I don't think any of these things exemplify "outdated" moral teachings. When it comes to "slavery" and "polygamy" they are not outdated so much as contextually obsolete. Whether you view it in the sense of a different dispensation or different covenant, either way they are explained in a specific context. How God dealt with his people in Old Testament times was the truth of the gospel narrative in types and symbols; but since the coming of the Messiah, the 'shadows' have given way to the 'reality'. We as Christians now live under a new covenant, prophesied of old. When we examine the Old Testament, we have to try and discover what God was teaching his people about the gospel.
And as for "the role of women" relevant to the New Testament, I don't think this is outdated either. The contemporary feminist movement in our secular society might reject the New Testament description of the role of women but that does not mean it's outdated. Unbelieving sinners throughout the centuries have routinely substituted God's prescriptive will with their own sinful standards, but for Christians his prescriptive will, understood in its proper context (e.g., the new covenant), is always contemporary and relevant. (I would also have to question whether you are talking about the the role of women generally in the New Testament or the specific role of women in specific congregations.)
New Covenant vs. Old Covenant explains why we don't sacrifice animals on the altar anymore. It has NOTHING to do with slavery, polygamy, or the role of women. I am well aware of the danger of saying that some parts of the Bible are outdated in order to justify sin or in order to fit in with sinful culture. But on these issues, and after spending years considering them, I really do believe that fighting slavery, prohibiting polygamy, and allowing women to have equal rights and serve as pastors IS what God intends today. I'm not saying that the Bible was wrong or inaccurate--just that there are some differences in how God wants us to act today versus back then.
New Covenant vs. Old Covenant explains why we don't sacrifice animals on the altar anymore. It has NOTHING to do with slavery, polygamy, or the role of women.
Well this is the point at which I have to respectfully disagree. I have likewise invested several years of study into contrasting the different covenants revealed in Scriptures, including exploring the ways in which the gospel narrative was revealed through the long history of the Old Covenant people of God. Definitely the priesthood and Temple worship were part of this but I think there are good reasons to think that far more than this were revelations of the new covenant gospel to come (e.g., the Babylonian exile, or even something as obscure as the prophet Hosea marrying the prostitute Gomer). But I don't think this thread is about these issues so I will leave it at a respectful disagreement. Have you ever read God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology by Michael Horton? Definitely an informative and edifying read.
Originally Posted by ChristianCritic
I'm not saying that the Bible was wrong or inaccurate--just that there are some differences in how God wants us to act today versus back then.
How do you justify that thinking? Is it a Scriptural argument, or is it based upon more than Scriptures?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Man is a rational animal who always loses
his temper when he is called upon to act
in accordance with the dictates of reason. ~ Oscar Wilde ~
Well this is the point at which I have to respectfully disagree. I have likewise invested several years of study into contrasting the different covenants revealed in Scriptures, including exploring the ways in which the gospel narrative was revealed through the long history of the Old Covenant people of God. Definitely the priesthood and Temple worship were part of this but I think there are good reasons to think that far more than this were revelations of the new covenant gospel to come (e.g., the Babylonian exile, or even something as obscure as the prophet Hosea marrying the prostitute Gomer). But I don't think this thread is about these issues so I will leave it at a respectful disagreement. Have you ever read God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology by Michael Horton? Definitely an informative and edifying read.
okay!
How do you justify that thinking? Is it a Scriptural argument, or is it based upon more than Scriptures?
I think that there is definitely a middle ground between an anything goes, whatever feels right to you as an individual mentality and a simple-minded, blind obedience to every rule in the Bible regardless of historical context. I think that we should read the Bible as a record of moral rules for certain groups in certain situations, and then derive from them moral values to apply to our own situation. As such, some but not all of the Bible's moral teachings are outdated. Additionally, God gave us more than just the Bible. God gave us a brain, as well as the Holy Spirit. We should be...
