* * *
I’ve been wrong. I’ve had the wrong focus. For me, the Sovereign Grace Ministries fiasco has always been about the sex abuse victims, the spiritual abuse, the women whose voices were silenced, the cover-up of pedophiles, the forced reconciliations, failure to notify authorities (civil, that is), etc. You see, my focus is not right where it should be according to them. It should be on doctrine. Everybody must get on board with the right doctrine. That is the common goal among these folks.
I skimmed SGMSurvivor blog and found this paragraph tucked away in a comment and said BINGO:
The last paragraph of this comment:
I said this before and I’ll say it again. All they see is a guy who “single handedly” ( sorry Brent, Boisvert, etc, I know that isn’t true) took a whole lot of Arminian charismatics and turned them into respectful Calvinists, and ruled 100+ churches into doing whatever he said. Drop apostles, they drop apostles. Change position on tongues, they change positions. Write up a presbyterian type Book of Church order, they write it up. CJ is like a hero to these people. Thye would give their right arm and leg to have his magic power over masses of sheep.
In their eyes, C.J. Mahaney masterminded the impossible. C.J. had the power and influence to shift the doctrinal beliefs of an entire church organization. That is amazing. It is true that doctrine is a foundational issue. I agree that it is important. But I think for these guys, it is THE issue. Nothing comes between them and their doctrine – obviously not even sex abuse. The abuse in their minds must be just a minor oversight. It will get taken care of. The bigger picture is that everybody is on board with the right doctrine because that is what God would want — -to heck with a little toddler getting sexually abused. As long as they have the right doctrine, it will all work out. I mean, life is only temporary on earth, if they have the right doctrine, they have the rest of eternity with God. The abuse is minor in the full scheme of things.
We’ll see what the courts think about that.
* * *
Spiritual Sounding Board 
I don’t think that SGM’s problem is doctrine or an over emphasis on doctrine. As a matter of fact, I don’t think it is possible to overemphasize doctrine. Jesus emphasized doctrine for His entire ministry while living among us.
The problem is wrong doctrine. Jesus makes this clear in one of His discussions on doctrine:
“Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” (John 7:16-18)
Wrong doctrine is doctrine that is erroneous or incomplete. Wrong doctrine is right doctrine misapplied or misrepresented. I don’t think doctrine being “God” (I know what you mean 🙂 ) is the problem but according to Jesus the problem is when doctrine becomes “human”. SGM’s problem is that their “doctrinal” emphasis was in contradiction to Jesus’ instructions focused on “man’s” glory instead of God’s glory. If the converse of what Jesus said is true this type of “doctrinal” focus results in lies and unrighteousness which may make people look good for a time. As SGM has demonstrated, there always comes a time when God exposes the lies and unrighteousness to glorify Himself by demonstrating His merciful, benevolent and yet just and holy nature and the corruption of those who seek to establish a doctrinal position that hurts instead of blesses others and robs God of His glory.
LikeLike
Julie Anne, you are spot on. I’ve been saying something similar to this over at SGM Survivors. The root is the doctrine, but I would go one level down further. The root is doctrine that is derived from their perception of what the Bible teaches. There is an obsession with “submitting to Scripture,” to the point where their interpretation of Scripture trumps how they handle sex abuse and a litany over other things. There’s a fear of disobeying the Bible (once they’re convinced Calvinism is biblical, they must submit to it) more than a love for people and a respect for discernment to do the loving thing in a particular circumstance. So, in SGM, it’s mostly taking the form of covering up sexual abuse, forcing reconciliations, controlling leaders and members, etc., because that’s what the Bible (supposedly) teaches. For churches like Mars Hill Seattle, it takes a slightly different form, but it’s the same root: fear of and ultimately, worship of, the Bible. Without a new paradigm of the Bible, from which all doctrines derive, people are paralyzed. Law, submission, obedience–to what is perceived as “biblical”–rules. Love can’t rule in that environment, hence abuse, in its various forms, is inevitable.
LikeLike
You’ve hit a big nail square on the head, Julie Anne. Doctrines are the biggest idols in churches today. Being right becomes more important than being righteous, missions become about bring people to a church or doctrine and not about introducing them to Christ. In my opinion, these constructed idols and walls of purity in doctrine serve as a scapegoating or “othering” function and allow people within those constructions to avoid facing their fears about themselves. If our relationship is defined completely by agreement on whatever issue, then we never have to be touched by the painful, lonely spaces in others, avoiding our own painful, lonely spaces in the process.
LikeLike
Wesley said:
Wesley, I have to tell you that this comment of yours caused a great deal of physical commotion within my body. LOL Did you hear me scream all the way over to – – ack – I forgot where you are – Louisiana?? 😉 When doctrine becomes such an emphasis that it becomes elevated to a god-like status and more important than the One True God, we’ve got big-time problems. I’ve seen this happen a lot in spiritually abusive churches. SGM is a perfect example of this. Look at the fruit.
Yes, Jesus is the perfect example of living out doctrine beautifully. What was His fruit? Would he have covered up sex abuse and abandoned the abused? No way.
LikeLike
“You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free…”
If a doctrine imprisons a soul by doing something like, I don’t know, marginalizing and silencing victims of abuse, maybe, then how can it it be a part of the Truth that sets us free?
I’m also pretty sure that doctrines shouldn’t be causing the little ones to stumble, either.
LikeLike
@JA. LOL…….I stand by the statement that right doctrine cannot be overemphasized when it is done as Jesus directs. Proper doctrine that is properly lived out always results in good fruit in the lives of all involved. SGM suffered from an emphasis on appearances instead of biblical doctrine. Biblical doctrine would have prevented the abuses and required that when abuses were brought to light they were handled in a way that would demonstrate God’s care for the least.
Now catch your breath 🙂 and reread my post. I think we are saying the same thing with one possible exception. I believe God reveals Himself through the Scriptures and then through the lives of those who are reconciled to God by the Gospel and being changed into the image of Christ by God’s Spirit and God’s word (yes doctrine) working in and through their lives. Holiness and Love are both doctrinal equals and neither can be excluded and the other maintained.
SGM’s problem was not doctrinal emphasis but doctrinal ignorance. They failed to teach and practice the whole counsel of God and missed pure religion in the process which is to protect and provide for the weak and avoid sin (James 1:27).
LikeLike
I agree with the first two comments. If SGM had adhered to biblical doctrine, it would have handled sexual abuse cases correctly. SGM has helped to make “doctrine” a dirty word. Or maybe I should a “dirtier” word. There was already a tremendous suspicion of doctrine in many American churches. At a congregation I attended, the speaker warned that doctrine was divisive. Yet practically every one of his sentences had something doctrinal in it. We can’t get away from it if we’re believers; not that we should. But we want to when we see it distorted and abused. When minors are majored in. When one is emphasized out of all proportion. When its application is absurd. These things don’t happen arbitrarily. They are linked to the personalities and temperaments of those in charge. This is why it’s so important to humble ourselves before the Scriptures.
LikeLike
Wesley, I’m getting distracted with kids and responsibilities and I think I’m going to keep having more to say on your comment. Please bear with me if you keep seeing responses. I’m not trying to pick on you, it’s just how my brain is working.
Isn’t there a difference between having head knowledge of doctrine and the application of doctrine? Do you see where I’m going with this?
What is head knowledge without application?
LikeLike
@Eric, You are absolutely correct. Those conditions separate false doctrine from biblical doctrine.
LikeLike
@JA, Head knowledge without application is a failure to have the Spirit or a failure to follow the Spirit. The problem is often a lack of conversion.
LikeLike
Thank God, Wesley. hahaha ::JA breathes a slight sigh of relief:::
SGM’s problem was not doctrinal emphasis but doctrinal ignorance. They failed to teach and practice the whole counsel of God and missed pure religion in the process which is to protect and provide for the weak and avoid sin (James 1:27).
I get what you are saying here, but I still think their obsession was on doctrine (but they didn’t fully understand it themselves). Why else would they insist on making a toddler meet the sexual perpetrator and be forced to forgive him. That still sends shivers down my spine thinking of that precious child being forced to face the one who inflicted such unspeakable pain. No wonder the child hid and cried beneath the table. Not only did that child suffer sexual abuse but very confusing spiritual abuse by those church leaders.
LikeLike
Amen to this, Wesley:
SGM people need to knock these false teachers down from their minds. These are frauds, wolves. Not men of God.
LikeLike
Wesley Roy, if the problem is “wrong doctrine,” then we’re all in trouble. I see what you’re saying… as I believe Calvinism is not “right doctrine,” but the question is, who determines right doctrine? The view that there is one right doctrine out there is why we have denominationalism, and why Christians fight over doctrine. Everyone yells, they have the right interpretation. That’s why, in my mind, it’s not doctrine per se, that is the root problem, but how we view the Bible, from which doctrine is derived. No two people can ever decide on the right doctrine 100%. What we’re left with then is Love. Love, not doctrine, must drive us. If doctrine drives us, then ultimately abuse, exclusion, etc., will result.
LikeLike
Good point, Michael. The doctrinal issue is such a divisive one. I wish we could just throw the Calv/Armin thing away. Are they biblical words? LOL Sometimes I hear Calvin mentioned more than Jesus and it makes me wonder where he is in the Bible. Why can’t we just get back to basics and love as Christ taught? If we were truly loving, we would handle abuse appropriately. If we were truly loving, husbands and wives would respect each other instead of worrying about hierarchy, etc. We need the doctrine of Love. Jesus seemed to think it was important – saying it was the greatest commandment of all. Did he say doctrine was the greatest commandment or love?
