are those who legitimately cannot provide for themselves in every society in the world. The number and demographic of the constituents differ based on the culture and are unimportant. The Church should always be on the forefront of caring for those whom society has cast out or who have no other means of support, remembering the responsibility of the family as the first lines of care. There are ample, and quite sensible, points to be made regarding all members of all ages and we would do well to read them and think about both the grouping we fall in as well as what our place and task is regarding others.
Can't wait for next week. I wonder where we'll be? Oh, that's right 1 Timothy 5:17 and following. Probably be something about elders, oxen and grain - who knows maybe that'll even be the sermon title "Of Elders, Oxen and Grain."
Almost a side question, but ...
ReplyDeleteDo you suppose that if the church was caring for widows and orphans in the way that Scripture prescribes that there would be the same welfare state conditions going on today?
I, for one, would be more than glad to see the church step up and take care of the poor. I think non-profits generally could do a better job of it.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of the things I like to point out to critics of state assistance programs: The church/non-profits/the private enterprise could put gov't OUT of the welfare business and all they have to do is step up and start taking care of it.
And here's the thing: I'd bet 95% of the gov't welfare types would gladly lose their jobs if it meant someone was taking care of the poor.
Until such time as the private sector starts taking care of the poor and marginalized in a systemized and thorough manner, though, I don't have a problem with the state making efforts to do it, too.
@ Stan,
ReplyDeleteI would answer with a qualified yes. Although not reported in scripture, extra-biblical sources do show that there was a cultural given at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy that family cared for their own. Culturally speaking, even pagans recognized the depravity involved in putting ones family out to fend for themselves. So, if there was a background cultural standard of families caring for their own, then I believe the Church acting in accordance with Scripture and the explicit instruction regarding caring for widows and orphans could negate any need for government involvement. I'm not sure that is possible today given that we do not live in a culture where familial responsibility is pressed to such a degree by government or society at large. Without that as a backdrop the sheet numbers involved are staggering. With a responsbility for taking care of their own (body of believers before non-believers), support of missions and ministry, etc. even with sacrificial giving the need probably outweighs the ability to give and fully cover what is needed. God is Sovereign over these things as well, so I believe the Church must do as their conscience dictates in accordance with Scripture, give as Scripture directs and be good stewards of God's blessings. In that way she can at least be an example for the world at large.
@ Dan,
I won't speak to anyone else's feelings toward their job (although it may be safe to assume everyone wants to end hunger, one must wonder what the unregenerate would be willing to give up to make that happen), but the Church should have charity as of first importance (i'm speaking of charity here in the classical sense, "Loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and your neighbor as yourself"). Having stated it that way, I do believe the most important thing believers can give is the bread of life. This is critical because when hearts are changed then lifestyles change. I responded to Stan above that culturally there is not a pervasive sense of familial responsibility that creates an overabundance of those in need. Responsible fathers taking care of their own and leading their families would go a long way. In short, I am advocating discipleship and the Truth as the only means to life. The Church must be charitable and should help those in need, those in the body first, and then as the Holy Spirit directs - but disciples are what we are to be making so we must be giving more than physical food if we are to be truly effective.
It seems to me that the notion of charitable giving gets more than its share of attention in the average congregation. I've known people who no longer attend Sunday services for fear of having to bear yet another call to dig deeply. In my own congregation, a very small one, I recall one asking, "How much money do you think I have?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps the pleas fall on deaf ears. But only God and each person knows just what their own abilities are. While some may feel they've given enough, others are already caring for struggling family members or friends.
And while all this goes on, we have political people seemingly doing all they can to prevent the unleashing of the entrepreneurial spirit that can, all by itself, do so much to reduce the need for employing tin cups. This has been a reason why government has "stepped up" as it interferes with the natural flow of market forces.
And then, in the spirit of Jeremy's last words to Dan, the culture, having declined so extremely in a moral sense, has led to gov't mandates to faith-based services that are contrary to their beliefs and have forced them out of business.
Churches still accomplish a lot as far as charity goes. But some of their own members perpetuate the need by their support of civil policies that exacerbate the situation.
Marshall,
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. You're certainly correct in the vicious cycle between decline in moral climate, need for assistance, giving to all without qualification and inability to properly administer accountability. Such things must be handled locally, in my opinion. It is absolutely impossible for efficiency or accountability on a national level.
As for believers and the Church, there will always be a need to press for individuals members to act based on the dictates of their conscience. For my part I can only advise to be faithful to meeting the need for the Truth and for charity (loving God and loving one another) in whatever way the Lord directs (money, service, time, etc.) and to the extent that family is cared for, then the body of believers (and commitments for missions), and then the community at large. Based on yearly statistical data alone, tithing in American churches could be much better. Also based on yearly survey statistics, the Truth could be adopted and lived out better as well. May God help us all to hear the Holy Spirit and be obedient to His direction, and all for His glory.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteI do believe the most important thing believers can give is the bread of life.
While I get your point and agree there is some sense to it, biblically, I don't see it as a stated priority.
That is, we are told to share God's good news to the poor;
we are told to sell our stuff and give to the poor;
we are given the example of Jesus and the early church making giving to/tending to the poor a priority;
We are told to share about our faith;
We are told to share our resources and time in aid to the least of these...
etc.
I see no biblical justification to prioritize these, saying, "THIS command/teaching has a higher priority than THAT command..."
Do you?
One thing to consider, according to this site...
"The income of churchgoers in America is $5.2 trillion..."
"If the American church would indeed give 10% of their income to the cause of the poor, we could give $168 billion each year. That number is greater than the amount of money spent by every nation in the world combined for poverty related services..."
Add to that number other faith traditions and non-profits concerned with the poor and you have a good chunk of change.
If the church wanted to, they could put gov't social agencies nearly out of business. Until such time as they step up, I find it reasonable and in society's interest for the state to assist those in need in some form.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteAs to the site to which you linked and your opinion about the role of church and government, it has already been stated here by all those commenting that the Church could give more and should be concerned about those in need. There is no question that more direct giving (in terms of monetary, service and time commitments) would in some measure meet the needs of the poor worldwide. We can only speculate as to the degree to which need would be decreased because there are so many factors outside sheer amount of dollars involved. So at least in theory, although many factors are at work, we can agree that a concerted effort by the Church combined with increased giving would provide for more of the worldwide need than is currently happening.
As to your stated inability to find biblical justification for a higher priority for salvation versus the meeting of physical needs i'm not sure how to answer. Normally I would make a claim about what scripture says, provide a number of scriptures along several lines of argument and make a conclusion. However, based on your last comment in the previous thread where we were discussing such things, you ignored my final (quite lengthy response) and refused to read anything further from me until such time as I met your demand for answer of a fifth in a string of examples presented where you had rejected the previous four I provided (I declined to answer, and you equated a refusal to answer with an inability to answer and shut down further communication). Are you wanting me to spend time responding to this biblical issue, or are you going to dismiss it without bothering to read what i've written? I'd just like to know this time beforehand if you're not going to do me the courtesy of reading what i've written before I invest the time to give you a well thought out response.
As before, Jeremy, I am asking a straightforward question and will gladly read a straightforward answer. If your answer is not straightforward (ie, if you say, "Before I answer that question, I'll answer this other question you have not asked and wait for you to agree with me about that..."), then no, don't bother. But I'd gladly read a straightforward answer to the question I've asked.
ReplyDeleteI hope that does not sound in any way off-putting. I'm just used to having conversations with questions directly answered back and forth and truly believe that is the generally the best way to have conversations. It seems reasonable to me, I hope it does to you, as well, brother Jeremy.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteIt does seem reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to accept multiple answers and explanations as going to a point without continued requests for more similar explanation. As has been our history, you present your views, I ask a follow-up question on the point you've made and then either respond or move on. I'm sure you could see where my asking you over and over, "Yea, but what about for..." would not be beneficial, especially for a point you believe you have made. However, I will let that point rest and who knows, maybe someday soon I will post a full comment on nothing but the very question you asked (albeit in a different context and discussion) and you'll have your answer and can for some follow-up on that point.
I have two meeting to get off to right now, but I will respond later with my reply to the justification of priority. Until then...
For what it's worth, the reason I offered the hair-cutting scenario is because there is a difference between the example you gave and it: You can make a case (however weak I might think it is) that gay behavior is addressed in some "ruling" in the OT and then "God said more" in the NT.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't find it a compelling case at all, but you can at least make some stab at it.
But with the hair cutting "rule" and your criteria (what did God say? What else did God say?), there is no further clarification of the "rule." Thus, IF you're using the WDGS?WEDGS? criteria and holding on to OT rules as all time rules (unless God changed God's mind somewhere), then your conclusion would have to be "The rule for the Bible is not to cut the hair on the side of your head. Period, end of discussion."
It's a different scenario, the answer to which, I believe, would undermine the WDGS?WEDGS? criteria you are suggesting and open us up to a better, more biblical, more logically consistent approach to Bible study.
For what it's worth.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe you would be critiquing a method i've used to address an issue you have a question about - before I have addressed it. You have decided already how I will answer and that it is not compelling before i've written a word. You ended our discussion for my not answering and now write that the case I never made is not compelling. You have decided already there is a difference between cases even though i've told you that there is no such difference in my mind. All scripture is God-breathed, not part of it, therefore we can read and interpret it all the same. I'm just asking you not to decide how wrong a case is before it's been made. Again, I may address that particular case - in the same was I address any biblical issue - another time. You might find the case I make is different than the way you have already fashioned it in your mind and not reject it a priori. Anyway that is for another time.
On to my answer for this particular issue. See the following.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI will proceed in answering my claim that Truth (Christ, Life, salvation) is given priority biblically over temporal concerns (food, water, possessions) with four lines of argumentation, two points on the first two and one on the third and fourth. Although the issue is of great importance I want to try to cover the topic as completely as possible in brief.
Point One: Explicit in Scripture
1) Psalm 73 - The whole Psalm should be read for context, but verses 25 and 26 are of particular relevance here: "Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever." No earthly desire greater than that desire for God.
2) Matthew 6:19-34 - The full grouping of chapters 5-7 should be read for context as it is part of a larger discourse, but verses 19-34 in chapter 6 and in particular verses 31-33 provide explicit support: "So do not worry, saying 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and these things will be given to you as well." Again, an explicit instruction to seek things of the kingdom first, and specifically his righteousness, and the temporal things (eat, drink, wear) will come after. {For completion, we can go to Romans 3:21-31 and 6:8-14 for a direct teaching on righteousness, how we are made righteous through faith in Christ and the offering of oneself as an instrument of righteousness.}
Continued...
Point Two: Prioritized in Teaching
ReplyDelete1) John 6:25-29 - "When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, 'Rabbi, when did you get here?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.' Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." The teaching is clear - you are expending effort (working) finding more physical food, don't expend effort (work) for physical food; rather do (because it's more important is obvious) God's work - which is to believe in Christ. Faith in Christ (salvation) before physical needs (loaves of bread).
2) 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 need to be read in full for context here, but verses 3-5 will give us the teaching of Paul to the Corinthian church as to what is to be of primacy: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Clearly here salvation of first importance.
Point Three: Logically consistent with doctrine
1) If we follow systematically through man's sinful nature which is present from conception (Psalm 51:5) and continues until such time as he is justified through the redemption that came through Christ (Romans 3:22b-26), we can see the greatest need man has is a change of nature. What good would it do to give a man food without telling him about how his eternal state is more important than his temporal condition. An analogy (although quite poor due to the fact that the man is just sick and not dead) would be a doctor seeing a patient who has a cureable disease but gives only what will make the patient comfortable and not the antidote. This does not preclude giving to the needy, just prioritizing the eternal condition of the hungry so they receive the bread of Life not just the bread that will satisfy for a while and then leave them hungry again.
1a) The converse of this would be if your doctrine is that everyone is saved regardless of what they do or what anyone who has contact with them does, then by all means just give them the physical bread to eat, after all it doesn't matter if you give the gospel at all - they will wind up in heaven either way. Or, if the pendulum swings to the other side, your doctrine may hold that God has chosen who will be in heaven and who will not so it doesn't matter whether you share the gospel or not - the hungry person's fate is sealed either way regardless of what you do. Neither of these are sustainable biblically in their reasoning (in the first case because of the clear teaching that there is a heaven and a hell and not everyone will be in heaven; and in the second because it completely disregards all scriptural teachings to share the gospel even to the point of persecution)
Continued...
Point Four: Jesus' interaction with those in need
ReplyDelete1) There are many descriptions of Jesus interaction with needy people. Many lists of healings and miracles, healing conditions of blindness, infirmity and death. And we do not have a complete record. However, we do see a few situations where the accounts of His interaction is given in more detail which applies here. Consider the following:
a) Mark 2:1-12 - Jesus is confronted with a paralytic man and His address is, "Son, your sins are forgiven." This Jesus does first. He leaves the man on the mat still a paralytic. Until, after being questioned by the teachers of the law, He says, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins..." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up..."
b) John 4:1-18 - Jesus here confronts the Samaritan woman at the well. After asking for a drink and the woman wondering how He could ask a Samaritan for a drink, He responds, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and would have given you living water." He later says, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." Jesus follows this with a teaching on the Samaritans belief and true worship, His claim to Messiahship and a discussion with the disciples who return with food how His food is to do God's work.
