"Explaining away"

[Nadiine]

My Catholic/Orthodox friends say that this is the fruit of Sola Scriptura~I tend to believe they're right..

Well sola Scriptura MINUS the Holy Spirit is the key there.

The Spirit not only leads us into all truth, but also gives us our inner conviction as to right and wrong. It's my personal opinion that people are shutting out the Spirit to replace Him with their own intepretations of what they think the Bible should say or flat out defy what it does clearly say.

 

[MrJim]

Well sola Scriptura MINUS the Holy Spirit is the key there.

The Spirit not only leads us into all truth, but also gives us our inner conviction as to right and wrong. It's my personal opinion that people are shutting out the Spirit to replace Him with their own intepretations of what they think the Bible should say or flat out defy what it does clearly say.

That's what every apologist/defender says...everyone is convinced everyone else is

"..shutting out the Spirit to replace Him with their own intepretations of what they think the Bible should say or flat out defy what it does clearly say."

Does make the Councils & Magesterium look pretty good after a while

 

[GQ Chris]

Well, I"m not against theology or different viewpoints - but what I see happening is, truth is taking a back seat to "I can't know what's true" anymore.

The result is dangerous as I see it, no one is able to decide how to operate a church, how to live, what pleases God & what doesn't.
& no wonder we see these younger generations in the church completely clueless to doctrine & truth.
Their elders are essentially teaching them relativism & undecidedness in most doctrines.

God help the church 10-20 years from now while it tries to establish anything as truth - & it's no wonder we do have so many denominations.

It's beyond my capacity to hope to fix it - heavy prayer & God's miraculous hand is the only answer.
All I can say is what I"m seeing happen in our day fits right in with end time prophecy when truth is lost -
if you can't know what's true, you've lost the compass to know what's false, so people start accepting the lies much easier.

*One last thought, if the Bible was supposed to be so relative, I have to wonder why God even bothered getting it to us & having them write anything for our knowledge.
It's all up for grabs & no one can figure it out.

^====== I love this lady.

Thank you.

 

[GQ Chris]

Sheesh just listen to this guy "explain away"

 

[Nadiine]

That's what every apologist/defender says...everyone is convinced everyone else is

"..shutting out the Spirit to replace Him with their own intepretations of what they think the Bible should say or flat out defy what it does clearly say."

Does make the Councils & Magesterium look pretty good after a while

Well remove this doctrine as important and you have liberalism at its finest.

Did God give us a word that is utterly impossible to interpret? The answer is, alot of people are wrong in their doctrines & alot are right. Not "it doesn't matter becuz nobody agrees".
If nobody agrees, how do you even attempt to "teach" anyone anything?
It's all a guess, so...... whatever YOU think is fine?

 

[GQ Chris]

I was having a discussion with a couple of brothers (the other Ushers I serve with), and my brother Ken brought up the passage of Moses striking the rock twice to let out the water, and God specifically told Him to strike it once. I have to do some more research but he said that was probably the reason why Moses was not allowed into the Promise land.

How that relates to this is that I do believe that God cares about "specifics", and not rejections or misinterpretations or explaining away of His Word.

 

[Nadiine]

kinda creepy lol

It almost reminds me of the Scrooge cartoon character

 

[MrJim]

?
It's all a guess, so...... whatever YOU think is fine?

It can have that appearance~don't even have to go to extremes; genuine conservative Christians disagreeing on key scriptural points, there are no doubt very conservative baptist, pentecostal/charismatic, lutheran, weslyan, etc etc etc etc etc that will have distinctive teachings that can be 180 degrees in the opposite directions of each other. I can appear to become whatever I myself me decides is right, which tribe I decide to enlist, which side looks like a winner~~cause each will use "Sola Scriptura" to defend their practices and refute the naysayers.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Mutual submission doesn't remove the male's headship tho. God never said "there is no head in the home becuz both mutually submit".

So both are submitting, but one is submitting MORE. Whatev.

He placed it in the man's lap saying he is the head of the wife. It makes the male responsible for his wife, she is created as the "weaker vessel"

Um, interestingly, in that same passage Peter exhorts husbands to regard their wives as "fellow" (i.e. common, equal) heirs of the grace of life, and to treat them with "honor" -- the same word he (assuming the "real" Peter actually authored both of his eponymous epistles) used in 2 Pet. 1:17 to characterize the words the Father spoke from Heaven in regard to Jesus at the Transfiguration.

