Query #1
I have got to post something and retire last Christmas' post. The bummer is that I really don't have anything but questions. It is difficult to come up with a clear, concise, cohesive exhortation or expostulation when all you want to do is ask questions... Alas, I have two queries but I shall make you wait for the second until the first is sufficiently aired.
The other evening our church fellowship men got together and listened to two of our spiritual leaders talk to us about spirit leadership. The discussion that followed produced the following comment from one of my older fellow members. This particular portion of discussion was centered around the necessity to continue (next winter) with the meetings that we were finishing. Directly following a request from one young man to have more meetings that were taught from a book of the Bible, say Revelation, or something like that, this older man piped up and said that he didn't think it was necessary to bring the Bible into our meetings because he has heard before that "you can prove anything from the Bible."
I'll have to say that I was incensed. However, I haven't had a chance to talk this man yet.
Hint: here comes the question, What would you say?
posted by Looking Upward @ 3/10/2007 09:29:00 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I don't see any easy answer to this one. The comment indicates a severe lack of Christian foundation. It would be difficult to know where to begin.
What does he suggest using instead of the Bible that wouldn't be open to the same charge (that anything could be proved therewith)?
I think Brad summarized the problem: a severe lack of Christian, or one might say, biblical foundation.
I would reply: "Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?"
If he said "No", then you have a crystal clear explanation for his problem: he is unregenerate. And he needs to be confronted for his unbelief.
If, "Yes", then I would reply, "Do you believe that God has spoken clearly?"
If he said "No" to the question of clarity, then I would attempt to show scripture which declares that God has spoken plainly. And, it is absolutely irrleveant as to whether he accepts that exposition or not. In other words, if he says, "Well, you're just making it say what you want", then you simply leave it at that by saying, "You can read this for yourself. What God has said, is what God means."
If he said "Yes" to the question of clarity, then I would respond, "Then doesn't it seem that we should let His Word speak to us? After all, faith comes by hearing, and hearing of the Word of God. Which of us would be so proud as to suggest we cannot use more faith?"
On another note, if a book were to be picked, I certainly wouldn't pick Revelation. I would pick Luke, Mark, 1 John, Galatians, or Ephesians.
I would have to ask what he meant by such a gastly statement. Surely he doesn't really think that does he? That the Bible is unclear and can be used to make any argument. Sure some can pull verses out of context, but one with a proper study of the Word would never say such a statement.
Ps 111:7 "..all His precepts are sure"
Rms 15:4 - it is our source of hope
Also Ps 19:7-9 Scripture is perfect, sure, right, pure and true. It is not some muddled mess that people can use to defend whatever crazy thing they want. It is God's Holy Word, and when he speaks he doesn't mumble.
In short, I would use the Word to gently and loving rebuke such a statement (II Tim 3:16,17).
Thank you for all the feedback!
In my opinion this is not just an isolated thought among us. I believe that this individual thinks this way because of differing interpretations expressed by two or more 'preachers', and he admires both.
Talk to me about defending the notion that all Scripture has only one interpretation (or meaning) per passage. Obviously, if this is true, and can be substantiated, and can be discerned which interpretation is true, then this is pretty convincing logic.
However, like I said, I think that so many Christians are confused with differing thoughts they hear from people they look up to. Then they use the Bible as the scapegoat, saying exactly what this man has said.
I am sure that this man would believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I would also be relatively certain that he believes that God has spoken clearly, he is just running scared of what that is and who should be the one who tells him what it is that God said.
Talk to me about defending the notion that all Scripture has only one interpretation (or meaning) per passage.
Well, I would approach that defense in light of the fact that we did not write Scripture: God did (2 Tim. 3:16). So whatever meaning He intended is the meaning.
This next statement is admittedly simplistic, but I think it is the root of our varying interpretations: we want what we want. We make every effort to accommodate what we have presupposed we believe.
For example, Grace Brethren can take the headcovering passages and completely wash them away with the excuse of culture, but when John MacArthur washes away footwashing using the same excuse, we cry "foul". The basis for both issues is the same: 1) Grace Brethren decided in the late 1930's that they didn't want headcoverings and, 2) Southern Baptists don't want the trouble of footwashing. To reverse either position would now take a monumental effort, blocked first by pride - we would have to admit we were wrong.
Those are examples of "varying interpretations", using the Bible to say what we want it to say; but that does not imply that the Bible doesn't say what it means. Our responsibility is to submit in faith to its teaching. And, where certain practices are not for us, that is clearly explained in scripture. Circumcision and dietary laws, for example, are clearly explained in Galatians as not being a requirement for the Church. You cannot come to the same conclusion regarding footwashing and headcoverings. Obviously, denominationalism shows that we can convince people either way.
But I would further suggest that if no one wore a headcovering or if no one washed feet, the Church would lose valuable testimonies. Certainly, the loss of testimony cannot be God's will. If every church practiced headcoverings and footwashing, then the church would have a greater testimony using modes provided for in scripture, in the context of the Church.
On the other hand, we can manufacture a testimony that God never intended. For example, you cannot come to biblical conclusions (as in footwashing or headcoverings) that men should have beards, or that a church should conform to its own outward appearance by uniform. Those are things we have manufactured and superimposed onto the Bible, and I don't believe God Himself would defend them.
Our interpretation and doctrine, I believe, relates directly to the production of gold, jewels and precious stones versus wood, hay and stubble. Some works are the works God intended for His own reasons; other works are simply worthless and do not have God’s ordination and will simply be burned up.
So, it behooves us to come to a common confession wherever we can so as to propagate godliness in this and future generations. (1 Tim. 3:16.)
Agreed!
I think that your first argument is the strongest, though the second is the easiest to understand. Thanks for the good encouragment.
We were together on Sunday with a group of Christians that pussy-footed around several issues that quite frankly I believe that the Bible states clearly where we should be. I was discouraged by the lack of committment to God's word. I guess I am getting more and more hard-nosed.
I remind myself to be gracious, but the New Testament exhorts grace AND truth.
So...Query #2?
Post a Comment
<< Home