Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Crabtownboy, Jan 1, 2014.
From the UncommonBaptistPreacher blog
I don't think is wrong for a Christian to share that he or she struggles with parts of the Bible. After all, we are fallen sinful creatures whose nature it is to rebel against the God of the universe.
While we are still in THIS flesh, we will struggle from time to time and ask God, "why" or "what does this mean"?
For example, just a few days ago, I was reading in Exodus where if a man who owned servants beat them to the point that it put them in bed for a few days, he deserved no punishment, because they were eventually able to get up again and because these people were his property.
I'll admit - even though I've read it several times in the past - that's one passage that I STILL don't understand.
But you know what? I always tell God that I don't understand and ask Him to help me with it. As of today, He has not revealed to me anything about that verse.
But I am good with that. I trust that God's Word is truth and the purpose may not be for me to ever understand that particular Old Testament law.
As for Paul - here's my thinking as a woman, a Christian, and a classical feminist (never a neo-feminist).
Yes, there are many who have misused and misunderstood and NOT understood many of Paul's teachings. The more I read him, the more I understand and accept EVERYTHING he had to say because the truth is - it isn't Paul's words, but God's Word.
Is the church incorrectly applying certain things from ALL across the Bible.
Yes. We are flawed, biased, choked by tradition, and a stubborn lot.
But any misinterpretation by man, woman, leader, or layperson does not negate the fact that God's Word is all truth, all true, all perfect, and all for our benefit - in several areas.
I don't begrudge this man announcing his "issues" with Paul. I just hope that he will be open-minded enough to do some thorough study, thorough soul-searching, and submit to the will of God.
Dunn is a liberal and if that is what he wants to read that says all I need to know. And if the author of the blog has a problem with Paul then he has a problem with God.
I know the author of the blog. Actually he reads all sides and thinks for himself.
Also Paul is not God. Having a problem with some of Paul's writings is not having a problem with God. It is hard to reconcile some of Paul's words with the teachings of Christ. Paul often reflects the thinking of his culture, such as on slavery, and that causes modern folk problems with him.
This is an unbiblical view of scripture and needs to be corrected .If you have a problem with Pauls writings you do have a problem with God.
Men wrote as they were borne along of the Spirit.
Paul speaks under God's authority. To deny any scripture is to deny all scripture, there are very few on this board that would argue against this.
1 col 1:25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness.
Y'know, if this were someone sincerely asking how we knew the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, we could reasonably be expected to engage him.
But this isn't. This is the scorning of an apostate. And if you wanna get real tecknuckle, we don't have Christ's words in the New Testament, we have only what the evangelists have written. So maybe Christ's words were being filtered by the thinking of Matthew's culture (If indeed Matthew is the author, which liberals think doubtful) when he recorded Christ's definition of marriage. (That's where CBT will be going next. You watch.)
So, my question is, will this blatant affront to Christianity be met with the discipline meted out to lesser offenses? His pro-abortion, anti-life-begins-at-conception posts should have been enough. What about now that he is basically trying to hallow one's apostasy:
Baptist Board.com - What we believe (Source: The Baptist Faith and Message (SBC)
I. The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
IOW, if I understand your stance correctly, some/all of the words of Paul DO NOT necessarily reflect divine inspiration from God.
Am I interpreting your comment correctly??
If so, how do you determine what parts, if any, of his writings ARE divinely inspired, and, why take anything he wrote seriously if parts are questionable???
Christ is the Word. The Word is God. Paul wrote through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, therefore he has written the Word as dictated to him from God.
You should be banned for this comment. Aaron is right. You are in violation of BB guidelines, you deny the very reason for membership with this statement.
Denying the pauline epistles is the word of God is heresy.
Yes. And CTB is praising the author for 'thinking for himself' or for humanism. Scripture rebuts this -- There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
What the author is really having is trouble loving the Lord and the Word of God, and a brother in Paul. All of that is telltale isn't it?
well, IF he loved jesus , he would also love paul, for when paul wrote down his letters/epistles, it was the same as if Jesus Himself recorded them down!
IF he has a problem with paul, its really with Jesus!
Pushing back the word of (from) God (such as Marry when told she would become pregnant with no man's touch, when Abram was told his wife would bear a child) when it presents intellectual and conceptual unreasonableness is not evil in itself. Peter pushed back at the word, then later boasted he was manly enough to handle come what may. The Scripture handle each situation differently.
Apparently, the person of the OP link has purchased the thinking that Paul condoned what currently is proclaimed as evil.
It could be suggested that there are members of the BB who would agree with this man's thinking as it pertains to what the OP link was stating about slavery. Just go to the "most evil person in America" thread for such a discussion.
Knowing nothing of the person of the OP link, and trusting that he is a person who is a believer, it may be prudent to be careful when finding a brother in whom the Holy Spirit is impressing the need to grow and mature.
We are not cookie cutter christians, and each has matured in the word with various strengths and with various experiences that enhance or diminish certain areas of the Scriptures. We each have parts of the Scriptures that we would rather not fully agree.
For instance: The Bible says that a man who rapes a maid (unmarried, virgin) must either marry her or pay the family a certain price. If you were the father, would you let the Scriptures be the final authority?
Now, before you start posting in refutation of the "for instance" let me state that I was using that as an illustration ONLY to show how we all may find difficult and even disagreement with certain aspects and writers of the Scriptures.
I praise the Lord the person is coming to terms with a problem and perhaps the Holy Spirit will impress upon him great truth to bring to the assembly.
You've made a good and reasonable post. It's quite OK to have reservations and questions and troubles when you have no full understanding - and to seek understanding. What isn't OK is to dismiss as non-inspired or not God's words what we don't fully understand.
As I said in my first post. I have been seeking understanding for years as to why a man could beat his slaves and as long as he didn't kill them, since they were deemed his property, he was to receive no punishment.
God hasn't made that revelation known to me yet, and I'm OK with His holding that back from me. I don't question the passage being God's pure truth, I just don't understand it. And I don't allow my nonunderstanding to interfere with my belief.
Brother, I see a progression in Deuteronomy 22 that does include consequences for consensual sex and rape.
Here's what I see:
Deut. 22:22-24 - Consensual sex between two engaged/married people not engaged/married to each other. Both shall die.
"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."
Deut. 22:25-27 - Forcible rape of a woman withholding consent and unable to be rescued. Only the man shall die because God equates this with murder.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Deut. 22:28-29 - Consensual sex between a man and an unengaged or unmarried woman. They must be married.
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
He hasn't raped her. "THEY be found." This implies "they" were both sneaking around. He has "humbled" her. Disgraced her reputation. And because she consented, then they must marry.
the problem witht he OP is that it quotes someone who is very liberal and holds to heretical viewpoints concerning the nature of the bible and its inspiration, isn't it though?
Yes that is the problem
seems that many want to divide, put a wedge between jesus and paul, as if jesus was the lovng saviour, and paul that baddie on gay relationships being sinful, jesus only way to God, God judging sinners etc, while the truth is whatever viewpoints paul wrote down in bible, SAME as if jesus wrote them down to us!
That is what liberals do. They do not like Paul, of course lately they have tried to reinterpret Paul with the "New Perspective".
you mean life james Dunn and NT Wright, who have their crusade to tell us that we have misunderstand and misinterpreted pauline theology all these yeras, especially the views of the reformers had about him?
However, that the person is willing to begin an investigation will not be untouched by the power of the Word.
Sometimes that power will result in a softening, Godly conviction, repentance ...
Sometimes that power will result in a further hardening and mocking of the truth bringing greater condemnation.
My comments were made in the hope of the former and not of the latter.