In these examples we are not told explicitly of a primary importance, but the accounts are similar in the intentional ignoring of the physical except as they point to the eternal. In case a, forgiving of sins and then healing as a means to show authority (not for the sake of having the man walk - he will only grow old and again not be able to walk) and in case b neglecting the partaking of food and drink for the pursuit of a lesson on how Christ was the living water and the food that is of interest to us should be doing God's will.
So, I present these four lines of argumentation in support of the claim that salvation should be of primary importance for believers, even in there aid to others. These are the first thoughts and scriptures that came to mind. We can address others as they arise.
Jeremy, thank you for your direct and comprehensive answer.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a fine case that our spiritual needs are of ultimately of utmost importance in human lives. I can agree with that point. It is rational, I think, and biblical, I think. I believe you have made that case well and I gladly concede the point.
What I think is missing, however, is any biblical mandate that states "...therefore, OUR most important mission is to minister to spiritual needs - that has priority..." I could be mistaken, but I believe the vast majority of teachings - from a purely numeric point of view - teach us about the importance of dealing with the physical needs of humanity. Period. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect I'm correct.
Now, does that mean that I think numbers indicate a priority? No, that is not my conclusion. I'm just saying that I see no biblical mandate to treat the spiritual as a priority over physical. Indeed, James looks at the matter and lays them out side by side in his second chapter.
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.
If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
To me (and maybe I'm mistaken), here in James, he treats actions towards the poor on a par with dealing with spiritual concerns.
When Jesus started his ministry, what did he say his purpose for coming was? To bring good news TO THE POOR, deliverance FOR THE CAPTIVE, healing FOR THE SICK, the day of God's good favor. These are temporal concerns (with eternal and spiritual consequences, to be sure, but he frames it first and foremost in the words of temporal concerns).
When the rich young man asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, Jesus told him FIRST to sell his stuff and give it to the poor and THEN follow him.
When Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, he tended to frame it in terms like he does in Luke 14, "When you're hosting a dinner, go, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and you will be blessed." There is no mention of spiritual needs being addressed there (except the spiritual need for them to share with the poor).
Given the gist of the Bible in places like this, it is my suspicion that from a purely practical point of view, spiritual needs are the most vital for healthy human existence. AND, from a purely practical point of view, people can't really worry that much about their deep spiritual needs if they are starving or dying of thirst.
It seems reasonable to me that God knows us, and that God knows our frail human forms are limited and needy. Those who are starving can only worry so much about eternity, if they're suffering in the here and now. I see no mandate that says, "but treat the spiritual needs as first priority..." but rather, these seem to me to be consistently laid side by side - and for good reasons, it seems to me.
Both/And, not either/or.
What do you think?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI'll agree that the mandate to focus on spiritual needs first does not appear in scripture as you have written it. My four lines of argument, however, were intended to build a case pointing to that emphasis. The Matthew 6 passage in point 1, for instance, does have such a teaching from Jesus when He says, "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and these things (temporal needs) will be given to you as well." Also the 1 Corinthians passage in point 2 has Paul passing on of first importance the message of salvation.
I didn't provide it as part of the four lines of argument, but Jesus did give a command based on His complete authority in heaven and on earth. In Matthew 28:19-20 He says, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
I think it is clear from the text that Jesus is setting a priority for His disciples to make disciples and teach Jesus' commandments to all nations. Making disciples only happens by presenting the gospel message and teaching about Jesus and His own standard for being His disciples (deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow me). Jesus could have told His disciples to feed and care for the poor in all the nations, but He did not. He commanded them to make disciples. Let me be clear in saying that I am not then advocating ignoring the needs of the poor, sick, needy - far from it. I believe that the love of Christ demands that we do those things, because of our love for Him. However, I also believe our love for those whom we are serving and helping should drive us to share the gospel as we provide for the temporal needs. So it is to do both, but with a first among equals approach - share the gospel as you are meeting the needs.
I think the previous shows up in your comments. Jesus did say He came for the poor, the captive and the sick. However, the good news (justification for a life of poverty in this world) is the gospel - deliverance (from the slavery of wickedness) comes through the Truth - and healing (from sin, death and misery) comes through salvation.
The rich young man was told to sell his belongings, but that was because Jesus knew his heart (that he loved his possessions more than God). Idolatry was the problem, not possessing money. When at the Pharisee's house Jesus was talking about the kingdom of God. The parable and reference to the poor and sick had to follow because of the above (the reason He came).
Finally, it is true that if someone is starving they are most definitely suffering in the here and now. They do need help, and believers should be quick to help those in need. All the above is not a substitute for helping. In fact, those who are suffering in the here and now need to know that their present suffering will pale in comparison to the copious and abundant joy they can know for eternity when all is set right, if they will come to follow Christ with their whole heart. Then they can have peace and hope even in that desperate situation along with the knowledge that God will justify this current existence beyond all they can ask, think or hope.
Thanks for the discussion. This is a most important topic and one that must receive our attention.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteHe says, "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and these things (temporal needs) will be given to you as well..."
...I didn't provide it as part of the four lines of argument, but Jesus did give a command... "go and make disciples of all nations, ...and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you"
The problem with taking a passage like one of these and using it to proof-text a point, is that we run the risk of just trying to find justification for what we already believe, rather than looking at what is actually there.
I mean, take a look at "the great commission...": Go, make disciples, teach them to obey my commands/teachings. What WERE Jesus' teachings? His teachings were/included do for the least of these, preach good news to the poor, turn the other cheek, love your enemy, do good, sell your belongings, give alms to the poor, follow me... Does that text really teach that "spiritual" teachings have a priority of "temporal" ones? I don't see that at all.
Yes, for US, one thing I think Jesus teaches is that WE ought to seek first God's kingdom. But what IS God's kingdom? Is it not, among other things, a place where the least of these are tended to/sided with/cared for? Is it not a place where we are selling our junk and giving to the poor? Is it not a place where ALL are invited, including and specifically the poor, the "sinners," the prostitutes, the marginalized? Is it not a place where the poor have good news preached to them specifically?
Again, I concede that, from a reasonable point of view, we might say that the spiritual is quite important. I'm just stating that I see no biblical justification to support the suggestion that we ought to separate the spiritual from the temporal. In the Bible, taking care of the poor, simple living, peaceful living in the here and now, ALL of this IS part of the good news. To divorce the good news of the kingdom apart from temporal needs is not justified biblically and is not a good idea.
Not saying you are or aren't doing that, just putting it another way for your consideration.
I'm saying that to try to justify a "spirituality has priority" position is not biblical. Our needs and how we address needs here and now IS about our spirituality and the good news and the very Kingdom of God.
One more point, where I said...
ReplyDeleteI'm just stating that I see no biblical justification to support the suggestion that we ought to separate the spiritual from the temporal. In the Bible, taking care of the poor, simple living, peaceful living in the here and now, ALL of this IS part of the good news....
I'd remind us of the story where Joh the Baptist was in prison and he sent his disciples to Jesus to ask if he truly was the son of God. Jesus responded...
"Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
For Jesus, tending to the needy was part and parcel and proof of being part of the Kingdom, that was part of the message, of the Good News.
Again, I don't think it's an either/or kind of thing. A "THIS has priority, but THAT is important, too," kind of thing. I think, biblically, we find that it's all part of the same thing, and that there is no separation out of the two.
What do you think?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteThis is what i've written:
"Jesus could have told His disciples to feed and care for the poor in all the nations, but He did not. He commanded them to make disciples. Let me be clear in saying that I am not then advocating ignoring the needs of the poor, sick, needy - far from it. I believe that the love of Christ demands that we do those things, because of our love for Him. However, I also believe our love for those whom we are serving and helping should drive us to share the gospel as we provide for the temporal needs. So it is to do both, but with a first among equals approach - share the gospel as you are meeting the needs."
And then:
"Finally, it is true that if someone is starving they are most definitely suffering in the here and now. They do need help, and believers should be quick to help those in need. All the above is not a substitute for helping. In fact, those who are suffering in the here and now need to know that their present suffering will pale in comparison to the copious and abundant joy they can know for eternity when all is set right, if they will come to follow Christ with their whole heart. Then they can have peace and hope even in that desperate situation along with the knowledge that God will justify this current existence beyond all they can ask, think or hope."
I'm not sure how, from that which I wrote, you got this:
"Again, I don't think it's an either/or kind of thing. A "THIS has priority, but THAT is important, too," kind of thing. I think, biblically, we find that it's all part of the same thing, and that there is no separation out of the two."
How do you come to understand my position as an either/or - "Do ministry, not feed the hungry"? I don't think we disagree on the main point - believers should help those in need. What I am saying is, since it is understood that we are helping those in need we should make it a priority in that helping to share what is of ultimate eternal importance - not just provide for the temporal. Are you suggesting believers just give to the needy, don't share the gospel, and that is what Jesus had in mind when He commanded His disciples to go and make disciples? I don't think you do, but when you say "I'm saying that to try to justify a "spirituality has priority" position is not biblical" seems to infer that to feed a hungry person is equivalent to telling them about Christ dying on the cross for their sins and how accepting Him as their Savior is the only way to be eternally filled. Is that what you are suggesting?
Finally, I don't think i'm pulling Matthew 28:19-20 as a proof-text. My point in providing that was to say that Christ called us to make disciples. After all that is what the text says. I went on to provide what Jesus Himself said in regard to what it meant to be His disciple - deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow Me (Mark 8:34-38).
To be plain, if someone does not know Christ as their Savior, then to give them temporal aid is to make them comfortable on their way to hell. I don't see any way around that. As believers we must help those in need, by sharing the gospel which is to their eternal benefit, while providing for their temporal needs which are real but less important from a kingdom perspective than their salvation. I don't see why you would not see the merit in that position, since I am advocating for helping the needy.
Am I missing something here?
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteHow do you come to understand my position as an either/or - "Do ministry, not feed the hungry"?
I'm sorry if I was not clear: I tried to point out what I meant in the very next line, where I said...
[I don't think it's] A "THIS has priority, but THAT is important, too," kind of thing.
My point was that feeding the poor, tending to the needy IS sharing the gospel, the good news of God's Realm. It's one way of doing this. More on that later...
Jeremy...
Are you suggesting believers just give to the needy, don't share the gospel, and that is what Jesus had in mind when He commanded His disciples to go and make disciples?
I'm saying that the Gospels as found in the Bible, and as found throughout the NT teach that giving to the needy IS sharing the gospel. There isn't a distinction between the one teaching of Jesus (what you do for the least of these) and another teaching of Jesus - or Paul (for it is by grace that you are saved). These are BOTH the Gospel teaching of Jesus. The Good news specifically to the poor, the oppressed, the needy, the sick, the imprisoned.
Jeremy...
when you say "I'm saying that to try to justify a "spirituality has priority" position is not biblical" seems to infer that to feed a hungry person is equivalent to telling them about Christ dying on the cross for their sins and how accepting Him as their Savior is the only way to be eternally filled. Is that what you are suggesting?
Yes, I think so, if I'm understanding you correctly. The Good News is that we can be saved by Grace. The grace of a loving God for a lost world, the grace that compels us to invite friends, enemies and strangers to the Party, the grace that compels us to share with the least of these, to look out for the oppressed and marginalized. This IS all part of the salvation by God's grace, it is what we are being saved TO, it is the process of being saved by grace ("forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors...")
Are you saying that the ONLY "Gospel" message is "Jesus died for our sins and if we accept Jesus, we can be saved..."? and that Jesus' very own direct teachings ("Don't store up treasures on earth...," "help the least of these...," "love your enemies...," etc) are NOT part of the Gospel message that Jesus taught?
I'm saying that Jesus' teachings - all of them - ARE the Gospel, the good news story that Jesus came preaching. Paul has summed up this message for us, by saying "It is by grace we are saved, through faith in Jesus," but that does not mean that this isn't also taught in "Do for the least of these..." because that IS a story of salvation by grace, too.
cont'd...
Further, I'm saying there is no biblical justification to say "Teaching we are saved by Jesus' death on the cross has a higher priority than teaching Jesus' teaching that we are to share with the least of these or turn the other cheek..."
ReplyDeleteWe might imply that extrabiblically, but it's not a direct biblical teaching and not a given, logically or biblically. It's human reasoning, not biblical teaching.
Some might reasonably say, "Well, teachings that have an impact on eternity MIGHT be considered rationally more important than those teachings that affect helping someone out here and now..." BUT at the same time, we also might reasonably say, "The teachings that affect helping someone out here and now very well could be considered to have eternal consequences and since starving folk can't really worry about eternity, we might even say it's MORE important or has priority, because without the love being SHOWN, the grace being told will have little impact..."
Both are human rationalizations, not biblical mandates. That is my point.
Jeremy...
To be plain, if someone does not know Christ as their Savior, then to give them temporal aid is to make them comfortable on their way to hell.
I disagree. The bible does not put it in those terms. Rather, the bible teaches us to take part in the grace of God, in the realm of God, and that includes giving "temporal aid," and that IS part of the good news.
Jeremy...