LikeLike
How does contemporary Calvinista attitude towards “Doctrine” differ from last century’s Communist attitude towards “Ideology”?
How does “having the Right Doctrine” differ from “Purity of Ideology”?
And how does the attitude towards CeeJay as “hero to these people” differ from the worship of Comrade Dear Leader?
P.S. Wasn’t the “Inevitable Dialectic of History” itself a form of macro-level Predestination?
LikeLike
Wesley: What are your thoughts on why CJ’s peers remain silent? Do you agree with my thoughts or do you have other ideas?
LikeLike
Just listened to the Drew Marshall Show interview. The part where you’re describing being shunned and Drew goes “Was this a Jehovah’s Witnesses church?”
Their Doctrine(TM) may have been Correct(TM), but their behavior was JW.
LikeLike
JA, we can’t get back to basics and love as Christ taught because the majority of evangelicalism has a warped paradigm of the Bible. We make the NT like a law that must be obeyed, or a set of doctrines that must be believed (and are so afraid of being “unbiblical”), and then look down on others who we think are wrong, calling them heretics. If we could get a new perspective on the Bible, we could concentrate on really loving people, I believe.
LikeLike
@JA, I believe CJ’s peers remain silent for a variety of reasons. Some because he is their friend and they cannot believe their friend would do such a thing. Others may refuse to address the issue because of the harm it would do to the reputation of SGM (that’s that doctrine for human glory instead of God’s glory again). Others may be motivated by comradery. Sort of like the closing ranks that police officers do when one of their own is accused of wrong doing except this time it is preachers.
I am not a Calv. or Armin. but I do not think it is a problem with their Calv. doctrine that causes a fiasco like SGM or others to fail to address those involved in it.
LikeLike
“We’ll see what the courts think about that.” I love that sentence, Julie Anne. God often uses the secular, civil authorities to accomplish His will in this world. The world’s courtrooms have often been the greatest places of witness for the Church, and also places of its greatest shame and failure. Nothing annoys and freaks out the spirit-bosses like seeing the people with badges and uniforms walking up the drive-way wanting to have a little talk about things….
LikeLike
mwcamp @ 10:17 and 11:27 a.m., you said what I wanted to say while I was out.
When people point to the Bible as the supreme source of their “right doctrine”, and proof-text it to back up their claims, they are not only idolizing their doctrine, but also the Bible itself. And when they point to the Bible as the be-all and end-all of “right doctrine” they they are effectively claiming that the Holy Spirit no longer has any authority in the life and heart of a believer.
LikeLike
So how do we define love when we make the teachings of Scripture optional? I believe that the Bible provides us with the framework for defining and demonstrating love. The fact that some people do it wrong it is a clear indication of humanity’s need of redemption, regeneration, reconciliation to God, and restoration. These are works of the Spirit revealed through doctrine contained in Scripture given by the Spirit.
It is not recognizing the authority of Scripture in the lives of disciples of Jesus that is the problem. Taking that authority as one’s own or ascribing it to other humans is the problem.
LikeLike
Yea, Eric, where is the Holy Spirit in all of this? It seems in these circles the voices of leaders are a lot louder than the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. Why is that? Is that because we are choosing not to listen to the HS? Is it because we are so used to being spoon-fed by our leaders that we forget that the Holy Spirit speaks to us, too?
LikeLike
Ken, it’s interesting that my pastor felt no shame or failure when he lost. He just whined about not getting his day in court because we anti-SLAPPED him.
To that I say: sue me again!
LikeLike
Wesley, Who said anything about making the Scriptures optional? I’m talking about how we percieve it, use it, or in many cases, abuse it. I like your statement:
Yes, framework, is different than “letter of the law.” Framework, implies we can wrestle with it, use a discerning mind to apply it to our life and situations, like sexual abuse in the church. It’s when people use it as an absolute rulebook that must be obeyed to the letter, or else, that we get into trouble.
But I’m wondering, do you mean we can’t define what the loving thing to do is, unless we find it in the Bible? That sounds like the proof-text method. That’s what gets us into trouble, because it forces one to say there’s only one way to deal with something and if you don’t do it that way, you’re in disobedience to the Word. That’s probably why SGM insists on handling sexual abuse the way they did because they thought they were doing it “the biblical way.” But if you get a vision of unconditional love from Jesus’ example, you’re not obligated to fit some mold, but to think about–asking the Spirit for help–what a wise, loving response would be. I believe this is why Jesus didn’t always follow the Law to the letter. He showed how “love is the fulfillment of the law” and why “anyone who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”
LikeLike
“me camp on May 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Wesley Roy, if the problem is “wrong doctrine,” then we’re all in trouble. I see what you’re saying… as I believe Calvinism is not “right doctrine,” but the question is, who determines right doctrine? The view that there is one right doctrine out there is why we have denominationalism, and why Christians fight over doctrine. Everyone yells, they have the right interpretation. That’s why, in my mind, it’s not doctrine per se, that is the root problem, but how we view the Bible, from which doctrine is derived. No two people can ever decide on the right doctrine 100%. What we’re left with then is Love. Love, not doctrine, must drive us. If doctrine drives us, then ultimately abuse, exclusion, etc., will result.”
This!!
The Bible has become the fourth god. If you don’t believe about the “bible” like so and so does, then you are a heretic (I really hate this word BTW, only using it to make a point). Some teachers seem to elevate the bible to a position of equality with Jesus. It has the power to save. It is the Word (bible) made flesh, instead of Jesus made flesh. Of course this would place the bible with God, before Jesus the Son of God.
I’m having a conundrum about the word “seed” as well. Is the seed that is sown the Gospel of Jesus (his being and all that he did)? Or is the seed the words in the bible? It is often interchanged. Do the words in the bible save or does Jesus save (my vote)?
I’m of the persuasion that the words in the bible point us to the being, Jesus, who is our hope and joy. That is why I don’t need the bible to be infallible, or whatever some claim it needs to be. It does what it is supposed to in pointing us to the Savior. It is valuable and helpful in learning about God as it points us to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not part of the Godhead as some seem to treat it.
No beating me up please 😉 I’m not an “H” word person.
LikeLike
“So how do we define love when we make the teachings of Scripture optional?”
People who can’t instinctively define love scare me. If one needs a book to learn what it is, then I would question whether that person could ever understand love.
” I believe that the Bible provides us with the framework for defining and demonstrating love.”
So do the street preachers and fundamentalists who think that “love” means beating people over the head with their version of the truth.
“It is not recognizing the authority of Scripture in the lives of disciples of Jesus that is the problem. Taking that authority as one’s own or ascribing it to other humans is the problem.”
This is circular logic, and still doesn’t answer the question that you have avoided as to who exactly gets to determine what is “right doctrine” according to the “authority of scripture.” You still seem to be claiming that you’re the one that knows what the right doctrine and use of scripture is for everyone.
Here’s a clue: I don’t want anything to do with the idolatry of the Bible and doctrine that claims to be the only authoritative interpretation. You can go and be “right” all you want; I’ll go and love people to the best of my ability, even when it may disagree with your doctrine.
LikeLike
@mwcamp, First let me say to not apply the totality of Scripture to our lives as disciples of Christ is to make Scripture optional or obsolete.
I have to disagree with your statement that Jesus did not always follow the law. I think Jesus had a better understanding of the law than the people that He was dealing with because the law is a revelation of His character and humanity’s intended character. Jesus just simply properly applied the doctrinal instruction provided by and embodied in the totality of Scripture no matter what label one affixes to it (i.e. law, grace, etc.).
As for defining love/loving, I do not think it is humanly possible to arrive at a framework for genuine love, since God is love, outside of the framework provided in Scripture. Without the guidance of the Spirit through His written words and personal guidance human corruption will pollute the defining and the demonstration of love. We see this in Hitler’s “love” of Germany, that cannot be substantiated by Scripture, that plunged the world into war and fueled human atrocities. We see this “love” in the opposition to the emancipation of the southern slaves, that cannot be substantiated by Scripture, because they were thought to not be able to take care of themselves since they had no material resources.
Scripture understood by those redeemed and reconciled to God and guided by the Spirit reveal the framework for true love that issues in benevolence, sacrifice, deference, edification, correction, instruction, acceptance, etc. It is not the emphasis on the Spirit speaking through His written word that is the problem. It is the failure to listen to all that the Spirit has and is saying through His word.
LikeLike
To clarify my last comment, I would have rather said, “instinctively know what love is” in my first statement.
When we have to limit an ineffable thing such as love to mere words, we are removing the power and wondrousness of it, seeking to fit it into our own personal doctrines. Love, and the expression of love, is different for, and to each individual, in their own circumstances. Saying that “Love is x, and should be demonstrated in this way, is to basically admit that one has no understanding of love.
LikeLike
Wesley,
You’re still making the apparent claim that you know what the proper understanding of scripture is when you claim, “Scripture understood by those redeemed and reconciled to God and guided by the Spirit reveal the framework for true love that issues in benevolence, sacrifice, deference, edification, correction, instruction, acceptance, etc. It is not the emphasis on the Spirit speaking through His written word that is the problem. It is the failure to listen to all that the Spirit has and is saying through His word.”
