Discerning Scripture

[Beanieboy]

Can one claim that one should follow all of the bible, while ignoring bits and pieces simulaneously? How does one decide which ones they follow, and which ones they do not?

For example:

1 Corinthians 14: 33-39
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

One could argue that it is black and white that that women should not speak at all in church, and discuss whatever questions they have at home with their husbands. However, this is no longer observed. Women talk, ask questions, and are even preachers.

How does one decide, then, which instructions to follow, and which ones not to? What is the criteria?
If one is ignoring this command, how can one then tell others to follow the bible when they aren't following all of it themselves?

 

[BigBadWlf]

You should know by now that true Christians™ understand that the deciding factor is convince. They know being true Christians™ means that God doesn’t want them to be bothered with rules that actually affect them personally and that such inconvenient rules only apply to other people. This is why the true Christians™ is happy to use one or two verses of Leviticus to attack people while ignoring all those other inconvenient rules in that book.
You are just citing another example. The rule you bring up is inconvenient to true Christians™ therefore they know god didn’t intend it for them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Can one claim that one should follow all of the bible, while ignoring bits and pieces simulaneously? How does one decide which ones they follow, and which ones they do not?

For example:

1 Corinthians 14: 33-39
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

One could argue that it is black and white that that women should not speak at all in church, and discuss whatever questions they have at home with their husbands. However, this is no longer observed. Women talk, ask questions, and are even preachers.

How does one decide, then, which instructions to follow, and which ones not to? What is the criteria?
If one is ignoring this command, how can one then tell others to follow the bible when they aren't following all of it themselves?

I was trying to bring that one up in my church, and slowly merge in the homosexual verses, but I ran out of time and had to go back to college. But the thing is, while they say they base their beliefs off of the Bible, 999 out of every 1000 Christians you meet... at least around where I live, base the majority of their morals off of what they were brainw... taught to believe by their parents and other prominent members of society. That is probably why a number of people see me a border line heretic, being I don't do that, or at least I try not to. Then again, another part of the problem is most people don't want to spend the time talking about it, they would rather speak about football or the weather. So this is, at least in part, caused by the bigger issue of avoidance of difficult issues, aka, living in your own comfortable bubble avoiding conflict.

 

[keith99]

Can one claim that one should follow all of the bible, while ignoring bits and pieces simulaneously? How does one decide which ones they follow, and which ones they do not?

For example:

1 Corinthians 14: 33-39
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

One could argue that it is black and white that that women should not speak at all in church, and discuss whatever questions they have at home with their husbands. However, this is no longer observed. Women talk, ask questions, and are even preachers.

How does one decide, then, which instructions to follow, and which ones not to? What is the criteria?
If one is ignoring this command, how can one then tell others to follow the bible when they aren't following all of it themselves?

Such things are difficult. But often it seems anyone dealing with this assumes the exact opposite.

But some principles are simple.

First read in context. The verses you cited were given in the context of specific problems in a specific society. That at the least raises the issue that they maigh not be universal. It also raises the issue that they may teach a deeper universal principle. (In this case that Christians should not engage in activities that seem crude and disreputable, even if those are not specifically prohibited by scripture).

Second who saying it and how. Something God says and has carved in stone surely carrys more weight than something Paul says. On this I forget the letter, but in one of His letters paul says several things. For some he says 'This is from God' For others he says 'I Paul say this' and for some others he says 'I say this but am confident the spirit is with me on this'. (The sad thing is I've heard preachers say that Paul is claiming the same weitght for all 3).

Third is repetition. The important things get repeated. If one verse seems to contradict 10 other verses I'd say the 10 win out. That DOES NOT mean it can be ignored, but while trying to figure out how both sides can work lean more toward your understanding of the 10.

A few others are:

Because somethign is reported does not prove it was approved. (I see this in the mundane area just as much, authors are accused of holding the same beliefs as their characters. Almost always false).

If something is to be discounted one has to know why, and in the context of this thread why that reason (excuse) does not hold elsewhere.

Oh, and just because something is permitted, or even approved in a context does not make it perfect. In context 'an eye for an eye' is a limitation of violence. Later it is made clear that Christians are to grow past the need for revenge. (Justice and revenge are not the same thing).

 

[Beanieboy]

Let me try another:

Hebrews 13: 2
Be sure to welcome strangers into your home. By doing this, some people have welcomed angels as guests, without even knowing it.