As believers we must help those in need, by sharing the gospel which is to their eternal benefit, while providing for their temporal needs which are real but less important from a kingdom perspective than their salvation.
Again, I see how one MIGHT rationalize this out as an extrapolation from biblical text, but this is no where found in the Biblical text. We COULD also rationalize out, "Those dying from hunger or sickness can't afford to worry about eternity, so the PRIORITY has to be on meeting the temporal needs, so that they can SEE and experience the grace of God in a real way..."
Both are not wholly unreasonable EXTRAPOLATIONS from the text, but neither is stated directly in the text.
Jeremy...
I don't see why you would not see the merit in that position, since I am advocating for helping the needy.
Clearly, as I have stated a few times I can see how one might rationally extrapolate that position out, I DO see some merit to the point. My point is that it IS a human extrapolation, not a biblical teaching. That's all.
Can we agree that we COULD also rationally extrapolate that meeting needs is a priority, given the Biblical text?
If so, it is for that reason that I think the wisest answer is that the Bible doesn't separate out "do to the least of these" as having a lower priority than "teach that we are saved by grace through faith..." or vice versa. It's all part of the Gospel message of the Kingdom of God. Yes? No?
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteI don't think i'm pulling Matthew 28:19-20 as a proof-text. My point in providing that was to say that Christ called us to make disciples.
Yes, but what is the teaching he gave his disciples? Turn the other cheek, care for the least of these, live simply, don't store up treasures, give to the poor, etc. The follower was discipled in the Ways of Christ, the Ways of the Kingdom of God. There is nothing in the four gospels to suggest that the teaching with priority was "We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus," nor "Jesus died on a cross to save us from our sins." These teachings of Christ ARE, it seems to me, THE teachings of Christ, The Good News.
Interestingly, in the four gospels, while it refers to "the Gospel" or "The good news/good news of the kingdom of God," it never directly spells out what these teachings consist of, but I see no substantial reason to think it this "gospel" being taught is any different than what sermons we DO have of Jesus - the sermons on the mount/plain, for instance.
Put another way: We see the gospel writers refering to Jesus teaching the "good news of the kingdom" over and over, but most of the time those terms are used, we never see a reference to WHAT was being taught. On the other hand, we do have sermons and teachings of Jesus. I tend to think the Gospel-writers recorded Jesus' sermons that were representative of the Good News he taught.
Do you? Do you think, for instance, that the Sermon on the Plain can reasonably be presumed to be representative of Jesus' preaching?
Dan T.,
ReplyDelete"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve...this is what we preach, and this is what you believe...If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Corinthians 15:1-5, 11b, 13-14)
"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2:4-10)
"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved...But the righteousness that is by faith says:...'The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,' that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 'That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved...How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?...Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:1,6,8b-10, 14,17)
"Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done - by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation." (Romans 15:17-20)
Biblically all are dead in transgressions. Some are made alive by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, which is given as of first importance by preaching Christ and Him crucified, buried and raised from the dead so that they may do good works that were prepared for him to do in advance.
Where is your scriptural support for equivalency for the preaching of the Word and meeting physical needs. Apart from that support, I will stand that without preaching the gospel you are giving physical food to one who is spiritually dead, and that your love for that one in need would be to preach the gospel (Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection for their sins) so they can be transformed by God's grace from death to life while providing that physical food. You have no biblical basis for stating that giving a hungry man bread is equal with preaching the gospel.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteWhere is your scriptural support for equivalency for the preaching of the Word and meeting physical needs
My support is in the lack of anything to contradict it. I think ALL of Jesus' message has priority and I see NO biblical text that suggests otherwise.
Where is your scriptural support for priority on SOME parts of the Gospel message but not others?
What I'm trying to say as clearly as possible is that, while we might make some logical extrapolations as to THIS priority or THAT priority, the text makes no such claims as to THIS part of the Gospel message is greater or of higher priority than THAT part of the Gospel message. If you disagree with that, then you'd have to find text that says just that.
I KNOW that Paul explained the Gospel message in certain ways and I love Paul for that. I appreciate his biblical witness. BUT, Paul's message does not contradict and certainly does not outweigh Jesus' own teachings as to the Gospel message.
So, if you have no such scriptural support for your suggestion, I will stand that without following JESUS' teachings - ALL of them - you (generic "you") only argue a cheap and artificial grace, and certainly not a biblical grace.
Jeremy...
You have no biblical basis for stating that giving a hungry man bread is equal with preaching the gospel
Yes, I thought I have been quite clear on that point. I have no biblical basis for saying feeding the poor is equal to "preaching the gospel." Feeding to the poor IS preaching the gospel, my brother. I do not separate out Jesus' teachings and say "THIS part of Jesus' teaching is less important than THAT interpretation of Paul's teaching." They all stand on equal footing from a biblical point of view.
Jeremy: Do you think that Jesus' sermon on the Mount was NOT preaching the gospel? Do you think that Jesus parable of the sheep and goats was NOT preaching the Gospel?
Is there any place in Jesus' teachings that you DO think that Jesus taught the Gospel?
You cite as "the gospel," Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection for sins. By that standard, it would appear that you don't think Jesus our savior taught "the gospel" very often, if at all. I see no biblical basis for such a claim.
Jeremy, does it concern you that, in your support for your opinion about "the gospel," that you cite not one single quote from Jesus, our Lord and purveyor of that Gospel? The one who originated the gospel message?
ReplyDeleteDo you see how it might come across as if you're downplaying Jesus' own direct teachings as being somehow inferior to or less important/having less priority than Paul's teachings? That would be my concern with your extrabiblical reasoning here.
Again, I think one CAN reasonably make your case as an extrabiblical opinion - for what it's worth - but my concern is the downplaying of Jesus' own teachings and the problem of confusing extrabiblical opinion with God's Word.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "My support is in the lack of anything to contradict it." And here we are again on yet another topic. You have your opinion, which you are perfectly capable of forming and operating upon, and I quote scripture. We cannot possibly continue if on every topic we come back to this same point.
You write: "Jeremy, does it concern you that, in your support for your opinion about "the gospel," that you cite not one single quote from Jesus, our Lord and purveyor of that Gospel?" Tell me, Dan, which scripture verses in the Bible did Christ not speak? When I quote from Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians I am quoting Christ. What is my support for that - 2 Timothy 3:16. However, even if you must have red letters to acknowledge that Christ is speaking I have already provided Matthew 6:31-33 (and surrounding verses for context). What I consider the gospel is not my opinion. Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, or just read my last comment again if you skipped it the first time through. It does not concern me that I take my stand on what the Bible says (what God says). I will not take my stand elsewhere.
However, since you bring up concern, does it concern you that based on your opinion (and it would have to be your opinion since you admittedly have no scriptural support for it) a group of atheists providing food to the hungry would equally be "sharing the gospel" with unbelievers?
Do you agree that unbelievers are dead in their sins until they have faith, by grace, that Christ died for their sins?
Do you agree that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God?
Do you agree that one hears by someone else speaking, and therefore salvation by grace through faith must come by way of preaching, proclaiming, hearing of Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead?
In short, do you believe what is written in the text of scipture in 1 Corinthians 15, Ephesians 2, Romans 10, Romans 15 and others not listed here but equally explicit? I am not downplaying Jesus' own teachings, further I am not providing extrabiblical opinion. I am providing quotes from scripture, references from scripture. You are basing your belief on extrabiblical opinion. Just read back through these comments Dan. You have not quoted a single line of scripture (extrabiblical opinion). I have quoted you four complete passages and reference to two others just in my last two series of comments (biblical text). Again, I will stand on what God says, you may stick with your opinion if you like.
If you decide to stick with your opinion, then we can go no further. As should be clear by what I have stated in our interactions, I am open to correction with biblical support but will not move from what scripture says based on any other hunches or opinions.
Jeremy, it seems from where I sit that you have difficulty separating out your opinion from God's Word; your opinion from facts. Given that, I don't know what to do. Where you say something like...
ReplyDeleteYou have your opinion, which you are perfectly capable of forming and operating upon, and I quote scripture.
I quote Scripture, too, and offer my opinion. YOU quote scripture and offer YOUR opinion. We are both offering opinion, but you appear to feel your opinion is equivalent to God's Word - you don't seem to see a difference between the two. That, to me, seems to be a dangerous place to be.
Let me try one more time, by taking one small bite at a time...
You cite as "the gospel," Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection for sins. Is that, to you, ALL the Gospel is?
Or, is the Gospel also, "We can be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus..."?
Do you think Jesus' teachings as found in the Gospels are part of the Gospel message?
I'll next answer your questions, but I'd appreciate if we could have a two way conversation, where you answer mine, as well...
Your questions...
ReplyDeletesince you bring up concern, does it concern you that based on your opinion (and it would have to be your opinion since you admittedly have no scriptural support for it) a group of atheists providing food to the hungry would equally be "sharing the gospel" with unbelievers?
Jesus teaches us that whoever gives a cup of cold water in his name will not lose their reward. Such people are Christians, living out the Gospel message as taught by Jesus. I believe that. Do you?
As to whether or not an atheist can/does give a cup of cold water in Jesus' name, I do not know. The text does not say and I would not guess. I would imagine the atheist would make no such claim.
Do you agree that unbelievers are dead in their sins until they have faith, by grace, that Christ died for their sins?
I believe that some folk are separated by God by their unbelief. "Dead in sin" is a metaphor used in the Bible to teach this truth. They are not literally dead, but metaphorically dead. We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. Not merely believing that Jesus died for our sins - even the demons believe that, the Bible teaches. But believing IN Jesus, in what Jesus taught and showed us, in the Gospel message as taught by Jesus which Paul aptly sums up as "saved by grace through faith in Jesus."
Agreed?
Do you agree that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God?
By hearing and by seeing the Word of God, and the Word of God ACTED OUT. If a mass murderer who spit on dogs and kicked children were to tell me that his god loves us and died for us and if we don't agree, he's going to kill me, that mass murderer might be reciting the "word of God," but he's not living it out and I would not be impressed by such.
The Word of God is not merely words in an ancient text, it is JESUS, the Christ who taught and showed us the Way of the Kingdom of God. There is power in that Way, in that Teaching, in that Word.
But there is only death and sorrow in an ancient rule book.
Agreed?
Do you agree that one hears by someone else speaking, and therefore salvation by grace through faith must come by way of preaching, proclaiming, hearing of Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead?
One CAN hear by someone else speaking, preaching, etc. BUT, as James says, if ALL you do is speak, preach and pontificate, what good is your faith? It's just so much garbage, without the power of Jesus and Jesus' teaching bringing life and love and grace in actions.
Both/and, not JUST words, but words and actions, this is the Gospel, my brother.
In short, do you believe what is written in the text of scipture in 1 Corinthians 15, Ephesians 2, Romans 10, Romans 15 and others not listed here but equally explicit?
In 1 cor 15, Paul cites Jesus' death and resurrection. If you're saying does merely believing that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead, if that belief saves us, I'd say the Biblical answer is "No." Even the demons believe that much, James tells us. Big deal.
In Ephesians 2, Paul tells us that by grace we are saved, not by works, not by our goodness, but by God's grace. And it is accepting that way of Grace, as taught and demonstrated by Jesus as he taught his followers the Gospel Way, it is in that Grace that we are saved and are BEING saved. Not merely saying, "oh yeah, Jesus died for our sins and is alive in heaven now," but ACCEPTING the Gospel Way of Grace that Jesus and Paul taught.
Does that answer your question? It's not merely mouthing words, "I believe in Jesus' death and resurrection," it's in ACCEPTING Jesus' grace, the Way of God taught by Jesus, THAT is the full Gospel. We err if we simplify it down to mere words in affirmation of Jesus' death and resurrection.
Agreed?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I am not opposed to two-way conversation. So, to your questions:
"I quote Scripture, too, and offer my opinion. YOU quote scripture and offer YOUR opinion." No, that's not quite right, is it. In this comment thread i've asked for your scriptural support and your response was, "My support is in the lack of anything to contradict it." Therefore, what you are offering is truly your opinion. You think all of scripture points to what you say, but you have nothing to site. I have written out explicit quotations from the text in support of my point. Not my opinion about scripture - scripture itself. That will serve as a great starter for the specific questions.
You ask: "Is that, to you, ALL the Gospel is?"
My response: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve...this is what we preach, and this is what you believe...If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Corinthians 15:1-5, 11b, 13-14)
I believe the gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. That is what the text of scripture says.
You ask: "Or, is the Gospel also, "We can be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus..."?"
My response: No, the text does not support that being the gospel. Are we saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus? Yes. Why? Ephesians 2:8. Salvation is not the gospel, salvation occurs as a result of having heard and believed the gospel.
Your question: "Do you think Jesus' teachings as found in the Gospels are part of the Gospel message?"
My response: The gospel is Jesus' death according to the scriptures, his burial, and his being raised on the third day according to the scriptures. There are portions of all three accounts of the gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that discuss these topics and so those areas would be the gospel, not a part of it. And again, no matter what I read in scripture, Old Testament or New is part of Jesus' teachings (2 Timothy 3:16). You didn't answer before so, what part of the Bible did Christ not speak?