- FOR the man. She's designed for him as a help mate.

But of course you've heard ad nauseum our position that "help mate" or "help meet" is not a good translation of that part of Genesis.

That is how the home is run. He is her covering.

Where does this notion of "covering" come from? I've heard of it, but don't recall ever seeing "chapter and verse" for it.

God gives the final authority to the MALE, and holds the male responsible for her.
I think this mite also be why sin comes thru ADAM when Eve actually ate the fruit and took the bait Satan gave her?
Eve actually sinned first. (I know that's a loaded example for alot of other speculative alternatives) lol

Right. The text of Genesis actually implies Adam was right there at the time. There's also the matter of Adam as the original "prototype," with Christ as the "Last Adam," as well, IIRC, as the Jewish tradition that bloodlines (and thus hereditary sin) were reckoned through the males. That discussion can lead pretty far afield, I suspect.

It's not crystal clear when we want to redefine terms and definitions.
This seems to be a rampant problem in our postmodern wisdom.



I think it is crystal clear - again, the bible is becoming nothing but a book of speculative relativism anymore as we grow in our "wisdom & knowledge" of truth.
People are studying it to a literal death of all meaning. We're supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, not self will and secular modernism - according to custom & trends of the current day.

For now, I'm going to choose to believe that you are just making a general ranting statement, and not specifically accusing ME of being guided by "self will," "secular modernism," etc., and NOT being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Nothing is CLEAR in it anymore, have you noticed that? Why is that?

Maybe because God set it up that way, so that we "kings and priests" (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10) would question and search to uncover the truth. (Prov. 25:2)

We can't even know anything simple out of the bible these days as Christians.
Nothing means the same thing anymore, it's turned to "I see it this way" & "I see it that way"... &
"this COULD mean _________ _____ __________"

Our Bible does mean something and it does teach a clear message (many clear, simple messages) in its fullness & language.

Do you really not see that many times the "clear" and "simple" message of one passage contradicts that of another? I'm not being a smart-aleck, I'm sincere. Twenty-some years ago, I was a relatively young believer and belonged to a Pentecostal church that held "Word-Faith" beliefs. I occasionally noticed that their "proof-texts" did not quite fit the context, or did not mesh with other Scriptures unless one passage or the other was bent and forced to fit; but they'd been around in the Lord longer than I, so for several years I just assumed they knew what they were talking about. Eventually (the details don't matter for the purpose of this discussion), I saw too many inconsistencies and incompatibilities. I ended up scrutinizing almost everything I'd been taught there. I quickly rejected almost all the Word-Faith doctrines. I ended up with a Pneumatology that is sort of stuck between Pentecostal and Charismatic. I flirted briefly with Calvinist Soteriology, but quickly returned to something essentially Arminian. And of course I changed my stance on gender hierarchy. But in sorting all that out, I could not help but see that many passages do not "mesh" well without one or all being "molded" at least somewhat.

 

[NorrinRadd]

My Catholic/Orthodox friends say that this is the fruit of Sola Scriptura~I tend to believe they're right..

I think that's a reasonable assessment. But the OC and RC approaches are at least as problematic. They boil down to, "Scripture means whatever the Magisterium says it means." That works out really nicely for them, because when Luke commend the Bereans for testing the words of Paul and Silas, clearly members or least representatives of the "Magisterium"; or when Paul exhorts that we "test" or "judge" alleged prophetic utterances; or when Paul tells the Galatians that even if he himself should come to them with a contrary message, he is to be accursed (implying that even he was to be subject to their discernment) -- the Magisterium can just say authoritatively, "Oh, no, those passages mean something completely different."

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I think that's a reasonable assessment. But the OC and RC approaches are at least as problematic. They boil down to, "Scripture means whatever the Magisterium says it means." That works out really nicely for them, because when Luke commend the Bereans for testing the words of Paul and Silas, clearly members or least representatives of the "Magisterium"; or when Paul exhorts that we "test" or "judge" alleged prophetic utterances; or when Paul tells the Galatians that even if he himself should come to them with a contrary message, he is to be accursed (implying that even he was to be subject to their discernment) -- the Magisterium can just say authoritatively, "Oh, no, those passages mean something completely different."

That's true too.