Who exactly are you to know perfectly who is redeemed and reconciled to God? Why didn’t the rest of us get the memo from God telling us that you’re the one that can tell us what “right doctrine” is? You’re basically doing the same thing that Julie Anne is writing about in this post, saying that everyone else is wrong, but you’ve got it right. I’m sure CJ and his defenders would appreciate your dogmatism.
LikeLike
@Eric, my previous post describes the problem with assuming that everyone will just arrive at the same definition of love as Eric or even Wesley. That is why Scripture provides the framework for understanding and demonstrating love.
No circular reasoning unless someone else is in control of your life. No one can make me do anything that I do not want to do especially as it pertains to how I worship and serve God as an individual and corporately as a part of a local assembly. The Spirit guides me using His words (the Bible) and His presence. I don’t see why that would be any different for anyone else.
No idolatry involved. God has given us the Bible to reveal Himself and His purposes to us. It is no more idolatry to obey what He teaches us through Scripture than it is idolatry to obey the speed limit signs. Both give us guidance to enhance our lives and the lives of others. Is it idolatry for someone to be right and someone to be wrong? I don’t think so and I don’t think you are anyone else would apply that line of reasoning to any other area of human activity. I am amazed that truth and right can be ascertained in every area of life except humanity’s interaction with God. I reject this easy way out of doing as Jesus did and teach the hard things while loving those who don’t grasp or disagree with the hard sayings. That is the love that Jesus modeled and the love that was missing at SGM.
LikeLike
Not that I would wish abuse on anyone – – ever – – but I wonder how these abuse issues would have been dealt with if it was a pastor’s kid who was abused. Would doctrine come before love and appropriate response?
LikeLike
@Eric, LOL……..You must be speed reading my posts. I do the same thing sometimes.
Let me be clear. I am the only one who knows perfectly that I am redeemed and reconciled to God. I am the only one who knows what the proper understanding and application of Scripture for me in my context is. God probably didn’t send you the memo because I have this responsibility and exercise this duty only for Wesley Roy.
Scripture clearly teaches that each person is to be persuaded in their own heart or what they are doing is not of faith and is therefore sin. I do believe that God calls and gives people as gifts to the church to interpret and explain the doctrines of the Bible to the congregation (Ephesians 4). I also know that Scripture presents the doctrinal truth that these people are gifts and not lords over the people so God doesn’t give them any way to force people to accept their teachings.
Now it is my turn. You are basically doing what JA is writing about in this post, saying that everyone else is wrong and they must see things exactly as you do. CJ and his defenders would be proud of the way that you insist that my understanding of Scripture is faulty and only you know how I should interpret and apply Scripture. 🙂
LikeLike
@Wesley
Now you’re talking out of both sides of your head. “The Spirit guides me using His words (the Bible) and His presence. I don’t see why that would be any different for anyone else.”
Yet you still leave no room for any viewpoint other than your own. No matter how you choose to frame it in words, you’re still defaulting to the, “God said it, I believe it, and that’s that” fallacy. You make the assumption that you have it right, and that anyone that has a differing opinion obviously isn’t being led by the Holy Spirit. And you are making an idol of the Bible, you simply refuse to admit it to yourself. “God has given us the Bible to reveal Himself and His purposes to us. It is no more idolatry to obey what He teaches us through Scripture than it is idolatry to obey the speed limit signs. Both give us guidance to enhance our lives and the lives of others. Is it idolatry for someone to be right and someone to be wrong?”
It’s idolatry to think that what you think you understand from the Bible, and the supremacy you’re placing on it, is what is right for everyone. Please explain to us all how you know definitively that your viewpoint on the Bible and doctrines are perfectly correct.
LikeLike
@JA, I think you are giving doctrine a bad rap. I don’t know much about the doctrine of SGM but I am pretty sure that there is not a doctrinal stance that allows for the shielding of child molesters. I think this is evident by the many that are leaving SGM as a result of these things coming to light. The problem is a corruption of humanity and an absence of the Holy Spirit and/or a failure to be guided by the words or presence of the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
“LOL……..You must be speed reading my posts. I do the same thing sometimes.”
Now you’re projecting your own faults onto others under an assumption.
” I am the only one who knows perfectly that I am redeemed and reconciled to God. I am the only one who knows what the proper understanding and application of Scripture for me in my context is. God probably didn’t send you the memo because I have this responsibility and exercise this duty only for Wesley Roy.”
Well, finally you’re getting real with the rest of us. Perhaps you’d like to go back and re-read the dogmatism in your previous posts where you basically claimed that you’ve got it right for everyone, and not just yourself.
“Now it is my turn. You are basically doing what JA is writing about in this post, saying that everyone else is wrong and they must see things exactly as you do. CJ and his defenders would be proud of the way that you insist that my understanding of Scripture is faulty and only you know how I should interpret and apply Scripture. “
You obviously have trouble with reading comprehension and logic.
LikeLike
JA wrote: “but I wonder how these abuse issues would have been dealt with if it was a pastor’s kid who was abused. Would doctrine come before love and appropriate response?”
I’d say it would depend on the Pastor. I’d be willing to wager that there are some that would put doctrine ahead of their own families. If that weren’t the case, the Richard Beck would have never thought to write, “When you hear a person say that they love God more than people they are preparing to hurt someone.”
LikeLike
Technically, ‘doctrine’ simply means teaching. It has come to mean, however, a body of beliefs that distinguishes one church or denomination from another. Put another way, doctrine identifies my team. In many discussions about the good or evil of doctrine those who are “pro” doctrine tend to mean teaching and those who are “anti” tend to mean the whole way of thinking that results in Christian teams.
For myself, I think the real problem is arrogance. When we think we see things from God’s point of view (which is impossible because we’re finite) we’re arrogant. We fall into being quick to speak and unable to listen. We become fools and even do outrageously stupid and hurtful things like forcing a three year old to forgive an abuser. I believe we can all fall in this way. I know I’m vulnerable. The problem isn’t any particular set of teachings, it’s not reformed or Arminian, it’s arrogance.
LikeLike
@Eric, so what makes your stance any different than mine? I say that I can know right and wrong in both principle and practice from the guidance of the Holy Spirit through His word and His presence. You say I can’t. So why should I accept your view over mine?
I think you need to read my last post slowly so that you can see that as a part of a local congregation God has placed people in my life that teach me as well. Some of these people stand behind pulpits and some of them don’t. Some of them are men and women and some of them are boys and girls.
Let me help you understand my stance ( if you will read the post slowly). I believe that God revealed Himself and His will to humanity through progressive revelation in the written word and in the living Word, Jesus Christ. I also believe that doctrinal knowledge is progressive as well. That means that I am doing what I know to be right in its entirety today but as I grow and mature and God uses Scripture, people, circumstances, congregational life, blogs, etc. that my understanding will increase and my understanding and application will change. I think this is what Scripture is talking about when it speaks of GROWING in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. This means that I do not have perfect and complete knowledge now but I must live and operate with the knowledge that I do have. This means that I do not go around saying, “I really don’t know and I really don’t think anyone can know anything” but instead I say, “To the best of my knowledge”. I am not afraid or ashamed to say that I was mistaken when that mistake is revealed to me. I am not ashamed to say, “my little 3 year old taught me …” or “sister so-and-so helped me to understand …” or “I never knew how to live out …….. until I saw so-and-so doing it”, etc. I am not ashamed to say, “I don’t know”.
Hopefully that will help everyone to understand why I will not be brow-beaten and belittled into denying what I believe is true. I don’t think covering up child molestation is right under any conditions but I don’t think denying that truth can be known is right under any conditions either.
LikeLike
Julie Anne:
I don’t know why this popped into my head during this discussion, but can you tell us if you weigh the same as a duck? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJFA6uEfUlM LOL!
LikeLike
@Eric, You are too funny. You can read into my posts and it is okay but when I do it I have reading comprehension problems……..LOL. I would consider your posts spiritual abuse if CJ was posting them instead of you but I know you have my best interest at heart and would not do anything to hurt me. 🙂
LikeLike
“@Eric, so what makes your stance any different than mine? I say that I can know right and wrong in both principle and practice from the guidance of the Holy Spirit through His word and His presence. You say I can’t. So why should I accept your view over mine?”
Here’s where I know that you either don’t understand what I wrote, or are just being disingenuous. I never said that you can’t or don’t understand the truth, just that you don’t have the definitive truth for everyone, as you asserted in your earlier posts. Nor did I ever claim to have a definitive truth for everyone: my argument was solely towards your obtuse and self-centered claims. Now, you’re trying to turn tail and make assertions that were never there in the first place. You’re trying to call me a liar in an underhanded way, yet giving yourself permission to lie about the statements of others. I’m done with your trolling.
LikeLike
Wesley Roy…
Eric Fry…
Wesley Roy…
Eric Fry…
Anyone remember a Sixties/Seventies TV sitcom called “Julia” starring Diahann Caroll? Well, there was a recurring sight gag in it with the two little boys going back and forth “DID NOT!” “DID SO!” “DID NOT!” “DID SO!”
LikeLike
Wesley said:
I don’t think doctrine by itself is bad, Wesley. It is the obsession with a doctrinal stance, making it an idol which is what I’m talking about. It happened in my old church, too. CON thought he could handle the perpetrator on his own – focus with the issues of sin, the spiritual way, the “godly” way. SGM, like my pastor, was so focused on sin/repentance/forgiveness, they lacked common sense. They put that doctrine (false doctrine) ahead of love and appropriate response. I’ll bet CON still thinks he handled it the right way and the evil govt came in and made it get all needlessly messy by taking the kid away from his family, questioning the kids, etc.
