Like Button

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Forgotten Commandments

While there is discussion among many about what is and is not applicable from the Old Testament laws, we're all pretty much agreed that the "Big Ten" are universal. You know those. The Decalogue. The Ten Commandments. Now those apply to everyone. I mean, sure, no one keeps them perfectly, but we're still pretty much agreed about them, right? Or are we?

Well, we're all pretty sure about murder and adultery. Bad. Well, most of us are sure about murder and adultery. Stealing is certainly a sin unless the government does it to take from one group to give to another. But as long as we don't call that "stealing", it's not, right? Because we're all pretty sure stealing is bad. And making idols ... that's definitely not a good thing. Of course, since modern day idols are much more subtle -- power, money, and so on -- we might find we're on the wrong side of that one at times, but mostly we still understand "idolatry" to be a sin. That whole "you shall not bear false witness" thing we're pretty sure about, too, until we start examining it closely. I mean, is that a prohibition against all lying? If a Christian hid a Jew from the Nazis in World War II Germany and lied about it, was that good or bad? Rahab lied about the spies and was commended for it. So that gets a little hazy. But, yeah, we're opposed to lying in general. Taking the name of the Lord in vain? I don't know. I mean, how bad can words be? Maybe that's not so universal. And, look, isn't covetousness the mainstay of capitalism? Just about. But if you call it "covetousness", we're still opposed to it.

There are two that, in my opinion, have been essentially ruled out in modern society. These aren't merely questionable. They can, in fact, be objectionable. The first obvious one is the Sabbath rule. I mean, look, didn't Jesus say, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27)? Doesn't that mean that the Sabbath is terminated? Of course, if you think that one through, it does not. It merely means that the Sabbath was made for the benefit of mankind. That doesn't mean that it is no longer in effect, as if those things God does that benefit Man are no longer of benefit. So most will point to Sunday as the "Christian Sabbath". And that's all well and good as long as we don't think in terms of "Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work ..." (Exo 20:9-10). No work on the Sabbath. That's a little tough. On the other hand, it's almost sickening to hear of church folk who go out to lunch on Sunday after church and refuse to tip the waiter or waitress because "They shouldn't be working; it's the Sabbath, you know!" Someone somewhere is missing the whole point. Mostly.

The one that most catches my attention these days, however, is the other forgotten commandment. "Honor your father and your mother" (Exo 20:12). Paul pointed out (and, therefore, confirmed that it was still in effect) that it was "the first commandment with a promise" (Eph 6:2). It's a fairly straightforward command. Nothing too flowery or too obscure. "Honor your father and your mother." What could be more clear? Yet, today, not only is it not done, but it is often not encouraged. We shouldn't, for instance, honor bad parents. And while there is no "age clause", no indication that parents cease to be parents when we become adults and, as such, no longer need to be honored, that's the standard view. Adult children have no need to honor their parents. They are obligated, instead, to do what's right for themselves, to do what they feel they should, to seek their own path.

At a church I attended awhile back, the pastor asked the congregation to pray for two teenage girls in the church. They wanted to go on the youth mission trip, but their parents wouldn't let them. "Please pray that they can raise the money to go." I contacted the pastor. "Pastor, what about 'honor your mother and father'?" "Oh, don't be ridiculous," he told me. "They're both 18 and feel led to go, so they aren't required to concern themselves with what their parents say." You see? "Honor your father and your mother" only goes so far ... and the cutoff for that distance is getting shorter and shorter. Age, quality of parents, the perceived wisdom and capability of their instructions, whether or not the kid wants to go along with it, these things can easily serve to eliminate a commandment. And by the time the parents are old and need the assistance of their adult children, you can be fairly sure that in most cases they're going to be carted off to an old-folks home against their will because it's too much work to take care of them and honoring your father and your mother at that age is completely irrelevant.

I would beg to differ. I would suggest that the Bible offers no cutoff. It could be that "obey" is a command to children (Eph 6:1), but "honor" is not. What does it mean to honor your father and your mother? How would that look? Mere obedience? I don't think so. How, for instance, would children of "bad parents" honor their parents without simply nullifying God's command? How would a daughter whose father abuses her honor her father without submitting to the abuse? Is it honoring to shuffle off aging parents to a home because we don't want the hassle of caring for them? (Please note: That is a specific scenario. I understand that some of the needs of the aged are beyond the capacity of their children to care for, and I understand that there are even some parents who would prefer to go to a home to avoid being a burden to their children. These are not the cases in question.)

John wrote a definition of sin. "Sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). The Law is, therefore, eternally significant. One of the clearest commands in all of Scripture is "Honor your father and your mother." Little ambiguity there. And while the outworking of that command may get confusing at times, it is still a command of the Decalogue, the "Big Ten", the Ten Commandments. It would seem to me that finding ways to avoid obeying this command would tend more toward the "lawlessness" side rather than the right side. How do you honor your parents? Or do you?

44 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Stan, could you clarify something for me?

Do you think it a good thing to lie to save lives, as in your Nazi example?

Do you think it is okay to work on Saturday/the Sabbath and not a sin?

In general, do you think these laws ought to be taken literally (and anyone who doesn't take them literally is sinning against the Big Ten!) or do you think they should be infused with grace and taken in the spirit of "the Sabbath is for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath..."?

Stan said...

