Comments on: A “Better” Christianity, (Part 2: Trust Jesus, not the Bible) http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219 Live long and prosper Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:09:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tim http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-313 Tim Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:05:23 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-313 Drew, I think this is extremely insightful. I want to apply it to my own situation: Some people would say that I have a "judgmental" view of who Jesus is, because in this blog I seem to repeat over and over the passages where Jesus talks about hell/punishment/narrow way, etc. but not focusing on the passages of grace. They would be wrong for thinking this. I don't fixate on this, even though it seems so from my blog entries of late. The only reason I am reiterating these things on judgment is because I'm addressing a belief system that refuses to acknowledge it, which necessitates me to delve into it. Jesus had to deal with legalism. Paul with permissiveness. I wish I didn't need to deal with judgment, but if I don't, I'm afraid people will continue to preach "tolerance" and dismiss the clear reality of it. It was an essential part of Jesus' message--and it's the reason why Jesus offered grace. Jesus' life-giving grace isn't needed unless you're in danger of God's judgment. Jesus warned us over and over about God's judgment--let's take him seriously. Drew, I think this is extremely insightful. I want to apply it to my own situation:

Some people would say that I have a “judgmental” view of who Jesus is, because in this blog I seem to repeat over and over the passages where Jesus talks about hell/punishment/narrow way, etc. but not focusing on the passages of grace. They would be wrong for thinking this. I don’t fixate on this, even though it seems so from my blog entries of late.

The only reason I am reiterating these things on judgment is because I’m addressing a belief system that refuses to acknowledge it, which necessitates me to delve into it. Jesus had to deal with legalism. Paul with permissiveness. I wish I didn’t need to deal with judgment, but if I don’t, I’m afraid people will continue to preach “tolerance” and dismiss the clear reality of it. It was an essential part of Jesus’ message–and it’s the reason why Jesus offered grace. Jesus’ life-giving grace isn’t needed unless you’re in danger of God’s judgment. Jesus warned us over and over about God’s judgment–let’s take him seriously.

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: Joel http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-311 Joel Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:14:41 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-311 Sure, and that's what I figure... both may well be true. It just feels like Paul is adding to the detail of the story to better fit his point. And as Tim said above, it's a minor point, not a major one. Sure, and that’s what I figure… both may well be true. It just feels like Paul is adding to the detail of the story to better fit his point. And as Tim said above, it’s a minor point, not a major one.

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: John http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-310 John Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:58:30 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-310 Okay...glad we are on the same page (of the Bible that is!) My question to you is: why can't both be true? Paul's version, coming after the original, gives another layer to what was happening. Paul was, after all, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In writing half the New Testament, he defines, refines, and articulates a wide range of doctrinal truth. He claimed he was doing so under direct authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit. For example, Colossians 1:25-27... 25 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" He also claimed to have direct authority from Jesus Himself to articulate the what Gospel of Jesus Christ is...Galatians 1:11. Here is what I think: The Apostle's doctrine is critical. Without it, we can go just about any direction we want with Jesus (even his disciples has a hard time figuring him out and they hung out with Him!) Jesus came and made a big splash. God deputized Paul to bring clear definition to who Jesus is and the significance of His teaching and mission. Okay…glad we are on the same page (of the Bible that is!) My question to you is: why can’t both be true? Paul’s version, coming after the original, gives another layer to what was happening. Paul was, after all, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In writing half the New Testament, he defines, refines, and articulates a wide range of doctrinal truth. He claimed he was doing so under direct authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit. For example, Colossians 1:25-27… 25 “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”

He also claimed to have direct authority from Jesus Himself to articulate the what Gospel of Jesus Christ is…Galatians 1:11.

Here is what I think: The Apostle’s doctrine is critical. Without it, we can go just about any direction we want with Jesus (even his disciples has a hard time figuring him out and they hung out with Him!) Jesus came and made a big splash. God deputized Paul to bring clear definition to who Jesus is and the significance of His teaching and mission.