LikeLike
@Eric, let’s cut to the chase. Drop the ad hominem statements because they are wasted on me. Quote the statement I made that indicated that I thought I had the definitive truth for everyone. When you fail to find it then you will be free to admit you misunderstood or have a reading comprehension problem. 🙂
Sorry if anything that I wrote gave you the impression I was trying to call you a liar. If I wanted to call you a liar I wouldn’t hesitate to just simply say it.
LikeLike
Ken, it’s interesting that my pastor felt no shame or failure when he lost. He just whined about not getting his day in court because we anti-SLAPPED him. — Julie Anne
Though the 18-page Online Manifesto sounds really OCD.
LikeLike
@JA, I agree with you totally when you call it a focus on false doctrine.
@HUG…..LOL…….:-) . I have a bunch of children and I have heard that exchange many times.
LikeLike
I am entertaining the thought that knowledge of the Bible and of true doctrine, without more, are essentially useless. The acquisition of head knowledge, though necessary, is barely a start. It is only through the Spirit empowered pursuit of JESUS, including consistent, ongoing, trusting, obedient, allegiance to Him, that either the Bible or doctrine (however true) can contribute to our attainment of that which is set before us.
To study the Bible and doctrine without applying them in such a lived-out pursuit of Jesus is like studying music without practicing an instrument. One can learn all about treble clefs and bass clefs, notes and time signatures, one can even progress to the taking of college level courses in music theory–but none of this, without more, will enable a person to play the violin. No, one must pick up the instrument and learn to play it through long years of disciplined practice. Otherwise, even though one should acquire knowledge to teach graduate level courses in music theory, they are no musician. Nor do they really even understand the notes on a sheet of music, much less the principles of music theory.
If I do not practice the faith revealed in Scripture, I cannot become truly Christian. In such a case the possession of a graduate degree in doctrinal theory would be worthless, and worse than worthless–it would lead to pride.
LikeLike
Craig said: The problem isn’t any particular set of teachings, it’s not reformed or Arminian, it’s arrogance.
I agree that the ultimate problem is arrogance, but it is still my belief that they are using “doctrine” as the vehicle by which they get to that arrogance. Tell me if that makes any sense – lol. Everything seems to get filtered through their idea of proper doctrine. That’s why I believe CJ gets a free pass because he manipulated a whole church into this doctrinal system. BTW, it was fascinating to read about this on SGMSurvivors over the years. Members did not even realize that this switch was happening until it was over. Is that not creepy or what? He didn’t come out and say: “Hey all, ya know we’re Arminian. well, we’re switching over to Reformed and not only Reformed, but Neo-Calvinism.” It wasn’t really publicized. ::::insert creepy music here :::::
LikeLike
Definitely, although, I would not say that the church-folk necessarily respond with appropriate humility when they are “shamed” by civil courts…. but, their response doesn’t change that fact that their “shame” is exposed. A loss in the courts often seems to harden them in their sin–
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
That makes sense. I would word it a bit differently. I would say they think they’re speaking and acting for God.
The secret switch is creepy to me too. I suspect the same source. I’ve seen this in some cults. The logic is something like “since we’re speaking for God we can lie”. That sort of logic seems to me to come from a father of lies.
LikeLike
Gary – You are speaking my language here: One can learn all about treble clefs and bass clefs, notes and time signatures, one can even progress to the taking of college level courses in music theory–but none of this, without more, will enable a person to play the violin.
Today I had the opportunity to lead the high school choir class while the teacher was away (I’m not an official substitute, so a sub comes in and sits in the back). Anyway, we were practicing sight-singing which is an amazing vocal skill. Using solfege (Do-Re-Mi), we teach the kids to follow the notes on the music and sing music they’ve never seen before without the aid of a piano spoon-feeding the notes.
Your comment reminded me of this. These kids had to have the knowledge of theory and lots of practice in order to produce music so beautifully as they did today. I had to explain to the sub what they were doing – – -that the kids had never before seen the music. I gave them the starting note on the piano and they sang through the whole piece using those skills.
I think this all comes back to your heart. You can have knowledge of love, but not love. You can understand compassion and not have compassion. You can know doctrine and not adhere to it. The fruit is in the action – -the beautiful music.
LikeLike
Craig – I like the way you worded it. You are good with words.
Ken – I agree with you on the hardened hearts 😦 What a shame.
LikeLike
Gary W wrote: “It is only through the Spirit empowered pursuit of JESUS, including consistent, ongoing, trusting, obedient, allegiance to Him, that either the Bible or doctrine (however true) can contribute to our attainment of that which is set before us.”
I have little doubt that Mahaney and his enablers believe they are doing precisely that. How do we know that they aren’t? And how do we show them that they aren’t?
LikeLike
Just a couple of thoughts from a Presbyterian on this one:
I grew up in a church where right doctrine was defined by the pastor. My reaction to that was to end up in a church that professed to be more about love than doctrine. The problem there was all of the doctrine that was being imbibed without knowing it.
So I ended up a Presbyterian, where I have a set of doctrinal standards (the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechism) that anybody can pick up and read. And if I get out of line, there are elders in my session, presbytery, synod, and General Assembly that can snatch me up.
The other thought is that the sole expectation (doctrinally speaking) for church membership is that (1) our members confess that they believe that Bible is the Word of God and that it’s doctrine of salvation is true and perfect, (2) confess their sincere belief in the Trinity, (3) confess that they have repented of sin and trusted in Christ alone for salvation, and (4) promise to work to maintain the peace and purity of the church.
That means that I don’t expect that every church member agrees with me on every doctrinal point. They don’t have to, and I’m glad that some of them don’t. I’m the only one that has to subscribe the Westminster Standards. They don’t have to be Calvinists, or hold to infant baptism.
Ultimately, I don’t think the problem in SGM was the doctrine, I think that it was the arrogance of the pastors. Anytime you have a pastor who believes that his authority is unquestionable, things are bound to go bad. The only one who enjoys that sort of unquestioned authority is God. I don’t. If anyone starts thinking their pastor does, someone needs to have a talk with them about idolatry.
LikeLike
Jeff –
I, too, think that Mahaney et al believe they are right. They won’t listen to anyone who hasn’t passed their doctrine test. They turn it around onto you – that you are the problem and don’t understand. Or you are being divisive by interfering. You don’t have the full understanding of God, His word, etc. They are the authority on these things. I’ve seen this happen over and over again. It’s that arrogance that Craig was talking about.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing, Benjamin. A lot of what you describe seems quite balanced and healthy to me. I completely agree with you on arrogance and idolatry, as well.
I’m not sold on church membership, though. We just got a mailing that was sent to church attenders who have not become members. Although I understand why they want people to become members, I’m gun shy right now and shredded it. I don’t know if any church members read my blog. I may be busted now. oops
LikeLike
Believe me, I understand why folks are gun shy when I comes to church membership—especially right now. I just had a similar conversation with a ministerial candidate at our presbytery meeting. He waxed rhapsodic about how wonderful Presbyterian church government was; I’m less enthused. I reminded him that Presbyterianism (as a form of government) completely failed J. Gresham Machen.
In the end, no form of government is going to rise higher than the men that form it. Same thing goes for church membership. I recommend (highly) that people take their time visiting before they take any further steps. If the pastor doesn’t like that you’ve been visiting for a year and haven’t taken formal steps to join yet, then leave. There’s something very wrong.
LikeLike
We’ve been there almost 2 years and have heard no complaints. Whew. He knows of the old church situation and lawsuit and I’ve joked with him asking him if there’s a recording device in his office. 🙂 He’s got a great sense of humor. He’s probably more knowledgable about spiritual abuse than most pastors – – – and that might be why he hasn’t personally asked.
LikeLike
Jeff Brown asks along the lines of how can we know that Mahaney and his enablers aren’t walking the walk, and how can we show them that they aren’t?” I suggest that it is appropriate to judge (not condemn) them by their fruit. See generally Mt. 7:15-19, and specifically verse 18: “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.” (ESV). As to the question how we show them they aren’t acting appropriately, I suggest that it is likely dangerous to try. This is especially the case if it is true that they defend by attacking those who question them. “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” Mt. 7:6, ESV. While Jesus’ teaching was specific to a particular future event, I suggest that it is always wise to flee when confronted with that which is abominable and is causing desolation. Mt. 24:15-18, ESV. We may warn. Some may be called, even compelled, to confront, such as by litigation. Even in such cases, however, I am inclined to counsel flight as an essential prerequisite.
LikeLike
Wesley, you crack me up with your statement @1:46 “Let me be clear”. Wow, where have we heard that before, sometimes several times a day? Hmmm…lol. Every time I hear that statement, I have tons more questions.
Just kidding on the last paragraph, but if we are going to talk doctrine, let’s really be clear that Calvinism doctrine is false doctrine and THAT false doctrine is being spread like wild fire. What IS the doctrine of Jesus? Let’s answer that one, rather than just stating that his doctrine is not his doctrine but that of the Father. We all know that. Again, lets be REALLY clear, what IS the doctrine of Jesus? What IS the doctrine of the Apostle Paul?