Dan, you will think I'm being evasive, but I cannot answer your question. You have, again, offered me the classical false dilemma. In your question I can take the 10 Commandments (those are, after all, the topic of this post) at face value or I can take them "in the spirit of 'the Sabbath is for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath'." The requirement of the question (and, therefore, the subsequent answer) is that I must see these two as diametrically opposed -- "either/or".

On the other hand, what I have always held to was 1) "What does it say?", 2) "What does it mean?", and 3) "How does that work itself out in the current circumstances?" As an example, does "Thou shalt not bear false witness" actually equate to "Thou shalt not ever tell a lie"? Many (most) seem to think so. I'm not sure the text would support such a claim, and I'm pretty sure that comparing such a claim with the rest of Scripture (such as the story of Rahab) would contradict that claim. What does it say? What does it mean? How does that work itself out in the current circumstances?

In your contrast of taking the Law as written or "in the spirit of 'the Sabbath is for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath'", I already indicated that "Sabbath was not made for man ..." does not nullify the Sabbath; it clarifies it.

I do not believe that God's Laws "should be infused with grace" in the sense that they should be moderated, dampened, and, in the final analysis, discarded. It is fundamentally insane in my view to suggest (as an example) "Well, God said He hated this particular act, but we shouldn't think He still does today. Maybe He changed His mind. Maybe He got used to it. No reason to think that something that was abominable to Him back then is the least bit offensive today." That's not rational. I believe that God's Word does not pass away. I believe that the principles He laid down in Exodus (and elsewhere) are still in effect today. And I believe the attempt to mitigate those is the direct product of John's version of "sin" -- an attempt at lawlessness.

Dan Trabue said...

You are right that I was hoping for a fairly straight answer. And I understand why you'd want to clarify your response. "Did God REALLY say..." IS a good question, right?

I'm not offering a false dilemma, I'm asking a question. It's okay to clarify it, I'm not of the tribe that crucifies those who seek to clarify questions and answers.

And your point is well-taken on "lying." The commandment IS against "bearing false witness." It is entirely fair to ask what that means, does it truly mean "never lie."

So, question one, rephrased: Given your response, then, is it fair to say that you think it IS okay to lie sometimes?

Now, as to my Sabbath question, well, the text DOES appear to say what it says. The Sabbath rule, as found in Exodus 34...

“These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day [Saturday] shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.”

Or, as directly quoted from Exodus 20 (ie, the ten commandments...)

“Remember the Sabbath day [Saturday] by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns..."

My second direct question to you, Stan, is

"Do you work on Saturdays?" That, and, "Do you cause/support anyone else to work on Saturdays by going to a restaurant or a store where people work?

Thanks for the clarification in the previous response. Feel free to clarify or whatever you need to do to respond to these two clarified questions.

Thanks!

Stan said...

And, again, I won't be answering your direct questions and again not because I'm being evasive.

First, the easy one: "What did God really say?" is a good question.

That was the end of the easy ones. I won't be answering whether or not it's okay to lie sometimes because any answer I offer will be misunderstood and because that's outside the scope of the topic (and into the reliability of Scripture). The question of whether or not I keep the Sabbath perfectly is equally without point. In the first place, I indicated that "no one keeps them perfectly". In the second place, it begs the question (again) "What did God really say?" Your way of phrasing the question, for instance, indicates that you think I'd need to support the death penalty for those who work on Saturdays, and that would be a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. The question remains as to whether God intended Saturday as the Sabbath -- was that His primary point? -- or was He requiring a "day of rest"? Going down the Pharisee path, will we be defining "work"? I know of a Jewish hospital that had to install special call systems for patients so that the light would not come on when they pushed the call button on Saturday because that was a form of work. Really? Are we going down that path? No. Because driving a car (as an example) is causing an engine to perform work, so no one would be allowed to do much of anything at all (like turn on a light or watch TV) on a Saturday. And am I required to make sure that no one else works on Saturday as well? Is that required in the command?

Interestingly, it would appear that your primary focus is something like "Can't we just dismiss this stuff and 'infuse it with grace'?" There is no apparent attempt to understand any commandment as a "rule". Rules are bad. There is no attempt to see how far we should go to obey. That's not, from all appearances, "grace". "What did God actually mean?" is not the primary question. And, in the comments section here, "What was Stan talking about in this post?" doesn't seem to occur either. I glanced over "lying" and even "the Sabbath" because my primary concern was not these points, but "honor your father and mother" and "How do we do that?" So, if you have no input on that question and if your only aim is to examine whether or not I really believe that God meant what He said rather than dismissing such law-keeping as graceless, I think we can end this line of discussion. It's not connected. It doesn't help with the topic. It's not fruitful. And I think we're both pretty sure that you'll disagree with me on this. (Surprise!)

starflyer said...

Stan you nailed it when you said Dan has no input on the question. It really seems apparent that his main goal is division. I find that sad.

Sorry Dan, I'm not trying to pick at you, I'm just defending Stan in what seems to be a constant attack from you. I'm surprised you hang around his blog so much; you disagree with everything he says and then make it your mission to counter attack.

I guess you find his blog interesting, much in the same way I find your comments interesting. Divisional, but interesting.

Craig said...

Stan,

You forgot to mention that stealing is OK if one is a hungry illegal alien stealing food.

Stan said...

Now, Craig, let's be fair. Stealing is okay in a lot of circumstances. The trick is just not to call it "stealing" and then we're all good with it. Call it "taxation" or "meeting the needs of my family" or "taking what's rightfully mine" and then it's not "stealing" ... right?

