I recall all the talk of Woodstock and my generation. I graduated from high school in 1969. I recall the first heart transplant was that year. I'll never forget seeing on television Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon: "One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind." I cannot take such memories from the vault of my mind. I understand that.
But I didn't go to Woodstock, didn't take drugs, never liked hard rock, and never grew long hair. I didn't oppose everything about the Vietnam war (since I had two brothers serving in the Navy). I didn't go to Canada to avoid the draft.
Many of the features people say dominated my generation really didn't affect everyone. Fulfilling the instruction of Paul in Romans 12:2 to be not conformed but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds is possible and obligatory. People can live above their culture. Christians have done it for centuries.
The men of the restoration movement broke from the denominational mindset to return to Scripture for their faith and practice. What they did arose out of their commitment to the Lord and the instruction of Scripture more than anything else. They had read passages such as Jeremiah 6:16; 2 Thess. 2:15; John 8:31-32; and 2 John 9-11. They knew they were not to add or take away from the teaching of Christ. That was not culture telling them that--it was the Word they read and studied. They did not conform to the sectarians of their day; they transformed by the renewing of their minds. And so should we.
Were they right about everything. Of course not. That is why we all have the responsibility of renewing our minds and transforming our lives into conformity with Christ. There is a Biblical norm (call it culture if you like) to which we can and must adhere.
I am not a Campbellite, Lipscombite, or McCordite. I was not baptized in the name of Cambell. Campbell was not crucified for me. Nor Lipscomb, nor McGarvey, nor Lewis, nor McCord, nor Kelcy--though I may listen to them all. I know Whom I have believed. Only He is Lord and Savior.
So while some would accuse us of capitulation to the culture of restoration, we continue quoting the Scriptures and pointing out the humanity of restoration leaders. Perhaps that is why I don't preach from the King James Version, the Living Oracles, or the ASV.
I might point out that those who holler the loudest about the error of drawing doctrines from inferences practice that very thing. Campbell included.
Phil
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
One assumption I bring to my reading of scripture is that everyone reads scripture through certain lenses (theological, historical, cultural, etc...). Would you agree with that this assumption is true, even for you? If so, what would you say are some of the lenses you bring to the reading of scripture? I will be happy to share my in a later comment, if you would like (just so nobody thinks I asking people to reveal things I am not willing to reveal about myself).
I don't see it as a problem that I, you, or anyone else reads scripture through particular lenses so long as we are aware of the lenses and the criticism (fair or not fair) leveled against those lenses. Any ways, I hope my question doesn't sound insulting because my intention is not to question any intellectualism on your part.
Well, take care and may God bless your day.
Grace and peace, Rex
Rex,
It might surprise, but that's not the first time I've heard about lenses influencing one's perception of Scripture. Most people have perspectives influenced by their background, assumptions, and training. I am no exception.
But having said that, I do not buy the notion that because of the biases, people cannot correct their perceptions or that truth is not discernible. I am not always right, but I can change my thinking, grow and discern what is right.
The Lord's people can retrain their senses to discern good and evil (Heb. 5:14).
Their love can abound still more and more in real knowledge and in all discernment, so that they may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ (Phil. 1:9-10).
Rex, I affirm what these Scriptures say: one can train his senses in maturity so as to discern.
The Scripture itself is a lens to train us in our thinking. If you wish me to say that I am biased by Scripture, then I plead guilty. Scripture influences how we look at Scripture. Many of the reviews I have seen that evaluated the hermeneutics associated with the restoration often overlook the place Scripture itself has influenced the restoration fathers.
Have I had any other influences on my thinking? Of course, a multitude of them. One is a study of the Greek New Testament. Another is a study of many hermeneutic books. A third is in listening to brethren of good judgment who have trained me in eating fish and throwing the bones away. A fourth is a large library.
Am I perfect? No. But I do have a lot of checks and balances on how I perceive Scripture and the belief that real knowledge of the truth is attainable.
May the Lord so bless us all,
Phil
Phil,
I could not agree more that we can overcome bad lenses. The Apostle Paul, looking back upon his conversion to Jesus, would certainly seems to say (not in so many words) that he overcame some lenses that were blinding him to the truth. Yet I also want to say that until we have been completely sanctified, we are still going to have some faulty lenses. I am not trying to make an excuse, just as un-finished sanctification is not an excuse for sin.
But here is something else you say, "Have I had any other influences on my thinking? Of course, a multitude of them. One is a study of the Greek New Testament. Another is a study of many hermeneutic books. A third is in listening to brethren of good judgment who have trained me in eating fish and throwing the bones away. A fourth is a large library."