Now those are my brief addresses to your questions. Let me be quick to say that all places where Jesus taught during his earthly ministry are important and need to be carefully adhered to as the way believers are to behave. That said just to head off any possible misinterpretation that Jesus' teachings are somehow not important.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteAnd to your answers.
On the first point you really didn't answer the question. An atheist believes there is no God, but many believe Jesus to be a good person and a fine teacher, so what if a group of atheists gives cold water to the thirsty in Jesus' name (in the name of a good teacher who did the same)? Would they be sharing the gospel just the same as a group of Christians who believe that Jesus died for their sins, was buried and raised on the third day also giving cold water to a thirsty person?
On your second response I notice you quoted no scripture for your discourse on salvation. You asserted that men are metaphorically dead but not literally dead and then went on to write "believing IN Jesus, in what Jesus taught and showed us, in the Gospel message as taught by Jesus which Paul aptly sums up as "saved by grace through faith in Jesus." Your opinion is "what Jesus taught and showed us". Why not just quote scripture, Dan. We are told explicitly in two places about salvation. Peter tells the Sanhedrin "It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead...Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:10,12) Paul and Silas answer a direct question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God-he and his whole family." (Acts 16:30b-34) And Paul again addressing the Roman church: "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9). Why not just be clear when the Bible is clear? Salvation comes to all who confess Christ as Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead. Keeping with scripture is simple and heads off error.
Continued...
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteContinued...
I asked if you believed that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). Your response: "By hearing and by seeing the Word of God, and the Word of God ACTED OUT." Why do you feel the need to add to scripture? Read Romans 10:17. Where is the "and by seeing the Word of God, and the Word of God ACTED OUT."? Those are not biblical requirements for faith, they are yours and you are one in danger here. If you are concerned about behavior of those who believe, all you need to do is go to Galatians 5:16-26. Bearing the fruit of the Spirit is a result of having come to faith, not a requirement of it.
Your confusion is in this basic systematic order laid out in the whole council of God. One hears the gospel, confesses Christ as Lord and believes in his/her heart that God raised Christ from the dead and is saved, then keeps in step with the Spirit and bears the fruit of the Spirit. So, in your example the answer to the mass murderer is that he was never saved in the first place and the evidence is that he bears no fruit. If one had to exhibit right behavior as a requirement of salvation then it becomes about works, not faith and people are earning their salvation (not the case lest any man should boast).
Finally, you respond "If you're saying does merely believing that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead, if that belief saves us, I'd say the Biblical answer is "No."" Dan, what are you doing here? Read Acts 4, Acts 16, Romans 10. Belief is what saves. We are not saved by works, lest any man should boast. We believe and are saved, the result is good works that rightfully follow as we not longer act according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. You continue, "in that Grace that we are saved and are BEING saved." You believe that salvation is immediate and continuous? Where do you find that in Scripture? You are confusing salvation with sanctification here.
You finish with: "We err if we simplify it down to mere words in affirmation of Jesus' death and resurrection. Agreed?" No we are not agreed. You are in serious error in several areas here because you do not recognize the plain teaching of scripture. Confession and belief is what the bible says. You have a differing opinion and you need to change, not the Word of God.
Think carefully on these things and please read the scriptures I have presented. Where does the scripture not read as I have quoted it? The consequences for going beyond and adding to scripture is dire, I implore you as strongly as I can to stop and return to the Scriptures.
For now, just to answer one question of yours...
ReplyDeleteno matter what I read in scripture, Old Testament or New is part of Jesus' teachings (2 Timothy 3:16). You didn't answer before so, what part of the Bible did Christ not speak?
I come from the Baptist/Anabaptist tradition. For many of us (some have moved away, sadly) when it comes to Bible interpretation, one of our "rules" is: Interpret all of Scripture through the specific teachings of Jesus, as found in the Gospels.
Why do we do that?
1. Because we are Christ-ians - followers of the Christ and those who cling to the teachings of the Christ;
2. Because we are not OT Jews, nor are we followers of Paul, but followers of Jesus, the Christ, whose story and words are told in the four Gospels;
3. Because we believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the clearest manifestation of God that we have. God's revelation to us was made whole in the life and teachings of Jesus, the son of God;
Thus, I in NO WAY disregard or disrespect non-Gospel teachings in the bible, but I DO read them through the lens of Jesus' teachings. Because I am a follower of Christ.
Thus, when we come across a passage, for instance, that clearly condemns eating meat and another passage in which Jesus tells us eating meat is okay, we have a CLEARER representation of God's will in Jesus. I do not make Jesus' teachings subservient to other teachings, but align OTHER teachings through Jesus' teachings.
I START with Jesus' teachings and work outwardly from there, because Jesus' words as contained in the Gospels are the closest, most complete representation we have of God's Will. And, as noted, because I am a Christ-ian. As was Paul. So, given that, it is VITAL that we do not interpret Jesus through Paul or Moses, but the other way around.
Jesus must be our starting point.
Can we agree on this?
This is vital, Jeremy, because if EACH and every word in the Bible holds the same value, then we have a revelation that contradicts itself and a convoluted God. Each word in the Bible is inspired, BUT, not each and every word or teaching in the Bible holds equal weight or influence on our lives and/or morality and/or understanding of God.
ReplyDeleteIt can't be both wrong AND right to eat meat. Both teachings are not equally valid or binding or informing on our lives today.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteWe do not agree. I'm not concerned with what tradition from which you come but in how you handle the Word. I see no biblical mandate, command, instruction, teaching, or implication that all Scripture must be read through the Gospels.
You say, "I START with Jesus' teachings and work outwardly from there, because Jesus' words as contained in the Gospels are the closest, most complete representation we have of God's Will." Where do you get that Jesus' words as contained in the Gospels are the closest, most complete representation we have of God's Will? You do not agree with 2 Timothy 3:16? If all Scripture is God-breathed then the contradiction would be that one part is a closer representation than another.
You start with the Gospels and work outwardly from there. I simply read the Bible. There are no contradictions in Scripture.
You write: "Each word in the Bible is inspired, BUT, not each and every word or teaching in the Bible holds equal weight or influence on our lives and/or morality and/or understanding of God." Where do you get this biblically? Who gets to decide how much weight to hold for which parts of the Scripture? Do you arrogate to yourself this authority or did someone else give it to you?
Dan, you are in serious error here. You're sharing this sheds a tremendous amount of light on why we cannot agree on anything biblically and why you feel compelled to look for general "TRUTHS" and not to the Truth clearly written. There is much more to be said here and I will have to pray seriously about how to continue with you but let's start here with two questions:
Are you saying you believe 2 Timothy 3:16, but that God-breathed means inspired but not of equal authority as the "red-letter" portions of biblical text?
What is your biblical justification - in the Gospel portions or otherwise - for the words in the Gospels being more closely or completely representative of God's will?
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteI see no biblical mandate, command, instruction, teaching, or implication that all Scripture must be read through the Gospels.
Then we're starting off at the same - but opposite - place: I see no biblical mandate to take the whole Bible on equal footing. Further, I DO see biblical mandate to read all Scripture through the Gospels, or at least the OT through the Gospels. IF the OT teaches "Don't eat meat" and Jesus clarifies and tells us, "It's OKAY to eat meat...," then Jesus is CLARIFYING for us how BETTER to understand the ancient teachings.
Jesus is clearly our clarifier, as it relates to the OT. He does this over and over again. Do you need me to cite those places?
* "Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath..."
* Woman accused of adultery: OT Law said "Kill her." Jesus said, "Don't kill her" (literally, "Let he who is without sin kill her..." but that is essentially the same thing).
* Don't eat meat/it's okay to eat meat
For example.
Jeremy...
You say, "I START with Jesus' teachings and work outwardly from there, because Jesus' words as contained in the Gospels are the closest, most complete representation we have of God's Will." Where do you get that Jesus' words as contained in the Gospels are the closest, most complete representation we have of God's Will?
Self evidence? Because it is abundantly obvious? The OT is the Jewish story of God's revelation to them. TO THEM. Jesus is our Christ. I am a follower of Christ. Jesus clarifies OT teachings for us making them more clear. Jesus is our savior, not Moses. Not Paul. On what rational or biblical basis would you NOT make Jesus actual recorded words a higher priority, IF you are a follower of Christ?
The Bible NO WHERE says that each line is equally valid or equally applicable. On what basis would you try to make each line valid? On what basis would you make Jesus' teachings subservient to ancient OT Jewish teachings? The teaching NOT to eat pork came first, should we say that has priority over Jesus' teaching that it's OKAY to eat pork? OR does Jesus' clarification receive priority?
That's an important question, I'd hope you'd answer that.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteYou do not agree with 2 Timothy 3:16?
Of course I agree with 2 Tim 3.
...If all Scripture is God-breathed then the contradiction would be that one part is a closer representation than another.
Says you. Not the Scriptures, though. Clearly, Jesus DID clarify OT teachings and understandings. There is no contradiction in saying "Jesus clarified OT teachings, making them more clear for us, helping us to better understand them..." The problem would come if you were to try to say "Don't eat pork" and "eat pork" are equally true and valid. They're OPPOSITES.
Jeremy..
You write: "Each word in the Bible is inspired, BUT, not each and every word or teaching in the Bible holds equal weight or influence on our lives and/or morality and/or understanding of God." Where do you get this biblically?
In Jesus clarifications of OT teachings.
Jeremy...
Who gets to decide how much weight to hold for which parts of the Scripture? Do you arrogate to yourself this authority or did someone else give it to you?
Jesus gave us this authority. We are a priesthood of believers. The veil is torn and we no longer need to approach a mere human to be told what to believe, rather, we have the Holy Spirit guiding us and God's own word, written upon our hearts and minds. All biblical stuff, my brother.
we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us (EACH of us -Dan) then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence ~Heb 4
you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood... you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God ~1 Pet 2
We are, each of us, responsible before God for striving to understand God, as best we can by God's grace and revelation of the Holy Spirit.
On what authority would you deny anyone the right and responsibility to answer to God, rather than to men?
On what authority would you suggest that OT teachings ought to be equal to Jesus' teachings for we who are followers of Jesus?
Jeremy...
You're sharing this sheds a tremendous amount of light on why we cannot agree on anything biblically and why you feel compelled to look for general "TRUTHS" and not to the Truth clearly written.
I AM looking for general Truths that ARE clearly written. What I'm not doing is treating the Bible like a mere rule book, because that would often run CONTRARY to the Truths being taught. Which is why I'm concerned about this approach that you seem to have and why it concerns me that you don't even seem to know you're often conflating your interpretations with God's Word.
Jeremy...
Are you saying you believe 2 Timothy 3:16, but that God-breathed means inspired but not of equal authority as the "red-letter" portions of biblical text?
No. I'm saying all the Bible is inspired and good for teaching, etc. I'm saying that, as a follower of Christ, though, I'm most concerned about the SPECIFIC teachings of Christ on earth.
Why would I be more concerned about a mosaic teaching than I am about the direct teachings of my savior?
What biblical reason would I have for doing so?
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteWhat is your biblical justification - in the Gospel portions or otherwise - for the words in the Gospels being more closely or completely representative of God's will?
To answer this again: Jesus CLARIFIES the OT for us. Jesus as revealed in his teachings here on earth is, IN THE BIBLE, our clearest revelation of God to be found. Why would followers of JESUS think otherwise? What biblical reason would there be for that?
Consider this, Jeremy: In Jesus actual words and actions, we can SEE CLEARLY the very actions of how God would act and speak as a human being! What a tremendous joy and blessing! What tremendous practical wisdom we find in this Holy Example.
Further, we are called in the Bible to FOLLOW IN JESUS' STEPS (1 Pet 2). How do we do that? By reading what Jesus' literal steps were like! Right? Thank God that we have the biblical accounts to be able to do that.
When reading of poor fallen human saints like Moses or Abraham or David (a man after God's own heart who, nonetheless, was a polygamist, held concubines, was an adulterer, murderer, liar...) in the Bible, we can see how God works through we poor sods, however poorly our own part may be. BUT, when we read of Jesus, we can see clearly what God would do here on earth. More so than anywhere else in the Bible.
With the Pauline and other letters, we sometimes have Paul, et al, offering his own opinions and sorting out his opinions from "God's Word" can be less than clear. But with Jesus, we can SEE God on earth, God's Kingdom Come, God's will be done in the form of the Man-God Jesus. Why WOULDN'T God's very own representation of how to live as a human be the most clear representation?
That seems abundantly obvious to me, as well as being abundantly biblical and rational. Does it not seem that way to you? What biblical, logical reasoning would you have for NOT holding to this position?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteWe are definately starting off at opposite points. We also operate oppositely and end at opposite ends of every biblical discussion.
You say: "I see no biblical mandate to take the whole Bible on equal footing." But you also say: "Of course I agree with 2 Tim 3."
2 Timothy 3:16 says:
All Scritpure 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.
And this after the previous sentence: 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.
The mandate to take the whole Bible on equal footing is the prescription that ALL Scripture is God-breathed. All of it, Dan, not part of it. If God breathed all of it, then for what portions was He unable to clearly inspire Truth? How was the same Holy Spirit operating in the writers who penned the "red-letter" portions be better able to communicate Truth than with Moses, or Paul? You are the one making presumptions about (adding to) Scripture. If you believe 2 Timothy 3:16 then you will not presume to decide where the Holy Spirit was more or less able to successfully inspire and preserve Truth.