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

I won't be answering whether or not it's okay to lie sometimes because any answer I offer will be misunderstood and because that's outside the scope of the topic (and into the reliability of Scripture).

I'm not sure why you fear your answer would be misunderstood. Here, let me give it a try:

YES! It IS okay to lie sometimes. Lying to save a life, for instance, IS A GOOD THING. If an enemy soldier is seeking any Jews (gays, Christians, blue-eyed people, you name it) in order to kill them BECAUSE they have that quality (being a Jew, being gay, etc), THEN it is a morally good thing to lie to save their lives - to stop innocent blood from being shed.

If I am hiding the innocent quarry in the basement and the soldier asks, "Do you have any of my quarry in your house?" and by lying and saying, "No," I can save that innocent blood, I guarantee you I will and I feel certain that it is not a sin in any real sense (ie, in any moral or ethical sense in the real world...). On the other hand, answering truthfully WOULD be a sin, in my opinion, because you will contribute to shedding innocent blood.

I am NOT of the opinion that this lie is even a "lesser evil," but that it is a moral good, unequivocally.

What could be misunderstood about that? If I'm misunderstood, then I can clarify, no harm, no foul.

Again, this is why I think it is critical to keep in mind that the POINT of God's revelation is not rule-adherence, but GRACE. Our interpretation of rules ought to be infused with grace. The lack of grace in their rigid rule-keeping is the sin of the Pharisees, I'd suggest.

Stan...

The question of whether or not I keep the Sabbath perfectly is equally without point.

Why? Your post is on adherence to the Ten Commandments. I'm just trying to get you to clarify, do you work on the Sabbath (actually, whether or not you take it literally as Saturday or even metaphorically, as in observing the Sabbath on a Sunday)?

How is that without point? Isn't that getting EXACTLY to the point of this post?

DID GOD REALLY SAY?

Stan...

In the first place, I indicated that "no one keeps them perfectly".

Agreed, but that is not the point of your post, is it?

Stan...

In the second place, it begs the question (again) "What did God really say?" Your way of phrasing the question, for instance, indicates that you think I'd need to support the death penalty for those who work on Saturdays, and that would be a misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

I don't "think" anything about YOUR position, I'm ASKING you what your position is. You tell me and I'll KNOW what to think your position is, I'm not guessing your position, I'm asking.

Cont'd...

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

The question remains as to whether God intended Saturday as the Sabbath -- was that His primary point? -- or was He requiring a "day of rest"? Going down the Pharisee path, will we be defining "work"? ...And am I required to make sure that no one else works on Saturday as well? Is that required in the command?

Stan, consider this: When I ASK YOU what YOUR ANSWER is to this question, "Do you work on Saturday?", I'm NOT implying anything. I'm asking a question.

So, when Starflyer jumps in and says...

It really seems apparent that his main goal is division. I find that sad.

Sorry Dan, I'm not trying to pick at you, I'm just defending Stan in what seems to be a constant attack from you.


I just have to fall back to my same refrain: CAN'T WE JUST DISCUSS THINGS WITHOUT HAVING AD HOM ATTACKS AND CRAZY HUNCHES ABOUT MOTIVES THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED AND UTTERLY INANE?

SF, Stan, MY MOTIVES are not the topic of this post. When someone attacks another's motives, they are engaging in ad hom diversions to what are JUST QUESTIONS.

Why not ANSWER the question rather than engaging in these diversions? Brother Starflyer, Brother Stan, LOOK at my words. There IS NO "ATTACK" in them. They are questions, the answers to which I'm interested in, as they have an impact on how we, as Christians and Bible-believers, deal with Bible study.

There is NOTHING DIVISIONAL about asking questions. Questions and clarifications lead to understandings and deeper Bible study. On the other hand, false and unsupported accusations ARE divisional, do you not see how I am innocent of what you are accusing and you, in your very accusations, are engaging in exactly that which you falsely accuse others of??

It seems you might be thinking I'm trying to "trap" you with my mediagotcha questions. No. I'm just asking questions in the process of Bible study. Asking relevant questions is a good thing, it seems to me. Why the defensiveness, my brothers?

Continuing, then...

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

Interestingly, it would appear that your primary focus is something like "Can't we just dismiss this stuff and 'infuse it with grace'?"

There is NO INTENT on my part to "dismiss" anything. MY intent (that is, THAT WHICH I ACTUALLY INTEND, as opposed to the false accusations that fly so freely here) is Bible study.

I DO believe that infusing our understanding of God's Word with God's Grace is a good and biblical thing. That would be about the one point that I have made beyond asking questions.

Do you all DISAGREE and think that infusing our understanding of God's Word with God's grace a BAD thing?

Stan...

There is no apparent attempt to understand any commandment as a "rule".

? Says who? This is not MY position.

Stan...

Rules are bad.

? Says who? This is not MY position.

Stan...

There is no attempt to see how far we should go to obey.

? Says who? This is not MY position.

Stan...

"What did God actually mean?" is not the primary question.

? Says who? This is not MY position.

My position is EXACTLY to ask "what did God actually mean?"

Stan...

So, if you have no input on that question and if your only aim is to examine whether or not I really believe that God meant what He said rather than dismissing such law-keeping as graceless, I think we can end this line of discussion. It's not connected.