Imperfect though it is, I have no better solution than the Wesleyan Quadrilateral:

• Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
• Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
• Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
• Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ

 

[Gwenyfur]

I'm led to ask...if men put on the armor and go to war and act as a buffer between the world and family...

what about the women who put on the armor and go to war...waht of those that teach and preach in the trenches...

and whom does G-d use in the absence of male leadership...even *in* the church.

 

[Nadiine]

I'm led to ask...if men put on the armor and go to war and act as a buffer between the world and family...

what about the women who put on the armor and go to war...waht of those that teach and preach in the trenches...

and whom does G-d use in the absence of male leadership...even *in* the church.

Well, most Pastors aren't of the age of going to war and honestly, alot of women might even fight in combat alot better than they would - I'd feel safer if they weren't in the trenches~! lol

There were times when the people had nothing but bad Shepherds who scattered His flocks and God gives them judgment & has to rescue them Himself. It can happen - but I don't find that it warrents going against His principles in order to go get Pastors.

I believe God can & will provide leadership in times of trouble. Even in Israel's many wars & "cleansings" by God in His judgments against them, they always had their Priests.

 

[Nadiine]

So both are submitting, but one is submitting MORE. Whatev.

Whatev?
Ask Jesus then why He "mistakenly" gives the male headship when they're both mutually submissive. If that's contradictory to you, then you're free to take God to task on it.

I think it's real clear:
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man,
and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

The same Greek word [kephale] is used for head in this verse. In the same way that Christ is head of every man, the man is head of his wife. [gune/aner]. This doesn't look to me like it's 100% equality in positional authority - one is over the other in an authoratative/positional sense.

And once again, people are viewing it negatively as if its something bad... but in the same way, Christ is submissive positionally to the Father (both being equal as God).
What is so horrific and evil about that?
(I submit that it's our human nature that rebels against authority placed over people).

You can argue that till the cows come home, but it wont' change anything. If she isn't even given positional authority in her home, why is God going to give that to her over His flock - and worse, if her husband part of that flock where she becomes a spiritual authoratative figure.

Um, interestingly, in that same passage Peter exhorts husbands to regard their wives as "fellow" (i.e. common, equal) heirs of the grace of life, and to treat them with "honor" -- the same word he (assuming the "real" Peter actually authored both of his eponymous epistles) used in 2 Pet. 1:17 to characterize the words the Father spoke from Heaven in regard to Jesus at the Transfiguration.

Please see above, it doesn't wash.

& here's another verse that supports the position:
1 Pet. 3
5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands,
6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

But of course you've heard ad nauseum our position that "help mate" or "help meet" is not a good translation of that part of Genesis.

Either way, she was created OUT OF Adam and becuz God decided that it wasnt' good for him to be alone (even the animals had others of their own kind). Adam was the prototype, and she was custom created FOR him.
So..... people can speculate what they will.

For now, I'm going to choose to believe that you are just making a general ranting statement, and not specifically accusing ME of being guided by "self will," "secular modernism," etc., and NOT being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Good becuz I wasn't accusing you of that - I had radical femenists more in mind and people with rebellion issues who overstep balance into dominance and usurpation/supplantation.

Imho, people too often comingle dominance with headship and the 2 are not near the same. This always gets thrust into an equality issue (a battle of the sexes) when it's got nothing to do with that. Equality of male & female are established at creation.

Do you really not see that many times the "clear" and "simple" message of one passage contradicts that of another? I'm not being a smart-aleck, I'm sincere.

Yes, I agree with you here. Absolutely. And that thought came into my mind when I made my reply (as an argument that could be used as a rebuttal to my statement lol) -
sometimes I say things even tho I've thought the rebuttal thru - but that's becuz the statement can still be true with merit even tho it has a rebuttal.
*head spins* rofl

Anyways, my point is this, with so many conflicting viewpoints, how in the world does anyone show the world they have answers thru Christ WHEN NO ONE AGREES ON ANYTHING and it all resounds in utter chaotic confusion as the novice plods along reading all of it?

Truly, salvation is a PURE work of God and a miracle, becuz mankind is a sorry example - an inferior example of who God is and what God teaches.

It's no wonder too in our postmodern era that people are flocking to experience and "focus on living" than doctrine. What's the point in doctrine when nothing can be agreed upon by God's own people???

I find it sad and scary. Thankfully my full trust is in God - not people.

