Personal convictions?

General Christian Theology
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by MaxPC »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Whenever I hear the suggestion that we as individuals can rely on God to speak to our hearts, or that "God knows what's in my heart", I am reminded of what God once said to Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick;
who can understand it?"
I wonder:
Is it possible to become legalistic about NOT being legalistic? I'm being serious here. Can "Anti-legalism" become the ditch on the other side of the road?
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Bootstrap »

MaxPC wrote:Is it possible to become legalistic about NOT being legalistic? I'm being serious here. Can "Anti-legalism" become the ditch on the other side of the road?
If Anti-legalism means "I won't follow any rules and nobody has the right to tell me anything", then that's certainly a ditch. If Anti-legalism means "I insist on judging by what is at the heart of the New Testament teaching and not putting my faith in man-made rules", then I'm not sure it's a ditch.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Hats Off »

MaxPC wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Whenever I hear the suggestion that we as individuals can rely on God to speak to our hearts, or that "God knows what's in my heart", I am reminded of what God once said to Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick;
who can understand it?"
I wonder:
Is it possible to become legalistic about NOT being legalistic? I'm being serious here. Can "Anti-legalism" become the ditch on the other side of the road?
:up: :up: :up: :clap:
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Sudsy »

Heirbyadoption wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Heirbyadoption wrote: Do I suppose correctly that you would apply the same criteria/logic to things like washing feet and greeting fellow believers with a kiss? Must the opinion of "many bible scholars" really force it down to an either/or dichotomy on these sorts things (apply the principle versus apply the literal application given)?
Yes I do think foot washing and the kiss was related to that setting and culture. The kiss I believe in our culture is a hearty handshake and at times also an embrace. Any of these gestures can be just an expected practise or a genuine expression of brotherhood. When it comes to foot washing (not required when we enter homes from walking on dirt streets), there is an attitude of a servant here that we need to retain. Instead of a once a year foot washing practise, often serve your brother in a voluntary and lowly way. Our previous MB pastor often would go around refreshing people's coffee and working in the kitchen showing he didn't regard himself better than others. All kinds of creative ways to serve one another.
You DO realize you depart rather radically from historic Anabaptist Christianity in this, yes? And hence the dichotomy-creating usage of "instead"? I forget you mennos tend to only wash feet once a year... And I don't know your background, so this is a sincere question, but have you considered that the principle and the literal act might still both be relevant and not mutually exclusive, or is that simply incompatible with the view you find yourself holding?

Yes, I do not hold to certain historic Anabaptist practices nor does the MB church I attend. We don't do the foot washing and kiss practise. For those who do find these literal acts are meaningful I believe they would not be discouraged at all from practising them. Same with the head 'covering'. If a woman believes she best honors God by wearing some kind of literal cloth on her head, that too would not be a problem. And often Mennonites from other backgrounds visit our church with head pieces and this would not even be a membership issue.
I don't think the view of 'many bible scholars' needs to be our ultimate practise but we should consider why they view things as a principle and not a literal practise as it was in those days. Some see this as dodging taking Jesus and the apostles in a literal way and therefore it is considered being disobedient. Imo, some practises that our outside our cultural norms or are suspect in today's culture (i.e. men kissing men) detract from the principles Jesus was teaching.

However, if a person is allowed to have their own personal convictions and they are not a practise they must covenant to follow, then if they take these things literally, then accept their choices on how they serve the Lord. Allow for that diversity to occur and not let it interfere with fellowship.
I do agree with you, though, that we need to take into account why scholars view things as principles and not as literal practices. Although, it's interesting how many scholars base their work on previous scholars and can perpetuate error as easily as fact through that. If I may digress for a moment, case in point being the promotion of the Corinthian Prostitute View of the headship veiling which we find referenced in at least 5 of the study Bibles and 4 of the commentaries on the shelf in front of me now. Sorry, can't resist. :oops:

:lol: I tried not to refer to this hot topic which again is not a salvation belief issue although like Ken Ham and his views on creation some Anabaptists treat this issue as one of extreme disobedience.

The “Corinthian Prostitute” theory, held by many Bible scholars, proposes that Paul’s teaching of the headship veiling was primarily intended to set 1st century Christian women apart from harlots, but this tantalizing little ditty did not appear on the scene (at least as far as I can find thus far, until it was presented in 1885 by T.C. Edwards. He, bless his well-meaning and sincerely-theorizing scholar's heart, offered it with no source references nor evidence, after which his hypothesis was later picked up over the next century by several other commentators and expositors, including G.G. Findlay, A.T. Robertson, Grosheide and Zodhiates, and now seems quite well established in the collective consciousness. Unfortunately, at least in the materials I have accessed, none of the aforementioned individuals quote any sources prior to Edwards, and to date, neither they nor any other evidences have actually presented anything to back up the “Corinthian prostitute” theory. Therefore, with respect to sound documentation of many Bible scholars, this theory seems to have evolved from one Bible scholar’s guess into another Bible scholar’s fact into another Bible scholar's footnote and on into many of our contemporary study Bibles and commentaries, becoming an unfortunate assumption now taken as fact by the majority of professing Christians when it was a relatively recent idea and to date has no evidence to support it. It doesn't mean they weren't sincere, dedicated Christian men, it just means they took material at face value, and people still do, to support a certain (and now in many cased, a preferred) view.

