Scripture says, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). The obvious question is, "Well, if that's true, why do you think you can know it?" It is, in one sense, a completely misguided question -- "if that's true" -- but on the other hand I understand the question. It's a misguided question because the question assumes that the Bible is not true when it says that and that the questioner does know what is true. And it's not what Scripture is saying there. (By the way, that particular text is a quote from God. The Bible is not in question there; God is.)
So, what makes me think I can know what Scripture means and others can't? In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul told them, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). Notice the "cannot." It's not merely a matter of rebellion, of refusal. It's a matter of inability. So why would I think I (and all those like me) can understand Scripture where those relying solely on the "heart" -- on natural man -- cannot? First, we must agree that the Bible does not eliminate all possibility of understanding with these two passages (and others like them), or there would have been no purpose in giving us Scripture. How, then, can anyone think they can understand? One answer comes from the text. In the very next verse, God says, "I, YHWH, search the heart, I test the mind" (Jer 17:10). So, if the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, how can we even hope to understand God's Word? God does it. Isn't that what Jesus said? "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come" (John 16:13). Jesus's followers have the guarantee of God's "Spirit of truth" guiding them "into all truth." So, while we have deceitful hearts and while natural man lacks the ability to grasp the things of God, those born of God (and no longer "natural man") have God's Spirit to tell them the truth.
"So," you will expect, "what makes you think you have the truth a not me? Maybe you're the misguided one." Maybe. We can ask a simple question that will get us most of the way there: "Is what I'm seeing in Scripture the same thing that God's people has seen in the past, or am I coming up with a novel or variant version?" A person who finds himself interpreting Scripture at odds with historic Christianity has to wonder why he or she got it right when no one else did before. Take, for instance, the question of the sin of homosexual behavior. They like to tell us the translation of "homosexual" (or "homosexual behavior") in 1 Cor 6:9-10 was a mistranslation by the Revised Standard translation in 1946. Before that, it actually meant "pederasty" -- sex between men and boys. Is that so? John Gill wrote his commentary in 1746-1763. He refers to the text in Lev. 20:13 as a reference to "sodomy" and the New Testament version (1 Cor 6:9) as "sodomites." The text itself says "a man who lies with a male" and the phrase from the Septuagint -- the Greek translation of the Old Testament from 4 AD -- is arsenokoitēs, which Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (published in 1841) translates "sodomite." The early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea all condemned homosexual behavior. Taken together with the explicit text in Romans 1:26-27 where the act is contrasted with "natural relations" and just what "natural relations" means is detailed -- men with women and women with men -- it is quite clear that Scripture is talking about homosexual behavior -- male homosexual or female homosexual -- as sin. The acceptance of homosexual behavior in church doctrine didn't come about until the 21st century. So ... did the Holy Spirit fail for all this time to get across that it was simply pederasty that was a sin? Did all those led by the Spirit for 2,000 years miss this and only the "chosen few" today figure out the truth? If the Spirit is to be trusted and Jesus is to be believed, that's nonsense. God does not change (Mal 3:6). If the Spirit is doing His job, our understanding ought to coincide rather than collide. Sometimes we learn new things (like the full doctrine of the Trinity, as an example), but these new things cannot -- must not -- contradict what the Spirit already taught ... or the Spirit is insane and we're comletely without hope.
There will always be differences, variances, disagreements on some texts. Most of these are not critical. The overwhelming agreement says more than the minor differences we see. For instance, when Arminius's followers complained about the doctrine they were being taught, they complained about five points. Only five. Some see that as significant; I see it as overwhelming agreement. As we would expect from those whose ears are tuned to the Spirit and not relying on their own preferences and standards to decide what God means. If my interpretation is resting on my mind and my standards and my logic alone, I should be cautious. If Scripture changes my mind, my standards, my logic, and so on, that is a good indication that it's not me. Or, let's try this: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths" (Pro 3:5-6).
