I Am Resolved.....

Thanks

I don’t understand the question. Are you suggesting this sight is absurd?

 

Scarlett, I see that you've met thatbrian. His particular 'gift' is misidentifiying what other people believe or erroneously attributing beliefs to them and then tearing down these so-called beliefs. It's what he does. Just a friendly heads-up.

 

I dd not say that reading the Bible was not a great and wonderful thing - a privilege.

You did create a law when you said, "should". There is no biblical backing for that statement.

If you think that daily Bible study is a good idea, say that. If you think it's been very helpful to you, say that. Just don't make your preference a measure of what all Christians "Should" do.

That's my point, and I'm sorry if you can't see how harmful your words can be, but I would urge you to think about this a bit. Hopefully, you will understand my point.

 

Brother, "should" is establishing a law? In light of passages such as Psa. 119:11and Mat. 4:4 we can see the value of knowing God's word. In church history, we had the tyrannical rule of the papacy which forbade people from reading the Word for themselves. The Word was only to be read by a professional clergy with interpretation left to Rome itself. I am no longer a preaching elder, but when I was I would challenge the congregation to read the Word. Not reading the Word is not a sin, but ignorance of the Word almost always leads to sin. So, yes, Christians should read the Word. They should read it, study it, and apply it. For the purpose of this post the word "read" can be substituted with the word "hear". We hear the Word on the Lord's day. If I said, "I command you to read the Word" then I am crossing a line and binding one's conscience. I think it is best to take Scarlett's comments with charitable license; understanding the thought behind her words.

 

Saying that all Christians "should". . . regarding food, drink, practice, which are not prescribed or forbidden is indeed adding to what God has commanded. "Should" implies obligation, i.e., law.

As I've already stated, which you apparently both have passed right over, Bible reading is good. It's great! Prescribing limits that all Christians "should" match in this regard is a problem.

 

There are many uses for "should". One use is as an auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften a direct statement (Merriam-Webster). I am being charitable in my reading of the word. Apparently, I do not see what you see.

 

My dictionary's first line: Should: Used to express obligation or duty.

In light of her entire post and follow-ups, I see no other way to read it. And, I tried to nudge her to clarify with my reference to Abraham living in harmony with God prior to any written word. She doubled down, so my understanding of her intent was evidently correct.

This extrabiblical test of orthodoxy, at best, creates two classes of believers. The super spiritual who do, and the not-so-committed folks who don't. At worst, it inflicts immeasurable damage upon the sensitive of conscience.

I don't expect the average pietistic evangelical to understand what the problem is here, but I am surprised that a Reformed believer wouldn't.

 

Maybe it is because I looked past the construction of her sentences and made a judgment call on what she meant.

 

As if I didn't do the same?

 

We can all see that the word was, "SHOULD" in all caps, multiple times. Not "perhaps".

 

Indeed:

www.timothykeller.com/s/9780525955146_SongsOfJesus_Intro.pdf

 

"Dear Lord I thank thee that I am not like other men are, pietistic evangelicals, or even as this publican..."


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL