- Mar 4, 2005
- 29,831
- 8,946
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Paul wrote letters to specific churches because a) he was unable to visit them, b) they had written to him with a problem, c) because he had heard reports about their faith/behaviour which concerned him or d) to address false teaching, which was influencing them.Letters of Paul and the apostles were written certainly to various churches.
Only later on; not necessarily immediately, unless he asked them to be passed on - e.g. he instructed that one letter be given to the church at Laodicea.However they were also circulated among the churches
They probably did.because what rhe apostle said to one church was accepted as authority to all believers. The believers didn't say, "well that's just Ephesus and so it doesnt apply to us in Corinth."
The situations and circumstances were different in each church. For example, Paul criticised the church at Corinth for following different leaders which caused division among them (1 Cor 3). He also rebuked them for dishonouring the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11.) I doubt that the church in Philippi read that and thought "Paul is unhappy with us because we are divided." There is little hint of criticism in Philippians. Paul wrote one short letter to them - not two long ones. Again, Paul is very angry with the church in Galatia for listening to "another Gospel" and to Judaisers who taught that new believers had to be circumcised and keep the law. I doubt the church at Colossae would have felt hurt that Paul was angry with them; their situation was completely different. If Colossae read the letter to the church at Galatia, they may have thought "oh dear; that church has problems, we need to pray for them."
It seems they were far better at differentiating between doctrine, which concerned matters of the faith and Gospel, and church practice which varied from church to church, than some of us are.
Everything?No, everything written is accepted as apostolic authority. Inspired scripture.
Including Paul wishing that Judaisers would go and castrate themselves? Or teaching that widows under the age of 60 deserved no financial support? Or telling Timothy to stop drinking water and drink wine? Or telling another disciple to "bring my scrolls and cloak when you come to see me"? Or telling men that they shouldn't have long hair and women that they shouldn't wear gold and pearls?
Of course we do.Otherwise we have no doctrinal or scriptural basis at all for instruction for us today.
Many people are able to distinguish between church practice, advice written to address a certain situation and unchanging truths about God, Jesus, the Gospel and the faith. I am quite sure that the churches themselves would have been able to.
But Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime - as did all the Apostles. He would have had no concept that he was writing to future believers; never mind that the church would still be around 2000 years later, facing a whole host of different, cultural problems and split into hundreds of denominations. He didn't once talk about the problem of infant baptism v adult baptism, which translation of the Bible to use, whether or not to use a prayerbook in worship, whether it was right for bishops to live in large houses while some of their church members were poor. He didn't instruct churches about training lay people, lay preachers, pastoral workers, family workers etc. Even if he knew the word "safeguarding" he didn't teach on it - or on exclusive language etc. These are all modern-day issues faced by our churches today which are simply not addressed in Scripture, because they didn't have them.Of course what was written is for all believers and not just those of the time or the church.
Who says that we have to adopt the culture, the problems and so on of the 1st-century churches and accept Paul's solution to problems that we don't have?
It depends on what it is. If it is Paul's teaching to the church at Galatia that they should not practice circumcision and that it is not needed for salvation, yes, we do.We today when teaching scripture do not say that the scripturea.were only for the specific church and have no application for us today do we?
The question of whether or not to circumcise 8-day-old baby boys has never arisen in my church.
Is he?Now Paul is giving instruction to Timothy how churches should opperate.
Why doesn't he write directly to the churches, then? Why write important church instructions in a private, pastoral letter? Where does he say "I expect you to teach all the contents of this letter to all the churches"?
There are different types of writing in the NT. Paul was inspired and appointed to preach, yes - but there were times that he was not preaching not referring to church doctrine.But he is speaking with apostolic authority as one who met Christ and was instructed by him and he carries the weight of inspiration.
If you were a female school teacher and you spent all day teaching, rebuking and encouraging kids, would you then go home and ask your husband if he needed help getting to the toilet? Of course not. Being a trained and professional teacher would not mean speaking to all people in the same way you spoke to kids. If you asked your husband for help that would not throw doubt on your ability to teach.
Different contexts.
Well if you're taking Scripture literally, as some do, it is impossible for US to "make full MY joy" - Paul is not around, did not found my church and has no interest in, or authority over, how I behave.If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions, make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind; doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself; not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.
Does that only apply to the Philippians or all of us? I think you know the answer to that.
And that is the nub of the whole thing; how we approach, understand and apply Scripture.
Of course, the need for Christian unity, not squabbling, humility and putting others first is a general one. These are characteristics of the Christian life rather than individual church practice; many other Scriptures say the same things and teach that is how Christians should live.
But we need to discern, and understand, each type of writing, the audience, the circumstances and how the people who received the letter would have understood it, rather than adopting an "it's in the Bible; do it" approach.
Far too often people disagree on what Scripture says because they haven't studied it properly.Far too often we disagree on what scripture says because one of us doesn't like it or disagrees with it.
That is why we have cults like JWs, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Moonies etc saying, "that is not in Scripture", so they reject the Trinity, Christ's divinity or the cross. That is sometimes the reason behind people saying "the Bible does not forbid smoking/taking drugs/abortion/sleeping with my partner before marriage, so it's ok to do it." That is why churches are sometimes dogmatic about tithing because it's "mentioned" in the Bible - the same with debates on these forums about keeping the law.
Upvote
0