You pointed out that these laws are not held to too tightly oftentimes. I asked what seems to ME to be a couple of relevant questions. It would HELP ME OUT in thinking this through to ask these questions and consider these questions together.

If you don't want to talk about them, you are always free not to post my questions. I just don't see why the hesitance to address relevant questions.

At this point, though, I'd hope you'd at least post my defense against the false charges here and raise the question for yourself and your followers, "WHY the hostility to questions?"

Embrace grace, my brother.

Eschew falsehoods and encourage questions. Good stuff to live by.

This would have seemed to be an easy and straightforward couple of answers to a couple of questions, but you all seem intent on making it more complex than it need have been.

My easy answers to those questions:

Yes, it's okay to lie sometimes.

Yes, I work on Sundays and Saturdays sometimes...

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: "Embrace grace, my brother."

Now, unless you are saying that I am embracing grace and you are encouraging me to continue to embrace grace, then it seems inevitable that you are saying that I am not embracing grace and need to start doing so. In context of the discussion, I am saying that we ought to obey God. And I am pointing to what is considered by almost everyone to be universal rules that God has laid out for us to follow. It seems to me (and most other readers) that you are, therefore, in some sense opposed to these rules. ("I think it is critical to keep in mind that the POINT of God's revelation is not rule-adherence, but GRACE.") It appears as if you're pitting "grace" against "rule-adherence", as if they are contradictory. But you assure me that you have nothing against rules and nothing against obeying God. And you assure me that I am not "embracing grace".

So I'm baffled. If "embracing grace" does not mean "don't worry about obeying the Law" (because my point here is that we ought to obey God in what He says to do and you consider that a failure to embrace grace), what does it mean? And if "embrace grace" does not mean "You're doing something wrong, Stan, by ignoring the fundamental principle of all of Scripture and encouraging people instead to do what God says", then what does it mean? And if it is not what Starflyer called an "attack", what is it? And if God commands us not to lie and you say that grace makes lying for good purposes a moral good, how is grace not a contradiction to God's commands?

Oh, so many simple, straightforward questions.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

Oh, so many simple, straightforward questions.

Questions which I am glad to answer, although they are off topic and delving into the area of personal attack, rather than the topic at hand. But if you want answers...

Stan...

So I'm baffled. If "embracing grace" does not mean "don't worry about obeying the Law" (because my point here is that we ought to obey God in what He says to do and you consider that a failure to embrace grace), what does it mean?

It means, AS we seek to follow God, we MUST/OUGHT remember that God demands mercy, not sacrifice. We must/ought remember that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.

We ought to understand these rules with an eye towards grace, not bitter rule-compliance. We ought to seek the Spirit which brings life, not the Letter of the Law which brings death.

I am NOT suggesting that rules are unimportant. I have rules I live by. My children have rules they live by. We all have rules to live by and that is good.

My point is that when RULES become the ends (obey this, don't do that!) rather than the means (let us follow God by God's grace and with grace and love towards one another) then we have stepped off the path towards Pharisee-ism.

Which is not to suggest anything about you personally or your friends, it's just a biblical conclusion that I have reached for us all to consider as we study the Bible.

A good thing, yes?

Question:

And if "embrace grace" does not mean "You're doing something wrong, Stan, by ignoring the fundamental principle of all of Scripture and encouraging people instead to do what God says", then what does it mean?

It is a reminder to us all. We are SAVED BY GRACE. We are to LIVE LIVES OF GRACE, BY GOD'S GRACE.

It is a call, not a condemnation.

If someone were to say to me, "Embrace grace," my answer would be, "Amen and Amen!" not defensiveness. If I thought they were directing it towards me specifically, I might ask if there is some way that I have NOT embraced grace.

Question:

And if it is not what Starflyer called an "attack", what is it?

Bible study, my brothers! Bible study.

You raised some GREAT questions in your post, Stan. I was following up on them, trying to delve a bit deeper. YES! We DO all agree with the Ten Commandments, but what do they mean to us today? How do we live them out today?

Great questions to ask.

That's Bible study.

In what world is asking questions an ATTACK??

If someone thinks asking questions is an attack, they wouldn't last ten minutes in our children's Sunday School class, much less our adult one. And that's true of my conservative Baptist church growing up as well.

Questions are invited and encouraged. That's not a liberal thing, that is a Bible study thing.

Question:

And if God commands us not to lie and you say that grace makes lying for good purposes a moral good, how is grace not a contradiction to God's commands?

Because the point of the law is to point us in the right way. And what IS the right way? Ultimately, God, Jesus and the Bible tell us, it is to love. To embrace grace. To watch out in love for the least of these, for the oppressed, for the needy. To love God and love our neighbor. THAT is the goal.

And if THOSE are the goals, then by lying to save an oppressed person's life, we are doing a good moral thing.

Do you disagree?

Do you think that lying to save an oppressed person's life is IMMORAL?

See, answering questions is a GOOD thing. I have no worries about answering questions. If I'm misunderstood, then I can clarify and that's good, too.

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: "Questions are invited and encouraged."

"Embrace grace" is not a question. And when you admit that "Embrace grace" addressed to you would suggest that you are not, it looks even less like a question.

Dan Trabue: "We ought to understand these rules with an eye towards grace, not bitter rule-compliance. ... My point is that when RULES become the ends (obey this, don't do that!) rather than the means..."

