So in the course of a recent (albeit brief) subject study through the Bible, I find a lack of Scriptural support for something most Christians I have met or heard of ascribe to. Before you get worried, this isn't anything that touches the ecumenical creeds (no venturing into truly heretical territory), nor even a violation of any historic reformed confessions. It truly is a secondary issue.
Because of the relative unimportance of the matter, I am left with a conundrum. On the one hand, I think it is important not to bind the consciences of believers where Christ has left them free. Telling the church that "Scripture says this" when it doesn't should then be a matter worth taking up. On the other hand, is it worth dissenting just to say "this is not necessarily so"? When is it worth it to say that something I've been taught from a young age presumes too much of divine revelation?
I guess I am torn on the issue partly because I'm not exactly strongly convinced of my new position. Aside from the appeal of logical consistency with other beliefs, I don't have a lot to argue my case with. "Scripture doesn't say that" is a good response to someone else's argument, but I may just be missing a nuance of language or further reference, so I could be persuaded back. Is something this weakly held worth bothering with at all?
HOW I FEEL WHEN I’M TWO WEEKS OUT FROM QUALS
9 years ago
Posts
5 comments:
very mysterious, signore. My feeling is that it's important to know why we believe things, and thus that it is good to discuss apparent grey areas. Even if this particular dogma seems entirely extra-biblical, there probably exists some sensible reason for adopting it, and then you can make an informed judgement on the case, or else perhaps discover that it wasn't so very extra-biblical after all.
But now I want to know what it is...
another thing: I have heard with some consistency that the whole council of God is vital, and that, therefore, there really are no 'secondary issues'; merely areas in which the text is not explicit (or to put it otherwise, issues in some sense outside the council of God, like learning French instead of Russian). Is this last what you intend, or have I missed something?
I think this question is a really important one, but depending on the issue it can cut two ways. Our idea of God's Word as a textbook in which everything is prescribed is a little simplistic, and thus there needs to be room for tradition and wisdom that doesn't contradict Scripture to inform unprescribed issues.
That being said, I have seen the consequences in dear friends' lives where peripheral issues, poorly taught from an irresponsible pulpit, led to ridiculously legalistic, quite ungodly outcomes. I think the real test of a possibly extra-scriptural idea is the godly or ungodly fruit it is producing in the lives of those that believe it.
okay, I think this is enough stalling. Out with it!
Must...know...what...you're talking...about
Post a Comment