You come back to the dietary restrictions again for some sort of support for your presumptions. I have already addressed this. It is not a contradiction, no matter how many times you bring it up. You can refer to our previous discussion or I can present what is biblical again if you don't remember, but you cannot posit this as a contradiction within scripture, it is not.
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteYou further write that Jesus gave you the authority to decide where scriture is applicable and when it is not. It is complete lunacy to take Hebrews 4 and 1 Peter 2 as a license to neglect certain parts or relegate portions of scripture as of less importance, or worse as being unreliable because of contradictions. Do you really believe that a Priest of God would hear God's Word and then decide not to follow every last command? You can't possibly read the Old Testament and come up with something like that. Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Christ died for our sins and because of that we are adopted into the family of God and are therefore a part of a holy priesthood. Holy, not disobedient. Holy, not final arbitors of Truth. Jesus himself calls for obedience, not deciding what and what not to obey. See Matthew 28:16-20; John 14:15-31. Even here in the "red letters" Jesus demands obedience to His commands and teaching and the Holy Spirit will remind us of His teachings, not lead us to decide when they do not apply. If Jesus spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 and you believe it, then all scripture is His commands and teachings and we are not to dismiss any portion of it, because He is Holy and His Word is Truth. So when you say, " as a follower of Christ, though, I'm most concerned about the SPECIFIC teachings of Christ on earth" this is nonsense. That's the same as saying everything my father tells me is imporant but he contradicts himself and so I focus only on this one portion he said so it all makes sense. You continue with nonsense when you write "Why would I be more concerned about a mosaic teaching than I am about the direct teachings of my savior?" No one is asking you to be more concerned with any part, God wrote all of it - all equally God's words - all equally important. Strive to understand all of it, not a portion and the biblical reason for doing that is 2 Timothy 3:16 which you claim to believe.
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteYour whole last comment string continues on the same line:
"Jesus as revealed in his teachings here on earth is, IN THE BIBLE, our clearest revelation of God to be found. Why would followers of JESUS think otherwise? What biblical reason would there be for that?" If all of the Bible is God-breathed, then for which parts was God less able to be clear? The biblical reason, 2 Timothy 3:16
"we are called in the Bible to FOLLOW IN JESUS' STEPS (1 Pet 2). How do we do that? By reading what Jesus' literal steps were like!" But what Jesus did on earth was recorded by other people (Mark, Luke, etc.), just like Moses, David, Abraham, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, etc. The same Holy Spirit inspired all these men. All scripture is useful, not just the accounts written by Mark and Luke.
"in the Bible, we can see how God works through we poor sods, however poorly our own part may be. BUT, when we read of Jesus, we can see clearly what God would do here on earth. More so than anywhere else in the Bible." God the Son (Christ Jesus), God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are One. God the Father has been invovled with manking on earth since the beginning just the same as Christ in the flesh. The manifestation is different (cloud, fire, human flesh) but the same God. Or do you believe that Jesus is God, but moreso than the Father or Spirit so that we take Christ interacting with people as more valuable that the Father interacting with people? Is it a great blessings that Christ came in human form - without question. He did so to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins and rose on the third day to defeat death and sin so that we can no longer have a spirit of fear but one of Sonship. Do we therefore take the scripture describing the account of those events of more weight than the other equally God-breathed portions of text? Not according to scripture.
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDelete"With the Pauline and other letters, we sometimes have Paul, et al, offering his own opinions and sorting out his opinions from "God's Word" can be less than clear." You cannot believe 2 Timothy 3:16 and write this. Was 2 Timothy 3:16 clear or not? If it is then all scripture is God breathed. This means all Paul's writings are God-breathed. To write that Paul is writing his opinions is to write that Paul's (et. al.) is not God-breathed or if it is that God is less than clear in communicating Truth through this individual than through those who record the account of Christ's earthly ministry.
That these positions seem abundantly obvious and abundantly biblical and rational indicates that you have moved away from the Truth and into false teaching. I have given you the reasoning for not holding to what you present, the text of scripture. You are assigning yourself to be the final arbitor of Truth instead of reading the Truth and obeying it. You are committing intellectual suicide by declaring the Bible to be full of contradictions and therefore unreliable and then asserting some portions of it of greater importance than the rest. You mistake the time period where Christ came in the flesh (which was recorded by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to be of greater value than the time periods before and after (which was recorded by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), which means you either feel men like Mark and Luke were perfect and others like Moses, David and Paul were not, or that God was unable to clearly communicate Truth except in men like Mark and Luke.
You are not being biblical or logical. You are doing what seems right in your own eyes, what is "self-evident" to use your words. You are mishandling God's Word, you are in serious error, you are leading people astray by teaching this way, you need to stop, repent and turn from this way of thinking. All Scripture is Truth, God-breathed, living and active and requires our obedience. You sin by willfully doing when God says "Do not" and by elevating yourself to be the final arbitor of Truth. Repent and turn back to God's Word as Truth, not what is evident to your self.
I pray you will not respond directly to these comments but think deeply about what you are doing and the ramifications for continuing on. To continue is to turn from God's Word and put a stumbling block before others. I pray also that God would bring great conviction and that the Holy Spirit would impress upon you the error of your ways.
Brother Jeremy, I will have to rebuke in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, this approach you're taking. You've leveled a hell of a charge (that is not cussing, that is being literal): You have accused me, a fella you hardly know, with being a false teacher. You've done this NOT because I'm espousing some heresy, but because I have dared to disagree with you about how to interpret a Scripture.
ReplyDeleteOn what possible basis would you call me a false teacher? Because I disagree with your opinion about how to interpret a passage? Really? Are you conflating your opinion with God's? Do you think that is wise?
Tell me, Jeremy, do you have any Biblical reason for suggesting something so extreme as "false teacher..." or is it as it seems to me: That I've dared to disagree with your opinion?
Dan T.,
ReplyDelete"On what possible basis would you call me a false teacher?"
On the basis that I clearly wrote when making the charge.
(1) You are teaching that some portions of scripture are of greater importance than others.
(2) You are willfully writing your intentional disobedience to an imperative of scripture. God clearly says, "Do not.." and your respond with "Yes I would..." The willful disobedience in the second case stems from the first.
These are the two areas where you are teaching falsely. Again, I would suggest you look at your position more carefully. You and I have been writing back and forth for around two years. I have never leveled an accusation of your being an unbeliever, lying about your conversion, accused you of committing an unpardonable sin, or other. We have had, what I feel to be, strong disagreements on many issues but all done with mutual respect. At this time, I am leveling the charge based on your written words and stated belief that one part of scripture is more important and should be given more weight than others, a stance for which the closest you can get to biblical support is "nothing in scripture contradicts me" and in your own words is "self-evident".
Take special note of this: I am leveling this charge not based on disagreement with my opinions, but on what is clearly written in the Word of God. To issue a rebuke in the name of Christ you must bring scripture to bear. I have listed 2 Timothy 3:16 many times. It is scripture, all of it, that is God-breathed and useful for correction and rebuke. I have rebuked you and offered correction based on the clear text of scripture. You are obligated, based upon the clear teaching of scripture to turn from your present position to align yourself with scripture. I care about you, Dan. I care about your spiritual well-being. In good conscience I cannot just write "let's just agree to disagree" and leave these issues unaddressed. I took time praying and thinking how I would address a fellow member or leader in my own congregation should they present the same stated position relative the the Word. I wrote out and re-read before publishing what I would have said to any other claimant to Christianity out of love for the Lord first and to them as myself. I hope you will read this response again and understand the concern I have for you and how your stated belief in non-biblical (you have no biblical support for holding it) and is in direct and stated disobedience to a clear imperative in scripture and repent, turn from this sin and back to obedience to the clear teaching of scripture.
I continue to pray the Holy Spirit will bring conviction and prick your conscience and change your heart.
You could also think about my questions and really consider what a good answer would be.
(1) If all of the Bible is God-breathed, then for which parts was God less able to be clear?
(2) What Jesus did on earth was recorded by other people (Mark, Luke, etc.), just like Moses, David, Abraham, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, etc. If the same Holy Spirit inspired all these men why was God unable to clearly communicate Truth in some instances and better able in others?
(3) If all Scripture is God-breathed, then why was God unable to produce a single document over thousands of years, with a multitude of authors in a non-contradictory way without leaving humans to assign more legitimacy to one portion with which to mitigate all the numerous contradictions?
(4) If all scripture is God breathed then all Paul's writings are God-breathed. To write that Paul is writing his opinions is to write that Paul's (et. al.) is not God-breathed or if it is that God is less than clear in communicating Truth through this individual than through those who record the account of Christ's earthly ministry. How can that be true and 2 Timothy 3:16 also be the case?
Please take these things before the Lord.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteOn the basis that I clearly wrote when making the charge.
(1) You are teaching that some portions of scripture are of greater importance than others.
And WHERE in the Bible does it teach, "If someone finds that some passages hold more importance or are of primary concern than other passages, this is a false teaching and one who teaches it is a false teacher..."?
The answer, Jeremy, as I hope you can be honest enough to admit, is the Bible makes NO such charge.
Can we agree to that?
You also said...
(2) You are willfully writing your intentional disobedience to an imperative of scripture. God clearly says, "Do not.." and your respond with "Yes I would..." The willful disobedience in the second case stems from the first.
No, I am not engaging in willful disobedience, Jeremy. Quite the opposite: I am engaging in willful OBEDIENCE. I am intentionally saying I WILL obey God's truth: "Don't shed innocent blood..." and the further teaching that we ought to aid those who are oppressed, harmed, etc. THAT is a Godly truth.
YOU INTERPRET (clearly wrongly, I would suggest) Paul's teaching about two-three witnesses to mean that people who have been raped, for instance, should remain quiet if there was no witness (or are you? I can't hardly tell from your words, because you seem to vacillate back and forth between yes and no - a clear answer would help, thanks!). That is a bastardization of Scripture, treating it GRIEVOUSLY wrongly as a literal rule book, rather than as the Book of Truth that it is, by its own witness.
Regardless, the point is: I am FULLY committing myself to following God's will and God's truth as taught in the Bible and as is self-evident and as is written upon our hearts and we can see using our God-given reasoning. To suggest that I am intentionally disregarding God is a falsehood that I hope you can see clearly now and make amends for that suggestion (or clarify if that wasn't your suggestion).
So, given that your stated reasons are, in the case of point 1. Not biblical, nor rational and, in the case of point 2. False, can you humbly back off and reconsider your loose and scurrilous charge?
To answer your questions...
ReplyDelete(1) If all of the Bible is God-breathed, then for which parts was God less able to be clear?
If the Bible is God-breathed/God-inspired, as I think it is, WE still remain fallible humans and capable of being mistaken on ANY point. Are there some points in the Bible that tend to be more clear to people than others? I think obviously so. MANY people find it hard to believe that a God of love who COMMANDS us not to shed innocent blood, would command people to shed innocent blood. That point is not clear to MANY people and MUCH less clear than "love your enemies, do good to them who hate you." I'd say that this is an observable fact. People all the time refer to the "hard teachings" of the bible or the "hard teachings" of Jesus, for instance. Your comrade, Stan, has used that term.
Further, do I think that Jesus, the living son of God coming and showing us by example and by teaching HOW to live the Way of God is going to be a more clear portrayal of God's ways than a fallen human thousands of years earlier in a much different time and setting (pre-historic, in some instances) living out those teachings? Yes, obviously. I think for different people, different teachings/passages are less clear than others. I - along with the historic Baptist, anabaptist and many other churches over the last half a millenium, think that Jesus' example is the MOST clear representation of God's will. This seems abundantly obvious.
You disagree, apparently. Are you saying, then, that each part of the Bible is equally clear to you?
(2) What Jesus did on earth was recorded by other people (Mark, Luke, etc.), just like Moses, David, Abraham, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, etc. If the same Holy Spirit inspired all these men why was God unable to clearly communicate Truth in some instances and better able in others?
The same fallible humans all had the same Holy Spirit inspiring them, BUT, the people in Jesus' time had the incredible advantage of having BOTH the Holy Spirit and the visible, audible, in-their-face Son of the Living God teaching them directly. That seems a huge and obvious advantage to me and many others.
Consider it this way: If the Spirit inspires you to write a song (do you believe in such inspiration? I do), you will doubtless write a meaningful, powerful song (or at least meaningful, powerful TO YOU). BUT, would I compare your inspired words to Jesus' direct words? Sorry, no. Not even close.
cont'd...
(3) If all Scripture is God-breathed, then why was God unable to produce a single document over thousands of years, with a multitude of authors in a non-contradictory way without leaving humans to assign more legitimacy to one portion with which to mitigate all the numerous contradictions?
ReplyDelete? I'm not sure of your question. Why was God unable to write a magical document that removed all human misunderstanding? Is that what you're asking? If so, I think the Truth of the Bible is quite clear: We are and will remain fallible human beings. "Even if the prophets appear from the dead and spoke to us, we could misunderstand," to borrow from the Lazarus story.