I would guess that this qualifies as a strawman argument, since "bitter rule-compliance" and "rules become the ends" has never been present. I've never made any such statement. I've never held any such position. On the other hand, if rules ought to be "the means" of following God, wouldn't it be wise to know what they are?

A side note that is actually relevant. On the subject (as an example) of homosexual behavior, I have maintained that Scripture is clear and that the behavior is sin. (That's "knowing what the rules are".) I have never walked up to someone involved in that behavior, smote them on the forehead, and called them the spawn of Satan in need of repentance. That would be "bitter rule-compliance".

Dan Trabue: "It is a call, not a condemnation."

Thanks for the clarification. I know you're really big on not being offensive in your use of words, so I thought I'd help you out here. To the normal, Bible-reading Christian, phrases like "Eschew falsehoods", "utterly inane", and "rigid rule-keeping is the sin of the Pharisees" (when directed at those you think are espousing "rigid rule-keeping") are not considered "a call", but "a condemnation". They are considered "attack" rather than "question". They are not normally received with gratitude for the warmth and encouragement they bring. Thought I'd help clear that misunderstanding up.

And, finally, on the lying question. I'm interested in this line of reasoning. If X is a sin -- so stated by God -- but violating X on the pretense of loving someone else makes the violation an inherent good, isn't there a problem?

Oh, and you asked, "Do you disagree?" I point this out because the answer is "yes" or "no", and I can't answer your question either way because I don't agree with the fundamental premise that God has commanded us not to lie at all. I don't think the command "You shall not bear false witness" means "You must not ever tell a lie." Thus, the question of violating God's command in order to obey God's other command doesn't come into play. That's why so many of your questions to me go "unanswered". The premises elude me, so simple answers don't work.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Two things about the "Big 10":

First, no-one but Israel was ever called to keep the Sabbath; it was a sign of a covenant between God and Israel and no one else. I did an article about this: http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/search/label/Sabbath

Secondly, I agree that lying is not always bearing false witness against a "neighbor"; it may only be bearing false witness against self as a way to protect other lives.

Deception is lying in a fashion, and yet deception has saved untold lives. "Operation Mincemeat" was a grand deception which prevented much loss of life in the invasion of Sicily. The Hebrew midwives deceived the Egyptians and saved lives, Christians deceiving the Germans saved lives in WWII. I was trained as a Combat Engineer, and one on the things we were trained in was the art of deception - camouflage. So lying in an of itself can not always be seen as sinful. The command itself is about bearing false witness AGAINST someone. This may seem like a fine point, but you have to admit God did NOT condemn the Hebrew midwives.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

I point this out because the answer is "yes" or "no", and I can't answer your question either way because I don't agree with the fundamental premise that God has commanded us not to lie at all.

Stan, do you recognize that I DID NOT ASK YOU IF GOD HAS COMMANDED US NOT TO LIE?

My question was simply, "Do you think lying is okay sometimes?" and I even gave you the same example that you cited. I'm not asking you God's opinion about lying. I'm asking YOU, do YOU think that lying to save the life of an innocent, as in your example, is that a morally GOOD thing to do, IN YOUR OPINION?

Why can't you answer THAT question that I asked you, rather than evade a question that I did not ask?

Stan...

To the normal, Bible-reading Christian, phrases like "Eschew falsehoods", "utterly inane", and "rigid rule-keeping is the sin of the Pharisees" (when directed at those you think are espousing "rigid rule-keeping") are not considered "a call", but "a condemnation".

THOSE comments came, you'll recall, after Starflyer uttered a falsehood, falsely accusing me of being divisive. THAT FALSEHOOD, I did rebuke with some rather strong words. My comments prior to that were simply questions with the offering of an opinion.

IF you all did not stoop down to personal attacks, and just had, you know, a normal conversation, asking and answering questions, then there would not have been the more harsh words. The harsh words came in response to objectively false and divisive words from YOUR comrades.

If you stick to conversations, and avoid the divisive tactices employed by at least Starflyer in this case, then it would just be Bible study and grace-full meditation together, and that would be a good thing.

Fair enough?

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

I'm jumping in a bit late here, but have read the entire comment string. I'm concerned about one statement, and perhaps some clarification can be provided.

In a description of what his phrase "embrace grace" meant Dan T. wrote: "It means, AS we seek to follow God, we MUST/OUGHT remember that God demands mercy, not sacrifice."

Dan, could you provide some clarification for that statement. Namely, are you referring to God demanding only mercy and not requiring sacrifice? Or are you speaking here of human relations one to another? Or is it some other understanding? By the way you wrote that statement it appears as if you are discounting sacrifice entirely or at least divorcing sacrifice from grace and mercy. Was that your intent?

I'm not sure where you are going with that and i'd like a little elaboration if you are willing.

Stan said...

Glenn, I'll have to look at your stuff on the Sabbath. I don't see anything in the text that says "This is about the covenant, and the rest is about morality" or something like it, so I'm not sure why that one gets stripped out from the rest.

I'm of the view that "bearing false witness" has to do with falsifying someone's actions. As in a court of law (the origin of the phrase), it would be to maliciously misrepresent someone's guilt or innocence or to demean their character without cause. I believe that a key element in this sin is malice. We know that Rahab lied and was commended for it. No malice. No false representation of character. We know that God ordered Samuel to deceive Saul (1 Sam 16:1-3). No malice. No false representation of character. I don't see this command as a command not to tell a lie.

Stan said...

