"Explaining away"

[Nadiine]

Hello Nadiine,

I think I understand you. You said something about why we should all feel so hostile about the idea of being wrong. Similarly I ask why we have to feel so hostile towards those who disagree with us. Maybe the godly attitute may be to suspend judgment.

Well in this, you have to be careful that you too aren't misjudging their own judgments of our/other's interpretations.

For instance, I can easily get hostile when people claim to interpret the scriptures' teachings against homosexuality as if it's not sin at all.
I'm not judging them, I'm judging their statement as evil.
It IS sin and taught openly (in 3 ways, directly condemning it, not providing any positive examples of it or lifestyles in the church, and Christ not reversing it from the moral law which continues to stand), and I believe that the Holy Spirit would be convicting them of this truth if they were listening (or capable of listening) to Him....
or, they're in outright rebellion. Only God knows which.

What did Jesus reply when Peter denied that He would not die? "Get thee behind Me Satan". Peter didn't even realize Satan was using him to speak thru. But it had to be rebuked by Jesus.... we also do the same when we hear false teachings that are blatant like that. (and we should - it all depends on the circumstance & setting of course too).

In the verses I choose I did not list anything that could lend itself to obviously flaky and easy to refute doctrines that might come from Benny Hinn and Rodney Howard-Browne.
The doctrines are to do with the Church, with replacement theology and the destiny of Israel. Serious doctrine - maybe apostasy stuff. The protagonists will not be easily dismissed. If you are into the church replacing Israel I can direct you to some pretty formidable and aggressive expositors of the oppsing view and who take no prisoners.
But then again, if I'm right, it will probably be shown they they have a covenant schema to unpack these problem verses.
Actually NT Wright concedes that 25% of what he believes and preaches at this momemt is probably wrong. I respect that, because given the state and scope of evangelical scriptural disagreement, it's got to be true of almost everyone.

I'm for a greater degree of humility on all this. But then again, if you are a Jew and you see relacement theology having been used to sanction pogroms, then maybe that's too much to ask. But what does that say about our biblical objectivity?

I think all of us have seen people use scripture to support what God is clearly against. We see it in liberalism every single day where fundamentalist/conservative Christians are more and more attacked...

I'm glad that you're willing to take a step back and claim that you just aren't positive on certain doctrines --- I've done the same on several - I may still lean a certain way, but I'll have seen enough scriptural room for the other view to reserve enough doubt to keep me 100% sure and from division.

In some doctrines, I will divide from others. But I can't help but be convinced that God sent us a Word from Him that CAN be understood by a majority of believers where we don't have to divide.
He isn't a God of confusion - and I don't think it's ok for us to just throw our hands up & say "well, we can't know what's true I guess..." & walk away in defeat and hopelessness.
It's as if just becuz there are other theories/views, that we all have to settle on "we can't know what's true" and then God's word appears to be pure confusion.

I dunno -- just thinking out loud.

 

[sealacamp]

||"It is almost always necessary to "explain away" some passages of Scripture in order to accept others. That's why, e.g., there are differences between "Charismatics" and "Pentecostals"; they differ on what to "explain away."||

I totally disagree with this. God's word is to be embraced completely and as someone else put it here we are to live by scripture alone, as far as teaching is concerned. God does not explain away any scripture rather He illuminates any meaning that we may need to know. If any of us are explaining away scripture then we err. That said some people can read Gods word all day long and if the holy spirit does not lead them into Gods truth they just don't get it. I know many people like this. Some claim to be a Christian and some don't but they have an inability to understand in common.

Sealacamp

 

[Nadiine]

||"It is almost always necessary to "explain away" some passages of Scripture in order to accept others. That's why, e.g., there are differences between "Charismatics" and "Pentecostals"; they differ on what to "explain away."||

I totally disagree with this. God's word is to be embraced completely and as someone else put it here we are to live by scripture alone, as far as teaching is concerned. God does not explain away any scripture rather He illuminates any meaning that we may need to know. If any of us are explaining away scripture then we err. That said some people can read Gods word all day long and if the holy spirit does not lead them into Gods truth they just don't get it. I know many people like this. Some claim to be a Christian and some don't but they have an inability to understand in common.