Originally Posted by Browneyes84
You think the same way that I do as well. I consider myself a moderate Christian because I see life in shades of gray-- albeit a few shades of gray, but there is no way IMHO that everything can be viewed in terms of "black and white." I think making moral decisions need to be done in a way that understands the circumstance and the people involved. For example with slavery, it cannot be justified as a moral decision simply because the Bible tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. If anyone does the contextual research behind that statement which Paul wrote, he did not want to unsurp the traditional Roman rule. However, he wanted his message of submission to be taught more so in reverence out of respecting each other, and not one person or group being dominant over another.
Seeing it from that angle allows us to look into more of the Bible and see that he also wrote this "There is Greek nor Gentile, Free or Slave, Female or Male, for we are one in Jesus Christ." (That was paraphrasing). Let's take a good look here. Paul in a way, was writing for us to read between the lines. No, he didn't want to cause trouble with a community's or government's current regulations or rules, but he wanted to spread the gospel. So if we take all of those things into context, we can reasonably deduce that slavery is wrong. Now, I'm a little too wacked out on cold medicine to go into the correct logical syllogism for the argument but you get what I'm saying.
Once again, we are witnessing a thread based upon the proposition that to be a "Moderate Christian" (a la the title of the forum) must mean being an indecisive Christian, a conflicted Christian, a Christian who is morally ambivalent, etc.
The forum decided to add the term "Bridge Builders" precisely in order to dissuade people from making that mistake!
Yet it occurs again and again.
To be a Moderate Christians here means that we are able to deal with opposing views in a charitable way (unlike some other forums, at least so it's charged). We are committed to thinking through the points of discussion that appear here.
BUT we are no less faithful or assured in our religious beliefs for being "Moderate" in our BEHAVIOR as debaters and discussion participants on CF.
Once again, we are witnessing a thread based upon the proposition that to be a "Moderate Christian" (a la the title of the forum) must mean being an indecisive Christian, a conflicted Christian, a Christian who is morally ambivalent, etc.
The forum decided to add the term "Bridge Builders" precisely in order to dissuade people from making that mistake!
Yet it occurs again and again.
To be a Moderate Christians here means that we are able to deal with opposing views in a charitable way (unlike some other forums, at least so it's charged). We are committed to thinking through the points of discussion that appear here.
BUT we are no less faithful or assured in our religious beliefs for being "Moderate" in our BEHAVIOR as debaters and discussion participants on CF.
As the OP, I don't think that I was calling for moral ambivalence or indecisiveness at all.
As the OP, I don't think that I was calling for moral ambivalence or indecisiveness at all.
Fair enough...and I didn't say that you were. I was thinking at once of all the similar threads that have come along here which assume that being a moderate Christian means being, theologically, somewhere in the middle of some doctrinal spectrum. As you said, I think that there is definitely a middle ground between an anything goes, whatever feels right to you as an individual mentality and a simple-minded, blind obedience to every rule in the Bible regardless of historical context.
But a Moderate Christian, for our purposes, can just as easily be a strict Fundamentalist as be an unswerving follower of Roman Catholic teachings. There is no implication at all of the Moderate Christian being a Centrist or in between anything and anything else, so far as his religious convictions go.
I'm a little confused-- you quoted my post in conjunction with saying that I'm indecisive and morally ambivalent? I thought I was simply giving my POV, not showing how morally ambivalent I am. Nor did I mention that I was unwilling to listen to opposing views. Explain what you meant by what you said, and why my post was included in that.
__________________ Dana (possessed by Zuul): Do you want this body?
I consider myself to be a moderate Christian because I also believe in reading the Bible, praying over it, and interpreting it based on both historical context and what the Holy Spirit imparts to me personally. I believe that all scripture is true. However, there ARE places where there is room for more than one interpretation. In my opinion, it it the duty of every Christian to seek God's truth according to His word and Spirit and to make sure they are always governed by the supreme law of love that Christ taught. This is the best anyone can do. If there was no room for argument then the church as a whole would not spend most of its time doing just that when the time would be better spent being Christ's hands and feet to the world. Just my opinion.
Linear Mode