Fair enough, Dan. We are not free to ... what's your word ... "stoop down to personal attacks", but you are. Got it. We ought to "embrace grace" and avoid being offensive, but you don't need to. Clear enough. Oh, and, by the way, your comments are divisive, whether or not you intend them to be. To aim your comments at a group of people who embrace a certain view of Truth and Scripture and tell them they're all wrong and need to stop being such Pharisees and embrace grace will be necessarily divisive. To tell us, for instance, that the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years on the subject of marriage and homosexual behavior cannot be anything but divisive.

And, since this is my blog and I think I've given you sufficient opportunity to refute those who disagree with you, we're going to terminate this discussion here. You haven't offered a single insight on the single question I was asking in the blog about how we can honor our parents and argued instead about the evils of rule-keeping (my phrase, not yours). Enough. You can argue that somewhere else. I want input from people on honoring parents.

David said...

I have a unique perspective on the ability to honor "bad" parents. I have a father that has led me in the most biblical way he can, has shown me every step of the way his love for me and for God, and how I can be a Godly man. My mother has walked away from her marriage and her God. Her thinking at one time was, "Their going to do it anyway, might as well be safe" and she gave me condoms. I have watched her life fall apart. I have watched her lie to me and my brother with a straight, sincere face. She was a good mother for the beginning of my life, but decided she wasn't going to live that life anymore. She began making decisions based on how they made her feel, without regard for her husband and children.
I try to honor them both equally, and it is admittedly more difficult to honor her than he. But she is my mother, and she is fallen from grace, but she still deserves to be honored based on the fact that she is my mother. Good or bad is irrelevant. I am now 30, and I still obey and honor both my parents, but even that obedience has its boundaries put in place by my adulthood, and sometimes I fear by my culture. I will continue to honor and obey them until they pass, and I will be seen as weird for doing so.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

Namely, are you referring to God demanding only mercy and not requiring sacrifice? Or are you speaking here of human relations one to another? Or is it some other understanding?

Jeremy, I was referencing Jesus' own words (who, in turn, was referencing the Old Testament)...

Now it happened as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” - Matt 9: 9-13.


The "sin of the Pharisees," it seems to me, was that they held fastidiously to The Law, but they were lacking in grace. I think it is a sin that religious folk of all times are prone to wander into, certainly it's been true for me.

So my only intent here was to echo Jesus' own words of warning to we religious types: Beware getting bogged down in rules and the "sins" of others. God desires MERCY, not sacrifice. Love, not mere adherence to various rules. Grace, not grace-lessly lashing out at "sinners."

That was my intent. Does that clarify?

What do you think Jesus meant by that?

Thanks for asking so graciously.

starflyer said...

Dan,

I think you summed it up best for me when you said:

'It seems you might be thinking I'm trying to "trap" you with my mediagotcha questions.'

I don't know what Mediagotcha means, but I think I get the gist of it. It DOES appear to me that you try to trap Stan with your style of questioning. It comes across as divisional, though you say that is not your intent.

I'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if it were more rare...but you constantly seem to be on the other side of the fence, even when it seems clear to Stan and the other readers that the Word of God is clear on X...it seems like you fight for things (and it comes across as dividing) that contradict Christianity. I know that sounds harsh.

I apologize for the offense I've caused...maybe I should just be a reader and not get involved. I can't help it though, sometimes I must jump in...

Dan Trabue said...

I don't know if Stan is inclined to allow me to respond, but if so...

Starflyer...

I'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if it were more rare...but you constantly seem to be on the other side of the fence, even when it seems clear to Stan and the other readers that the Word of God is clear on X...

I DO disagree with Stan sometimes. But disagreeing is part of life. There is no harm in it. Paul and Jesus (and others) both acknowledge it will happen. Paul counsels us not to quarrel on disputable matters, and I strive to live up to that. I strive to simply discuss these disputable matters. I don't think I've ever condemned anyone here for disagreeing with me on disputable matters. But discussing them is fine and beneficial, it seems to me.

Again, my style DOES tend towards the asking of questions (which seems to me to be about as non-divisive as possible - it's not saying, "YOU'RE WRONG!" but rather, it's just the asking of a question to clarify and help sort things out, for all involved. I'm not sure why any one would find asking questions confrontational or divisive.

Why is it you see it as such?

Starflyer...

it seems like you fight for things (and it comes across as dividing) that contradict Christianity. I know that sounds harsh.

It doesn't sound harsh to me, SF, it just sounds incorrect and wholly unfactual. As a point of fact, you're not offering any evidence to support that incorrect claim, just a vague claim.

THAT, to me, comes across as divisive and not Of Grace. I'd much rather someone say, "Dan, when you say 'X' it seems problematic because..." because a SPECIFIC reference gives me something to respond to and I can either repent or clarify, but vague charges are too much like gossip and slander, to me.

Does that make sense?

If I were to say, "Mr X comes across as being devilish!" well, to what is Mr X supposed to respond? It's a scurrilous charge.

Be specific would be my counsel if you wish to oppose some specific behavior.

And stick to what is actually being said rather than engage in attacks on character, that seems to me to be the most Christian and humane approach. Can we agree on that?

Starflyer...

I apologize for the offense I've caused...maybe I should just be a reader and not get involved. I can't help it though, sometimes I must jump in...