Sealacamp

I almost went into this aspect you mention here, but thought I better leave it out...

But I so agree that I see so many who claim to be Christians, who live contrary to scripture and then claim they interpret other ways...
as if that makes them right or makes me have to rethink what God is saying to us?
No - I question their claims to knowing God before I question my bible's lack of clear teaching where it really is clear and they're just in denial.

This was part of my point in this, just becuz people claim they have conflicting beliefs/interpretations, doesn't mean they're RIGHT about them - or that the Bible is confusing & we all have to just accept that we can't know what's really true & live in confusion.
As if having differing views removes the Bible's clarity (where it really is clear to the majority).

Some thing's aren't crystal clear and Paul even taught that we see dimly right now and don't know everything but that we will one day.

 

[NorrinRadd]

||"It is almost always necessary to "explain away" some passages of Scripture in order to accept others. That's why, e.g., there are differences between "Charismatics" and "Pentecostals"; they differ on what to "explain away."||

I totally disagree with this. God's word is to be embraced completely and as someone else put it here we are to live by scripture alone, as far as teaching is concerned. God does not explain away any scripture rather He illuminates any meaning that we may need to know. If any of us are explaining away scripture then we err. That said some people can read Gods word all day long and if the holy spirit does not lead them into Gods truth they just don't get it. I know many people like this. Some claim to be a Christian and some don't but they have an inability to understand in common.

Sealacamp

Pentecostals claim that "speaking in tongues" is intended for every believer because every person recorded as having "received the Spirit" or been "filled with" the Spirit in the book of Acts eventually spoke in tongues, and because Peter explicitly taught in Acts 2 regarding baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues that the promise of the gift of the Spirit is for all, of every time and place.

Charismatics claim that "speaking in tongues" is but one of several "gifts" of the Spirit, and that it is definitively NOT for all, because 1 Cor. 12:30 explicitly says, "All do NOT speak in tongues, do they?"


It is necessary to "explain away" one or the other.

 

[salamacum]

Hello Nadiine,

You said:
< < I'm glad that you're willing to take a step back and claim that you just aren't positive on certain doctrines --- I've done the same on several - I may still lean a certain way, but I'll have seen enough scriptural room for the other view to reserve enough doubt to keep me 100% sure and from division.

In some doctrines, I will divide from others. But I can't help but be convinced that God sent us a Word from Him that CAN be understood by a majority of believers where we don't have to divide.
He isn't a God of confusion - and I don't think it's ok for us to just throw our hands up & say "well, we can't know what's true I guess..." & walk away in defeat and hopelessness.
It's as if just becuz there are other theories/views, that we all have to settle on "we can't know what's true" and then God's word appears to be pure confusion. > >

You're pointing up the extreme viewpoint. We don't have to go that far to exercise a 'generous orthodoxy' towards others.
But THIS is exactly the issue that we all have to face. The divisions in the evangelical/fundamentalist camp between equally earnest and sincere and objective and knowledgeable Christians.

I'm not talking about flakiness here or the desire to twist scripture to support lifestyle.

Is scripture perspicacious or not? Who decides which doctrines we can be uncertain about and put on the back burner and which ones must we divide over and then again which ones must we excommunicate Christians over?

You will attempt to answer this. You have admitted that some passages are tricky. There are other evangelicals who argue that these passages, tricky for you, are
a) not tricky for them
b) crucially important to get right.

I'm not like them.

I can live with unresolved issues and still fellowship. That's a fundamental work of grace in my life.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Pentecostals claim that "speaking in tongues" is intended for every believer because every person recorded as having "received the Spirit" or been "filled with" the Spirit in the book of Acts eventually spoke in tongues, and because Peter explicitly taught in Acts 2 regarding baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues that the promise of the gift of the Spirit is for all, of every time and place.

Charismatics claim that "speaking in tongues" is but one of several "gifts" of the Spirit, and that it is definitively NOT for all, because 1 Cor. 12:30 explicitly says, "All do NOT speak in tongues, do they?"


It is necessary to "explain away" one or the other.

Right. That's why even though my church is Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination, I'm actually charismatic rather than Pentecostal. It seems to me that Paul is sufficiently clear on that.