To flip the question, why would God not help you see that some parts are clearly more able to grasp than other parts? Because you are fallible, that's why. As are we all.
(4) If all scripture is God breathed then all Paul's writings are God-breathed.
Yes, sure.
To write that Paul is writing his opinions is to write that Paul's (et. al.) is not God-breathed...
1. I did not say that Paul is not God-breathed.
2. Rather, I indicated that Paul HIMSELF wrote the God-breathed words that he was offering HIS opinion...
have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. ~1 Cor 7
3. If you reject the notion that Paul was offering his opinion, then YOU are rejecting the inspiration of Scripture, are you not?
...or if it is that God is less than clear in communicating Truth through this individual than through those who record the account of Christ's earthly ministry. How can that be true and 2 Timothy 3:16 also be the case?
1. I don't think and have not said that God is "less than clear..." rather, I've stated clearly that WE are fallible and WE find different scriptures less clear at times.
2. 2 Tim 3 teaches that Scripture is God-inspired and good for teaching. I agree with that, with what it ACTUALLY says.
3. 2 Tim 3 does NOT teach that Scripture is magic and we fallible humans are magically made able to understand all of an infinite God's Ways by reading this magic book. That would approach dangerously close to a deification of the Bible or of making the Bible into a graven image, magic totem, something that it is not and does not claim to be.
4. As an interesting aside (and because I accidentally went there just now), if you look at FIRST Timothy 3:16, you see THIS great inspired-by-God teaching/Truth...
Beyond all question, the MYSTERY from which true godliness springs is great...
Words of Truth to consider.
I hope my answers help clarify my actual positions, as you seem to be under some misunderstanding on at least some of them.
Dan T.,
ReplyDelete"And WHERE in the Bible does it teach, "If someone finds that some passages hold more importance or are of primary concern than other passages, this is a false teaching and one who teaches it is a false teacher..."?"
You have stood consistently in your approach to interpretation that if the Bible doesn't explicitly tell you you can't then you can. False teaching is teaching something in opposition to what the Bible does say. Your focus is on something that is not the issue. We are not talking about teaching what the Bible doesn't say, but what it does say. Namely: All Scripture is God-breathed..." To add "but the accounts in the gospels is more important and of more value and should be used to interpret all the rest of Scripture so that the contradictions can be mitigated" is to add to Scripture, which we are commanded not to do. My position is quite simple actually, believe what the Bible says - all scripture is God-breathed - same God, same ability to communicate Truth, same importance, same weight, all scripture, add nothing to it, take nothing away from it. Simple.
Are there hard teachings in the Bible? Certainly. But that means you consider all of Scripture, since all of it is God-breathed, to find your answer - not personally assign more weight to certain parts as seems self-evident and obvious to you. I will not speak on behalf of Stan as to what his feelings might be, but I would be curious to see if he would decide - in the face of a "hard teaching" - to assign more weight to certain portions of scripture, or consider all of scripture equally to find an answer.
"2 Tim 3 does NOT teach that Scripture is magic and we fallible humans are magically made able to understand all of an infinite God's Ways by reading this magic book. That would approach dangerously close to a deification of the Bible or of making the Bible into a graven image, magic totem, something that it is not and does not claim to be." I guess it's a good thing I have said no such thing. I would appreciate you not assigning such obvious misinterpretations of what I have written to me. I'm sure you know how wrong it is to do that.
I don't think and have not said that God is "less than clear..." rather, I've stated clearly that WE are fallible and WE find different scriptures less clear at times.
So in your fallible state and in finding certain scriptures less clear than others, your solution is to rely on your fallible state to decide which scriptures are more reliable than others? That is absurd on its face. If you really believe yourself to be fallible you will not lean on your own understanding but come back to the Word as it is written, all of it, to find your answer when things are difficult.
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteAs an interesting aside (and because I accidentally went there just now), if you look at FIRST Timothy 3:16, you see THIS great inspired-by-God teaching/Truth...
Beyond all question, the MYSTERY from which true godliness springs is great...
That is a great point, which shows the difference between our positions. What is immediately after that?
"He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16b So, the MYSTERY to which you refer that is supposed to make your point is something which is known with positive knowledge? Appeared in body (which people saw, touched and walked and talked with); vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels (prophesied in the OT, witnessed in the NT and testified to through the written word under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit); preached among the nations (heard and recorded by Christian and non-Christian alike); believed on in the world (recorded by Christian and non-Christian alike); was taken up in glory (witnessed with multiple attestation and recorded in Scripture).
Also see Ephesians 3:2-6. "Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus."
So you would say then that Paul was issuing his opinion here, when he states that he KNOWS by way of revelation, and that we WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND his insight which HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED to the apostles and prophets which they recorded and we can read, and that the mystery is that Gentiles as well as Jews share in the promise of salvation in Christ Jesus. So the positive knowledge held for what is described as a mystery and the clear statement of knowledge by the apostle, the clear statement of ability to understand the mystery and the clear and explicit statement of what the mystery is still leaves it something unknowable to you? Paul wrote both 1 Timothy 3:16 and Ephesians 3:2-6. Was he clear in one place and not in another? Is his description of the mystery not plain in these two passages? Do you hold that these things are still a mystery by going to the gospels to interpret these two passages and determine that Mark and Luke had a better understanding than Paul because they walked with Jesus and so even though Paul under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit said he KNEW and that all reader could UNDERSTAND and wrote what the mystery WAS he was only offering his opinion and so we still cannot be sure about it beyond our own opinion due to a continued lack of positive knowledge?
I am under no misunderstanding of your position. Your position is untenable and un-biblical. You may persist if you wish, but you will do so now having been corrected based on the clear teaching of scripture and rebuked based on the Scripture, which is God-breathed. I leave it to you to decide whether to return to the Word and the Truth or continue on this path you are going, opposed to the Truth with however many others you are believing in accordance with.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteYou have stood consistently in your approach to interpretation that if the Bible doesn't explicitly tell you you can't then you can.
Brother Jeremy, that is SO FAR from my actual position as to be laughable. I would not know how you got that since I've never said that and clearly do not believe it. It would be a ridiculous position to hold and I, for one, clearly do not hold that. Does that help clear up at least THAT misunderstanding?
Jeremy...
False teaching is teaching something in opposition to what the Bible does say.
1. False teaching is teaching something in opposition to God's Will.
2. "The Bible says" as a measure leads to the whole problem of Rule Book biblical interpretation. "The Bible says," after all, that we should kill "men who lay with men" and those who work on Saturday (the Sabbath). We ought NOT live by "what the Bible says," but by every word out of the mouth of God. There IS a distinction, and I hope you can see that.
3. Thus, getting back to my question, I'd ask once again...
And WHERE in the Bible does it teach, "If someone finds that some passages hold more importance or are of primary concern than other passages, this is a false teaching and one who teaches it is a false teacher..."?"
4. The FACT is, the Bible does not teach that. That teaching is NOT in the Bible. Although you have falsely accused me of adding to the Bible, can you see that it is YOU who are doing so? If you are teaching that if someone finds some passages of primary concern for Christians than other passages, they are a false teacher, you are holding to an EXTRABIBLICAL teaching and I rebuke that conflation of one's opinion with God's Word. Your thoughts and ideas, Jeremy, while no doubt lovely and wonderful, are not one in the same with God's Word. It is vital that we all understand that.
5. So, GIVEN THAT the Bible does not state that one must hold all teachings equally, will you back off on that false charge of false teaching and humbly admit a mistake? It's okay, it happens.
Jeremy...
Namely: All Scripture is God-breathed..." To add "but the accounts in the gospels is more important and of more value and should be used to interpret all the rest of Scripture so that the contradictions can be mitigated" is to add to Scripture
We both agree All Scripture is God-breathed. I find it reasonable to believe that not all Scriptures hold equal primary concern for Christians (followers of Jesus, the Christ), I and many others. That we find that a reasonable approach to serious Bible study does not in any way at all "add" anything to the Bible. I am not saying that is in the Bible, rather, I'm saying I personally find that a reasonable hermeneutic.
On the other hand, are YOU adding to the Bible by insisting that one CAN NOT believe what we Baptists/anabaptists, etc believe? Do you see the difference? I am stating quite clearly this is my opinion - NOT a biblical teaching, but my opinion - thus we are not adding to the Bible. You, on the other hand, are making the rather astounding claim that someone CAN NOT biblically believe that, but rather, that one MUST hold to all teachings equally (thus, "Abraham begat Isaac, begat Jacob, begat..." is equally important as "love your enemies," and "it is by grace that we are saved, through faith...") or they are a false teacher.
That is adding to Scripture, if you hold that this is a scriptural teaching as opposed to merely Jeremy's interpretation. Which is it, Jeremy? Are you adding or can you recognize that it is, indeed, YOUR interpretation, not something God has told you?
As to this...
ReplyDeletein your fallible state and in finding certain scriptures less clear than others, your solution is to rely on your fallible state to decide which scriptures are more reliable than others? That is absurd on its face. If you really believe yourself to be fallible you will not lean on your own understanding but come back to the Word as it is written, all of it, to find your answer when things are difficult.
Jeremy, we ALL our fallible. We ALL are using our fallible human reasoning to read, to understand, to interpret. Our fallible human reasoning (GOD-GIVEN human reasoning) is ALL WE HAVE, unless we want to claim (contrary to ANY biblical or logical reasoning) that the bible is a literal rule book and we need to read it and apply it word for word without ANY interpretation.
IF you or I or anyone INTERPRETS a passage, we are using our human reasoning.
I freely admit that and don't think it's a bad thing. How about you? Are you using your human reasoning or are you reading the bible like a soul-less, brain-less automaton? I think clearly (and thankfully!) you ARE using your reasoning. God forbid that we'd set aside our God-given reasoning and walk around like robots without any rational capability.
What is absurd on the face would be the suggestion that we should set aside our brains and reasoning, can we agree brother Jeremy?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeletethat is SO FAR from my actual position as to be laughable. I would not know how you got that since I've never said that and clearly do not believe it.
Except that I asked for your basis for holding your opinion, and your written response was: My support is in the lack of anything to contradict it. So, in your own words, the Bible doesn't contradict it, so I can hold it. That's where I get it, and it is not laughable.
We have been over the rest before. You seem to find some great chasm between what the Bible says and what God's will is. I hold that the Bible (all of it) is a written revelation and therefore God's will. Teaching in opposition to the Word is teaching in opposition to God's will, simply because the Word is God. Your position of reading all the Bible through the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John may seem right to you and others but remains unsupported. We both agree that humans are fallible and yet you continue to equate fallibility with inability to understand. Of course we use our reasoning, insofar as it agrees with Scripture where biblical matters are concerned. I don't see how, after all our back and forth, that you cannot see the self-defeating nature of your position. You say it is your opinion and that you can't know anything of scripture with positive knowledge because you are fallible and yet I must agree with you or be wrong and somehow taking the scriptures as the Word and the Truth and reading the text for what it says is unknowable with any certainty by any human being (except the short list you have given as self-evident "TRUTHS" within scripture).
The Bible is Truth. We can understand it by reading it and using our God-given reasoning. People can be mistaken but that does not mean people can't know anything with confidence. In all these things God's Word is infallible and must be the foundation of belief. The only way one knows if one is wrong on biblical issues is based on what is actually written in the bible (which can only ever be determined if it is possible to actually know what the Bible teaches).
You and I do not agree. I have the clear and explicit teacing of scripture on which I will stand. You may stand on your support ( My support is in the lack of anything to contradict it. ) if you wish. I will continue to implore you in the strongest fashion to stop as it is not biblical.
I believe we are at an end, once again.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeletein your own words, the Bible doesn't contradict it, so I can hold it. That's where I get it, and it is not laughable.
I am sorry if I wrote something in a way that was unclear to you, but read my words here and now, they are perfectly clear: That is NOT my position. I have never said, nor do I believe that if the Bible does not contradict a point, I can hold it. That is NOT my position.
Now that we've clarified that, do you understand that this is NOT my position? I don't know how much more clearly I can state it. You misunderstood my earlier point.
Jeremy...
You seem to find some great chasm between what the Bible says and what God's will is.
Well, while it may SEEM that way to you, that is not, in fact, my position. I think the Bible is pretty clear and generally not so hard to understand. I DO think that there are some people who INTERPRET the Bible poorly and I disagree with THOSE INTERPRETATIONS and don't think THOSE OPINIONS are in any way equivalent to God's Will, but disagreeing with INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible is not the same thing as suggesting there is a great chasm between the Bible and God's will.
Do you understand that now? Have I sufficiently clarified that you are off on your understanding of my position?
Jeremy...
I hold that the Bible (all of it) is a written revelation...
We BOTH believe the Bible is God's revelation to us.
...and therefore God's will.
Not woodenly literally, you don't. You don't believe that we ought to kill men who lay with men or people who work on Saturday. Jesus is recorded in the Bible as saying, "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out," but you don't believe that that is God's will. Rather, YOU INTERPRET the text to make sense of it. You don't read it woodenly literal, you form opinions based on what the text says, seeking God's will.
Am I right? Or DO you encourage eye plucking and killing sabbath-breakers?