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: Drew http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-309 Drew Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:25:08 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-309 I really like your stream of thought here. No matter what you decide is authoritative it's going to have the same problem of how you establish it's veracity and authority. The question of Scriptural authority is not a simple issue to address, though. Also, it should be important to note that Jesus' teaching was very influenced by context. Jesus was constantly addressing people in different layers of a very legalistic system so his teaching was a response and a reflection of that. The absence of his teaching on a specific subject came from the fact that it was not a point of contention in his context that required teaching. Had Jesus taught the permissive Romans rather than the legalistic Jews the emphasis of his teaching would be dramatically different. If the bulk of the people who you teach are legalistic and your purpose is to get them to understand that holiness through the law is impossible, then you would probably give a sermon like The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7). If the bulk of the people who you teach are permissive like many who Paul taught were then you would be a bit more blunt about what is missing the mark in God's eyes. Regardless, the fact that Jesus was silent on several important issues is indicative to me that God intended for Scripture to extend beyond the Gospels. I really like your stream of thought here. No matter what you decide is authoritative it’s going to have the same problem of how you establish it’s veracity and authority. The question of Scriptural authority is not a simple issue to address, though.

Also, it should be important to note that Jesus’ teaching was very influenced by context. Jesus was constantly addressing people in different layers of a very legalistic system so his teaching was a response and a reflection of that. The absence of his teaching on a specific subject came from the fact that it was not a point of contention in his context that required teaching. Had Jesus taught the permissive Romans rather than the legalistic Jews the emphasis of his teaching would be dramatically different.

If the bulk of the people who you teach are legalistic and your purpose is to get them to understand that holiness through the law is impossible, then you would probably give a sermon like The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7). If the bulk of the people who you teach are permissive like many who Paul taught were then you would be a bit more blunt about what is missing the mark in God’s eyes.

Regardless, the fact that Jesus was silent on several important issues is indicative to me that God intended for Scripture to extend beyond the Gospels.

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: Tim http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-308 Tim Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:22:17 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-308 I don't see Paul using creative license in that example, but I do see it in others. However, it doesn't so much bother me that he uses creative license to support his truths at other times. I see that as a minor issue like the Gospels not always getting all the minor details exactly right (such as what time it was when Jesus was crucified). There are things in Paul's writings, however, that I struggle to reconcile with internally. The same is true for me with some of Jesus' words--so there you go! I don’t see Paul using creative license in that example, but I do see it in others. However, it doesn’t so much bother me that he uses creative license to support his truths at other times. I see that as a minor issue like the Gospels not always getting all the minor details exactly right (such as what time it was when Jesus was crucified). There are things in Paul’s writings, however, that I struggle to reconcile with internally. The same is true for me with some of Jesus’ words–so there you go!

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: Joel http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-307 Joel Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:11:20 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-307 That's exactly what I was referring to. Exodus states that Moses wore the veil because the people were afraid of his face shining, but Paul says that Moses wore the veil so the people wouldn't see the glory fading away. That’s exactly what I was referring to. Exodus states that Moses wore the veil because the people were afraid of his face shining, but Paul says that Moses wore the veil so the people wouldn’t see the glory fading away.

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: John http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-306 John Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:42:55 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-306 Hey Joel--are you referring to 2 Corinthians 3:13? If so, Paul was referring to Exodus 34:29-25... "Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him. 30So when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. 31Then Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned to him; and Moses talked with them. 32Afterward all the children of Israel came near, and he gave them as commandments all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. 33And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face. 34But whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would take the veil off until he came out; and he would come out and speak to the children of Israel whatever he had been commanded. 35And whenever the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone, then Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with Him. If you are not speaking of this passage, I would be curious which one you are referring to. THANKS Hey Joel–are you referring to 2 Corinthians 3:13? If so, Paul was referring to Exodus 34:29-25…

“Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him. 30So when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. 31Then Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned to him; and Moses talked with them. 32Afterward all the children of Israel came near, and he gave them as commandments all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. 33And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face. 34But whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would take the veil off until he came out; and he would come out and speak to the children of Israel whatever he had been commanded. 35And whenever the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone, then Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with Him.