 

[Nadiine]

Right. That's why even though my church is Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination, I'm actually charismatic rather than Pentecostal. It seems to me that Paul is sufficiently clear on that.

Yes, Paul is very clear on that when he asked the rhetorical questions about the gifts - do ALL heal? (no) do ALL teach? (no) do ALL speak in tongues? (no)..........

How anyone can miss that is beyond me. lol That alone is enough (even tho he gives more evidence than that)

Imho, I don't personally care about tongues debates becuz whether they still exist or not (which I question) they still have to be used within the guidelines Paul lays out.
The minute they are not, they are being abused as a gift and from what I see on tv, it's regularly misused and abused amd elevated above most all others.

So IF people claim to have the gift, then use it properly as we're called to do with every other gift of God's Spirit. We all have regulations to go by for proper use & edification to one another.

 

[Nadiine]

Hello Nadiine,

You said:
< < I'm glad that you're willing to take a step back and claim that you just aren't positive on certain doctrines --- I've done the same on several - I may still lean a certain way, but I'll have seen enough scriptural room for the other view to reserve enough doubt to keep me 100% sure and from division.

In some doctrines, I will divide from others. But I can't help but be convinced that God sent us a Word from Him that CAN be understood by a majority of believers where we don't have to divide.
He isn't a God of confusion - and I don't think it's ok for us to just throw our hands up & say "well, we can't know what's true I guess..." & walk away in defeat and hopelessness.
It's as if just becuz there are other theories/views, that we all have to settle on "we can't know what's true" and then God's word appears to be pure confusion. > >

You're pointing up the extreme viewpoint. We don't have to go that far to exercise a 'generous orthodoxy' towards others.
But THIS is exactly the issue that we all have to face. The divisions in the evangelical/fundamentalist camp between equally earnest and sincere and objective and knowledgeable Christians.

K but I thought I made it clear that I don't divide on minor issues - I consider minor issues things like tongues/gifts, liberties in Christ that are individual to different people, details about what/who angels or demons are... many views on eschatology, even Calvanism.
I don't find that scripture is crystal clear on all these things or seems to lend credence to differing views.

I'm not talking about flakiness here or the desire to twist scripture to support lifestyle.

Is scripture perspicacious or not? Who decides which doctrines we can be uncertain about and put on the back burner and which ones must we divide over and then again which ones must we excommunicate Christians over?

I believe God decides that ultimately - we'll either be wrong or right about which doctrines are essential to divide over or not. Which is why we HAVE to be so careful.
Much of that seems pretty obvious what's important & what isn't just by common sense alone.

But Jesus tells us in scripture to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing - that we'll know them by their fruit - so we WILL be able to spot falsity and the false - we do this by knowing His word.

Heb 5
13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

We do have to allow for the immature and those who refuse to grow in knowledge and wisdom in the Lord - so that is one reason people can be wrong & get things wrong.

That aside, let's just take a for instance:
People preaching heresy, ie. Jesus isn't God --- vs. some people demanding that they should use more contemporary music in worship service seems pretty obvious.
Does taste in music style harm salvation? Does trust in a false Christ harm salvation?
Does a person wearing obnoxious gothic garb harm salvation as opposed to being told that everyone ends up in heaven after they die?

The issues stem around ANOTHER GOSPEL - not the minor issues that don't affect that gospel of salvation.
One says you can lose your salvation, another says you cannot lose it if you truly have it - neither affect salvation; one is either truly saved or they are not (OR will be or won't be).
The one who believes they can lose it will simply live anxiously in panic wondering if they've lost it and keep recommitting & being overly focused on sin, the other is assured they're saved thru faith they keep in Christ and is not living in sin BECUZ they truly are a child of God; both still focus on obedience just for different reason. (if either live in chronic sin, their fruit indicates they may not actually be of God).
Again, a non divider.

What harms salvation are false teachings that lead others to a false God, a false faith and/or a life in [unrepented] sin which keeps us from eternal life.

