Wrong Ideas

[vossler]

I recently read this devotional and thought it would apply here. I realize that most people will probably dismiss this and not give it a second thought. But I think there are one or two for whom this is exactly what you needed to hear.

This is a Greg Laurie devotional:

Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

— 1 Timothy 4:16​

In America today, we have something that could be described as a new spirituality. It's a revival of sorts—not in the biblical sense of people turning to God, but a revival of all kinds of ancient and weird spiritual concepts and beliefs.

People are spiritually hungry. They are searching for truth. And the problem is, some of this strange theology is finding its way into the church.

We must be very careful to keep our guard up. Don't forget that when the devil misled Eve in the Garden, he did it with partial truth. He did not question God's Word altogether. Rather, he questioned if Eve properly understood it.

We must be careful of the deviant teachings that are out there today. So often, when a new teaching comes along, we will get excited: a new revelation!

I hope this won't disappoint you, but there aren't any new revelations. Everything you need to know about God is already written in His Book. As it has been said, if it's true, it isn't new. And if it's new, it isn't true.

So don't go looking for new revelations. Spend your time instead in learning God's Word, and He will bring fresh understanding of it.

Years ago, the great thinker C. S. Lewis warned us, "If you do not listen to theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones." I think this is especially important today.

We need to know what Jesus said. We need to know what the truth is. We need to pay attention to doctrine.

 

[MattLangley]

Since you seem so concerned about the truth I'm guessing you know that the validity of 1 and 2 Timothy are in fact written by Paul at all. If it may not be the true words of Paul then one must take the words said in it with a grain of salt, all in a pursuit of truth (not in blind acceptance of what we are told is truth).

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shernren]

Thanks for the encouragement vossler, here's my thoughts on it.

We must be careful of the deviant teachings that are out there today. So often, when a new teaching comes along, we will get excited: a new revelation!

I hope this won't disappoint you, but there aren't any new revelations. Everything you need to know about God is already written in His Book. As it has been said, if it's true, it isn't new. And if it's new, it isn't true.

Over here in Canberra I work with a parachurch ministry (Overseas Christian Fellowship) that serves to spread the gospel among international students and build them up in God's Word. We have always had trouble defining ourselves and our role, particularly in places where OCF co-exists with churches that run thriving university ministries such as Sydney and Melbourne. After all, our weekly meetings have a service order that's not unlike a church meeting: we have songs of praise, announcements and prayer, bible study time, and refreshments afterwards. And regrettably, there have (very sporadically) been "turf wars" at times when churches have seen OCF as a threat to their ministries.

What is the Biblical model of a parachurch ministry? Part of the answer must be that there is none: there isn't really a Biblical model of a local church, either (what more "parachurch" ministries!). For in the days of Acts and the Epistles local congregations were really simply all Christians from the same location. There would have been only one church in each city or perhaps in each suburb: not five or six with different ideologies and doctrinal quirks (and a pantheon of parachurch ministries in the same place). So there is no one simple example where, say, Paul did something and we can all point to him and say "That's how it should be done!"

One of my holiday projects (other than spending time with the girlfriend =) and wasting time on the computer) is to work from the Bible to discover what it has to say on the matter. Is it new revelation? No. But will it be new teaching? Certainly - to me at least. I don't think I've ever heard anything from anyone else on how to work out conflicts with local churches, what exactly a parachurch ministry is, what the theology of working in such a ministry is.

We must never confuse seeking truth with preserving the status quo. When Jesus came and ministered on Earth it was the sinners who sympathised the most and it was the moral guardians, the social conservatives, who were most offended by Him - it was them who nailed Him to a cross and continued to hound His followers after that. The revelation that He was coming was old revelation, of course, but it had to be re-applied in new ways (now that the Messiah was actually here, instead of simply being someone to wait for); Jesus never rejected the old revelation, but used it in new teachings, and that the Pharisees could not accept.

And so it is with science. I have an 1800-year-old precedent in not taking the Bible literally, but science itself has not been around that long. So the church needs a coherent theology of science, of dealing with the fact that created nature seems to manifest God's goodness by way of extreme regularity that in many cases seems to exclude supernatural activity and that in some cases seems to contradict many of the more wooden, dead readings of the Bible. Should it be based on old revelation? Of course! But new circumstances often require new responses.