If you are not speaking of this passage, I would be curious which one you are referring to. THANKS

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: Audra http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-305 Audra Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:22:49 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-305 I think there is always room for questions about Bible passages that don't necessarily make sense to us, and I do have questions about the inerrancy of Scripture after thousands of years of human intervention. But that being said, I also don't trust any humans to tell me which parts of the Bible are inaccurate! We are fortunate enough to be able to own and read our own Bibles and the Bible was given to Christians as a guideline for living...the whole Bible. I don't think I'm narrow-minded at all (though some might disagree) but I do think that in the end I may be judged based on the knowledge that was given to me (the WHOLE Bible) and whether I did or did not follow it. I think there is always room for questions about Bible passages that don’t necessarily make sense to us, and I do have questions about the inerrancy of Scripture after thousands of years of human intervention. But that being said, I also don’t trust any humans to tell me which parts of the Bible are inaccurate! We are fortunate enough to be able to own and read our own Bibles and the Bible was given to Christians as a guideline for living…the whole Bible. I don’t think I’m narrow-minded at all (though some might disagree) but I do think that in the end I may be judged based on the knowledge that was given to me (the WHOLE Bible) and whether I did or did not follow it.

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: Joel http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-304 Joel Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:59:01 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-304 I find myself sympathetic with this line of thinking in some ways simply because I think there are a few times where Paul is.. umm... creative in his interpretations of an OT passage. One such example is when Moses came down from the mountain... Paul, where did you get that?! At the same time, I think what separates me from this line of thinking is that I find very few of these moments and I give Paul some leeway precisely because his writings were revered enough to put it with the Gospels. For whatever reason, I find that I just love reading Jesus' words. It is amazing to think "This is what God said when he decided to show up." And interestingly enough, all the words from your "did God really say" quotes were from Jesus (except homosexuality). I find myself sympathetic with this line of thinking in some ways simply because I think there are a few times where Paul is.. umm… creative in his interpretations of an OT passage. One such example is when Moses came down from the mountain… Paul, where did you get that?!

At the same time, I think what separates me from this line of thinking is that I find very few of these moments and I give Paul some leeway precisely because his writings were revered enough to put it with the Gospels.

For whatever reason, I find that I just love reading Jesus’ words. It is amazing to think “This is what God said when he decided to show up.” And interestingly enough, all the words from your “did God really say” quotes were from Jesus (except homosexuality).

Like: Thumb up 0

]]> By: Tim http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/219/comment-page-1#comment-303 Tim Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:50:15 +0000 http://www.timfalk.com/blog/?p=219#comment-303 P.S. Those who know me know that I have wrestled all my thinking life--and probably will all my thinking life--about issues of open canon/closed canon, inerrancy of Scripture, etc. While I'm not a person who thinks that you have to accept the decisions of the church council in 400 AD in order to get to heaven (how crazy is that?), my real concern on this issue is those who pick and choose what they think is from God and what isn't--and how that is done as an excuse to not having to live by Scripture. If someone blindly accepts everything they read in Scripture without wrestling with it, they probably aren't really understanding what they're reading. If, on the other hand, they refuse to believe what they read, that is just as scary to me. As we'll see in the next post, this issue of not abiding by Scripture leads all too quickly to the matter of utmost importance: salvation--is salvation through Jesus Christ alone? P.S. Those who know me know that I have wrestled all my thinking life–and probably will all my thinking life–about issues of open canon/closed canon, inerrancy of Scripture, etc. While I’m not a person who thinks that you have to accept the decisions of the church council in 400 AD in order to get to heaven (how crazy is that?), my real concern on this issue is those who pick and choose what they think is from God and what isn’t–and how that is done as an excuse to not having to live by Scripture. If someone blindly accepts everything they read in Scripture without wrestling with it, they probably aren’t really understanding what they’re reading. If, on the other hand, they refuse to believe what they read, that is just as scary to me. As we’ll see in the next post, this issue of not abiding by Scripture leads all too quickly to the matter of utmost importance: salvation–is salvation through Jesus Christ alone?

Like: Thumb up 0

]]>