You've not caused offense to me. I'm not that easily offended. I'm just striving to point out respectful conversation patterns. Speaking for myself, I LOVE it when someone disagrees with me and offers their opinion, as long as they are speaking to what I've actually said, rather than making unsupported accusations.

And SF, I hope you can agree with me that "You fight for things that contradict Christianity" is an unsupported and false charge.

I DISAGREE with you all about marriage equity, about investments (probably), about where to read the Bible literally and where not, about engaging in the killing of our enemies and their children in wartime and a few other behaviors. AND you all disagree with ME on those issues. But disagreeing on a few opinions about disputable matters can, in NO way, be called "contradicting Christianity."

Do you see how it at least SEEMS that you all are conflating your opinions about disputable matters with God's Will and Christianity? Why not simply say, "Well, I strongly disagree with your position on that behavior..." rather than suggesting that this disagreement means I'm fighting against Christianity?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I think honoring one's parents would include not denigrating them to others, to treat them with kindness no matter how they behave. It means that no matter how bad they are, you still treat them with honor. You don't have to respect what they do or the choices they make, but you still treat them with honor as your parents.

As for obedience, the passage says "honor," and not "obey." There is a vast difference. Even Eph. 6 says to "Obey your parents in the LORD," that is, there is a caveat - if parents require something that is against the will of God, then one could refuse to obey. And I also believe the context of Eph is children still under their parents' authority. I doubt if God intends to have adult children obeying parents commands as to what house or car to buy, where they have to attend church, etc.

Stan said...

Dan, the assumption in your response to Starflyer is that we cannot know the truth. All we have is "hunches" (which seems like one of your favorite words). If, on the other hand, genuine Christianity holds (as an example) that homosexual behavior is a sin and you are arguing that it is not (again, just an example), then you would be fighting for things that contradict Christianity. Plain and simple. So because people like me agree with all of the Scripture that we see on the topic and all of Church history on the topic and can find no reason to see it any other way, we would have to conclude that you are fighting for things that contradict Christianity. Tagging it as "marriage equity" and "infusing it with grace" doesn't make it any less true. And if the Church in all its history and Scripture in all its references are correct, then Starflyer is not simply operating on a hunch and making "unsupported and false charges", but stating fact.

David said...

Dan, you are a fool if you believe that questions CANNOT be read as offensive or divisive. Your questions tend to have an implication behind them that you are right and are just trying to show us how foolish we are for being wrong.

Craig said...

I could be wrong, but it seems as though Dan's reclassification of commandments as suggestions may have some unintended consequences for a couple of his cherished hunches.

Nonviolence, it's a pleasant suggestion, but certainly not a biblical imperative.

His view on matters of the rich/poor. Again, some nice suggestions, but nothing that would compel one to assume any more than that.

Dan Trabue said...

To address Craig's off topic snark, yes, my INTERPRETATIONS, my HUNCHES about how best to understand the passages in question are indeed, MY hunches. Just as yours are yours.

I have not attained God-like status in my reasoning and it is sadly flawed.

As is yours.

I'm just admitting to as much and not confusing my opinions with God's Word.

You?

Having said that, not all opinions are equally valid or wise.

One COULD read the Bible and come away with the "truth" that it is good to kill your enemy's children, for instance. That does not make that hunch an especially valid one.

See?

After all, YOU DON'T FIND MY INTERPRETATIONS especially apt on at least a few topics, so there is no difference on our approach. That is, unless you are conflating your personal interpretations as the One True Way to understand God.

I don't make that mistake. How about any of you?

Stan said...

But ... if they are not actually facts if they are not proven (at least, to your satisfaction), on what can we base much of anything as "true"? (Rhetorical question. Please do not respond. I won't post it.)

Craig said...

Actually,

I'm pretty sure my snark is on topic. (or at least as on topc as anything other than the honor your parents comments)

The fact is, that Dan is content to post some commands and finds them to be actual commands, while relegating others to mere suggestions. There seems to be no logical foundation visible for such differentiation, yet there it is.

Ultimately what this does is to take the entire concept of looking to the Bible for guidance off the table.

One can say "The Bible says do not murder" and the response now can be, "Well, my hunch is that's really more of a suggestion than an actual command".

One problem with Dan's use of Jesus "breaking" the Sabath. If you look at the commandment, it's pretty general. What Jesus was doing was trespassing on the Pharisee's interpretation of the commandment. In other words there is no Biblical prohibition against picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, that was a later "clarification".

What Jesus was really challenging it seems, was not even the "laws" of the Pharisee's, but the Pharisee's right to be able to make laws in the first place.

It's not a bad hunch as hunches go, it just not a very good one/

Dan Trabue said...

If I may address a misunderstanding on Craig's part where he misrepresents my position...

that Dan is content to post some commands and finds them to be actual commands, while relegating others to mere suggestions. There seems to be no logical foundation visible for such differentiation, yet there it is.

To clarify:

I find all the commands to have been commands at the time for whatever purpose. Commands to the people they were addressed to.

What WE ALL do, though, is sort through these OT commands and figure out if ANY of these commands that were specific to Israel thousands of years ago are still relevant today.

None of these commands are directly to US, they were Israel's commands to follow. But we might find that some of them are of a more universal nature while others are NOT of a more universal nature.

It's what we ALL do. Craig, Stan, et al, you do it, too, or you'd be letting the hair on the side of your heads grow.

I've not relegated anything to a suggestion. Not my words, not my position.

