Applying logical thought processes to the Scriptures

[Gregory Thompson]

So important to note, those who said "you must get circumcized" also taught "you must keep the law of Moses" It is written.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:5)

 

[Matt5]

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A / Therefore B") and those who disagree with me would rebuke me not because my logic was flawed but apparently because I am using logical thought processes at all!

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

Perhaps the issue is not logic, but rather different logic. You are using different logic than the other person expects. Everybody uses logic but not necessarily the same logic. What logic are they using? Most likely it is the logic of equality.

We know, or should know, that the ideas of equality flow throughout church members. But this logic flips the world upside-down. For example, if we are all equal then why are some people rich? They cheated. Why are some poor? They were victimized by the rich. And blah, blah, blah we go down the path to utopia where everybody and every country is equal - has equal stuff.

A person can bend the Bible using the lens of equality.

 

[John Mullally]

The position of the Judaizers is that they wanted to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved (Acts 15:1), which is not my position. If you want to consider someone to be a Judaizers because they think that Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses, then you should consider Jesus to be a Judaizer and we should all be Judaizers, but that is not what it means to be a Judaizer. Again, Paul's problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow Jesus, but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved.

Paul purposely did not teach Gentile believers to keep the Mosaic other than the four items listed in Acts 15 (Acts 21:24-25).

Paul specifically did not require Gentile believers be circumcised (1 Corinthians 7:18). He desired that those (i.e. Judaizers) who demand such full on castrate themselves (Galatians 5:17). Comprende?

 

[Soyeong]

Paul purposely did not teach Gentile believers to keep the Mosaic other than the four items listed in Acts 15 (Acts 21:24-25).

Paul specifically did not require Gentile believers be circumcised (1 Corinthians 7:18). He desired that those (i.e. Judaizers) who demand such full on castrate themselves (Galatians 5:17). Comprende?

So for example, do you deny that Paul taught Gentiles to obey the greatest two commandments, the other things commanded in then Ten Commandments, or against doing the things listed in Galatians 5:19-21, Titus 3:1-3, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? While Paul taught against becoming circumcised for incorrect reasons, such as becoming save, he was a servant of God, so he never taught against obeying what God has commanded, and if you insist that he did that, then you should follow what God has commanded rather than Paul. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that any man has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying what He has commanded, so if you think that Paul did that, then considering him to be a false prophet would be correctly acting in accordance with what God has instructed His people to do, though again the reality is that Paul was a servant of God who never spoke against obeying what God has commanded, so it does not need to come down to that.

 

[Soyeong]

So important to note, those who said "you must get circumcized" also taught "you must keep the law of Moses" It is written.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:5)

The Jerusalem Council and Pharisees who were among the believers in Acts 15:5 agreed with those who came down from Judea in Acts 15:1 that Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses and become circumcised in accordance with following Christ's example, but disagreed with them about needing to do that in order to become saved (Acts 15:10-11).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The Jerusalem Council and Pharisees who were among the believers in Acts 15:5 agreed with those who came down from Judea in Acts 15:1 that Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses and become circumcised in accordance with following Christ's example, but disagreed with them about needing to do that in order to become saved (Acts 15:10-11).

You may need to take some reading comprehension classes. From the same chapter:

22 ¶ Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment

 

[John Mullally]

So for example, do you deny that Paul taught Gentiles to obey the greatest two commandments, the other things commanded in then Ten Commandments, or against doing the things listed in Galatians 5:19-21, Titus 3:1-3, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? While Paul taught against becoming circumcised for incorrect reasons, such as becoming save, he was a servant of God, so he never taught against obeying what God has commanded, and if you insist that he did that, then you should follow what God has commanded rather than Paul. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that any man has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying what He has commanded, so if you think that Paul did that, then considering him to be a false prophet would be correctly acting in accordance with what God has instructed His people to do, though again the reality is that Paul was a servant of God who never spoke against obeying what God has commanded, so it does not need to come down to that.

There are plenty of directives in the NT that don't include Mosaic Law. The absence of teaching of the Mosaic Law in the NT especially among Gentile believers, show that the Lord was moving away from that. Which makes sense because the Mosaic Law is tied to Ceremonial practices that are clearly no longer required. Galatians 5:12 applies to those demanding circumcision.

 

[Soyeong]

There are plenty of directives in the NT that don't include Mosaic Law. The absence of teaching of the Mosaic Law in the NT especially among Gentile believers, show that the Lord was moving away from that. Which makes sense because the Mosaic Law is tied to Ceremonial practices that are clearly no longer required.

Everything taught in the NT is in accordance with what was taught in the OT, so there as not absence of teaching of the Mosaic Law. The Bible never lists which laws are ceremonial and never even refers to that as being a category of law. If a group of people were to create lists of which of God's laws they considered to be ceremonial, then there would be a wide variety of lists, and those people should not interpret the authors of the Bible as referring to something that they just created.

Galatians 5:12 applies to those demanding circumcision.

Galatians 5:!2 applies to those demanding circumcision in order to become saved.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Perhaps the issue is not logic, but rather different logic. You are using different logic than the other person expects. Everybody uses logic but not necessarily the same logic. What logic are they using? Most likely it is the logic of equality.

We know, or should know, that the ideas of equality flow throughout church members. But this logic flips the world upside-down. For example, if we are all equal then why are some people rich? They cheated. Why are some poor? They were victimized by the rich. And blah, blah, blah we go down the path to utopia where everybody and every country is equal - has equal stuff.