Let’s be clear, that there is doctrine being taught that is not endorsed in the Bible, such as it’s a sin to watch television, it is a sin to grow a beard, it is a sin for a woman to wear a pant suit…etc., etc., etc. I could go on for a whole day on man made doctrines that the Calvinists make up, that the Pentecostals make up, and so on, and so on, etc. These are all doctrines.
The ONLY doctrine that I believe that Jesus taught was salvation of lost sheep is easy. Give Jesus your load and RELAX (submit). Quit walking on egg shells. If you are loving your neighbor, the law is ALREADY being obeyed without you even thinking about it.
That is the doctrine of Christ that I know.
LikeLike
@Chap, I agree there are many man-made doctrines that are not found in Scripture but I must also say that Scripture teaches those who are redeemed how to live in a way that reflects the outworking of saving grace. I understand the Bible to teach salvation by grace through faith meaning that salvation is neither gained nor maintained. Scripture deals more with our attitude than with our actions as it explains what the outworking of salvation looks like in the life of believers. A good example of this is the Sermon on the Mount. Attitudes are always attached to and the driving force behind actions in this passage.
@Gary, I do not think that people can understand the doctrine set forth in Scripture until they are converted and the Holy Spirit is working to enlighten their understanding. The Bible clearly teaches that the natural man does not understand the things of God without the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned. Many guys stand in the pulpits of America not because they have been genuinely converted and have a desire to see God’s people grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ but because they are following in daddy’s footsteps. This may be great in business but it is horrible in ministry. So I think that we are in agreement on this point.
@JA, the music illustration is an excellent illustration of the Christian life. The problem is that accomplished musicians only come as a result of years of practice and years of mistakes and years of learning. Though “pastors” are not to be novices, they still have to be given opportunity to continue to practice, to continue to make mistakes, and to continue to learn like any other Christian. Now I am not classing covering up child molestation or not reporting child molesters to the civil authorities as a mistake or growth point. However, stubbornness may be an issue where practice, mistakes, and growth come into play. I think the ultimate test is whether or not the person is willing to learn. If a person thinks that their gifting to preach or teach also makes them the expert on mercy, helping, administration, etc. then you probably are dealing with a novice or an unconverted person and they should not be “eldering” God’s people.
@ the original post, I have to agree with those who state that SGM’s problem stems from arrogance. I think a red flag should go up when men assume an apostolic office over a group of churches like the first century Apostles did. The simple fact that they would call themselves apostles would be an eyebrow raiser for me. Then when they sought to control these churches instead of offer their counsel as Paul did another red flag would go up. Paul is weighty in his first letter to Corinth but he never shows up to enforce it. It is left up to the people in the church and their leaders to determine how they will deal with the issues. My third red flag would go up when these guys ignored their responsibility to report criminal activity to the law enforcement agencies. Paul said that if he had done anything worthy of death that he refused not to die and was willing to appeal to the not so tender mercies of Caesar. He had no problem dealing with the civil authorities. So I do not think it was an emphasis on doctrine but instead an emphasis on ignoring the doctrine of Romans 13 and trying to hold to an apostolic authority that they never possessed. In the immortal words of Silver Surfer, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” (though I vaguely remember a reference to someone saying that before SS 🙂 ).
LikeLike
Wesley, in regards to your response to me, I agree, but it can be summed up in this statement, “What does Love Look Like?”, which is another way of saying that if you love your neighbor, you are not breaking the law, nor are you thinking anything about the law. Love fulfills the law. Whatever love looks like is the Christian conduct. But I guess that love looks different to the Calvinists than it does to the NORMAL Christian person.
In a nutshell, Christianity is so easy…it’s these so called experts at the pulpit, who are supposedly growing???, right???, who make it difficult. How long did it take the Apostle Paul to grow? Seems like he grew in about a 14 year period BEFORE he began spreading the gospel of Jesus, which is the doctrine of Paul. How many mistakes did Paul make during his preaching? I would say….NONE. He told people to be like him. Was he given the opportunity to “make mistakes”?
Oh, and speaking of civil authorities, the Jews had the Sanhedrin, and I do believe that Jesus mentions them in the Sermon on the Mount. I think that Jesus endorsed the us of the Sanhedrin in regards to civil and criminal cases.
LikeLike
I think that it is entirely possible to over-emphasize doctrine, even if one’s doctrine is correct. One of the criteria of “thought reform” that Robert Lifton spelled out years ago is “Doctrine Over Person”. He defined it as follows: “Members’ personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science (i.e. doctrine or ideology, considered to be Ultimate Truth). Any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.”
I think that whenever any doctrine or teaching becomes more important than the needs, concerns and experiences of people, something is terribly wrong. Earlier, HUG wondered whether the attitudes of some Neo-Calvinist leaders is any different from that of Communist nations (interesting, since the focus of Lifton’s study was Communist China). He may have a point.
Welsey said above, “SGM’s problem is that their “doctrinal” emphasis was … focused on “man’s” glory instead of God’s glory.” I’m not so sure. From what I’ve read, I certainly agree with him (and Craig) that arrogance is a huge problem within Sovereign Grace. But it’s still possible that they’re focused (or at least they think they’re focused) on God’s glory.
Perhaps their arrogance is their certainty that they, and only they, have The Right Doctrine. Lifton would call this “sacred science” — Ultimate Truth, beyond question or reproach, which no other group knows or understands. If so, they may very well be willing to do anything, even trample over their parishioners, for the sake of their Ultimate Truth, thinking that God cannot possibly be glorified without them or their doctrine. (“We’ve got to preserve our ministry, or all God’s people will turn into Arminians!!”) I think if anyone is convinced that only he has the corner on Truth, he’ll eventually convince himself that God can’t do without his teaching (and therefore, his ministry). Wrongheaded and arrogant, no matter how faithful the doctrine may be to Scripture.
(Boy, I used a lot of words. I hope I said something meaningful. 🙂 )
LikeLike
Serving in Japan – I’m glad you used a lot of words. I think you are expressing what I was attempting to express the most and I found it fascinating, (yet I shouldn’t be surprised) that you referred to Lifton’s work, because I truly believe these guys to be spiritual abusers on the same order of cult leaders. Yes, they are absolutely arrogant, but I still believe their god is doctrine. Lifton’s “Doctrine over Person” example lines up with what’s been going around in my mind.
LikeLike
Wesley, at 7:44 p.m. you state,
Although it contains a bit of interpretive gloss, your first sentence is, of course, based on Scripture. Eph 2:8-9. However, when you go on to say that Scripture deals more with our attitude than with our actions I begin to squirm. After the Ephesians passage proclaiming salvation by faith, not works, lest any man should boast, the very next verse is
At the end of what we call the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says,
and,
In another place we read concerning Jesus,
You will be aware that the Eph. 2:8-9 passage is incomplete inasmuch as James 2:24 informs us that “a person is justified by WORKS and not by faith alone.” In the parable, the son exhibited great attitude when he told his father that he would work in the vineyard but did not. The son that said he would not go exhibited lousy attitude, but was justified by his works when he did as the father requested. Mt. 29:28-31b. Quoted Scripture ESV, emphasis added.
Evangelicals can seem to have an allergic reaction at the slightest whiff of works, whether in their thinking or in their doing. The problem, however, is not with the pursuit of works; it is with the striving for merit. I submit that, in the interests of proclaiming the whole truth, the Eph. 2:8-9 passage should never, ever, be quoted or even referred to without also quoting or referring to verse 10, and also James 2:24.
LikeLike
So well put, Serving in Japan.
What you described is EXACTLY how it was within SG. The only worship songs that were permitted were God-focused, God glorifying songs. If a song had too much “I” language, it wouldn’t be used on a Sunday morning. The pastors spent much time and prayer in preparing sermons. At face value, SG was very good at “doctrine.” The problem was exactly as you said it: “I think if anyone is convinced that only he has the corner on Truth, he’ll eventually convince himself that God can’t do without his teaching (and therefore, his ministry). Wrongheaded and arrogant, no matter how faithful the doctrine may be to Scripture.”
Ask any one who used to be a part of SG. We were programmed to think that we had the corner on the Truth. And other Christians knew us to be that way, to the point that a Christian coworker of mine once asked if I thought my church was the only true church (because that is how it was perceived in the community).
Leaders didn’t explicitly state that only Reformed churches were legit, but they basically said as much. When new church plants were in the works, they would search an area not for how many churches were in existence, but specifically “Gospel centered churches.” This did not actually mean THE GOSPEL, as in churches that taught that Jesus came and lived and died for our sins and rose again. This meant, churches that believed like we did, that emphasized the principles of Calvinism.
LikeLike
RP – See, this is why I got so hooked at SGMSurvivors. My experience was so much like it. I didn’t even know what Calvinism or Reformed meant (my husband did). I was too busy homeschooling, having/nursing babies. I knew it was some doctrine thing. Just didn’t have time nor desire to want to learn about it.
Your last paragraph nailed it:
Everything was measured on the my pastor’s doctrine scale. He had us all trained. The church members knew it and everybody’s theology was under the microscope: local pastors, pastors on the radio, celebrity pastors, etc. Very few people would measure up. John MacArthur did on most things, but you see my pastor was even better than him. This was not only done for pastors, but for ordinary Christians we came in contact with. We were trained to test everybody. If someone was slightly off, they would need to be warned/corrected directly or warned about. People who didn’t cross every T or dot every I didn’t pass. These folks were held at arm’s length. Doctrine was god.