9 comments:
No, Dan, it does not give me pause. For instance, no one, in the recorded history of the church, has ever claimed that homosexual behavior was suitable and good ... until the 21st century or so. No one. The universal belief from before Christ and after was that homosexual behavior was a sin. The Bible clearly limits righteous sexual interaction to marriage and the Bible clearly describes marriage as the union of a man and a woman, so there is no path to conclude that some homosexual behavior is perfectly okay ... because all homosexual behavior happens outside of marriage. But you believe that all of them prior to this brand, spanking new understanding got it dead wrong, from the Old Testament Jews to the New Testament Church. Do I think I am right because I interpret it that way, or do I think it is true because everyone has always interpreted it that way? I only conclude what the vast bulk of the church concluded and not some "pet idea." I'm not relying on me; I'm relying on them. You, on the other hand, have openly stated that you are sufficient in yourself to determine what is and is not meant or even right in Scripture. That's the difference between us.
The newness of Dispensationalist thinking is what got me started in doubting it's veracity. When I believed in that eschatology, the age of the idea always bothered me. It's also one of the reasons I can't begrudge paedobaptism, it certainly is an older practice. I think believer's baptism is older. New isn't necessarily good.
Stan, you wrote, “A person who finds himself interpreting Scripture at odds with historic Christianity has to wonder why he or she got it right when no one else did before.” While I concur with your entire argument today, I am also mindful of the time in church history when the Protestant Reformers (and their followers) were considered heretics by the long-established church--for seeking to make essential corrections based on interpretation of Scripture. (I understand that they were working to restore “historical Christianity” rather than repudiate it.) Church history also confirms that the true Church comprises a subset within “historic Christianity” and that the majority of the visible church--who are without the benefit of the Spirit of Truth--will embrace all manner of apostasy and false teaching. For example, the mainstream church will most definitely move to accept homosexual behavior (and other various sinful conduct) but not that small group of true believers (“those led by the Spirit”)--and that gives me peace when I see all that is going on in the world today (Matt. 16:18).
I will also say that it is helpful to see that good clarification (in your third paragraph) of how homosexual behavior is addressed in Scripture and therefore our proper view of this issue--in case any of your readers are unsure how to think about what the world is saying to the contrary. (Since you have clarified this in many past posts as well, one should find it easy to be clear about this topic.)
Lorna,
I think the difference is that the reformers identified obvious errors that the church had fallen in to, and looked backwards toward scripture for answers. Not by identifying new and novel theologies to supplant the heresies of the RC church.
That is true, Craig, and I did state that about the Reformers’ efforts. My point would be that we cannot automatically denounce all challenges to the teachings and/or practices of the established church--only those that, upon proper consideration and judgment, are deemed to conflict with Scripture (such as was done during various early church councils). I am mindful that “historic Christianity” was not always biblical Christianity and thus not the perfect litmus test.
Just to be clear, "What did they teach in the past?" is not my litmus test. More at, "Has this understanding ever been the understanding? Or am I coming up with something novel?" Simple "tradition" or "historic teaching" could be wrong, but if I have "this" interpretation of a text and no one has ever suggested it that way, I'm pretty sure I didn't get that from the Holy Spirit. I believe all the truth of Scripture will have a thread, from its original inception up to today, held as true by God's people. Sometimes that thread may be blatantly obvious and sometimes it may be more obscured (as the church deviated). Sometimes it may be expanded, so that there is additional information on it. But it is not possible that the Holy Spirit would teach opposing truth as truth, and it is inconceivable that He couldn't figure out how to get out the fact that "this" text meant "that" and never "this other thing you've always believed." It's that thread I look for, not merely the corpus of historic Christian teachings. That's why Jude referred to "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). There is no new "faith" available. When we get some, we're being deceived.
Lorna,
You're exactly right. Unfortunately so much of the recent challenges that Stan writes about are grounded in personal experience/Reason/emotions, and contradict both scripture and historic Christian theology.
Stan,
I agree that just because it's been taught in the past, doesn't mean that it's correct. Although, the fact that any teaching has withstood centuries of study and criticism is a factor to consider. It's amazing how many people today will argue that a scripture actually means something completely opposite of what the text clearly says.
That is helpful clarification, Stan, and I concur. As I’ve commented in the past, unchecked maverick thinking has led to the formation of all the cults and fringe sects that have come and gone. Even so, a study of church history--including those dark centuries when the RCC ruled Christendom--confirms that God has preserved the true Church and has indeed been guarding “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Sometimes that common true faith seems to be hanging by that “thread” you mention--almost indiscernible amongst all the false teaching, apostasy, “Churchianity,” etc.--but it is definitely there to be found by those seeking truth.
Post a Comment