These include all teachings about WHO God is (who & what faith is placed into), what He did to save, that we must acknowledge our position before God, repent and subsequently seek to obey His moral commands.
1 Cor. 6:9-11....
(Rom. 2:14-15 gentiles without the law who lived according to their God-given conscience of right & wrong were justified or not.
James 4:17 - knowing to do right and not doing it is sin to each person)

That is basically what is considered essential. Me not knowing HOW God chooses the elect doesn't affect my salvation - but what I actually believe of God & His law DO affect my salvation becuz they are what I place my faith on/into. It's hinged on those essentials.

Will I be lost if I don't know His process of selection? No, that's done in His Sovereignty & we aren't necessarily privy to that insight.

You will attempt to answer this. You have admitted that some passages are tricky. There are other evangelicals who argue that these passages, tricky for you, are
a) not tricky for them
b) crucially important to get right.

I'm not like them.

Well Paul told us that we will not be able to grasp it all down here in our human frailty -- I don't personally believe that a Christian actually does have all doctrine 100% correct. But I DO believe we should alot of it correct and in common with one another. namely essentials.

I can live with unresolved issues and still fellowship. That's a fundamental work of grace in my life

I can too --- much more than alot of others can... but it absolutely depends on the issue & person.

 

[salamacum]

< < that we'll know them by their fruit > >

Exactly, and I have to say I've met Christians who are not evangelical in persuasion but who certainly DO manifest fruit. That fruit is the fruit of the spirit.
WE think that fruit is correct doctrine (and usually systematic)
When Jesus returns what will he find faith on the earth?
Faith is more than correct doctrine.
True doctrine is this - looking after the widows in their distress (or the modern equivalent of)
How many of us appear as sounding gongs? I'm not surprised that in my experience 1 Cor 13 is not popular with evangelicals or a very strange juxtaposition is made of love with "believing the right things"
And I've come across almost exact contemporary replicas of the traps that the pharisees set for Jesus. I've seen godly men taken aside and having to explain their doctrine based on the false presentation to them of alternative doctrinal formulas. "Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?" "Yes". "Well, why do you give creedence to words of knowledge?". These are shallow, nasty traps.
I know a church (moderate charismatic) there are 2 youngish guys who are not happy with the pastor's middle-of-the-road preaching. It's not expository, systematic, hard-hitting, all-encompassing, discerning enough. One guy teaches physics and likes to think systematically. The other is a Messianic who feels that that the spread of God's purposes is not explained to the people.
They have a mutual fellowship of expository superiority. And they sound so earnest and convincing with their proof-texts. The pastor has his homely, practical examples and pastoral advice. And he's been around for years
I think their unity is skin-deep. They both have favoured doctrinal positions, which sooner or later will be threatened by the other guy. And I know what the Apple of each guys' Eye is. It's those verses and passages about Israel or the church. It's replacement theology. I've presented those passages to them both and asked for their interpretation. Maybe they will live with each other, maybe they won't. It'll be interesting.
Of course, these boards make it easier to be dismissive of people and their doctrines.
You don't see their faces, know their history, nor their works or fruit.
God put us in church. We have to live with other Christians. We have to listen to other people's POV and exercise grace. That is one measure of whether we are walking with the Head.

 

[Nadiine]

< < that we'll know them by their fruit > >

Exactly, and I have to say I've met Christians who are not evangelical in persuasion but who certainly DO manifest fruit. That fruit is the fruit of the spirit.
WE think that fruit is correct doctrine (and usually systematic)
When Jesus returns what will he find faith on the earth?
Faith is more than correct doctrine.

Actually, faith INCLUDES CORRECT DOCTRINE.
It isn't remiss of it - good works MINUS faith (ie. dead faith) are not salvation.

One is either saved due to who they place faith in and what they accept of God's truth. (ie. essentials) or they aren't of the true faith.

