Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Hey, Buck? You have every right to interpret Scripture in your own fashion. Thats your right and privilege as a Christian man. But Im getting very irked at the people (apparently including you) who claim to be standing on the truths of the Bible and who condemn others for understanding it as telling them to do something different.
Example: There is not one verse anywhere in Scripture that says explicitly that Christians are free from the dietary and ceremonial Law but obliged to keep the moral law. There are verses in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul that might make that a reasonable interpretation, but nowhere does it say that explicitly.
If you eat pork chops or shellfish, wear clothing of mixed fabric, and have not arranged with your neighbor named Cohen to take your lambs and doves over to Jerusalem and offer them in sacrifice at the Temple (never mind the Temple isnt there), youre as much in violation of the Law as Gene Robinson.
Now, I grant that there is a standard hermeneutic in the example you and Seebs have been arguing, for example, to die is used of perishing spiritually as opposed to the literal meaning of physical death. My beloved aunt who loved the passages in John 6 suffered 20 years ago the termination of life processes in her physical body the promises that she will never die but live forever either didnt mean anything at all, or meant that she has gone to a better existence with Christ. (I believe the latter but its not the literal meaning of the passage.)
If you shop around in the Bible for proof texts, you can prove nigh onto anything. A smartalec atheist friend once pointed out that the Bible says, There is no God (Psalms 14:1b). In context, of course, thats what the fool says in his heart. But he did have a valid point you can prooftext almost anything by taking Scripture out of context.
This means to me that I need a touchstone, a guide, in Scripture to how to read Scripture, to avoid going astray. And our Lord Himself provides just that:
In a parallel passage in Luke about the greatest Commandment, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan to illustrate who is ones neighbor. In Matthew 25, He tells the story of the Sheep and Goats at the Last Judgment to illustrate clearly what exactly one is obliged to do. In Matthew 7:1-2, He says that with the measure with which we judge others, we ourselves will be judged.
To me, these summarize a code of behavior that, while (from other passages) calls on one to hold oneself to a strict moral standard, requires that one not judge others by that same standard, but show forgiveness and compassion even as one has oneself received forgiveness and compassion from God Himself. For with the measure we judge others, we ourselves will be judged, so it is incumbent on us to show mercy even as we have been shown mercy, to be compassionate as we have received compassion, to forgive as we have been forgiven. And whatever we do or refuse to do for others, the Lord Himself will count it as having been done to Him.
There is a lot of hermeneutic over in the Sexuality forum about the passages that are taken to condemn homosexuality. The liberals there claim to show that in context those passages do not say what they appear to say taken in isolation, but to have reference to other heinous sins. Likewise, John 14:6, everybodys favorite selection for proving that Jesus is the only Way to salvation, is in context a promise of hope to Thomas You need not know some mystical Way à la Zen Buddhism to find God, Thomas. You know Me, and I am the Way. I came to seek you out and take you to the Father. If Im going away, its merely to prepare a place for you, and I will come back and take you with me. This is the farthest thing from Jesus defining an exclusivist believe in Me or burn in Hell mode of salvation in that verse.
You need to read Scripture in context, and understand what it says not from isolated verses, but from the greater context and sometimes that context is the whole of Scripture.
And to me, the greater sin is not to practice sexual immorality, or ask questions about the meaning of doctrine, but to slam the door on those who do in the name of reading the Bible literally because, quite bluntly, those who claim to read it literally, dont. If they did, theyd be paying attention to what Jesus says is most important to do, and how He says to do it, not haring after verses to condemn their neighbor instead of loving him or her.
As I said earlier in this thread, it may be love to show a brother or sister where he or she is sinning but in the context of friend to friend, brother to brother, not in the mode of condemning sin and sinner out of the clear blue. Matthew 23 shows what Jesus thinks of those who insist on the Bible as a rulebook for specific sinful acts.
