Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132568 | ||
My Dear Friend: I am constantly amazed at our ability as humans to simply miss the point. This exchange reminds me of an experience with a Seventh Day Adventist who came to my house as a member of my wife’s family and proceeded to try to convince me that I should join his sect. After hearing for at least the twentieth time that I had no interest in his tradition or any other human tradition, he thanked me for listening. Now, I try to be kind and patient and all, but the fact is I had not listened to his spiel at all. I have said here that I have no interest in any human tradition. Yet I read, “Thanks again for taking the time to think through -- or at least talk -- about these things”. I am left with the question: “What things?”. I had already decided a long time ago that denominations are a wrong, bad, unscriptural thing. I had felt no need to give any more thought to that. I can understand why there is a wish that “we could have been of greater assistance to one another”. But again, I had I have no felt need for assistance in this matter. I am certain everyone realizes when they come to this forum that the forum is not interested in having anyone to advocate any tradition. It says at the top: “Pushing one's denominational bias and engaging in debates, such as Calvinism/Arminianism, are strictly forbidden on this Forum”. But I understand how someone can keep edging toward that, and itching to do just that. The chance came when someone mentioned that conversion was gradual. It is apparent that one tradition or another does not agree with that. Instead of producing scripture to show that conversion is not gradual, one may choose instead to suggest that the person was wrong simply because they are in the wrong tradition, with the wrong set of rules of thumb and wrong principles of interpretation. Now, I suppose one might wish they would change that person’s mind, not only about their view of the time it takes to be converted, but about their whole tradition. They were supposed to examine the way they arrived at doctrines in general. And of course, one would recommend one’s own tradition because one thinks it is correct and using the correct way to arrive at doctrines. Someone else might point out that they arrive at their beliefs by considering all of scripture. But one who is eager to promote his tradition might try to suggest that he not use, say, narrative, to derive doctrine, because ones own tradition does not do that. Meanwhile, the person may not have done that at all, no even said they would do that, but one who is anxious to promote one’s tradition that one might have seen an opportunity, an opening. If one is trying to seize an opportunity to promote one’s tradition, it will be very difficult to do that on this forum. It might be said that one should not do that at all, since it is divisive and contrary to scripture, but that one should endeavor to keep the unity in the bond of peace, as saith the Scripture. But the very name one chooses for this forum may tend to do that. Listen, my friend, I think that many of us come to this or any other forum with an agenda. Mine happens to be to promote discussion of practical applications for the knowledge of the word which the participants here so clearly have. I try to convince them that knowledge alone is not enough, that we should be talking about ways to implement the word. More than that, I say we should be more careful to practice what we know, even here. We can practice kindness and peace and unity even as we discuss the scriptures. I have said repeatedly that I understand, because my own agenda has met resistance in light of the stated goal of this forum, to discuss the Scriptures. I think that each of us will have to take stock whether it is worth the pain and the pains to try to get our agenda adopted. I frankly have never understood what the goal is in getting a tradition accepted. I think the actual result is schism and tension in the body. I dare not suggest that a subconscious goal is to make one feel good to know that his point of view is accepted, especially if one is not completely comfortable with it. But the psychologist in me may lead me to say that. I guess that for myself there is no feeling better, because actually practicing the word of God can bring pain. I may well feel guilty for having led a particular someone into that. But I do that, and I believe that the God of peace will be with them (Philippians 4:9). So I am pleased to leave them with him. And it may be time to leave this with you as well. Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things. |
||||||
2 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132580 | ||
Dear Aixen, you wrote 'I have said here that I have no interest in any human tradition. Yet I read, 'Thanks again for taking the time to think through -- or at least talk -- about these things'. I am left with the question: 'What things?'. I had already decided a long time ago that denominations are a wrong, bad, unscriptural thing. I had felt no need to give any more thought to that." Please excuse me, I do get confused easily, and all of this really has me befuddled. The "things" were the ideas of ignoring or considering what you call "human tradition." The "things" were not human traditions themselves. Regarding the thought part: Since you had brought up the subject I had assumed that you had given it thought. I was thanking you for sharing those thoughts and taking additional thought to respond to my own comments. I am not too certain how one writes anything without taking thought. This is another assumption of mine, I'm afriad, but thought is a pretty fundamental aspect of communication. Your explanation and anecdote have, I believe, clarified your ... Sorry, I'm trying not to call them thoughts ... whatever you call them. Please consider my gratitude withdrawn for your having taken thought when no thought was intended. (Gosh that sounds weird!) I didn't mean to provoke you ... to thought or otherwise. Since the rest of your post had to do with a not uncommon tradition of rejecting other traditions in lieu of ones own (it actually goes back to Genesis 3), I am a bit at a loss as to what to say... and since it is a human tradition, you wouldn't want to talk or think about it anyway. One last thing, you concluded with the words "Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things." Although this statement in and of itself is scriptural, again I am perplexed. Why would you want me to do something that you are unwilling to do? Why would you ask the Lord to give me an understanding of all things? Do you mean that you wish Him to give me an understanding of all things except the traditions of men? In fact ... something else very puzzling ... you use the word "understand" several times in your post which, in turn, is about an unwillingness to learn, study, or take thought for something else. I have an anecdote to relate as well. I am reminded of a fellow I met in an airport. He spent quite some time trying to demonstrate the irrationality of logic. He, in fact, denied the validity of logic altogether. He argued about this at length, but -- much to his disappointment -- I was never quite able to grasp his position. I couldn't quite see how logical argument can be used to demolish the validity of logical arguments. Oh... you've got my head aching! I do not know how to discuss these things with you. How about we just forget it? What do you think? Er... I mean, how does that sound? Let's get on with the study of the Word! In Perfect Perplexity, Doc PS I'm a Reformed Baptist... we don't like denominations either... that's why we aren't one. :-) PSS I don't have an agenda except to preach -- Deo volente -- Christ, and Him crucified. |
||||||