I suspect I'm right and you, along with everyone else, INTERPRET the Bible, not reading it literally. But your opinion remains your opinion, NOT God's will. There is a difference.
Right?
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteWe can understand it by reading it and using our God-given reasoning.
I'm glad we can agree on that critical point. We are not handed "God's Word" in a package where there is nothing for us to do but accept it. We MUST use our God-given (and yet fallible) reasoning.
People can be mistaken but that does not mean people can't know anything with confidence.
Agreed. But perhaps where we differ is on what "confidence" means. I think my fallible reasoning has done a good job of sorting out God's Word and I hold my beliefs with confidence. I'm quite confident I'm correct IN MY OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS of God's Word. BUT - and here's the critical point, for me - it remains MY opinion, MY interpretation. So, my understanding of God's Word, while confident, remains fallible.
Do we agree on that?
The only way one knows if one is wrong on biblical issues is based on what is actually written in the bible (which can only ever be determined if it is possible to actually know what the Bible teaches).
So maybe our difference is in how we use the words "confidence" and "know..." I hold my positions with confidence, BUT I could be mistaken. Do you say the same thing or do you contend that you hold your position with confidence AND you can not be mistaken? I think you are agreeing with me that you CAN be mistaken in your understanding of God's Will/Word, and that would be the "right" answer.
And so, IF we agree, then we are back to an earlier point about the false charge of false teaching...
I am stating quite clearly this is my opinion - NOT a biblical teaching, but my opinion - thus we are not adding to the Bible. Agreed?
Are you agreeing then, that merely thinking that the Bible need not be taken with each line as important as the next is NOT a false teaching?
That is, does one HAVE to agree with YOUR OPINION on the question "Is each line in the Bible equally important/equally clear?" and if they don't agree with YOUR OPINION (again, NOT what the Bible says, but YOUR OPINION about what it means), then they are a false teacher?
I can't see how your position is morally, logically or biblically tenable, IF you still hold that.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood my earlier point. I have read your words and see that you say I misunderstood. When you wrote earlier: My support is in the lack of anything to contradict it. what, in your words since I have misunderstood your point, did you mean by that?
Have I sufficiently clarified that you are off on your understanding of my position? I have read your words and see that you say I misunderstood. When I wrote "False teaching is teaching something in opposition to what the Bible does say," and you responded with False teaching is teaching something in opposition to God's Will how am I misunderstanding a point of difference being drawn between "opposition to what the Bible does say" and "opposition to God's will?"
Next - you really do like this woodenly literal phrase don't you? You continue to bring up killing men who lay with men, the Sabbath, etc. to say I don't believe what the Bible explicitly teaches. I have answered this before - yes I do believe it. I do believe that the Bible is serious when it says that opposite sex participants in adultery should be killed. I do believe that the Bible is serious when it says that same sex participants laying with one another should be killed. I do believe that the Sabbath should be honored. I also believe what else is in the whole council of God just the same. That the required penalty of shed blood for sin that was on the heads of the offenders in the OT was paid once for all by Christ on the cross in the NT. I believe the bible is 100% biblical in requiring sinners be killed for their sins and their blood being on their own heads in the OT and that the bible is 100% biblical in that requirement coming to an end as the penalty of shed blood for sinners was paid by Christ in the NT. Therefore as is clearly taught in scripture the sin is always sinful and always requires the shedding of blood for remission - on the heads of the sinners in the OT and by Christ in the NT. I do believe the Bible - all of it - just as it is written. Not as woodenly literal just as it is written. As I have stated before, you can be said to look at the Bible as a "woodenly literal rule book" as you see justification for your position in what the Bible doesn't say and in the general "TRUTHS" that are self-evident to you that you apply as seems obvious to you since the Bible doesn't contradict you.
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteNext, I suspect I'm right and you, along with everyone else, INTERPRET the Bible, not reading it literally. But your opinion remains your opinion, NOT God's will. There is a difference.
Right? You are right, you suspect you are right. But this is the circular nature of all this talk about opinions that you cannot seem to grasp. Does it not occur to you, as it does to so many others, that the thing you hold to as an absolute is that all anyone has is there opinion? You have defined opinion so I know what that means to you, lack of positive knowledge. You are saying that every statement about the Bible by every person cannot rise to the level of positive knowledge, which is a fact you know with positive knowledge. This is why I continue to remind you that the possibility, or capability to make errors, or to be fallible, is not the same as an inability to know. You would have to, and apparently do, willfully ignore or reject the Biblical imperatives to know, to understand, in order to hold to that position of circular reasoning. You presented in your previous comments scripture being a mystery and quoted from the Bible. Did you not read my response of scripture by the same author explaining what the mystery was and speaking about believers understanding and knowing what this mystery was? Was it unclear from the bible that the mystery you refer to as support that we cannot know this deep mystery is clearly stated as Gentiles as well as Jews having access to Christ (sharers together in the promise of Christ through the gospel)?
You are teaching falsely, and just writing "it's just my opinion" does not serve as a catch-all qualifier so that what you write never rises to the level of false teaching. Your opinions are also your beliefs and are what you base your understanding of all scripture and is the foundation of where everything you write on every subject is based. This is what you are teaching to all the potential readers on this and every other website you comment on. You are a professing believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and so what you write (even if you put "in my opinion" in front of it) is influencing the minds of the readers. You are teaching and it is serious business. In this instance you are teaching a method of interpretation not supported by scripture. You have stated that your support for this is a lack of anything to contradict it, which is no way to form a biblical position. You say you believe all scripture is God-breathed, you say you love the bible, then provide some biblical support for your position not the lack of biblical contradiction for it.
You may provide further explanation for your previous comments. You may hold to your opinions as the basis for your belief and continue to demand the absoluteness of everyone else's need to acquiesce to your opinion that no one can know anything with positive knowledge if you like. However, as it is only an opinion of yours, I reject your opinion and your teaching based on the clear and explicit teaching of scripture, which can be known.
You seem determined in your view and nothing I write alone will make you see the plainness of the truth. I will simply continue to pray that God will bring conviction and clarity to your heart and mind.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteWhen I wrote "False teaching is teaching something in opposition to what the Bible does say," and you responded with False teaching is teaching something in opposition to God's Will how am I misunderstanding a point of difference being drawn between "opposition to what the Bible does say" and "opposition to God's will?"
By understanding that YOUR INTERPRETATION of God's Word and YOUR OPINION of God's Will is not one in the same as God's Will. Someone may think the "Bible says" it's good to kill people who work on Saturdays, but that does not mean that their opinion (and literal interpretation) of that passage equals "God's Will." I'm clarifying the difference between "God's Word," and "God's Word, RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD."
Jeremy...
I do believe that the Bible is serious when it says that opposite sex participants in adultery should be killed. I do believe that the Bible is serious when it says that same sex participants laying with one another should be killed. I do believe that the Sabbath should be honored.
The text says, "Whoever does ANY work on the Sabbath day must be put to death." (Exodus 31) Do you believe that?
Jeremy...
I also believe what else is in the whole council of God just the same.
And here is where you are not being consistent. In the "what else" of Scripture, there is NO place that says we can opt out of "honoring the Sabbath" (Saturday) or that we can opt out of killing those who work on Saturdays. And yet, you don't believe in this.
The point that you still seem to be missing is, there is no other "what else" of Scripture in regards to many of these passages. You simply do not heed the "what did God say? What else did God say?" approach to Bible study - and rightly so, because that is NOT a biblical or logical or moral approach to doing Bible study.
I'd just wish that you could see that you don't consistently heed that hermeneutic. You're right for not doing so, but you appear to honestly think you DO hold to that hermeneutic, that criteria consistently. I can't see that you do.
Jeremy, I think we've probably gone around long enough on this. You do appear to TRY to hold to a woodenly literal rule book approach to Bible study and it is my counsel that this is not biblical, nor logical. You say you don't hold to it, but it sure appears that you are when you cite a verse that gives a rule and, failing any verse to counteract that rule, you think this is a rule for all times and all people to be held to woodenly, without any other rational support. I will pray for wisdom for all of us on this point.
Further, you still have falsely lobbed a false charge of false teaching. I will simply repeat, MY disagreeing with YOUR OPINIONS is not the same as my disagreeing with God. You are not God and you come much closer to a false - even heretical - teaching when you imply that disagreeing with YOUR OPINIONS and YOUR INTERPRETATIONS is the same as disagreeing with God.
Pray about that one, my brother.
Jeremy, before quitting, could you please clarify something? I asked...
ReplyDeleteNext, I suspect I'm right and you, along with everyone else, INTERPRET the Bible, not reading it literally. But your opinion remains your opinion, NOT God's will. There is a difference.
Right?
And you answered...
You are right, you suspect you are right. But this is the circular nature of all this talk about opinions that you cannot seem to grasp. Does it not occur to you, as it does to so many others, that the thing you hold to as an absolute is that all anyone has is there opinion?
Given your answer, I can't tell if you agree or not.
Do you agree that when you INTERPRET the Bible, it is, by definition, YOUR interpretation, YOUR opinion?
Yes? No? or even, "I can't answer yes or no to that question..."?
I apologize, but your answer is not clear to me.
As to your points on this line of thinking...
...the thing you hold to as an absolute is that all anyone has is there opinion
At this point, Jeremy, I'm just using standard English language communication. When someone forms an OPINION on some topic not demonstrably provable, then they are holding, in fact, THEIR OPINION. We can't "prove" their/our/my opinions on topics that are not demonstrably provable.
Am I mistaken on that point?
I would state that it is an "absolute" that when someone holds an opinion on non-provable topics, that they are holding an unprovable opinion. That's just a de facto English language definition, right?
Jeremy...
You have defined opinion so I know what that means to you, lack of positive knowledge.
When I use "opinion," I am using it in the standard English language sense (here, from Merriam Webster):
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...
You are saying that every statement about the Bible by every person cannot rise to the level of positive knowledge, which is a fact you know with positive knowledge.
I am NOT saying that, Jeremy. One can say about the Bible, "The Bible says, 'in the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth...'" or "In the Bible, Jesus taught us to care for the less fortunate..." and many other things. These are objective, provable, demonstrable facts that one can state.
I am NOT saying there is NOTHING one can state about the Bible objectively.
With me so far?
BUT, once we move from objective statements of fact, we do, BY DEFINITION, move to personal opinion that is NOT demonstrable.
If someone says, "The Bible teaches that it is God's command to kill sabbath breakers" that is an objective statement of fact. BUT, if someone extends that to, "...AND THIS MEANS that God wants me and you today to kill sabbath breakers..." THAT has moved from Objective Fact to subjective opinion.
My stating that is just stating a demonstrable fact.
Thus...
"The Bible says that Jesus taught us to love our enemies, to overcome evil with good, to turn the other cheek" = objective fact
BUT...
"...AND THAT MEANS that Christians can't serve in the military" = subjective opinion.
"the Bible says 'men shall not lie with men' and 'for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother to be united to his wife...'" = objective fact
BUT...
"...AND THIS MEANS that God does not want gay folk to marry" = subjective opinion.
I'm not stating anything fantastical or weird on these comments above. I am only stating demonstrably factual claims.
Are you with me on all this?
cont'd
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteThis is why I continue to remind you that the possibility, or capability to make errors, or to be fallible, is not the same as an inability to know. You would have to, and apparently do, willfully ignore or reject the Biblical imperatives to know, to understand, in order to hold to that position
Merriam webster defines "know" thusly...
1. To perceive directly; Have direct cognition of
2. to have understanding of
We can NOT know (in the first sense of the word) that our opinions about God are demonstrably correct. We can not perceive directly from God. God is not here to tell you, "Yup, ya got that one right, J-man."
We CAN reasonably say we "know" in the sense of "having an understanding of..."
Agreed?
Jeremy...
You are teaching falsely, and just writing "it's just my opinion"
Here's where your failing to make your case, Jeremy.
I am certainly DISAGREEING with YOUR opinion on a topic on which God has not spoken. God has not told you nor me nor anyone else, "The right way to interpret the Bible is by holding each verse on a par with each other verse."
Jeremy holds to HIS OPINION (his unsubstantiated, unprovable OPINION) that we ought to hold each verse on an equal level.
Dan holds to HIS OPINION (his unsubstantiated, unprovable OPINION) that we ought to interpret the Bible through the teachings of Jesus Christ.
That I (and most of historic baptist-dom and much of orthodox Christianity) hold this opinion about biblical interpretation practices and thus, disagree with Jeremy, does not in any way rise to the level of false teaching. Are you suggesting that ALL opinions that are different than yours are "false teachings..."? If so, on what rational, biblical basis would you make such an incredibly arrogant claim? OR, are you saying that those who disagree with MY OPINIONS on SOME topics are engaging in false teachings? If so, on what rational, Biblical basis would you make such an arrogant claim?
The notion of "False teacher" as used in the Bible, are those teachers who are deliberately engaging in deceiving the body of Christ, teaching claims they know NOT to be true, generally in an effort to collect wealth or power.
Merely disagreeing with your opinions in a sincere effort to follow God's ways (even IF I was factually, demonstrably wrong, which is objectively NOT the case here) does not rise to the level of "false teaching" as taught in the Bible.
