What do we really mean when we say we're Biblical?

rjprince wrote:

"Biblical" must mean that our position on a particular passage/subject must be balanced with the other passages that deal with that same subject. The sabbath was never for the Gentiles, it was for the Jews (read Exod 31:13-16). The idea of the church keeping the Sabbath could find a little bit of support from the fact that Paul and Barnabas/Silas would meet with the Jews in the Synagogue on the Sabbath day to reason with them out of the Scriptures. However from 1Cor 16 it seems that the normal time for the gathering of the assembly was on the first day of the week. Look at John’s use of the phrase “the Lord’s day” in Revelation and Paul’s statement to let no one judge in respect of the keeping of the Sabbath and the fact that the Law is nailed to the cross and one has a hard time insisting that keeping the Sabbath is Biblical for the church.

Bearing in mind that the Law of the Sabbath is part of an immediate context (The Ten Commandments) how is it then that we have no qualms isolating the issue of he sabbath ad categorically stating that it is nailed to the cross and therefore not applicable to today but we dont do the same for the other commandments?

It is not enough to find one passage that justifies a position. That passage must be diligently compared with other passages on the subject. Many difficulties in reconciling the different passages can be resolved by looking a the original language of the text. For example, “the husband of one wife” is from the Greek phrase mia gunaikhs anhr literally “a one woman man”. The phrase is used three times in the NT (1Tim 3:2,12; Titus 1:6). Of further significance is the use of a parallel phrase in 1Tim 5:9 - “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man” - enos andros gunh. Any view on the “husband of one wife” that fails to take into account the Greek and the parallel phrase and a variety of other issues may be claimed to be “Biblical” because it takes the statements at face value. But, if the view does not pass the litmus of consistency with the rest of Scripture, original languages, etc. – it is not really so...

The views and interpretations concerning this passage are numerous and diverse. They allude to the subject of divoorce and remarriage and marital ifidelity and that in itself is a case in point of difference of interpretation.
The question is:
"DARE WE BE AUDACIOUS ENOUGH TO BE DOGMATIC ABOUT WHAT IS BIBLICAL OR NOT CONCERNING CERTAIN NON-CARDINAL ISSUES WHEN WE ARE INFACT NOT DOGMATIC ABOUT ALL NON-CARDINAL ISSUES?"

There are many churches who will not allow a divorced and remarried man to be a deacon or stand in the pulpit on the grounds that he is not the husband of one wife but when you closely examine the men who have been chosen for service on the deaconate you find that that is the only qualification they have in the entire list and seem very far from being full of faith and the Holy Spirit.

What's up with that?

 

When a church or individuals within a church insist on enforcing things that are clearly defined in scripture they move from being biblical to being legalistic. Even though we might have really good reasons for why we do what we do we do not have the right to include something in church practice and to enforce it as church policy when it does not have clearly defined and plainly supported scriptural grounds.

Legalism is also not restricted to evangelical or fundamental churches. Pentecostal and charismatic churches exhibit their own brand of legalism.
Legalism is a standard or rite of passage, spoken or unspoken, written or unwritten that we establish in a church in an effort to establish a homogenous church culture. Church culture is full of legalistic filters that support a desired status quo. For example a church may overly glorify hymns because the tradition of that church culture and the musical preference of the dominant membership core gravitates towards hymns. They may then insist that contemporary choruses are not as theologically sound or on spiritual par with hymns. This defence mechanism is motivated because they are anti-choruses as such but because they are afraid of the effect of the choruses and the new membership element that they may attract thus upsetting the cultural balance and stretching them beyond their chosen comfort zone!

 

RJP that is definitely a typo...and should read "things that are NOT clearly defined in scripture"

ALL OF THE LAW WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS! The fact that the Mosaic law contains some elements that were valid before the cross and some that are valid after the cross does not mean we are under the Mosaic Law. We are NOT. It is wrong to murder because murder was wrong before the law and in clearly said to be after the cross. It is not wrong to murder because the Mosaic Law says so. The Mosaic Law says so because it is wrong. The Sabbath keeping issue related specifically to the Jews and never to the Gentiles! No record of any one keeping the Sabbath on a regular basis till after the Mosaic Law. See Exodus 31:14-16 as referenced above.

So what you are saying is that within the "law" lies a differentiation between certain universal wrongs inherent in all human culture and other laws that pertained only to the jewish nation?
Why then do so many churches practice old testament tithing? surely that is something that pertains to jewish culture?

 

TO TITHE OR NOT TO TITHE...THAT IS THE QUESTION!!!

OK so I guess in some hallowed circles them be fighting words but hey whats the point of being Baptists if we can't get low down and dirty! So..."put em up, put emmm up!" :laugh:

Right then..deep breath...here goes...

I know I'm prodding the sacred cash cow but hey, let's be honest, tithing does not even get as much as a whimper in the New Testament church!
Although Jesus mentions it in the Gospels it is not in the context of instructing us to do so but in pointing out the hypocritical legalism of the religious leaders in priding themselves in giving of their substance but not of their hearts.

Would it be a fair interpretive conclusion to arrive at if we said that the principle is taught here is:

"why we give is more important to God than what we give"?

Is that not why Paul teaches that each man ought to give in this manner:

7each one, according as he doth purpose in heart, not out of sorrow or out of necessity, for a cheerful giver doth God love,

One might then respond by asking: "But then how do we know if people are giving as they should?" The fitting response is...

IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!!!

It is not my business, it is not your business, it is not the deaconate's business, it is not the treasurer's business and it is not the pastor's business!!!!

It is between that man and God...That is why Paul stresses the equalising principle...

He who is sowing sparingly, sparingly also shall reap; and he who is sowing in blessings, in blessings also shall reap;

Which brings us to this uncomfortable question...

IF A CHURCH PRACTICE IS BASED ON A LESS THAN ACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF A BIBLICAL TRUTH IS IT STILL TO BE CONSIDERED BIBLICAL SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS FOUND IN SCRIPTURE???