Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9548 | ||
JVH0212 You caught me this is the same question. ;-) I was hoping for fresh dialogue, not saying there was anything wrong with yours. But we kept dead ending as you tried to narrow me down to one particular doctrine in question. My concern is not with anyone particular doctrine but rather with the general concept of discounting something in the Bible as merely man dealing with a situation. What I’m trying to do is get people to think about these men that come on TV, Radio or even from the pulpit who are trying to be popular or PC and say this doctrine doesn’t pertain to the church today. Their usual argument is this was the writer correcting the a local situation and was never intended for today’s church. In days past it concerned, women in the ministry, children and general conduct. Today the same approach is being used to support homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research and the list grows. I say baloney! We either take the Bible as God’s inspired Word and stand on it’s infallibility or we say it is nothing more than the ramblings of men of old who left their situations, society, ego’s, prejudices, and their inherent beliefs shape what they wrote. And I for one will never do that!!!!! In my examples your absolutely right there would be many many things the Pagan would wonder about. But I believe he would come to an understanding of the basic principals of Christian living provided the Holy Spirit was involved. Of course he would not understand the awesomeness of the Balaam’s talking donkey if he had never seen or heard of a donkey before. Or he would wonder about earthquakes if he never felt one. Or find it strange to talk about a sword or a spear if he never had one. However I believe God has supplied in the Bible everything we need to determine if a doctrine, precept, command, or statue applies to us today or not. I think we run into to hazardous territory when we try to explain away any verse of doctrine, precept, command, or statue as nothing more than the writer bringing correction to a local social issue that doesn’t apply today unless we have Biblical proof of that fact. As to the example of the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, first I think we can all agree the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved. Secondly they weren’t looking for the truth they were trying to apply man’s understanding and logic to scripture. |
||||||
2 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9559 | ||
Greetings EdB! I think we agree more than we disagree! I think the problem is that we are simply approaching the issue with slightly different assumptions. I agree with you that we should never "explain away" a passage. My concern is that we "fully understand" a passage, and then apply it in the way that the author intended. For instance, 1 Cor. talks about praying with head coverings. Paul gives a command there, but most of us realize that this was a cultural custom from a different time, so we don't pray with our heads covered. However, we do recognize that there is a universal principle being taught as well. So, I think that we agree more than not! I never would want to eliminate a truth of the Bible, but I do want to be careful that I truly understand what that truth is. The whole issue of general principle as opposed to universal principle is not easy. It takes a lot of effort and prayer. It seems that most of the difficult issues come from the epistles. Which makes sense, since they are the most occasional of all the writings. P.S. - I am pleased to see someone stand up for infallibility. Personally, I am a Plenenary, Verbal, Confluent, Inerrant person. 1) Plenenary simply means that God's inspiration extends to every part of Scripture. 2) Verbal simply means that even the very words used are exactly the words God wanted to be used. 3) Confluent simply means that Scripture is a geniune product of two wills. God moved upon the Scripture writers, but He did so it such a way that their personalities and quirks come through. (As opposed to say the Dictation Theory.) 4) Inerrant simply means that God's Word is without error in all that it affirms or teaches. So, I share your concern EdB! However, especially in the Epistles, it is much like listening to one side of a phone converstation. So, digging into the culture and background is very important to understanding the message. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Makarios | 9563 | ||
Greetings Tim! I am also a 'Plenenary', 'Verbal', 'Confluent', and 'Inerrant' person when it comes to the inspiration of Scripture! I thoroughly enjoy your posts, and it amazes me how much we are so 'in-tuned' with each other's theology! We agree on so many things, and its good to know (and encouraging) that I have a fellow brother in Christ who follows many of the same paths of thought as I do (as well as living in the same State)! Blessings, my friend, and you are truly appreciated! Nolan PS - I've been keeping your car in my prayers.. :) |
||||||
4 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9564 | ||
Greetings Nolan! Thanks for the kudos! My car definitely needs your prayers! I promised EdB that I would do some research on 1 Tim. 2:11-12. I am getting a headache! Everyone has a totally different spin on it. I think I am going to nominate this passage for the most confusing passage of the year award. However, I am learning a lot. The biggest surprize that I've had so far is that the word "to have authority" over a man in v. 12 is only used once in all of Scripture. It seems to have the meaning of "dominate," perhaps even by force. One other possible meaning is that of "originate." This leads to some interesting possiblities. It may have been that some women in Ephesus were teaching a Gnostic heresy that women were the originators of men and that Paul was countering this with his discussion of Adam and Eve. I still have a lot of research to do, but the view (so far) that I think makes the best sense of all the data is that Paul was forbidding wives to have authority over their husbands. However, I am not ready to commit! Thanks also for the support of inerrancy! I have been dismayed over the years to find that Christians are steadily watering down this belief. I went to a solid evangelical Christian college and actually had to defend myself (even there) for believing in inerrancy. Your Brother in Christ and fellow Hoosier, Tim Moran |
||||||