You are engaging in objectively wrong behavior here, Jeremy. I pray that you could prayerfully consider this and see the error of your way.
Making the hellacious charge of "false teachings" and doing so in such an unbiblical and unsupported way, merely because I (and all of historic Baptist-dom, etc) dare to disagree with your PERSONAL OPINIONS is, I must say, arrogant and an unsound teaching, itself. It is slanderous and the Bible teaches that slander is a sin.
I rebuke this sin, my brother, in the name of Jesus.
Pray on it.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteOn the first point you missed my question (or I did not ask it sufficiently well). I asked what is the difference between the text of scripture and God's will. You went into talking about my personal interpretation, which has nothing to do with the question. Let me ask it a different way, is the text of scripture a written revelation of God's will? Something else?
On the second point:
You return to the line of questioning and the example of the Sabbath to use in showing me how I don't hold consistently to the hermeneutic. However, I have already addressed this very issue with you using the very hermeneutic I espouse. You didn't respond when I provided that explanation and you bring it up again here, so I will assume that you either forgot what I wrote or never read it the first time. Either way, I will cut and paste my previous response for you here:
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.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteYou say: "When someone forms an OPINION on some topic not demonstrably provable, then they are holding, in fact, THEIR OPINION. We can't "prove" their/our/my opinions on topics that are not demonstrably provable." Aren't you begging the question here? You assume ahead of time that the topic (all scripture) is not demonstrably provable and then use that to classify what anyone forms about the topic (all scripture) to be an opinion based on the fact that nothing in the topic (all scripture) is demonstrably provable. All I am saying is that you are trying to hold that no one can know anything in Scripture to an extent rising to positive knowledge, but you state that as something beyond opinion. It is circular because you begin by assuming one cannot know anything in Scripture. I'm simply saying that scripture commands us to know and understand. Are you stating that knowledge means "able to prove demonstrably?" Have you not read those passages? Do you not agree with them? How do you think the text of scripture intends "know" and "understand" in those passages.
Relative to the overall topic of opinion:
You wrote:
"Do you agree that when you INTERPRET the Bible, it is, by definition, YOUR interpretation, YOUR opinion?" Well, if I am the one doing the interpreting then it would certainly be my interpretation. That has nothing to do with whether it is biblical or not. Is every interpretation an opinion by definition? I would have to say no. One can read the clear teaching of scripture, teach according to scripture and not be sharing their opinion. An example: The Bible says that God created man and woman, woman from the man, woman for the man and established that the man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, that they will become one flesh, that God blessed that union and instructed them to be fruitful and increase in number - for reference see Genesis chapter 1 and 2. That is my interpretation of God's establishment of marriage and it is not my opinion, it is held beyond something less than positive knowledge. Are you suggesting that every interpretation of scripture is by definition an opinion? It seems you are.
""the Bible says 'men shall not lie with men' and 'for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother to be united to his wife...'" = objective fact
BUT...
"...AND THIS MEANS that God does not want gay folk to marry" = subjective opinion.
Dan, I have never said all the scriptures in the Bible as they are written and clear and explicit means tht God does not want gay folk to marry. What I and many others have said is that God clearly and explicitly established marriage between and man and woman, blessed them and instructed them to be fruitful and multiply. Furthermore all references to marriage refer directly to male and female relationship, nothing else. There are no references in scripture whatsoever that even imply the same view be espoused for any other arrangement. Those are objective facts, according to your own definition. What you then say is: AND THIS MEANS is that marriage is a good thing characterized by fidelity, commitment, love, etc. and should be endorsed and celebrated among any consenting adults so long as there is an absense of abuse. That is not biblical, Dan. It is not objective, the Bible doesn't teach it, and to present such nonsense as logical and biblical as you have is to falsely teach what is clearly and explicitly written in scripture, what is actually objective. You are the one with a contradictory system, you are the one who needs to turn and celebrate and endorse that which the Bible teaches, not what is does not teach. You may not explain this away by saying your justification for such statements is the lack of anything to contradict it, and that it is just your opinion.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteAlso, I noticed you did not clarify what you said I misunderstood. What did you mean when you wrote: "My support is in the lack of anything to contradict it."
We are already clear on knowing, Dan. I asked you before if you could know beyond opinion if you were saved by grace through faith and you said of course not, it was obviously just your opinion. Unfortunately that is not what we are called to in scripture. We are called to know. I know with positive knowledge, by direct cognition that the text of the Bible states in Ephesians 2:8 that "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Further, I know with positive knowledge and by direct cognition that that is God's will because 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is God-breathed." I am saved by grace, through faith and I know it with positive knowledge by direct cognition because I have read the text of scripture which is God revealing that Truth. I am sorry that you do not have such confidence in your own salvation or the means by which it is administered. It is not arrogant to state that which is clearly and explicitly written, just repeating that which is demonstrably and objectively the case.
Finally,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the charge of teaching falsely:
You write: "Jeremy holds to HIS OPINION (his unsubstantiated, unprovable OPINION) that we ought to hold each verse on an equal level.
Dan holds to HIS OPINION (his unsubstantiated, unprovable OPINION) that we ought to interpret the Bible through the teachings of Jesus Christ."
No. Jeremy teaches that the explicit and clearly written text, directly quoted from scripture is the Truth, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thorougly equipped for every good work." and that when scripture says All Scripture it means all scripture. Dan teaches that " Further, I DO see biblical mandate to read all Scripture through the Gospels, or at least the OT through the Gospels." which is not explicitly written anywhere and is admitted to be completely unsubstantiated. Yet you not only claim to be right in doing so but make the even more audacious claim that "most of historic baptist-dom and much of orthodox Christianity" interpret scripture the same way. Are you seriously suggesting that most of historic baptist-dom and orthodox Christianity agrees with you that there is a biblical mandate to read all Scripture through the Gospels, that marriage between members of the same sex is to be endorsed and celebrated, that one not read the clear and explicit words of scripture but rather look to the general "TRUTHS" to be applied wherever seems obvious to the reader, and that no interpretation ever proffered by man rises to the level of positive knowledge? Deception is not a requirement of false teaching, Dan. False teaching simply means teaching that which is false, it can be deliberate, accidental, out of ignorance, or out what the individual considers well-meaning and with total sincerity. I have supported my contentions with direct quotes of your written position, and therefore it is not slanderous or sinful. I have identified which passages of scripture teach the opposite of what you teach and have spent much time in prayer over this already. You are leading people astray and teaching what is unsupported by scripture, whether intentionally deceptive or not it remains unsupported by scripture. We have gone on and on and I have provided more than enough material and presented more than enough biblical support for your need to change. This can continue until the end of our days, but the choice will remain with you to either accept this correction, turn from your ways and return to teaching that which aligns with scripture or continue to teach what is not biblical, totally unsupported, completely unprovable and present it as logical and biblical and risk continuing to lead people astray and place stumbling blocks in front of those who may be new in the faith. At this point I can only leave it up to you. I won't address this any more. I have said my peace and it is up to you to either accept this correction or reject it.
As always, I will try to respond to further questions, but i'm not sure if anything profitable can come with more discussion at this point. I leave it to you to decide whether we continue or not.
I think we're going in circles here. You are, to me, obviously referencing your own interpretation as if it were God's Word. You don't see it that way.
ReplyDeleteI would ask this question, Jeremy: Baptists and many others have had as one of our criteria for biblical interpretation interpreting the whole of the bible through the lens of Jesus' teaching - a Christological approach to Scripture. Do you contend that ALL who hold to a Christ-centered, Christological approach to Bible study are false teachers? That all of us who believe in interpreting the whole through the lens of Jesus' teachings are false teachers?
Are you familiar with this concept? Maybe if someone else were to talk about it, you'd find it more reasonable.
Here is one such source, where they say...
The vast richness of Scripture can be likened unto an elaborate musical piece that’s written out on a sheet of music. That sheet is meant to be interpreted and then performed.
For this reason, the Bible, like a Divine musical composition, requires the contributions of various musicians to interpret and perform it in harmony with one another.
Each musician may use a different approach to interpreting it. And each may perform it in a slightly different way. But taken together, those musicians comprise an orchestra that creates a beautiful melody, expressing the richness of the biblical message through different sounds, pitches, and tones.
Consequently, amid all the methods of biblical interpretation that exist today, there is one method that cannot be overlooked. Without it, the full meaning of the biblical text can never be grasped. The reason is because this method is centered on the main theme of Scripture. It’s rooted in the grand narrative that links all of the books of the biblical canon together.
This method is what I call the Christological hermeneutic. The Christological hermeneutic is very simple. Its goal is to find Jesus Christ in all of Scripture.
The Christological hermeneutic is built on the fact that all Scripture has but one center of gravity that links all of it together. And that center of gravity is the Person of Jesus Christ...
for the Jew, the key to understanding the Torah is to understand the destiny and calling of the nation of Israel.
For us Christians, however, the key is in understanding the destiny and calling of Jesus Christ.
Or, here is another source, where they say, "As we list many of the passages that proves this, you will see that the use of scripture by Jesus and His Apostles was exclusively Christological. I have to ask why any disciple of Jesus would interpret scripture any other way or use it for any other purpose when neither the Lord nor His Apostles did?"
Both of those sources, while not familiar to me, seem to be fairly traditional, maybe even fundamentalist, in nature.
Also, the Southern Baptists had it in their "Baptist Faith and Message" through much of their history (dropping that line out after the conservative take-over of the Southern Baptists in the 1980s). Do you think all of we who disagree with YOUR opinion about how to read Scripture are all false teachers?
I'd pray about that, if I were you. Calling "false" that which is merely a difference of opinion smacks of arrogance and placing yourself in the place of God.
Peace.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeletePlease understand that I have not made my statements in haste or without much prayer already. I have no problem with the links you provide, or with you, saying that the text of scripture in the OT pointed to the Messiah and that Jesus identified Himself as the Messiah as He claimed to be God in the gospel accounts and so all the OT points to Christ. I don't have a problem with the links you provide, or with you, stating that the time Christ walked on earth was a unique time in all human history and that those living at that time able to walk and talk with Christ must have been amazing. I don't have a problem with the links you provided, or with you, saying that the books of the Bible following the gospel accounts referenced back to Christ and the cross as the central event in all human history where Christ once and for all reconciled man to God through His death and resurrection. I don't have a problem with all of Baptist-dom and orthodox Christianity, or you, saying that. Those statements, and if the term to describe it is a Christological hermeneutic then that approach would align with what is clearly taught in the whole of Scripture.
Here is my problem with what you are doing, and i'm sorry if I haven't been clearer sooner. You are going beyond this Christological hermeneutical approach to say the gospels are MORE IMPORTANT than the rest of scripture. That the gospel accounts MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATE GOD'S WILL than the rest of scripture. That the Holy Spirit was inspiring Paul but that he (Paul) was only writing his opinions. That is where what you teach deviates from an otherwise biblical approach. This is specifically what I am calling you on. This is why I consistently and constantly refer back to 2 Timothy 3:16 and the surrounding verses. All scripture is God-breathed. The same Holy Spirit inspired Moses, David, Habbakkuk, Micah, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter. Christ is the Word, the Word is God-breathed, the same Holy Spirit consistently and non-contradictory throughout the OT and NT, which is why the Christological hermeneutic is apropriate. Reading the text of Scripture for what it is as it is all God-breathed. The OT prophesies point to the coming Messiah. The Gospel accounts where Jesus opens the scrolls to read from the prophet Isaiah and proclaim "today this is fulfilled in your hearing" (my paraphrase) to identify Himself as the Messiah that He spoke in the OT. The establishment of the early church and the teachings surrounding discipleship, church polity and behavior as Christ explains through Paul and others how we are justified, adopted, sanctified by God's grace through faith in Him and Him alone. All these are teachings inspired by the same Holy Spirit in different men.
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeletePlease think on this specific point and your position that goes beyond the very Christological hermeneutic you present here and claim to follow. Notice how you go beyond simply a focus on what Christ did that is pointed to throughout scripture (reading Isaiah and thinking while reading about Christ) to an increased level of importance and greater inspiration than the rest of scripture. Christ said He came to fulfill Scripture, not to abolish it or to re-write it. This is specifically where you deviate from Baptist-dom and orthodox Christianity and where you need to turn back.
I think we are going in circles also. I am fine with letting my points stand and hopefully this last comment will clarify my very specific problem with what you are teaching, and how this problem leads to others where you endorse and celebrate and call biblical that which is not endorsed or celebrated anywhere in Scripture.
This is much more than a difference of opinion, this is teaching a method of reading scripture that deviates from a clear and explicit biblical principle and can lead to error in many other areas of interpretation, belief and lifestyle that is not biblical. I would not spend this much time on just a difference of opinion.
The only parting question I would ask, is one I have asked twice about something you said I misunderstood you on, but for which you have not provided any further explanation as to where I misunderstood. When you wrote, concerning this position to take of more importance the gospel accounts and I asked for your biblical support for doing so your response was "My support is in the lack of anything to contradict it." How did I misunderstand that to mean "the Bible doesn't say I can't, so I can?" You don't have to provide any further explanation for this and i'm fine with stopping here if you do not wish to continue. I leave it to you.