LikeLike
At 3:36, I wrote: “Gary W wrote: ‘It is only through the Spirit empowered pursuit of JESUS, including consistent, ongoing, trusting, obedient, allegiance to Him, that either the Bible or doctrine (however true) can contribute to our attainment of that which is set before us.’
I have little doubt that Mahaney and his enablers believe they are doing precisely that. How do we know that they aren’t? And how do we show them that they aren’t?”
The answer to my questions is merely that we must consult the Spirit-inspired Bible. The discussion was turning into a false division between the “head knowledge” of the Bible and the love that we must generate within ourselves. The truth is that love interweaves with doctrine in Scripture. You can’t go too far reading doctrine without love and compassion for people making their appearance. And I agree with Wesley that Scripture talks about a type of love that isn’t necessarily self-evident to us. That doesn’t mean that we have to constantly worry abut whether we are loving “correctly” – that turns into another type of bondage.
I don’t think it’s bibliolatry to acknowledge that the Bible is revelation from God that we can get from no where else. Admittedly, we have to deal with the problems of interpretation and man’s distortion of Scripture to suit his own tastes. But, despite these and many more problems, we mustn’t confuse Scripture itself with man’s problems with it.
How often do we hear today the necessity of humbling ourselves before the Word? I realize that this can sound like idolatry, and it can become that. What I mean is, with the Spirit’s aid, and in good faith, trying to see what is actually there instead of what we want to see there. No, we will not see it perfectly clearly, but we might come close. And then we will apply it not according to our preferences, but more or less close to how God wants us to.
Did God really inspire this book (books) or did He not? And if He did, would He have done it in such a way that we wouldn’t be able to understand it?
LikeLike
JA, pretty sure your old pastor would have been chummy with SG peeps. I think there are many like you were, who are just going about their walks with God, not even knowing of the huge debates between the two camps. Whenever I find myself in conversation with another Christian who has never heard of Reformed Theology, Calvin/Arminian doctrine, I find myself envious. I wish I could unlearn all that
superfluous stuff.
Jeff, I think I sort of agree with you, but I think there is a VERY fine line between agree that God’s words is inspired, and taking that a step further and assuming that since it is inspired, that MY understanding of it is always correct. To answer your last question, yes, actually I do think God made the Bible that it is not always understandable. I am beyond the point of caring if anyone thinks this sounds heretical. The Word talks about the mystery of the Gospel, and mentions in many places how we are not fully able to grasp. God has revealed clearly a main theme in the Bible that IS understandable, that we are broken and in need of redemption, and that He has provided us a redeemer. Beyond that, I would say, yes, God made it more complex and beautiful than simply being able to be understood at face value. That doesn’t devalue its authority or infallibility. It just brings us as hearers of the Word to a place of humility.
Since leaving SG, I feel free to admit to nonbelieving friends that I don’t understand 100% of the Bible, that there are certain parts that were written with the intent of being read literally and others that weren’t, etc. I never, ever want to be in the place again of thinking I know the RIGHT way of interpreting scripture. I would much rather be someone who people see Jesus through than someone who is sure they are right.
LikeLike
@Wesley Roy,
I find the terms you frame the argument with impossible to put my hands on and find any common ground to have a discussion.
Let’s take one statement of yours:
One can pretty much replace the world “doctrine” with any cause of his choice. I can picture a liberal who is all about love saying the very same. Love does not work when it is human or misapplied and you can never love too much. Or take the Holy Spirit. I can see a charismatic obsessed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit using your statement to advance his agenda. It is all about the Holy Spirit and when it goes wrong, it is due to misapplication or human involvement.
The terms you lay out are circular and evasive, which is what makes them difficult to argue against.
As to the debate on works vs. doctrine, in Revelation 2 and 3, Jesus’ assessments of the seven churches are a mixed bag of praises and mild to strong criticisms. Only in two instances does Jesus makes statements regarding false teachers (Pergamum and Thyratira), but not once does he rave about “great teaching.” He comes somewhat close to doing that with the Ephesian church (“you put to the test those who call themselves apostles”), but the church’s lack of love cancels out any semblance of doctrinal correctness.
Almost every statement about a church starts with “I know your deeds.” That is a scary statement to me personally. He does not say “I know your doctrines.” I think I can handle that a lot better than “I know your deeds.”
I also find Christ’s scathing assessment of the Laodicean church interesting. Contrary to popular belief, he is not taking the church to task for its wish-washy liberalism. The church is very self-congratulatory in its self assessment (“I am rich, and have become wealthy”) and that really sets Christ off. It sounds more like the conservative Evangelical bubble where everything in it is sound and safe, while everything outside dangerous and evil. Conservative Evangelical churches tend to be very very self-congratulatory (great teaching! great leadership! great fellowship! great accountability!, etc. etc.)
LikeLike
Okay, that was too long 🙂
LikeLike
Amen, David C. I also found Wesley’s arguments to be circular. I almost copied and pasted one of his posts and replaced each use of the word doctrine with “Jesus”. If it read like that, I would be in full agreement.
At one point Wesley said, “Holiness and Love are both doctrinal equals and neither can be excluded and the other maintained.” What say you about the entire book of 1 John, Wesley? It seems one of these is indeed much more emphasized by our Lord than the other. Perfect love casts out fear. If we know deeply that we were first loved, we are freed to love others. Through experiencing and living out love, we grow in holiness. So yes they are intertwined, but love trumps all.
LikeLike
I think that the disconnect in the conversation is in the fact that I do not believe that people have an innate understanding of love so without salvation and the doctrinal instruction given in Scripture our concepts of love are always warped.
Two people commented on the necessity of works in the Christian life. I have no disagreement with that. I believe Scripture to teach works springing from love for God which results in love for our neighbors is the natural outworking of salvation. I also believe that where those works are absent there is no salvation. However, I do not believe anyone can say they know a person is converted or unconverted because of the works they see in their lives. I say this because we do not know what the starting point was in the life of the person so we do not know to what extent God has wrought grace and love in the life of the person.
I guess I should clarify my statement about the Sermon on the Mount. The sermon like the book of I John deal with proper actions resulting from a proper understanding of doctrine and a proper relationship with God done with the proper motive or attitude. RP said that he believes God to be emphasizing love above doctrine in 1 John. I don’t think that is correct because love is as doctrinal as holiness. I will admit that when the Bible is not taken as a whole, kind of like SGM does in some instances, then it will seem to elevate one doctrine such as love or grace or law above another. This is one of the reasons that the selective approach to Scripture that is so popular today is so dangerous–All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable …
Let me summarize my position with a couple of linear statements. I believe doctrine to be nothing more than something that is taught. I believe all humans practice a corrupted love until they are taught by God how to love. I believe this instruction begins at salvation and is carried out through the Spirit working through Scripture and His presence to teach us to love God and others. I believe that doctrine was conveyed by Christ through academics and example and should be conveyed the same way today.
LikeLike
Wesley,
I fully agree with your last paragraph. I think it is important for each one of us to learn what love looks like, because love can be seen. Love is an action word, not just an emotion. But we can’t forget that it is also an emotion, because love is something that you can feel within you.
In my opinion, I believe that the Sermon on the Mount, and most of the New Test, was to show that you cannot merit God’s grace by obeying any law, or rule, or ritual, and that the result of attempting to obey such is only going to get you dirtier in God’s eyes, because we end up disobeying laws, rules, and rituals. Get rid of all of those things, and you get grace in its place.
To summarize my opinion, the doctrine is Law (result is sin) vs. Grace (Result is Salvation), rather than law plus grace. When we put James 1-2 together, it is faith without love is dead. But I think there are many who teach that “OBEDIENCE” means that we must obey this rule, and that rule, and this law and that law. The doctrine of “OBEDIENCE” is way off base, in my opinion.
To put it in a child like manner, which Jesus endorses:
“Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so, little ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong.”
The Doctrine of the Calvinists pretty much would have a hey day with that song, because they would and do argue that not all little ones to him belong.
Children who have no clue about doctrine, but naturally knows about love, gets it more than adults who fight and argue as to what the proper doctrines are, and adults have a distorted perception of what love looks like.
Ed
LikeLike
@Chap, no disagreement on my part. I, however, do view the law a little differently. I do not see the law as opposing grace but instead revealing the need of grace and the evidence of grace working in our lives. I believe the law to be the revelation of God’s moral character and it shows our inability to really be righteous and our need of God’s grace through Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary to reconcile us to God. I come down a little differently with the OT being written to show us we cannot merit God’s favor through keeping the law and then the NT showing us how that the application of God’s grace through Jesus’ sacrifice reconciles us to God in relationship and practice.
Now my question. What about 1 John 5:3–For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1 John 5:3)? In the interest of full disclosure I will state my take up front: When we love God because we have first embraced the Gospel that demonstrates His love for us (1 John 4:19) this is demonstrated by our keeping His commandments. The qualifier is that salvation so change us by reconciliation and restoration that the commandments that were once a burden are no longer grievous but a joy to follow because the law now is a revelation of our moral character as restored image bearers of God. I also want to be clear that I believe this is progressive and part of the practical sanctification process. I also believe that when this is forced on people it has the potential to be very damaging by producing hypocrisy and bitterness instead of joy.
LikeLike
Wesley, You asked, “Now my question. What about 1 John 5:3–For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1 John 5:3)?”