Except for the study of Greek (which I have done too), the rest of the items you mention all have to do with community. Just as I do, you associate yourself with a certain community that includes book authors, past and present teachers, fellow Christian friends, etc... And they have in fact influenced you, just like my community has influenced me. But what if their influence was wrong? What if the bones they taught you to spit out were really good mahi-mahi or salmon meat (I love eating fish)?
The same questions are just as applicable to me as well as anyone else, which I am sure you realize. The point I am trying to get at is what if the regulative principle hermeneutic is flawed? Of course, I know that the post-modern hermeneutics have problems too. But from where I sit the traditional hermenutics in Churches of Christ seem to be more influenced by the Enlightment/Modern philosophy (a paradigm that held an aweful high view of what sinful men could acheive through scientific discovery) than scripture itself. If my assesment is correct or even close to target, which is arguable, then it seems that we are basing unity/fellowship upon methodoligical approaches to Biblical Interpretation. That is what is troublesome to me.
Any ways, thanks for the dialogue. If nothing else, I hope these conversations everyone is having serve as demonstrations of how we can disagree and still treat each other as the Lord treats us and as fellow Christians (something not always done so well in the blog world). And by the way, nice pictures from the Palestinian area.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex,
You may or may not be aware of my book, Let All The Earth Keep Silence. In this book I set forth my reasons for believing in prohibitive silence. My reasons for believing in it do not arise from a thorough study of the regulative principle but rather through my study of Deuteronomy and the gospel of John, among others passages. I learned that God wishes to be obeyed carefully, completely, fearfully, lovingly, and accurately. Deuteronomy (God's book of hermeneutics) is full of such adverbs and phrases to show this abundantly.
What led me to believe that we cannot go beyond what is instructed comes even more directly from the example of Jesus as detailed in his statements in the gospel of John. Neither he nor the Holy Spirit acted on their own initiative. They only did what they were instructed, and it was done just as they were commanded. (See John 12:49-50; 14:31; 16:12-13). I do not dare to do what neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit would not do.
These things long pre-date the Enlightenment. Yes, I have read the arguments from some of our brethren who picture us as modernists and rationalists.
In spite of all of man's limitations, Jesus made a promise to man--that he (man) could know the truth and the truth would make him free. Men can know the Truth, can discern good from evil, and can change his thinking (indeed must conform to His will).
As darkened as we are in our understanding (Eph. 4:17-24), there is still the renewing of the mind that can lead to learning Christ and changed lives. I do not believe it is a high view of man I have but a high view of the power of the Word itself to transform our thinking and our lives.
Jesus drew lines on the basis of the Word. The true disciple abides in the Word (John 8:31), a principle that suggests that other disciples do not so abide. When I hear someone teach purgatory or practice sprinkling infants for baptism, I can and ought to distinguish. Believing, practicing, and teaching error is divisive and evil. The faithful Christian cannot give consent to it (2 John 10-11).
When someone ignores the Biblical teaching of one body and accepts denominationalism, I cannot by faith walk with him.
This is not hermeneutical; this is faithfulness to the clear teaching of Scripture.
kindly,
Phil
Dear Phil,
Some commendation, and one short question.
Commendation: I appreciate how highly you uphold the authority of God in our lives. While we clearly disagree on how that authority has been exercised through the Word (to call Deuteronomy "God's book of hermeneutics" destroys historical context with one sweep of a pen), and how we are called to respond (you believe we are to move backwards (REstore) towards the 1st century, I believe we are to move forward towards the eschatological community), I believe that your submissive attitude towards Scripture is quite noble, and far more important than agreement on non-weighty matters.
Question: In the Parable of the Three Servants, the servant who obeyed the principle of prohibitive silence out of fear of punishment, was punished by the master.
The two servants who were not afraid of their master and who disobeyed the principle of prohibitive silence, went out and did what they thought their master would do, and expected him to be joyful about it, were commended by the master.
How does that principle about how God expects His people to live work itself out in practice?
in HIS love,
Nick
Dear Nick,
Thanks for your ? commendation. I am well aware of the context of Deuteronomy and its three sermons at the close of Moses' life. I am further aware of the book's relation to the Suzerainty covenants of nearby nations. I read the book many, many times in several versions prior to writing such a statement. Interestingly, after my book I saw college lectureships making some of the same kinds of statements about Deuteronomy as I did.
As far as its hermeneutics, it is not an accident that the kings of Kings and Chronicles are evaluated on the basis of the very things I mentioned in Deuteronomy. Indeed, the history of Israel reflects back on how and whether Israel kept the covenant found in Deuteronomy.
The one-talent man did not follow the prohibitive silence principle, he did nothing. The prohibitive silence principle is stated in a positive form in Matthew 7:24-25. The one-talent servant certainly did not hear the words of the Master and do them. He out of fear did nothing. There is absolutely no hint that the two-talent and five-talent servants acted presumptuously beyond the will of the Father. Prohibitive silence urges people to do all that God says (including expedients) but not so act on their initiative that they act presumptuously. The master had given them money and instructions. They fulfilled what he asked them to do.