An apple tree can grow larger, and reach higher spots, and bear newer, sweeter apples, without ever ceasing to be an apple tree. So also doctrine must grow and bear new fruit.

 

[gluadys]

Since you seem so concerned about the truth I'm guessing you know that the validity of 1 and 2 Timothy are in fact written by Paul at all. If it may not be the true words of Paul then one must take the words said in it with a grain of salt, all in a pursuit of truth (not in blind acceptance of what we are told is truth).

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would one need to take the words with a grain of salt? If it is inspired scripture it is inspired scripture no matter who wrote it. Perhaps the Church Fathers erred in attributing the letter to Paul, but did they also err in commending its teaching and including it in the canon?

 

[Mallon]

Since you seem so concerned about the truth I'm guessing you know that the validity of 1 and 2 Timothy are in fact written by Paul at all. If it may not be the true words of Paul then one must take the words said in it with a grain of salt, all in a pursuit of truth (not in blind acceptance of what we are told is truth).

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heck, most of the Bible likely wasn't written by the people originally identified by the Church. I hardly see this as a reason to doubt Scripture, though. What matters isn't who wrote the books, but the words the books contain.

 

[vossler]

It's good to see you were encouraged by my post. I certainly wasn't expecting that.

We must never confuse seeking truth with preserving the status quo. When Jesus came and ministered on Earth it was the sinners who sympathised the most and it was the moral guardians, the social conservatives, who were most offended by Him - it was them who nailed Him to a cross and continued to hound His followers after that. The revelation that He was coming was old revelation, of course, but it had to be re-applied in new ways (now that the Messiah was actually here, instead of simply being someone to wait for); Jesus never rejected the old revelation, but used it in new teachings, and that the Pharisees could not accept.

So the church needs a coherent theology of science, of dealing with the fact that created nature seems to manifest God's goodness by way of extreme regularity that in many cases seems to exclude supernatural activity and that in some cases seems to contradict many of the more wooden, dead readings of the Bible. Should it be based on old revelation? Of course! But new circumstances often require new responses.

No problem with the essence of what you wrote here, it's just the application as to where the disagreement happens.

An apple tree can grow larger, and reach higher spots, and bear newer, sweeter apples, without ever ceasing to be an apple tree. So also doctrine must grow and bear new fruit.

I'm a bit uneasy with this statement. Doctrine growing could imply that it changes and I don't concur with that.

 

[vossler]

Why would one need to take the words with a grain of salt? If it is inspired scripture it is inspired scripture no matter who wrote it. Perhaps the Church Fathers erred in attributing the letter to Paul, but did they also err in commending its teaching and including it in the canon?

Heck, most of the Bible likely wasn't written by the people originally identified by the Church. I hardly see this as a reason to doubt Scripture, though. What matters isn't who wrote the books, but the words the books contain.

What are you two trying to do, get me to believe you guys fully support the Word of God?

 

[MattLangley]

Why would one need to take the words with a grain of salt? If it is inspired scripture it is inspired scripture no matter who wrote it. Perhaps the Church Fathers erred in attributing the letter to Paul, but did they also err in commending its teaching and including it in the canon?

If they made that error then why would you -not- question the other possibility. Also there are many different views on what "inspired" means to them, rather just a human response to the divine or God using a man like a puppet.

 

[MattLangley]

Heck, most of the Bible likely wasn't written by the people originally identified by the Church. I hardly see this as a reason to doubt Scripture, though. What matters isn't who wrote the books, but the words the books contain.

Wait a second... isn't your point that those who wrote the books inspired by God? If those people are in fact not the people you thought they were then why would you not question the validity of them? Your argument could suggest that even if it was a bunch of drunk satanists that wrote the bible then the content is the only thing that matters? As I said in my previous post many people have different views on how to value scripture. I personally take it for what it is, books written by many different people of ancient israel as there response to the divine. You obviously don't, there is not one single view on this.

 

[gluadys]

Wait a second... isn't your point that those who wrote the books inspired by God? If those people are in fact not the people you thought they were then why would you not question the validity of them? Your argument could suggest that even if it was a bunch of drunk satanists that wrote the bible then the content is the only thing that matters?