The answer is: His commandments under the New Test is only 2:
1. Love God, and
2. Love people.
Love fulfills the commandments (The Law).
That is not grievous.
I have heard many times before what you explained, which is:
“the commandments that were once a burden are no longer grievous but a joy to follow because the law now is a revelation of our moral character as restored image bearers of God.”
A joy? Really?
People seem to forget that Abraham didn’t have any of the Law of Moses…some even preach that Abraham actually did have the Law of Moses, but it just wasn’t codified yet. I find that to be laughable.
We are children of Abraham, who did not have the law. It is NOT a joy to be obedient to law of Moses, but it is a joy to be obedient to the LAW OF FAITH.
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
You call the law of works (The Law of Moses) a joy. The law is not of faith, and therefore faith plays no part in the law, so therefore it can’t be a joy. Faith is a law, according to Romans 3:27.
I gotta go to work now, so I won’t be on for a few hours.
Ed
LikeLike
Jeff Brown said:
I don’t know – do you believe in pre-trib or post-trib, infant or adult baptism, Charismatic nor not? Complementarian or Egalitarian? I don’t think the Bible is that easy to understand or else we wouldn’t have had some of these debates for thousands of years. The way I look at it is the essentials seem to be pretty easy to understand, the rest – – well, they are not essential 🙂
LikeLike
Recovering Pharisee:
Based on this:
and this:
. . . . I think you need a name change to Recovered Pharisee. You ain’t drinkin’ any koolaid, friend!
LikeLike
Thanks for the quick response Chap. I thought that was what you would say.
I differ in that I do not think the Love God and Love people commandments were a replacement of the previously given commandments but a categorizing of them. I think this is supported by Jesus statement that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it and that no part of the law would be destroyed until all was fulfilled.
Now I do not believe this works out in our sacrificing an animal in an attempt to please God but instead in our having no other gods as an act of love for God. I don’t believe this works out in our not killing people because whosoever sheds man blood by man shall his blood be shed hangs over our head but instead out of love for people we do not harm them.
Because I see the law as God’s revelation of His moral character and not just arbitrary rules given to show us our inability to keep them based on the many references to His holiness and person as the reason for the laws being given, I see this moral nature as basis of our bearing the image of God since God is a spirit and not a physical being. This means that if God is immutable then His character cannot change and therefore the law that reveals His character cannot change. The joy comes when I am made a new creature by the Gospel and restored to my original moral state which makes the law as natural to me as it was to Christ.
I do think we are seeing things the same but we are explaining them differently.
LikeLike
David C said:
Very good point here. God cares about the fruit. The SGM fruit is rotten. Not only are there abused people/families who have not been taken care of, abusers who have been coddled and not dealt with appropriately, but scores and scores of people have been left in a state of spiritual confusion. The idolatry of doctrine (which is false) has left people many with no hope, can’t measure up spiritually, etc. This spiritual confusion where people have crises of faith has got to be one of the things that bothers me the most. It is, in fact, the primary reason I posted my first negative Google review. I was thinking of those who had left church altogether. I had never seen such rotten fruit. It left a stench.
LikeLike
David C said:
JA said:
LikeLike
Recovering Pharisee and Julie Anne:
When I wrote: “And if He did [inspire the Bible], would He have done it in such a way that we wouldn’t be able to understand it?”, I meant for the preceding two paragraphs to modify it. I should have placed them the other way around.
To sum it up: Man’s sin will always keep us from perfect understanding of Scripture. In the same way, our sin will always keep us from fulfilling the Law perfectly. The problem isn’t with the Bible or Law; it’s with us.
It’s true that God, in His mercy, apparently made “the main things the plain things,” but I don’t think He included anything that He didn’t intend us to at least struggle with. I think that those things He simply didn’t include at all.
I had a pastor who announced that he didn’t care about the parts of Scripture that dealt with Election and Eschatology. Some of us found this to be quite disturbing – we are talking about God’s Word, after all, even though it could be argued that they are not the main things. (Of course, I’m not ascribing this attitude to either of you.)
Anyone who claims to understand all of Scripture is a fool, but, if we come to the Word with the attitude that it knows more than we do, we have a chance of learning something. And, to circle back, one of the things we’ll learn is that love for God and man is ever-present there.
LikeLike
At 4:41 a.m. Wesley states “I believe that doctrine was conveyed by Christ through academics and example and should be conveyed the same way today.” I might prefer to say that truth, both descriptive (what is) and prescriptive (how should we live) was conveyed by Jesus by both speech and example. Still, I essentially agree with Wesley’s statement. The problem is that, the way church is done in the United States, there is speech, and more speech, and more speech, ad eternum, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. In the great majority of church organizations, there is little if any conveyance of truth (or Truth) by example.
All this may be a consequence of faulty ways in which ministers are trained. Academic training without hands-on experience is simply inadequate. Where can hands on experience be gained? Where can professional ministers (or any of us) acquire that love which will enable them to communicate Jesus by action and example? I suggest that such love is best attained by ministering to “the least of these.” Where are the least of these? On the streets and under the bridges of America’s large cities. In homeless shelters. In women’s shelters. In nursing homes and other facilities where changing adult diapers is built into the routine. In prisons. On the streets of Calcutta, now Kolkata. In the third world’s garbage dumps, all too many of which are teeming with the poorest of the poor. The list goes on, but especially in all the world’s garbage dumps teeming with the poorest of the poor.
LikeLike
Perhaps their arrogance is their certainty that they, and only they, have The Right Doctrine. Lifton would call this “sacred science” — Ultimate Truth, beyond question or reproach, which no other group knows or understands. — Serving in Japan
SiJ, isn’t that the very definition of Gnosticism? THE Speshul Sekrit Knowledge WE and WE alone possess?
LikeLike
@Gary, I agree totally with you. I would add to your list those poor neighborhoods and housing areas in America that are riddled with crime, violence, drugs, and hopelessness but void of a demonstration of God’s grace, love, and restorative gospel. I also believe the fear of the dreaded “social” gospel has crippled our churches in this area.
LikeLike
Here’s a thought that I read earlier this week, I believe that it speaks to the wisdom of those who have gone before us. “Out of their own spiritual encounters, such women as Carrie Judd Montgomery, Mary Magdalena Tate, and Frances Willard began to recognize the distance between established interpretations of Scripture and the Scriptures themselves.” (Dale Coulter in Pneuma Journal)
That’s about it, in every generation: discerning those beliefs which are “interpretations of Scripture and the Scriptures themselves” and the “distance” between them.
LikeLike
Wesley, I haven’t read the remaining comments yet, as I just got home, but I too knew that you would respond the way that you did, as well.
I know that you are a pastor, but I must humbly and respectfully disagree.
The OLD Testament was indeed REPLACED by, not included to the New Test.
What is the Old Test? It begins in Exodus 20 and ends at the end of Deuteronomy.
The book of Hebrews explains the difference and that which is old is indeed done away with.
You mentioned the following:
” I think this is supported by Jesus statement that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it and that no part of the law would be destroyed until all was fulfilled.”
Really? That is Matthew 5:17-18
The law is Genesis thru Deuteronomy, the Torah. But you missed ONE word that most people seem to miss, and that is the word “PROPHETS”.
That puts it into a different context than the one that you and the 7th Day Adventists put it in.
The Law and the Prophets is what the Jews call the TNK, or TaNak. It is the writings from Genesis thru Malachi.
It is discussing Prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 5:17. Jesus did not “fulfill” the Ten Commandments…he FULFILLED prophecy about himself.
After Jesus rose from the dead, he revealed himself using “The Law and The Prophets”.
Yes, Jesus was sinless, but that is certainly not the context of Matthew 5:17-18 as you make it to be.
Please do not make the mistake of leaving out the words “The Prophets” when referencing Matthew 5:17-18.
The 7th Day Adventist’s wish to make a distinction between law written on stone, vs the law written on parchment. The say that the law on parchment was done away with, but not the law on stone.
Funny that they say this, as they obey the food laws of Leviticus, which is written on Parchment and not on stone. Legalists, while claiming that they are not legalists. You are sounding like a legalist to me, Wes.
Ed
LikeLike
I am finding this exchange to be very helpful. It is good to have a safe place to respectfully debate. It really appears so far that those on different ends of the spectrum on our understanding of this topic are truly trying to find common ground. I think Jesus is smiling about this 🙂
My perspective is more in line Ed regarding the law, but it is good to see Gary and Wesley agreeing on this:
“@Gary, I agree totally with you. I would add to your list those poor neighborhoods and housing areas in America that are riddled with crime, violence, drugs, and hopelessness but void of a demonstration of God’s grace, love, and restorative gospel. I also believe the fear of the dreaded “social” gospel has crippled our churches in this area.”
In response to Jeff’s comment : “To sum it up: Man’s sin will always keep us from perfect understanding of Scripture. In the same way, our sin will always keep us from fulfilling the Law perfectly. The problem isn’t with the Bible or Law; it’s with us.” Again, I agree and disagree. Because we are sinners, we can’t possibly understand everything there is to know about a sin-less God. However, God also tells us to come to him as little children. I think that kind of simple, pure faith has more to do with our finiteness and simplicity than it does with our sin. Some of our reading of Scripture is jaded by our sin. But some of our limited understanding is simply because we are not God. Another example to consider is folks with disabilities. When I came to faith in Jesus, I was working with adults with disabilities and I remember this being really confusing to me. How could God will for people who don’t seem to understand the simple concepts in the Bible to never have a way to know Him? I am now perfectly comfortable with trusting that infants that die and adults with limited cognitive ability can still know God to the degree that they are able and it is not their sin that prevents them from grasping all this theology mumbo jumbo.