I will grant that this may not be the thread to debate the relevance of practices like the veiling, salutation, foot washing, etc, and I use study material copiously like any bibliophile, but I am also admittedly leery of placing overmuch emphasis on the opinions of Bible scholars, whether they be many or few, if it discounts a historical practice of the Church. I am open to evidence, but too often it begins with words like "it may have been" and turns into "it was." Just something to chew on...

I think we can have things wrong right from the earliest of any group's beginnings and even the early churches. I like to look at the challenges some younger Anabaptists are making and try to discern if they hold water. I agree that historic practises need careful analysis.

(as another random aside, if somebody would like to pursue the Corinthian Prostitute View, and perhaps a dozen other objections to the relevance of the headship veiling, there's much more info to debunk it...)
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Sudsy »

MaxPC wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Whenever I hear the suggestion that we as individuals can rely on God to speak to our hearts, or that "God knows what's in my heart", I am reminded of what God once said to Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick;
who can understand it?"
I wonder:
Is it possible to become legalistic about NOT being legalistic? I'm being serious here. Can "Anti-legalism" become the ditch on the other side of the road?
The answer to that text is in the next verse - 'I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind.' And when we are born of the Spirit God gives us a brand new heart. We then begin a faith journey of learning to hear from God as we draw close to Him. I like what the previous verses say in Jeremiah - "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD And whose trust is the LORD. "For he will be like a tree planted by the water, That extends its roots by a stream And will not fear when the heat comes; But its leaves will be green, And it will not be anxious in a year of drought Nor cease to yield fruit.

Yes, I agree to be against legalism in the sense that no one but God gives me direct input to my personal convictions would be wrong. God uses others at times as His means of guiding us but we also are responsible to see that any guidance we are given is from God. We are to test the spirits and sometimes that spirit in a man giving guidance can also be one not of God. Our trust must be first and foremost as that text says in 'the Lord'.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Sudsy wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Whenever I hear the suggestion that we as individuals can rely on God to speak to our hearts, or that "God knows what's in my heart", I am reminded of what God once said to Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"
The answer to that text is in the next verse - 'I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind.' And when we are born of the Spirit God gives us a brand new heart...
Just to be precise in what God said: “I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”

Which implies that God does not judge us according to our heart (as we often hear told), but according to the results of what we do - which is rather backwards from common Christian thinking.
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by silentreader »

I'm presuming that we all understand that if we can't depend on the Holy Spirit to draw us together in unity, that it's not the Holy Spirit's fault?
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Sudsy »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Whenever I hear the suggestion that we as individuals can rely on God to speak to our hearts, or that "God knows what's in my heart", I am reminded of what God once said to Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"
The answer to that text is in the next verse - 'I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind.' And when we are born of the Spirit God gives us a brand new heart...
Just to be precise in what God said: “I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”

Which implies that God does not judge us according to our heart (as we often hear told), but according to the results of what we do - which is rather backwards from common Christian thinking.
If you mean 'common Christian thinking' means that regardless of what we do, God knows our good intentions and will judge us on these good intentions, then I am not familiar with this view that our heart and our actions are somehow detached. My understanding is that our performance as believers will be based on our deeds.

However, it is by co-operating and guarding the new heart God gives us that we are capable of knowing when God speaks to our hearts and when it is not God speaking. Otherwise what do we do with the verse that Jesus says about the sheep know the shepherd's voice and follow him, another's voice they will not follow ? This, to me, reflects the importance of a personal close relationship between the sheep and the shepherd.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
cmbl
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by cmbl »

Heirbyadoption wrote:The “Corinthian Prostitute” theory, held by many Bible scholars, proposes that Paul’s teaching of the headship veiling was primarily intended to set 1st century Christian women apart from harlots, but this tantalizing little ditty did not appear on the scene (at least as far as I can find thus far, until it was presented in 1885 by T.C. Edwards. He, bless his well-meaning and sincerely-theorizing scholar's heart, offered it with no source references nor evidence, after which his hypothesis was later picked up over the next century by several other commentators and expositors, including G.G. Findlay, A.T. Robertson, Grosheide and Zodhiates, and now seems quite well established in the collective consciousness.
This is excellent. Can/Has it been published in article form somewhere?
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

cmbl wrote:
Heirbyadoption wrote:The “Corinthian Prostitute” theory, held by many Bible scholars, proposes that Paul’s teaching of the headship veiling was primarily intended to set 1st century Christian women apart from harlots, but this tantalizing little ditty did not appear on the scene (at least as far as I can find thus far, until it was presented in 1885 by T.C. Edwards. He, bless his well-meaning and sincerely-theorizing scholar's heart, offered it with no source references nor evidence, after which his hypothesis was later picked up over the next century by several other commentators and expositors, including G.G. Findlay, A.T. Robertson, Grosheide and Zodhiates, and now seems quite well established in the collective consciousness.
This is excellent. Can/Has it been published in article form somewhere?
Technically it's part of a book I'm hoping to print this spring/summer. However, as far as a couple quick online links, here are a couple from my friend Jeremy's headcovering site that might be useful if you're just wanting to read up on the issue and/or get some bibliographical sources:

http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/art ... rostitutes
or perhaps
http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/art ... ur-sources.
0 x
Post Reply