The two had been good and faithful, not presumptuous. They had done well, not struck out on their own initiative.
We listen, really hear what God says and do what He says. That is rock theology. Sand theology is when people hear his words and do something else--build the house their own way.
kindly,
Phil
Dear Phil,
I'm sorry you believe my commendation to be questionable. It is not. I simply did not wish to give a false sense of the nature of it. It is because of your dedication, not your conclusions, that I commend you and pray that I might be equally devoted to upholding the authority of God and the importance of his written word.
However, we must be reading different parables, because I see no indication anywhere in Matthew 25:14-30 that the master gave any instructions at all. Nor does he scold the lazy servant for disobedience. The servants are commended or punished for their willingness to take risks, not their precision obedience to a command.
Ockham's razor slices away your assumption that a command must have been there. It is not necessary for a master to command trustworthy servants. My employers know that they do not have to leave a detailed list of instructions in order to ensure that, in their absence, the work will continue.
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments" is the same concept as Rom 13:8, 13:10, Gal 5:14, and James 2:8. Love IS the keeping of the commandments. Jesus is not passing down a litmus test, that one can tell how much you love Jesus by someone's level of obedience. He is saying that loving Him IS the keeping of the commandments.
I pray that one day faith in Christ rather than adherance to written or unwritten creeds really will justify all believers.
in HIS love,
Nick
Nick,
I don't think you understood at all what I was saying. We are not reading different parables. You are trying to apply a principle that does not fit the circumstance of the parable.
Prohibitive silence deals with individuals who having heard the commandment go beyond it. The one-talent man was condemned for doing nothing (Matthew 7:24-27) speaks more to this circumstance. What he did was fail to do what the master asked but hid his money out of fear.
It is not out of question to infer that the master gave instructions to his servants before he left them. He could not have condemned the one-talent man if he had no basis. His commendation of the other two also meant something. They did what they were supposed to do--increase the investment he made in them. Masters always have expectations of their stewards, and there is no doubt what the master expected was communicated to them, even though we may not know what they were. (The reason they are missing is that they are not important to this parable.) The instructions were generic, but they were there, my friend.
Prohibitive silence comes into play when God is specific in his instructions, and men not wanting His rule decide to go beyond the instruction and act on their own initiative--something neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit ever dared to do.
kindly,
Phil
Phil
Phil I do not ever recall reading anyone that said we do not at any time make inferences. We do. I do.
But there is a difference between my or your inference and the word of God. This is my protest. This was Thomas Campbell's protest.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Bobby,
Thomas Campbell noted that fairly inferred deductions may be “truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word.” It seems inconsistent to state in one breath that a matter is the true doctrine of God’s holy word and in the next breath that the same matter can never be made into terms of communion. Again we ask, how did Campbell himself come to such a deduction? There is no explicit statement in Scripture that says all the fairly inferred conclusions of men from a Scripture premise have no binding force. Campbell must have reasoned that on his own. According to him, even if his deduction is true, it is not binding on anyone else. Why then does he ask others to agree with him in the matter? How can this self-contradictory maxim consistently be bound today?
To the credit of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, some current writers may be making more of this problem of inferences than the Campbells meant. Proposition 6 actually does not argue against all inferences. It argues against inferences that go “farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so.” Dr. Robert Richardson in his book, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, described a little more in detail what Thomas Campbell meant when he said “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” He said:
Henceforth, the plain and simple teaching of the Word of God itself was to be their guide. God himself should speak to them, and they should receive and repeat His words alone. No remote inferences, no fanciful interpretations, no religious theories of any kind, were to be allowed to alter or pervert its obvious meaning [Emphasis mine]. (Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, pp. 235-38, quoted by James DeForest Murch in Christians Only, 40.)
If we allow this later statement to stand about the feeling of the Campbells about inferences, we have a completely different idea. Here the objection was not to all inferences but to “remote” ones, fanciful ideas, and theories. Certainly all men are correct to reject these as a basis for doctrine. But to reject all use of reasoning provides some very significant problems. Though some men may reject reason as a basis for finding binding truth, in practice all men use logic in their preaching. When they teach, explain and apply the Word of God to men today, they without exception use reasoning to get the correct sense of Scripture. Campbell’s suggestion of excluding inference in forming a belief system is impossible to implement.
I well recall the "whose logic?" Hawley asked some years ago, as if everyone always reasoned differently. The fact is people who study properly can come to the same conclusions.
phil
Phil
Dear Phil,
Your remote, fanciful, and theoretic is someone else's clear simple, and logical.
Further, T. Campbell makes it clear that concerning inferences, disagreement means that only the individual Christian may bind them on himself.