Thank you Julie Anne, for the name change suggestion 🙂 It made me smile. Closer to the -ed each day but still in process for sure!
Oh, and Wesley, complete side note… I’m actually a woman. I find it funny that you assumed I was a man.
LikeLike
Oh, and I have to say to Jeff that I agree with the pastor who didn’t care much about the parts of the Bible dealing with Election and Eschatology. This doesn’t mean that I approach the Bible flippantly or think that it’s impossible for me to grasp. But I just care WAY more about learning about God’s heart than about his stance on election. I would much rather spend my time loving on people who I have no idea if they are “elect” or not than dissecting the arguments for and against the very concept of election. My experiences working with developmentally disabled folks have challenged me to learn them, to see God from their eyes, and I have learned just as much about love from people who don’t have a clue what election is than I have from the Bible. Post SG era, I am more focused on worshiping God than worshiping the Bible. The Bible is one avenue that I worship Him through.
LikeLike
HUG,
You probably know more about Gnosticism than I do (I’ve never studied it in much depth). That sounds accurate to me, though.
LikeLike
Recovering Pharisee –
Yes, since we are finite, we can’t possibly know all there is to know about God. But I find it difficult to believe that, in the fraction of the knowledge about Him that He gives us in the Scriptures, He includes anything that we can’t possibly know. This does *not* mean, imo, that we are in any way penalized for not understanding everything in the Bible.
Even though we come to Him as little children, we must understand the basic content of the gospel. I agree with you concerning those who are unable to understand this content.
Our pastor was quite clear that he did not care *at all* about those two categories, not that he didn’t care about them as much as some others. He lasted about a year, btw.
LikeLike
@RP, I will remember that you are a woman. I was taught in school that when you don’t know the gender “he” is the proper pronoun to use. I know it is old-school and when I remember I try to put both options out there.
@Gary, I was not excluding the word “prophets” from my understanding of Jesus’ words. No offense taken but I simply believe the Bible to be one entire book and the progressive revelation of God and God & humanity’s interaction. So with that in mind, for me, the NT does not eradicate the OT but illuminates and completes the revelation began in the OT.
No legalism at all Chap. I do not believe circumcision or uncircumcision produces or maintains salvation.
I think you and I are really much closer to agreement than you realize. For instance, I do not see ceremonial and dietary laws as binding today. They were as the book of Hebrews puts it just types and shadows of the work of Christ and the Spirit in the lives of believers. They are excellent illustrations of what Jesus does in salvation and the Spirit does in sanctification but they do not produce either salvation or sanctification.
LikeLike
Wesley,
I am not so sure that we are on the same page, as I explain much more than just the ceremonial laws. I am discussing the WHOLE Old Test which begins in Exodus 20 thru the end of Deuteronomy. That includes the Ten Commandments.
We died with Christ. That means that the law we are dead to the law, the whole law, every jot and tittle.
Abraham didn’t have it, and neither do we.
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
When we are dead to the law, that means that the law does not exist for us, the Whole law, not just the ceremonial law.
Abraham didn’t need a law to tell him not to commit adultery. Abraham didn’t need a law to tell him not to steal. Abraham didn’t need a law to tell him not to make graven images. Abraham didn’t need a law to tell him to, etc.
When you think about the law, you end up breaking the law.
It is Law vs. Grace, not grace plus law.
Romans 6:1-2 is often quoted by those who believe that we must keep the law, but they only stop mid way in verse 2
Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid.
But they fail to read the rest of it:
2 How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
We are dead. The law is dead to us. All of it.
Ed
LikeLike
Wes,
Are you aware of the purpose, and reason for circumcision in the first place? It never had anything to do with salvation to begin with. It was an Abrahamic covenant, and that covenant of circumcision cannot be annulled at all, ever, for the Jews.
It’s purpose was to CONFIRM who’s seed would inherit the Promised Land (Physical Land of Israel). Would the seed be Ishmael, the first born of Abraham, or Isaac, the seed of Promise?
The Promised Land is two fold. It is carnal (Physical Land of Israel) and spiritual (Heaven).
The Jews, whether Christians or not, are obligated to be circumcised. The Gentiles do not get circumcised. Paul himself did circumcise a Christian of Jewish descent.
Circumcision was BEFORE the law and because it was BEFORE the law, it is not abolished. This same circumcision was ADDED to the LAW of Moses, and when the LAW of Moses WAS DONE AWAY WITH, it did not annul what was BEFORE the law, that is, circumcision.
Gentiles are not a part of that. But Jews are, if they want to inherit the physical land of Israel. Otherwise, they are cut off from that promise to inherit Israel.
The Old Test is done away with, but it does not negate out what was before the Old Test.
LikeLike
Preach it, Ed!
Jeff, I guess I must retract agreeing with that pastor, in that he did not care. I do care. I think about it a lot. I just got such a huge dose of Calvinism while in SG that I have had my fill in debating things like predestination. This complex, amazing, beautiful, sometimes scary concept of the intersection between God’s will and our free will is something that if we are completely honest with ourselves, none of us fully grasp.
Yes, Scripture speaks to this issue, and if you take certain scriptures in isolation, one could back their Calvinist or Arminian theology pretty easily. Scripture also says a lot about the mystery of gospel. It is plain enough for us to come to faith, but God does not come out and say in scripture why He allowed Hitler act as he did, or why children die, or why some are saved and others aren’t, or why I receive undeserved blessings and others suffer in ways I’ll never know.
God is showing me the hollowness my dogmatic, spoonfed answers I used to have to such questions, especially to someone in the midst of suffering. All I know is that I’ve received mercy, that I want to show mercy, and how God disperses mercy and why evil isn’t always restrained is a great mystery. I don’t think I’m meant to understand it and I think those who try to over-explain it to a disservice to non-Christians .
LikeLike
Recovering Pharisee,
Well put. I would only say that the Calvinism you received in SG was a distorted Calvinism. Calvin was far from perfect in his teachings, but I doubt that he would even recognize what SG was doing. (I attended a SG Church for only six months, but I’ve read a lot about their teachings.) For one thing, the so-called “New Calvinists” tend to presume that they understand precisely what God only meant them to understand generally. What you said about the intersection of God’s sovereignty and man’s will is a good example.
chapmaned24
I’m puzzled by your assertion that the New Testament is from Ex 20 through Deut. I don’t like the term “New Testament” (who died?), preferring Tanakh, which I think you mentioned (acronym of Torah, Prophets, and Writings in Hebrew), or even Old Covenant, but I’ve never heard it refer to anything but Genesis through Malachi (in the English versions).
Even the Mosaic Law begins before Ex 20. I’m curious as to your reason for this.
LikeLike
Jeff, I never said that the New Test was from Exodus 20 to the end of Deu. I said that the OT was from Exodus 20 to the end of Deu. Why do you not like the term New Test? Many a Christian seems to identify the Old Testament as Genesis 1:1 to the end of Malachi. It isn’t. The Law of Moses begins with the Ten Commandments. There are 613 laws within the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant, or Testament, is within the Torah. The Torah begins with Genesis 1:1, but the Old Covenant begins in Exodus 20 and ends with Deuteronomy. The Mosiac law does NOT begin before Exodus 20. It begins 430 years after Abraham, not 429 years after.
I don’t understand your question “who died”? Christ died, and we died with Christ. When the flesh dies, there is no more sin. Sin is defined by 1 John 3:4 as the transgression of the law. Sin is dead, because our flesh is dead. We (our spirit) now lives in the BODY of Christ, who cannot die again. If we resurrect our flesh, then we are subject to the law, and then the law is alive to us. This is why Paul said that he dies daily. Kill the flesh, then you live in the spirit, and the spirit is not subject to the law, because we are dead in the flesh, alive to Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff, I think I understand your “Who died”. It isn’t “who” that died. It was blood that was shed and sprinkled on the BOOK OF THE LAW and the people (The OLD Testament). In the NEW TEST, Christs blood is the atonement that was shed. I know that Calvinists use a bible that does not use the word “Testament” when relating the old vs. the new. I saw one YouTube video where a Calvinist stated that “NOWHERE in the Bible will you find the words “Old Testament or New Testament”. Well, in the Bible that Calvinists use, they are right. But I use a KJV.
LikeLike
chapmaned24
Okay, I meant Old Testament, not New. I have never heard or read of anyone referring to the OT as being Ex. 20 through Deut. Would you mind giving me some documentation on that? I’m willing to learn something new. (About the Old.)
As i understand it: 1) The OT is another name for the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, Gen. – Malachi (in the Eng. translation). 2) The Torah refers to the first 5 books of the OT, The Five Books of Moses. 3) The Mosaic Law refers to the 613 commandments, or laws, contained in the Torah. In the version I have, the first one is Gen. 1:28, and the last is Deut. 31:19.
BTW, what do you call Gen. – Mal.?
It doesn’t matter that much to me if “Testament” is used. “Covenant” just seems to be more accurate. “Testament” puts me in mind of “Last Will and Testament”; that’s why I wrote “who died?”
LikeLike