Most people wouldn't invite a stranger into their home, lest they get robbed, mugged, raped, or killed.
So, people simply ignore the verse, saying that it doesn't apply to today.

 

[B'alaam]

Let me try another:

Hebrews 13: 2
Be sure to welcome strangers into your home. By doing this, some people have welcomed angels as guests, without even knowing it.

Most people wouldn't invite a stranger into their home, lest they get robbed, mugged, raped, or killed.
So, people simply ignore the verse, saying that it doesn't apply to today.

"Hospitality is a duty often emphasized in the New Testament. Here it assumes the form of receiving stranger saints. Often they were driven from their homes by persecution, and the church elsewhere was wont to open its homes to them."
From here.

Just one contextual and cultural interpretation, that's all

 

[Beanieboy]

"Hospitality is a duty often emphasized in the New Testament. Here it assumes the form of receiving stranger saints. Often they were driven from their homes by persecution, and the church elsewhere was wont to open its homes to them."
From here.

Just one contextual and cultural interpretation, that's all

Are you then saying that pulling scripture and saying, "See! It's here in black and white" without contextual and cultural interpretation is making Scripture say what it doesn't?

How about the issue of divorce?
Christ said that someone who divorces and remarries is living in adultery.
Yet, even some far right conservatives are on their 3rd wife.

 

[wanderingone]

While I don't think you can ever take a single verse and apply it without context I think even within context, and all the historical, cultural concepts people who believe in the literal understanding of the Bible cannot possibly live according that belief. (Although I know hasidic Jews who come astoundingly close... of course they don't have to cope with the NT)

I cannot view the Bible literally, there are things missing, there is unknown context. There is no original text to look at, and even with original text and talented translation I would still be reading the writings of humans in a specific time and place.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Context is there. Its just not always convenient to read that far before and after the selected passage. The Bible is to be take literally in the context in which it is there. Otherwise it would never have been.

 

[Zeena]

Can one claim that one should follow all of the bible, while ignoring bits and pieces simulaneously? How does one decide which ones they follow, and which ones they do not?

Two Covenants, "the old covenant," whereof Moses was the mediator, and "the new covenant" whereof Jesus Christ is the Mediator.

For example:

1 Corinthians 14: 33-39
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

One could argue that it is black and white that that women should not speak at all in church, and discuss whatever questions they have at home with their husbands. However, this is no longer observed. Women talk, ask questions, and are even preachers.

This statement is part of a series of present commands in this chapter (“I urge,” or “I am urging,” 2:1; “I want,” or “I am wanting,” 2:8 and unspoken in 2:9; and “I do not permit,” or “I am not permitting”). Unfortunately, the translation reads as if Paul actually wrote, “I never permit a woman to teach.” Also, the grammatical order in Greek for this phrase carries less force than the English one (“To teach, a woman I am not allowing”) and completes the thought about attentive learning in verse 11. The women in the Ephesian church were allowed to learn, but not to teach. Given the tension between the influx and recognition of women as fellow heirs of Christ within the church on the one hand, and the serious problems being caused by the false teachers on the other, Paul was affirming one right (to learn) while withholding another right (to teach) because of the condition of the church at the time. They did not need more teachers; rather, they all needed to return to the foundational truths of the gospel (2:3-7).

Some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church; however, other passages point out that Paul allowed women to teach. Paul’s commended coworker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26). In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of responsibility in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1). Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord’s workers (Romans 16:6, 12), as were Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2).

More likely, Paul restrained the Ephesian women from teaching because they didn’t yet have enough knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Both Timothy’s presence and Paul’s letters were efforts to correct the problem. Evidently the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3:1-9) because they did not yet have enough biblical knowledge to discern the truth. Paul may have been countering the false teachers’ urging that women should claim a place of equality for prominence in the church. Because these women were new converts, they did not yet have the necessary experience, knowledge, or Christian maturity to teach those who already had extensive scriptural education. In addition, some of the women were apparently flaunting their newfound Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate clothing (see 2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (see 5:22). This deeper principle applies to churches today (3:6).

(Life Application Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus)

 

[B'alaam]

Are you then saying that pulling scripture and saying, "See! It's here in black and white" without contextual and cultural interpretation is making Scripture say what it doesn't?

O make no mistake BB, Im not actually saying anything (Im not a christian), Im just demonstrating that christians often interpret some verses within "cultural context" while others think all verses (especially NT verses) should be taken as literally today as they were 2000 years ago.

And I think if this thread continues much longer, you'll see that writ large