"The Bible says it; I believe it." It's the de facto position of serious Christians, isn't it? So why is it that we don't see it in others?
Listen to conversations between Christians with opposing views and it becomes immediately clear that they don't believe that. "You are ignoring the Scriptures and following the teachings of a man." Who that man is will vary. Calvin is a popular target. Maybe it's Augustine or maybe it's a contemporary teacher. The truth, however, is that both sides are generally based on the individual's understanding of Scripture. Pick a topic ... theonomy, paedobaptism (infant baptism), Reformed theology, and on and on. The truth is that both sides are generally based on the individual's understanding of Scripture.
I am quite sure that some of us are wrong some of the time. I'm equally sure that no one is likely right all of the time. And we will argue a point or two for reasons other than "the Bible tells me so", regardless of how much we reference Bible verses. Sometimes it is a pet idea. Sometimes we are defending our childhood teachings or our favorite pastors or ...ourselves. But even when we are reading our Bibles and coming to conclusions, no one is perfect.
Knowing, then, that most of us believe what we believe because it's what we understand what the Bible to say, and knowing that each of us can be wrong, it begs the question: Can't we dialogue about things without making it personal and mean? I know that when someone tells me, in essence, that I'm either too stupid to understand or too hard-hearted to change, I'm not likely to move. Can't we treat others in a discussion with gentleness and respect while we discuss biblical principles?
5 comments:
"The Bible says it; I believe it." It's the de facto position of serious Christians, isn't it?
Ummm... No.
Depending on what you mean by 'serious Christians', obviously. But it doesn't take very long to find out that the Bible is largely discounted even in discussions among the most 'serious' of Christians... Christians who discuss issues of theological and practical importance. Most of us (myself included), when faced with portions of Scripture that we don't like, or that our culture doesn't follow, etc., tend to make some excuse for ourselves instead of looking at Scripture in its face and trying to follow it.
There are several areas in my life where I have done this (and probably several others where I am *still* doing this). I Cor 11:1-6, for example, was a text that I just skated around for the first 46 years of my life. I didn't do some great exegesis and decide how it should apply.. I just ignored it... as did the preachers in my church. Never heard a sermon on it.
Funny that.
Once again, please pick a better word. The word (I would guess) which you are protesting is "de facto", arguing that it is not a matter of fact or practice at all. I would say it is the "default" position, the position that all Christians would/should take. While all Christians have mistakes/holes/blind spots in their theology and their lives, I would still say that, on the surface, they would still all claim it is true. They would still claim sola scriptura.
I wasn't disagreeing with a word or phrase, I was merely saying that we don't actually believe and practice this. Often when we have a discussion we are not both trying to defend our Biblical interpretation and understanding, but fighting to keep ourselves *from* understanding... because if we understood we might have to do, and do in a way that we would find uncomfortable.
Von,
Do you believe women should not wear gold or pearls? Do you believe women should not braid their hair? 1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3
Thanks.
Do I believe that I Tim 2:9 and I Pet 3:3 are accurate expressions of the will of God for us? Yes, I do.
Do I believe that you have accurately exegeted them? No, I don't.
1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
The first Timothy 2 passage contrasts the behavior of men and women. It has the men taking an overt role in the church, 'lifting up holy hands' and contrasts this with the silent submissive role that women are to play.
It likewise contrasts the 'adorning' of women, the 'adorning' of pride and wealth that was represented by the gold and fancy braids (even today some women spend hours on their hair, even their braids.) vs the 'adorning' of good works.
I do teach my women to adorn themselves with good works, to be submissive and silent, and to avoid expressions of wealth and of 'look at me' ism.
Post a Comment