That's basically what Martin Luther said:

Christ is the Lord and King of the scriptures. . . . All sound books agree in this, that they witness to Christ. That is the proper test by which to judge all books, whether they preach Christ. . . . That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic though it came from St.Peter or St.Paul. Contrariwise that which preaches Christ would be apostolic even though it came from Judas or Annas or Pilate or Herod.

as cited in The Word and the Way: Personal Christian Faith for Today, United Church Publishing House 1962 (Sorry I don't know the original source.)

 

[MattLangley]

That's basically what Martin Luther said:

Christ is the Lord and King of the scriptures. . . . All sound books agree in this, that they witness to Christ. That is the proper test by which to judge all books, whether they preach Christ. . . . That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic though it came from St.Peter or St.Paul. Contrariwise that which preaches Christ would be apostolic even though it came from Judas or Annas or Pilate or Herod.

as cited in The Word and the Way: Personal Christian Faith for Today, United Church Publishing House 1962 (Sorry I don't know the original source.)

True Martin Luther said this, but he is a long shot from God (instead a fallible human representing his own beliefs)

 

[Mallon]

What are you two trying to do, get me to believe you guys fully support the Word of God?

Imagine that! Maybe it is possible to maintain a high view of Scripture without a concordist hermeneutic.

 

[gluadys]

True Martin Luther said this, but he is a long shot from God (instead a fallible human representing his own beliefs)

Sounds like you want to start a new topic.

The issue was whether the scriptures are any less inspired if some (most?)of them were not written by the people they were attributed to.

That has nothing to do with whether Martin Luther was infallible.

Luther is setting out a definition of what apostolic scripture is: "that which preaches Christ". That is a definition based on content, not authorship.

Is he right? Maybe not, but then someone has to come up with some better way to establish which writings are inspired scripture.

In fact, historically, content did define inspiration. To combat heresy, the Church Fathers had to determine which gospels (and there were hundreds, many attributed to apostles) were sound and which to reject. And the standard they used was basically fidelity to orthodox doctrine.

 

[crawfish]

I'm a bit uneasy with this statement. Doctrine growing could imply that it changes and I don't concur with that.

You'd probably be surrpised, then, to find that most of we EC's would likely agree and be encouraged with the OP. We love and respect scripture with the same devotion that you do; we simply see things a bit differently.

On change: it's not doctrine that changes, but over time we can filter out what scripture does NOT mean. For instance, Martin Luther criticized Copernicus on scriptural grounds; the fact that Luther was wrong does not affect our faith, we just know that in that case scripture was not referring to some aspect of the physical world (but instead the human author's perspective).

While doctrine does not change, application does. That is part of the absolute brilliance of the scriptures - it anticipates and handles this flawlessly.

 

[MattLangley]

And the standard they used was basically fidelity to orthodox doctrine.

Therein lies the boundaries of the little box that was built around Christianity. What if there orthodox doctrine was in fact incorrect? (I mean like all doctrine it was established by man which makes errors) If you ever limit yourself to a little box you will never know if the truth actually lies outside of that little box. Just like YEC who denies evolution since it's outside of his box.

 

[An Arch Angel]

I recently read this devotional and thought it would apply here. I realize that most people will probably dismiss this and not give it a second thought. But I think there are one or two for whom this is exactly what you needed to hear.

This is a Greg Laurie devotional:

Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.​

— 1 Timothy 4:16​

In America today, we have something that could be described as a new spirituality. It's a revival of sorts—not in the biblical sense of people turning to God, but a revival of all kinds of ancient and weird spiritual concepts and beliefs.

People are spiritually hungry. They are searching for truth. And the problem is, some of this strange theology is finding its way into the church.

We must be very careful to keep our guard up. Don't forget that when the devil misled Eve in the Garden, he did it with partial truth. He did not question God's Word altogether. Rather, he questioned if Eve properly understood it.

We must be careful of the deviant teachings that are out there today. So often, when a new teaching comes along, we will get excited: a new revelation!

I hope this won't disappoint you, but there aren't any new revelations. Everything you need to know about God is already written in His Book. As it has been said, if it's true, it isn't new. And if it's new, it isn't true.

So don't go looking for new revelations. Spend your time instead in learning God's Word, and He will bring fresh understanding of it.