A person can bend the Bible using the lens of equality.

I know the answer: people are NOT equal in all respects. We are not even equal to ourselves at times. The only way in which people are equal is with respect to their standing under the Law. We do not recognize classes of individuals with respect to matters of Law.

Numbers can be equal. For real numbers, magnitude is their only dimension. Complex numbers have two dimensions: magnitude along the real axis and imaginary axis. How many dimensions does a human being possess?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Perhaps the issue is not logic, but rather different logic. You are using different logic than the other person expects. Everybody uses logic but not necessarily the same logic. What logic are they using? Most likely it is the logic of equality.

We know, or should know, that the ideas of equality flow throughout church members. But this logic flips the world upside-down. For example, if we are all equal then why are some people rich? They cheated. Why are some poor? They were victimized by the rich. And blah, blah, blah we go down the path to utopia where everybody and every country is equal - has equal stuff.

A person can bend the Bible using the lens of equality.

You're not addressing the OP. You've taken easy advantage of shallowness.

Jesus said "From him who has nothing let even what he has be taken away from him".

Does this have meaning?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The thread is good from 1-6 and about 10-20. We must be careful not to ignore the principl e of principle.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... Law.

Spiritual law. For what God really thought about the "revival" under Josiah, read Jeremiah.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A / Therefore B") and those who disagree with me would rebuke me not because my logic was flawed but apparently because I am using logical thought processes at all!

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

often

 

[John Mullally]

Everything taught in the NT is in accordance with what was taught in the OT, so there as not absence of teaching of the Mosaic Law. The Bible never lists which laws are ceremonial and never even refers to that as being a category of law. If a group of people were to create lists of which of God's laws they considered to be ceremonial, then there would be a wide variety of lists, and those people should not interpret the authors of the Bible as referring to something that they just created.


Galatians 5:!2 applies to those demanding circumcision in order to become saved.

No, the reception of Gentile believers threw a wrench into this type of thinking. This is addressed in Acts 15 and repeated by Paul in Acts 21. You reject the decision of the early church in this matter. Paul's warning in Galatians 5:12 applies to you.

 

[Soyeong]

Why can’t you recognize that two people can affirm the truth of Acts 15 and 21 while disagreeing about how to correctly interpret them? I haven’t said anything along lines that I disagree with Jerusalem Council and here is why, but rather I have made the case for how I think those chapters should be interpreted and for why I disagree with how you have interpreted them. The ironic thing is that if your interpretation of those verse were correct, then according to God you should reject their decision.

 

[John Mullally]

Why can’t you recognize that two people can affirm the truth of Acts 15 and 21 while disagreeing about how to correctly interpret them? I haven’t said anything along lines that I disagree with Jerusalem Council and here is why, but rather I have made the case for how I think those chapters should be interpreted and for why I disagree with how you have interpreted them. The ironic thing is that if your interpretation of those verse were correct, then according to God you should reject their decision.

About 15 years after Acts 15, Paul stated that he did not teach Gentile believers to keep the bulk of the Mosaic Law delivered strictly to ethnic Jews per Acts 21:25, Again, the warning in Galatians 5:12 applies to you and your ilk.

 

[Soyeong]

About 15 years after Acts 15, Paul stated that he did not teach Gentile believers to keep the bulk of the Mosaic Law delivered strictly to ethnic Jews per Acts 21:25,

Either that verse contains an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required for mature Gentile believers or it does not, so it is contradictory to treat it as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other instructions of Christ that Gentiles should follow Christ while treating it as be an exhaustive list by trying to use it to limit which instructions of Christ Gentiles should follow.

 

[oikonomia]

The 10 commandments were written to OT Jews. No where in the NT are Gentile believers commanded to be circumcised or keep the Sabbath. We agree that many things such as sacrifices ended at Calvary. If continuance of keeping the Sabbath was important to Gentile believers, God would have insured it be mentioned in Acts or the Epistles. - but it is not mentioned. Comprende?

You are a Judaizer as you demand observance of the Law of Moses to Gentile believers that is obviated in Acts 15 or Acts 21:25. Paul's curse in Galatians 5:12 remains.

I have had long coversations with Soyeng about his/her Judaizing tendencies.
To the best of my recollection Soyeng eventually just answers no more questions from me and just kind of stops conversing with me.

 

[zippy2006]

We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God?

The cut and dry question is whether Scripture contains contradictions.

In some Christian circles, "situation ethics" has become a dirty word...

"Situation ethics" is a developed school of ethics, not simply the idea that ethics depends on circumstances. It does have problems.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

One of the keys to interpreting the Bible is to know that the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed; and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed. Also, the Bible is all about Jesus Christ, and so when we come to a Scripture that is difficult, when we put Christ in the centre of it, the passage opens up to us and we realise what it is all about. So, a story in Old Testament may just be a story to some people, when others ask, "What as this story to do with Jesus Christ?" and then dig into it to find out, then the story becomes relevant to something in the New Testament that clearly points to Christ. So, if one doesn't know who Jesus Christ really is, does not know what the Bible is all about.

This is the fault of those who reject the Old Testament as being relevant to modern Christians. They have an incomplete knowledge of the Jesus of the Bible. Much of what they think they know comes more from the imagination than what is actually contained in the Scriptures.