And, though I may be gutless liberal trash, Ill take the condemnation of the people who insist on doing so, in order to keep on saying what I understand Jesus to be saying is most important to do. Because my faith and my hope of salvation is founded in Him and my duty is to do what He says.
Example: There is not one verse anywhere in Scripture that says explicitly that Christians are free from the dietary and ceremonial Law but obliged to keep the moral law. There are verses in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul that might make that a reasonable interpretation, but nowhere does it say that explicitly.
If you eat pork chops or shellfish, wear clothing of mixed fabric, and have not arranged with your neighbor named Cohen to take your lambs and doves over to Jerusalem and offer them in sacrifice at the Temple (never mind the Temple isnt there), youre as much in violation of the Law as Gene Robinson.
Now, I grant that there is a standard hermeneutic in the example you and Seebs have been arguing, for example, to die is used of perishing spiritually as opposed to the literal meaning of physical death. My beloved aunt who loved the passages in John 6 suffered 20 years ago the termination of life processes in her physical body the promises that she will never die but live forever either didnt mean anything at all, or meant that she has gone to a better existence with Christ. (I believe the latter but its not the literal meaning of the passage.)
If you shop around in the Bible for proof texts, you can prove nigh onto anything. A smartalec atheist friend once pointed out that the Bible says, There is no God (Psalms 14:1b). In context, of course, thats what the fool says in his heart. But he did have a valid point you can prooftext almost anything by taking Scripture out of context.
This means to me that I need a touchstone, a guide, in Scripture to how to read Scripture, to avoid going astray. And our Lord Himself provides just that:
In a parallel passage in Luke about the greatest Commandment, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan to illustrate who is ones neighbor. In Matthew 25, He tells the story of the Sheep and Goats at the Last Judgment to illustrate clearly what exactly one is obliged to do. In Matthew 7:1-2, He says that with the measure with which we judge others, we ourselves will be judged.
To me, these summarize a code of behavior that, while (from other passages) calls on one to hold oneself to a strict moral standard, requires that one not judge others by that same standard, but show forgiveness and compassion even as one has oneself received forgiveness and compassion from God Himself. For with the measure we judge others, we ourselves will be judged, so it is incumbent on us to show mercy even as we have been shown mercy, to be compassionate as we have received compassion, to forgive as we have been forgiven. And whatever we do or refuse to do for others, the Lord Himself will count it as having been done to Him.
There is a lot of hermeneutic over in the Sexuality forum about the passages that are taken to condemn homosexuality. The liberals there claim to show that in context those passages do not say what they appear to say taken in isolation, but to have reference to other heinous sins. Likewise, John 14:6, everybodys favorite selection for proving that Jesus is the only Way to salvation, is in context a promise of hope to Thomas You need not know some mystical Way à la Zen Buddhism to find God, Thomas. You know Me, and I am the Way. I came to seek you out and take you to the Father. If Im going away, its merely to prepare a place for you, and I will come back and take you with me. This is the farthest thing from Jesus defining an exclusivist believe in Me or burn in Hell mode of salvation in that verse.
You need to read Scripture in context, and understand what it says not from isolated verses, but from the greater context and sometimes that context is the whole of Scripture.
And to me, the greater sin is not to practice sexual immorality, or ask questions about the meaning of doctrine, but to slam the door on those who do in the name of reading the Bible literally because, quite bluntly, those who claim to read it literally, dont. If they did, theyd be paying attention to what Jesus says is most important to do, and how He says to do it, not haring after verses to condemn their neighbor instead of loving him or her.
As I said earlier in this thread, it may be love to show a brother or sister where he or she is sinning but in the context of friend to friend, brother to brother, not in the mode of condemning sin and sinner out of the clear blue. Matthew 23 shows what Jesus thinks of those who insist on the Bible as a rulebook for specific sinful acts.
And, though I may be gutless liberal trash, Ill take the condemnation of the people who insist on doing so, in order to keep on saying what I understand Jesus to be saying is most important to do. Because my faith and my hope of salvation is founded in Him and my duty is to do what He says.
Upvote
0