Years ago, the great thinker C. S. Lewis warned us, "If you do not listen to theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones." I think this is especially important today.

We need to know what Jesus said. We need to know what the truth is. We need to pay attention to doctrine.

Religious doctrine is of man.

The issue really is when does a man (or group) control the doctrine and when does the doctrine control the man (group). George Washington is a good example of this paradox.

He led the group by being the group.
He created the Doctrine by being the Doctrine.

The problems associated ‘doctrines are one reason why I chose to be Roman Catholic. They are a tad slow at times but at least they grow.

Jesus is my spiritual example of this paradox. He dismissed Jewish doctrine for the salvation of the group (Humanity).

 

[theFijian]

Religious doctrine is of man.

The issue really is when does a man (or group) control the doctrine and when does the doctrine control the man (group). George Washington is a good example of this paradox.

No I'd say the issue is really understanding that doctrine is not the same as Truth. The rest of what you said was kind of weird.

 

[vossler]

We love and respect scripture with the same devotion that you do; we simply see things a bit differently.

That's akin to saying that if something appears to be grey and you see it as white and I see it as black. However the difference is much more dramatic and important. I see it more like something that in reality is black and white yet TEs see or focus on the grey, almost ignoring the black or the white unless it furthers their argument in support of their sacred belief system of evolution. However, most YECs can see both the black and white, and are able to focus on the harmony of both without losing the significance of either.

On change: it's not doctrine that changes, but over time we can filter out what scripture does NOT mean.

Emphasis mine. Ouch, that one hurts; filtering out what Scripture does NOT mean using the "truth" of the ever changing "science" of evolution. A theory which is itself based mostly on conjecture and speculation.

 

[MattLangley]

That's akin to saying that if something appears to be grey and you see it as white and I see it as black. However the difference is much more dramatic and important. I see it more like something that in reality is black and white yet TEs see or focus on the grey, almost ignoring the black or the white unless it furthers their argument in support of their sacred belief system of evolution. However, most YECs can see both the black and white, and are able to focus on the harmony of both without losing the significance of either.
Emphasis mine. Ouch, that one hurts; filtering out what Scripture does NOT mean using the "truth" of the ever changing "science" of evolution. A theory which is itself based mostly on conjecture and speculation.

Think of it this way, science to the natural world is interpretation to scripture. Interpretation to scripture is evolving, otherwise you would still believe the earth is flat and that the sun went around the Earth. In fact most people of ancient times read and even wrote the scriptures with very different world views than you have now even as a YEC. So your interpretation has been updated based on knowing the sun doesn't in fact rotate around the earth and that the earth is in fact not flat (things they didn't know). Science is the same, it's an interpretation of the natural world, it progresses and changes as new things are learned. Science is simply the search for truth, nothing every found in science can go against God since science is the study of God's creation. So for you to blatantly rally against science is to blatantly rally against God. If anything the natural world is more provably his creation than some words in a book written by man, so why rally against it?

Scientists are not divided on whether evolution is a roughly accurate representation. Just like they are not divided on gravity. The detials, the how, and all of the little processes are what's still to be discovered and learned. YECs are divided against evolution, not scienctists. Trust the experts on their matter.

If your faith is shaken by a scientific study that suggests Genesis is not literal then your faith was not in God in the first place.

 

[crawfish]

That's akin to saying that if something appears to be grey and you see it as white and I see it as black. However the difference is much more dramatic and important. I see it more like something that in reality is black and white yet TEs see or focus on the grey, almost ignoring the black or the white unless it furthers their argument in support of their sacred belief system of evolution. However, most YECs can see both the black and white, and are able to focus on the harmony of both without losing the significance of either.

I believe God fully INTENDED to add gray areas to the bible - paradox, lack of detail, etc. He did this to try and keep us from focusing too much on the wrong things. Of course, we humans are only too happy to try and fill in what God has left out - thus, YEC science.

Emphasis mine. Ouch, that one hurts; filtering out what Scripture does NOT mean using the "truth" of the ever changing "science" of evolution. A theory which is itself based mostly on conjecture and speculation.

We only need to "filter out" because we "added in" in the first place. I don't really care about evolution; what I care about is Truth. The Truth of God's word does not change and never will; the "truth" which we perceive will change quite often.