What I've done is the SAME as we all do: Strive to take these ancient commands IN CONTEXT and see how they relate to us today.

Does that help you understand my actual position?

One more response to Craig's comment...

If you look at the [Sabbath] commandment, it's pretty general. What Jesus was doing was trespassing on the Pharisee's interpretation of the commandment. In other words there is no Biblical prohibition against picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, that was a later "clarification".

Oh, you mean, sort of like looking at an OT law (don't lie with men) that is vague and specific to the people then, and then "clarifying" it for today to suggest "gay folk can't marry one another..."?

I'd agree, if that were your point. It's poor form to take a general command and ADD TO IT your own twists and interpretation and then to insist that you are speaking for God when you do so.

You seem to recognize the Pharisees' error for them, but you don't seem to recognize the same in today's Pharisees, my friend.

Stan said...

I will let Craig respond as he may, but I need to clarify something. "It's what we ALL do. Craig, Stan, et al, you do it, too, or you'd be letting the hair on the side of your heads grow." Since I specifically wrote on this topic and explained the meaning of the text and, in fact, indicated that I still agree with the intent of the text, perhaps you ought to stop assigning to me your own beliefs on the topic. I believe, in fact, that the principles of Scripture are timeless. As such, I will try to obey all of God's principles regardless of whether they were given in the Old Testament or the New.

(Oh, and "men must not lie with men" is "vague"??? What would you consider "clear"?) (Again, rhetorical question.)

Craig said...

"I've not relegated anything to a suggestion. Not my words, not my position."

Dan T.

"They're more like guidelines" "...maybe I DO treat them more like guidelines."

Dan T.

Perhaps I should have used guidelines rather than suggestions, however the point remains. You don't (according to your own words) treat commands as commands.

"Oh, you mean, sort of like looking at an OT law (don't lie with men) that is vague and specific to the people then, and then "clarifying" it for today to suggest "gay folk can't marry one another..."?"

Yet, know one I know is actually doing this outside of your perception of others arguments.

What is being said is "Men shouldn't lie with men" and interpreting it to mean "Men shouldn't lie with men.". The gay marriage canard is yours not anyone else's. I've addressed this numerous times with no direct refutation from you. So, perhaps the problem is that you are not accurately understanding the arguments being made.

"It's poor form to take a general command and ADD TO IT your own twists and interpretation and then to insist that you are speaking for God when you do so."

Again, since I have yet to see anyone doing this, I fail to see your point.

"You seem to recognize the Pharisees' error for them, but you don't seem to recognize the same in today's Pharisees, my friend."

Again, not sure what your point is. Maybe you'd care to respond to mine?

The Pharisee's error was in making up their own law, not following God's law.

Craig said...

Stan,

I'll associate myself with your response. Obviously it's easier to act as if the hair thing is a serious argument that hasn't been dealt with, than to refute it.

Craig said...

“19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus of Nazereth


"The "rules" (lowercase "rule"), they're more like guidelines..."

"...The "rules" (lowercase "rule"), they're more like guidelines"

"He intended it as a slight, but yeah, maybe I DO treat them more like guidelines."

Dan T.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I'll associate myself with your response. Obviously it's easier to act as if the hair thing is a serious argument that hasn't been dealt with, than to refute it.

I dealt with Stan's argument, he opted not to post it. Which is fine, it's off topic. But it's not like it hasn't been addresssed.

I've not set aside ANY rules, rather, I've strived to take them IN CONTEXT.

Am I wrong to do so?

In the meantime, Christian Charity and Respect would suggest you really ought to quit misrepresenting me and apologize when you've done so, my brother.

David said...

If the commands were directed at Israel, and the Church has been grafted into Israel, wouldn't that make the commands directed at us?

Stan said...

The difference is that I say, "It says what it says and means what it says and I agree with what it says" and you say, "That? Oh, that's no longer applicable."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

David, the commands were for national Israel - not spiritual Israel. The church is grafted into spiritual Israel but never replaced Israel as a nationality.

Stan said...

David, Glenn wrote out his view here. I don't see it as a reasonable argument, but that's where it is.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Stan,

Could you explain how it is an unreasonable argument? I cited plenty of Scripture in context to make this argument.

David said...

I agree, that was a rushed, incoherent argument. I felt rushed just reading it. I think A.W. Pink made a much clearer, stronger argument for the Sabbath in his 'Holy Sabbath', though I don't fully agree with him it is quite compelling.
On to your post, it seems quite clear your focus was on honoring your parents, and yet that has been least talked about in the comments. Which is sadly common for Dan T, and somehow the homosexual argument keeps entering in too. Its always interesting and sometimes annoying to see how far off topic people get in your comments :p

Stan said...

Not the place for that.

However, in your explanation the entire Law was written for Israel. On what basis, then, do we take any of it? In your explanation, it appeared that we were to retain 9 out of 10 of the commandments, but just not that one. I don't see the rationale for that. And while you admitted that God made the seventh day holy (which was God's rationale for commanding Israel to observe the Sabbath) and that was before the Law, it would seem to me that it would be more universal than anything else, not less.

That was quick and dirty. Just my view.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Well, that argument was based on the same argument provided by several people I have read over the years, all of which were Bible scholars (which I am not), but I do have to admit none of them were Calvinists, which might be part of the problem with how one looks at it.

Stan said...

I don't know what Calvinism would have to do with that discussion. But, hey, I'm no Calvinist scholar. ;)