Twenty-some years ago, I was a relatively young believer and belonged to a Pentecostal church that held "Word-Faith" beliefs. I occasionally noticed that their "proof-texts" did not quite fit the context, or did not mesh with other Scriptures unless one passage or the other was bent and forced to fit; but they'd been around in the Lord longer than I, so for several years I just assumed they knew what they were talking about. Eventually (the details don't matter for the purpose of this discussion), I saw too many inconsistencies and incompatibilities. I ended up scrutinizing almost everything I'd been taught there. I quickly rejected almost all the Word-Faith doctrines. I ended up with a Pneumatology that is sort of stuck between Pentecostal and Charismatic. I flirted briefly with Calvinist Soteriology, but quickly returned to something essentially Arminian. And of course I changed my stance on gender hierarchy. But in sorting all that out, I could not help but see that many passages do not "mesh" well without one or all being "molded" at least somewhat.

Well, I could point out that in your chronic teetering btwn. beliefs, it's you that has the understanding issues becuz you kept changing and you believe you were wrong in your views to have to resort to others....
lol
You could again decide you're currently wrong now and change them all again in the future...

I flirt w/ Calvanism - in fact I lean towards it, but I can't ultimately shed the idea of some choice being on our part, otherwise God does truly create the majority to perish eternally. I don't consider that evil, I just don't believe God did it that way. Thankfully that doesn't matter in the big picture where confusion lies -
when it comes to church structure & practical application of God's principles in our every-day lives, we DO need to know right and wrong - if God forbids female Shepherds.
We don't want to hinder God's possible calling for women, AND we don't want to put women in positions He forbids.
BOTH would be very terrible.
That's what I"m referring to when I say, WHY CAN'T WE FIND SCRIPTURE CLEAR ON THIS? It's vital and it should be simple.

Calvanism & many other doctrines don't directly affect our way of life and standards in the church or hinder God's work or will.

If we can't even figure this one out, I worry for the church

 

[Gwenyfur]

Well, most Pastors aren't of the age of going to war and honestly, alot of women might even fight in combat alot better than they would - I'd feel safer if they weren't in the trenches~! lol

There were times when the people had nothing but bad Shepherds who scattered His flocks and God gives them judgment & has to rescue them Himself. It can happen - but I don't find that it warrents going against His principles in order to go get Pastors.

I believe God can & will provide leadership in times of trouble. Even in Israel's many wars & "cleansings" by God in His judgments against them, they always had their Priests.

ie: The Judge Deborah

 

[NorrinRadd]

Whatev?
Ask Jesus then why He "mistakenly" gives the male headship when they're both mutually submissive. If that's contradictory to you, then you're free to take God to task on it.

I think it's real clear:
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man,
and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

The same Greek word [kephale] is used for head in this verse. In the same way that Christ is head of every man, the man is head of his wife. [gune/aner]. This doesn't look to me like it's 100% equality in positional authority - one is over the other in an authoratative/positional sense.

Well, we've already gone 'round the dance floor regarding the issue of whether "head" means "authority," especially there in 1 Cor. 11. I don't think that's at all certain.

And once again, people are viewing it negatively as if its something bad... but in the same way, Christ is submissive positionally to the Father (both being equal as God).
What is so horrific and evil about that?

Nothing, IF it is TRUE. If it is NOT true, then a dogmatic teaching about something as basic as the nature and interrelationships of the Godhead would be heresy.

I believe that Christ was certainly in subjection to His Father during the Incarnation; before and after that time I think the data is ambiguous.

(I submit that it's our human nature that rebels against authority placed over people).

Maybe it is our carnal nature that demands to see things in terms of "Who's in charge here, anyway?"

You can argue that till the cows come home, but it wont' change anything. If she isn't even given positional authority in her home, why is God going to give that to her over His flock - and worse, if her husband part of that flock where she becomes a spiritual authoratative figure.

I'm not positive, but offhand I kind of doubt you'll find one of the common words for "authority" used in regard to the relationship between pastors/shepherds/elders/overseers/bishops and their flocks.

Please see above, it doesn't wash.

Um, ok... Let me see if I have this straight: I get slammed for "explaining away" Scriptures. But when *I* cite some, you just summarily dismiss them, without even bothering to "explain away."

& here's another verse that supports the position:
1 Pet. 3
5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands,
6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

Kind of opens a whole new can of worms when you have Peter making this statement that has no clear OT basis.