You aren't going to tell me that people living in moral sin are saved becuz they give to some charities & show some "love"....
Maybe some better definition needs to be given in your response so I'm more clear on your meanings

True doctrine is this - looking after the widows in their distress (or the modern equivalent of)
How many of us appear as sounding gongs? I'm not surprised that in my experience 1 Cor 13 is not popular with evangelicals or a very strange juxtaposition is made of love with "believing the right things"
And I've come across almost exact contemporary replicas of the traps that the pharisees set for Jesus. I've seen godly men taken aside and having to explain their doctrine based on the false presentation to them of alternative doctrinal formulas. "Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?" "Yes". "Well, why do you give creedence to words of knowledge?". These are shallow, nasty traps.
I know a church (moderate charismatic) there are 2 youngish guys who are not happy with the pastor's middle-of-the-road preaching. It's not expository, systematic, hard-hitting, all-encompassing, discerning enough. One guy teaches physics and likes to think systematically. The other is a Messianic who feels that that the spread of God's purposes is not explained to the people.
They have a mutual fellowship of expository superiority. And they sound so earnest and convincing with their proof-texts. The pastor has his homely, practical examples and pastoral advice. And he's been around for years
I think their unity is skin-deep. They both have favoured doctrinal positions, which sooner or later will be threatened by the other guy. And I know what the Apple of each guys' Eye is. It's those verses and passages about Israel or the church. It's replacement theology. I've presented those passages to them both and asked for their interpretation. Maybe they will live with each other, maybe they won't. It'll be interesting.
Of course, these boards make it easier to be dismissive of people and their doctrines.
You don't see their faces, know their history, nor their works or fruit.
God put us in church. We have to live with other Christians. We have to listen to other people's POV and exercise grace. That is one measure of whether we are walking with the Head.

I like to use John the Baptist - he told the King that he was committing adultery - would he be considered one of those gongs/clanging symbols?

Love never trumps truth or God's law. We're to be balanced in love AND truth and sometimes what's necessary is something more harsh at times - love includes harshness (ie. parental discipline is love).

I notice you mention replacement theology alot in this - scripture is clear that God isn't done with Israel and the church has not replaced Her.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Yes, Paul is very clear on that when he asked the rhetorical questions about the gifts - do ALL heal? (no) do ALL teach? (no) do ALL speak in tongues? (no)..........

How anyone can miss that is beyond me. lol That alone is enough (even tho he gives more evidence than that)

Imho, I don't personally care about tongues debates becuz whether they still exist or not (which I question) they still have to be used within the guidelines Paul lays out.
The minute they are not, they are being abused as a gift and from what I see on tv, it's regularly misused and abused amd elevated above most all others.

So IF people claim to have the gift, then use it properly as we're called to do with every other gift of God's Spirit. We all have regulations to go by for proper use & edification to one another.

The problem is that NONE of the occasions in Acts conformed to the "rules" Paul laid down for the Corinthians. So, it is necessary to "explain away" either the Acts passages or the "rules" in 1 Corinthians.

 

[Nadiine]

The problem is that NONE of the occasions in Acts conformed to the "rules" Paul laid down for the Corinthians. So, it is necessary to "explain away" either the Acts passages or the "rules" in 1 Corinthians.

First off (and again), you have me confused with the OP.

This isn't my thread and I'm not the one claiming that nobody can have interpretations of anything - or if they do it's "explaining away". I said it before but you keep attributing this to me for some reason.
I was in agreement w/ the OP on women not being Pastors which is what this thread is carried over from.

I'm simply saying that when 2 opposing interpretations directly conflict, we cannot as Christians just throw our hands up & say "well, we can't agree on doctrine, so obviously the bible is the problem" or "well none of us can truly know what truth is from scripture, so it's relative & nobody has the right to say, 'you're interp. is wrong' ".
Somebody is wrong in their view - or more than one side is wrong (depending on how many directly opposing interpretations there are in the ring).

I'm also saying that I think we're overcomplicating the simplicity of scripture when alot of it IS quite simple and doesn't leave room for all the wacky interpretations people claim to have. People are wrong - that's just a fact & alot of that depends on different factors; both spiritual and physical/emotional.

&I believe the answer to your dilema above is that in Greek grammar, there were 2 different types of tongues - one meant dialect (other national languages) the other meant an "ecstatic utterance" or prayer language understood only by God and gifted interpreters.

Many teachers claim that the Acts 2 tongues are other dialects they were speaking in supernaturally where those of other nationalities who heard them understood them in their own native tongue.
(which would need no interpretors as the prayer language to God would need for specific edification of the church if used publically during service).

 

[salamacum]

Hello Nadine:
Sorry, I'm cutting and pasting on this. It's just that I don't want LONG postings. They always put me off.

me - < < Faith is more than correct doctrine. > >

Nadiine - < < Actually, faith INCLUDES CORRECT DOCTRINE > >

These two statements mean the same thing. I don't know why you say "actually". Well, I do. It's just that you expect me to say inaccurate things. But I've seen it so often. My posting is not answered. Instead an (almost) prepared script kicks in against the points you would like me to have said.

Also, I never gave examples of scripture being twisted to justify sin or immoral behaviour.

I gave edxamples of conflicting expositions based on a high-doctrine item.

By the way, there may be a purpose for ethnic Israel, but that doesn't mean that the state of Israel is loved by God or part of His purposes.

Go and visit the Semper reformanda board for a jolly good joist on this one.

IMO, and I have some real backup on this, the faith that Jesus expects is that of the just and responsible Steward, who provides for the flock appropriately and at due time.

Doctrine? Of course. Pastoral help and advice? Certainly. Love and commitment. Yes.
Dividing the household? No.

And I'm not aware of my dear friends being purveyors of immorality. They just happen not to be protestants. But we all have moral baggage don't we?

Mine so often is pride - that I can find the Truth, just me on my own, with perhaps my favourite expositors and preachers.

 

[NorrinRadd]

First off (and again), you have me confused with the OP.

Huh? I confused YOU with ME?

This isn't my thread and I'm not the one claiming that nobody can have interpretations of anything - or if they do it's "explaining away".

Hang on. I'm the OP, and I'm not saying anything of the kind. The point of my OP was irony: In that thread about women in ministry, after a bit of back-and-forth, someone -- not you, maybe GQChris -- made an exasperated comment about "explaining away." I took it to mean that he thought his interpretation was clearly "the" teaching of Scripture, and anything else was just "explaining away" Scripture. My OP was to illustrate that the "leadership is male" position *also* involves "explaining away."

I said it before but you keep attributing this to me for some reason.
I was in agreement w/ the OP on women not being Pastors which is what this thread is carried over from.

? So you agree with me that Scripture says it is fine for women to be pastors?

I'm simply saying that when 2 opposing interpretations directly conflict, we cannot as Christians just throw our hands up & say "well, we can't agree on doctrine, so obviously the bible is the problem" or "well none of us can truly know what truth is from scripture, so it's relative & nobody has the right to say, 'you're interp. is wrong' ".

No, but we also can't just pick a position and say, "THIS is THE Biblical position."

Somebody is wrong in their view - or more than one side is wrong (depending on how many directly opposing interpretations there are in the ring).

I'm also saying that I think we're overcomplicating the simplicity of scripture when alot of it IS quite simple and doesn't leave room for all the wacky interpretations people claim to have. People are wrong - that's just a fact & alot of that depends on different factors; both spiritual and physical/emotional.

&I believe the answer to your dilema above is that in Greek grammar, there were 2 different types of tongues - one meant dialect (other national languages) the other meant an "ecstatic utterance" or prayer language understood only by God and gifted interpreters.

Many teachers claim that the Acts 2 tongues are other dialects they were speaking in supernaturally where those of other nationalities who heard them understood them in their own native tongue.
(which would need no interpretors as the prayer language to God would need for specific edification of the church if used publically during service).

That doesn't solve the problem, because "tongues" also occur in Acts 10 and 19. It's pretty clear Luke is referring to the same phenomenon in all cases, and none of them follow the "rules" Paul laid out in 1 Cor. 14.

 

[salamacum]

Hello everyone.

One man's "explaining away" is another man 'established exposition" is another man "alternative explanation".

It does seem to me rather arbitrary. I notice that nobody really wants to commit themselves on Mattew 25 or Matthew 13, knowing that the various interpretations of these passages / parables have some pretty heavyweight theological backers.

Anyway what about Hebrews 12 - the "Cloud of Witness", beloved by the Orthodox and I presume Catholics to argue that you can talk to the departed saints as they are by this verse alive and rooting for us?

Even Guthrie in his IVP commentary on Hebrews argues that the word is witness or spectator and not martyr.

How do evangelicals deal with this word? I notice that Guthrie just ignores the issue totally.