tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post205602315300916536..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Too Hot to Handle: Poisoning the WellDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-10829128653972972292014-10-11T21:15:39.054-04:002014-10-11T21:15:39.054-04:00To add or perhaps complement the discussion regard...To add or perhaps complement the discussion regarding "patriarchal assumptions" I know, from listening to NT scholar from Trinity/Wycliffe at TST twenty years ago, that there is a view that the apostles were "limited" in the sense that they could by definition, only write from their cultural perspective. The lecturer, in speaking on the topic of Paul and his views/instructions on women, offered the view that either a: "Paul knew what was right, but caved under culture pressure, just as Peter had in his view towards Jews and Gentiles." or b. "Paul could go no farther in God's view of equality toward the sexes in the New Covenant then his cultural "baggage" would allow him. I was quite surprised to hear both views, coming from someone who I had assumed had a "high" view of inspiration and the authority of the NT.<br /><br />All of the debate, and continuing movement towards a more egalitarian position on sexuality (including homosexuality) only underscores in my mind the elephant in the room which rarely gets discussed: "What are your axioms regarding the interpretation of Scripture". Saying one believes in the authority of the Scriptures and a willingness to believe them really only matters in the framework of an interpretative system.<br /><br />I recommend reading the opening chapter of "Evangelical Hermeneutics" by Robert L. Thomas for a shocking survey of the current landscape on this important topic.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Russell<br />Quisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13290921435307877508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-43094020618987395562014-10-10T20:20:11.941-04:002014-10-10T20:20:11.941-04:00Great comment, Qman. I'm with you. You'v...Great comment, Qman. I'm with you. You've added good value with that insight.<br /><br />And you're right: there's something dishonest about the people who love to quote "judge not" but never bother to mention that there are more than twice as many commandments in Scripture that call us TO judge as there are injunctions NOT to judge. <br /><br />Now, of course that doesn't mean the Bible's contradicting itself: a little investigation readily shows that there are particular things in mind in each case. We are not to judge other people as worthless, for example; but we are definitely told to judge by actions, judge by the fruit of deeds, judge ourselves, judge sin, judge disputes between brothers and sister, and so on. <br /><br />So "judging" isn't in itself necessarily any kind of sin or expression of pride or self-righteousness; in fact, it's an absolute requirement for all Godly people. It just depends on what one is judging.<br /><br />That would be my point in the exchange above: it's wrong to jump to conclusions about people's motives; but when they choose to declare their own motives, we don't need to jump to conclusions at all, right? They've told us. We can take their word for it.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-35871018809913203732014-10-10T17:05:34.040-04:002014-10-10T17:05:34.040-04:00"IC: Right. We aren’t about judging the motiv..."IC: Right. We aren’t about judging the motives of others, but we also can’t ignore that some folks have a stake in avoiding the truth; and we don’t have to be judgmental to say that, since they often openly declare they have that agenda from the get-go."<br /><br />Love your perceptive analysis, IC. But I think it's necessary to stress one additional point that is always glossed over or deliberately misrepresented. I am referring to the judgmental part. That part has been adopted as a significant strategy by the atheist/agnostic (at/ag) camp to turn the bible itself directly against the theist by a sleight of hand. They rely, of course, on the part (paraphrased, "don't judge so that you will not be judged"). Unfortunately, the ordinary person falls for this because they are not able to discern the correct interpretation and proper meaning and significance of this statement. They fail to notice that this statement must always be used in combination with another one to get the proper balance. That one is (paraphrased) "if you fail to remind your brother of his wrongdoing, he will die for his sin, but you will be held responsible for his blood." In other words, the believer, under threat of his own eternal life, is obligated to publicly pass judgment on what is obviously wrong and sinful and must make it known. Note that the misrepresentation by the at/ag side is to equate this value judgment with a judgment (a condemnation) made by God concerning the eternal disposition of your soul. This is a gross and deliberate misrepresentation, which works quite effectively in neutering the uninformed theist side. So, as far as I am concerned, I have absolutely no qualms about calling the at/ag camp out on their pervasive immorality and knowing full well that I am not substituting for God's judgment in making my necessary and obligatory value judgment.Qmannoreply@blogger.com