Yes, I agree with you here. Absolutely. And that thought came into my mind when I made my reply (as an argument that could be used as a rebuttal to my statement lol) -
sometimes I say things even tho I've thought the rebuttal thru - but that's becuz the statement can still be true with merit even tho it has a rebuttal.
*head spins* rofl

Anyways, my point is this, with so many conflicting viewpoints, how in the world does anyone show the world they have answers thru Christ WHEN NO ONE AGREES ON ANYTHING and it all resounds in utter chaotic confusion as the novice plods along reading all of it?

Truly, salvation is a PURE work of God and a miracle, becuz mankind is a sorry example - an inferior example of who God is and what God teaches.

It's no wonder too in our postmodern era that people are flocking to experience and "focus on living" than doctrine. What's the point in doctrine when nothing can be agreed upon by God's own people???

I find it sad and scary. Thankfully my full trust is in God - not people.

At the risk of over-repetition -- My point was not that there are different viewpoints and opinions, it was that Scripture itself supports or even causes those differences.

Well, I could point out that in your chronic teetering btwn. beliefs, it's you that has the understanding issues becuz you kept changing and you believe you were wrong in your views to have to resort to others....
lol
You could again decide you're currently wrong now and change them all again in the future...

You've never changed any of your beliefs? How long have you been a believer?

I flirt w/ Calvanism - in fact I lean towards it, but I can't ultimately shed the idea of some choice being on our part, otherwise God does truly create the majority to perish eternally. I don't consider that evil, I just don't believe God did it that way. Thankfully that doesn't matter in the big picture where confusion lies -
when it comes to church structure & practical application of God's principles in our every-day lives, we DO need to know right and wrong - if God forbids female Shepherds.
We don't want to hinder God's possible calling for women, AND we don't want to put women in positions He forbids.
BOTH would be very terrible.
That's what I"m referring to when I say, WHY CAN'T WE FIND SCRIPTURE CLEAR ON THIS? It's vital and it should be simple.

Calvanism & many other doctrines don't directly affect our way of life and standards in the church or hinder God's work or will.

If we can't even figure this one out, I worry for the church

But Calvinism vs. Arminianism deals with the core doctrine of the nature of salvation. If Scripture can be ambiguous on something so central, why would it be more clear on something relatively more peripheral, such as hierarchy (or not) of gender roles?

 

[Nadiine]

Well, we've already gone 'round the dance floor regarding the issue of whether "head" means "authority," especially there in 1 Cor. 11. I don't think that's at all certain.

I do - it's very clear.

God [the Father] SENT Christ - Christ is submissive to the Father - He submits. Sarah submitted to Abraham - obeying. What is unclear about this? I think people don't want it to be clear becuz it doesn't suit their preferences.

Here's a page link if you want to read more on that.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2819

I believe that Christ was certainly in subjection to His Father during the Incarnation; before and after that time I think the data is ambiguous.

K but the Father SENT Christ ("who sent Me"). Sent means prior to coming to earth. If He is "sent", then He was "told" or "ordered" (not that as God He didn't want to come to redeem).
Isaiah also calls Christ "His Redeemer".

Um, ok... Let me see if I have this straight: I get slammed for "explaining away" Scriptures. But when *I* cite some, you just summarily dismiss them, without even bothering to "explain away."

GQ has "slammed" you, I dont recall saying that and I don't recall agreeing with that openly.?

Kind of opens a whole new can of worms when you have Peter making this statement that has no clear OT basis.

The truth is, it's there and has to be reconciled... unless we go into the territory of claiming it's a bogus verse that doesn't belong in the Bible.

It doesn't matter what basis there is or what Peter did or didn't establish, he still clearly made the statement and it speaks volumes.

We reconcile ALL of scripture together to come to understanding. That is yet another piece of this position and it's pretty obvious that it's teaching positional authority (and responsibility) as headship; not just nurturing and providing.

At the risk of over-repetition -- My point was not that there are different viewpoints and opinions, it was that Scripture itself supports or even causes those differences.

In many cases it does, but in others it doesn't. We have people claiming that homosexuality isn't condemned in the bible either... same with drug use, polygamy & fornication!

Everybody makes a case for their pet sins & preferences. I think the Bible is very clear on them and it restricts me as well. I just submit to what I read & learn instead of working to find loopholes so I can live the way I want to without restrictions.

You've never changed any of your beliefs? How long have you been a believer?