If I try to bind my inference on someone else "farther than THEY see the connection", T. Campbell would say I sin. I believe this is in full accord with Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 8 about using knowledge to crush the ignorant.
in HIS love,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, KY
PS - If the Bible is silent about binding inferences, why are you so busy about it?
Nick,
Does it occur to you that you that you yourself are binding an inference?
"If I try to bind my inference on someone else "farther than THEY see the connection", T. Campbell would say I sin."
I didn't realize this was a Biblical statement. Didn't Campbell infer it?
Phil
Dear Phil,
Upon whom (besides myself) am I binding an inference? Please reread my offering and point out where I have done so. I know that sometimes my writing can be unclear, but why should I trust your Greek hermeneutics when you struggle thus with your native tongue?
Campbell's point is that if you don't agree with him on an inference, he cannot bind it on you. Thus, EVEN IF you don't agree with him on an inference concerning the limitations of binding inferences, neither he nor I can bind it on you. We may not infringe upon your freedom in Christ, and we may not use what we believe is knowledge to hinder one for whom Christ died.
Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
in HIS love,
Nick Gill
Nick,
When you bind the inference that inferences should not be binding, you are contradicting yourself. That is my point.
Truth is truth whether people see it or not. The fact that the Pope regards sprinkling as baptism does not mean the Bible does.
While I agree that I cannot bind some silly notion I get on you, that does not mean that what God implies (and we infer) is not binding upon us all.
kindly,
Phil
Phil -
It's interesting to me that Nick wants to try and establish some hermeneutical truths (or since many make snide jokes and try to get people laughing about that being such a big word so as to avoid the discussion I will us another)... scratch that... trying to establish how someone determines God's will from the Bible that men must follow from Matt 25:14-30.
I would even put a big qualifier on this because I don’t know Nick at all. But he talks the Emergent church talk and I’m suspecting this is the direction he is taking us in. That’s all assumption admitted right up front. One of the biggest sins you can commit is trying to pin “progressives” as trying to hold certain principles as “true.” So don’t anyone accuse me of that – I’m assuming!!!! My hope is I’m completely wrong on that. However, let me say that just because I don’t know that doesn’t mean I don’t know anything (the old false dichotomy many like to use).
That out of the way, it is interesting to appeal to Matt 25:14-30 to try to prove that silence is permissive (even here I have to put the qualifier that God said something and that means His silence of doing it another way is prohibited). First off the problem with appealing to this text is it’s trying to get something out of it that is not there. It’s yet another attempt to get the text to prove something that the text is not answering. In 24:42 (and you could back up even further than that) Jesus’ discussion is about being ready for His final coming. Jesus now gives a series of parables (and I’m assuming here that everyone is going to agree that you look at parables differently than you would a direct command in a narrative etc…) to teach principles about His coming. If one were to look at 24:45 they would read, “Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time” (NASB 95). Then if one were to keep reading verse 46 “Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.” Doing what? The text says, verse 45, giving the food at the proper time. First how did he know when was the proper time? Second the text says the master “put him in charge.” That means he gave him the authority. This faithful slave is given in contrast to the evil slave. In verse 48 the evil slaves decides the master is not coming for a while. So what does he do? He decides to do whatever he wants instead of what the master wants “and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards” (vs. 49). Then a really tough set of verses is 50 and 51. The master comes when the slave doesn’t expect and punishes the slave and casts him to weeping and gnashing of teeth.
In all of these parables Jesus is teaching the necessity of being prepared and found faithful when He comes (24:45). The parable of the ten virgins is about being prepared for when Jesus comes back (25:13). Now to the text of the parable of the talents that trying to be used to justify going beyond what God has said. In verse 14 it would be easy to miss but the text says that the man who left the money (I believe we would all imply this to be God here, specifically Jesus – although some have to me we can’t imply what God infers) “entrusted his possession to them.” The Master handed it over to him. When you get to the end the Master says “you knew” (vs. 26) and then in verse 27 “you ought.” The point of this parable is that the Master has gone away but entrusted something to us and we know he expects us to do something with it. This is not presumption. When don’t know when He is coming back but we know when He gets here he is going to expect that we did something with it. In fact, the problem with this man was his assumption. He assumed, even though He knew, that the Master would be OK with him just burring the money and He would at least get that. The Master cast him into weeping and gnashing of teeth because he assumed instead of doing what He knew the Master wanted. To try and use this text to push an agenda is barking up the wrong tree. We all need to be careful of trying to make a text say something that it does not say and getting it to prove something that it is not proving.
In closing, "Thus says the Lord, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the Lord. “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word."
Can we honestly believe God is going to be with us if are not trembling at His word? I hope we all tremble at His word and not “assume” but do what we “know” because it says so.
Humbly,
Caleb
Post a Comment