Not really - I've been a believer since I was very young - raised in the church... if anything I just have turned away from the strictness of the Baptist upbringing I had and am not into judging other denoms. in their slight differences of worship, etc.
I lean more towards Calvanism now... why, do people HAVE to change & keep reinventing their faith or something?

But Calvinism vs. Arminianism deals with the core doctrine of the nature of salvation. If Scripture can be ambiguous on something so central, why would it be more clear on something relatively more peripheral, such as hierarchy (or not) of gender roles

Scripture isn't ambiguous about it, if Romans 9 didn't exist, I doubt Calvanism would have as large a leg to stand on -- it's like you mention above, it seems to teach a little of both, so I can't personally figure out which is right - and I personally believe BOTH are right.

I believe Calvanism is true, to the extent that God chooses, but that He chooses based on His foreknowledge of us - I don't know what He foreknows to make His choice, therefore, He chose me and I chose Him AFTER HE enabled me to make that choice; knowing that I cannot make it prior to His enabling & drawing.

That's my view, and biblically I think it has some merit. Yes it does affect alot, but it doesn't CHANGE anything significant; we still carry on in our Christian walks the same way - both continue praying, both serve, both evangelize (not knowing who God chooses & who are reprobate) both obey His commands the same....

Not near the same as ordaining females when God forbids it (or forbidding them if He has ordained them) - just becuz we can't know what He says about it and things like that. & not knowing how to run a church or Shepherding position for an entire congregation.
(not to say that many in the pulpits today aren't even called by God but preach out of greed).

 

[salamacum]

On the topic of explaining away or living with inconvenient verses:


What do people think of double or multiple interpretation of certain passages?

Is accepting this just a cop-out of the problem of perfectly reasonable alternative readings?

I first became aware of this when a preacher expounded to us from old and NT that we were God's people / family / children and used various texts from the OT.
I said but what about Jewish people who only saw those texts as referring to Israel and those messianic Christian Jews or dispensationalists who would not accept those verses as referring to the church.

He just smiled rather patronisingly as if that wasn't a road he was going to go down, nor should I, and said "Oh well, a double interpretation is OK"

Well, is it? Did God DELIBERATELY create a scripture that legitimately could mean 3 things to different people?

Other passages - Matthew 25 - who are "My Brothers"? Israel, the Church or the poor?

The parables in Matthew 13:
birds, leaven - bad things or good?
Is the parable of the mustard seed about a growing, protective, healthy church or a church infested by heresy, compromise and apostasy?
the pearl of great price - Israel, the Church, the Kingdom, the Torah or the gospel?
the merchant - the believer, God or Jesus?
The treasure - Israel, the Church, the Kingdom, the gospel or the Torah?

Do we all just take our pick?
Do we HAVE to decide one way or another?
Do we decide based on whatever interpretation coheres with our belief system?

 

[Nadiine]

On the topic of explaining away or living with inconvenient verses:


What do people think of double or multiple interpretation of certain passages?

Is accepting this just a cop-out of the problem of perfectly reasonable alternative readings?

What bothers me is that many people won't just concede that "yes, I could be wrong in my interpretation".

And I notice that not many people today accept or take any correction from anyone and attack if anyone suggests they might be wrong.

Which leads to my main point, with the interpretation issue, more people today are busy conceding that "everyone who holds their certain interpretation might be right" Instead of: "somebody is wrong or everybody is wrong".

We don't think in terms of interpretations are wrong, just that "it's ok that everybody holds their different one". Well, somebody IS wrong - or many are wrong. Thsis is more the theme in liberalism than conservatism, but I'm seeing it increase.

On non essential/ non central doctrines it isn't going to harm people much if at all - on serious doctrine, it does do alot of harm.

My main point is that we have all got to be willing to look at the issue of interpretation in a less PC way - and work to seek the Holy SPirit to lead us into truth. Becuz we are not all right when we hold a view; and in some of these doctrines, they ARE very clear and covered extensively in scripture.
Some are not and those are what I believe are open to more interpretation; but even then, not all of us are going to be right on it.

I guess I just don't understand why we're so hostile on being told we're wrong or refuse to accept the possibility that we're wrong?
I know it's not easy at times - depending on things, but less and less people are accepting any correction anymore and I think it's dangerous where we become unteachable and pious in our approach to Christianity.

 

[salamacum]

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.

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?