Sudsy wrote:
I guess I don't get the importance of the point you are making by what Wayne and I have done in our orthopraxy.
The point is this: I don't do theology in a vacuum. I believe Wayne is sincere about the question he raised, because he did adopt that practice. But to not obey headcovering, and justify that by finding a verse in the NT that the CA's (supposedly) don't obey, is rhetoric to justify disobedience.
The man who, when told to submit on one issue, says, "but what about what you're doing on this other issue?" is not a man interested in obedience.
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
Sudsy wrote:
I guess I don't get the importance of the point you are making by what Wayne and I have done in our orthopraxy.
The point is this: I don't do theology in a vacuum. I believe Wayne is sincere about the question he raised, because he did adopt that practice. But to not obey headcovering, and justify that by finding a verse in the NT that the CA's (supposedly) don't obey, is rhetoric to justify disobedience.
The man who, when told to submit on one issue, says, "but what about what you're doing on this other issue?" is not a man interested in obedience.
I see. Well, I don't recall ever justifying not wearing a head covering if the men are not raising their hands when they pray. My point has always been where do we stop taking scriptures literally. I also suspect Wayne is no longer being obedient to that verse as he once was but he can correct me on that.
I also don't agree with that quote either. I think one can be very keen on obedience and should question any seeming contradiction in application. It's cult like to say submit and don't question anything.
Sudsy wrote:I guess I don't get the importance of the point you are making by what Wayne and I have done in our orthopraxy.
The point is this: I don't do theology in a vacuum. I believe Wayne is sincere about the question he raised, because he did adopt that practice. But to not obey headcovering, and justify that by finding a verse in the NT that the CA's (supposedly) don't obey, is rhetoric to justify disobedience.
The man who, when told to submit on one issue, says, "but what about what you're doing on this other issue?" is not a man interested in obedience.
We really should avoid a race to the bottom. I really do think there is room for different beliefs on how to apply Paul's instructions today, and whether what people do today is really about the same things he was talking about then. But if you believe that Paul's instructions are binding today, you should obey them, no matter what other Christians do or do not do.
On the other hand, I think there are a number of verses that obedient Christians do not consider binding for all Christians today - especially in the Old Testament and also in the New Testament. I do think that cultural changes and historical changes affect the way we apply some texts, and I think different groups of Christians have different opinions about these. Wayne and Sudsy have given examples of these.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Sudsy wrote:
I guess I don't get the importance of the point you are making by what Wayne and I have done in our orthopraxy.
The point is this: I don't do theology in a vacuum. I believe Wayne is sincere about the question he raised, because he did adopt that practice. But to not obey headcovering, and justify that by finding a verse in the NT that the CA's (supposedly) don't obey, is rhetoric to justify disobedience.
The man who, when told to submit on one issue, says, "but what about what you're doing on this other issue?" is not a man interested in obedience.
I see. Well, I don't recall ever justifying not wearing a head covering if the men are not raising their hands when they pray. My point has always been where do we stop taking scriptures literally. I also suspect Wayne is no longer being obedient to that verse as he once was but he can correct me on that.
I also don't agree with that quote either. I think one can be very keen on obedience and should question any seeming contradiction in application. It's cult like to say submit and don't question anything.
Cmbl didn't say anything about submitting without questioning anything.
cmbl wrote:The man who, when told to submit on one issue, says, "but what about what you're doing on this other issue?" is not a man interested in obedience.
What cmbl is describing is the classic "Tu quoque" logical fallacy, also known as the "appeal to hypocrisy." I happen to agree with what cmbl said.
Sudsy wrote:
I guess I don't get the importance of the point you are making by what Wayne and I have done in our orthopraxy.
The point is this: I don't do theology in a vacuum. I believe Wayne is sincere about the question he raised, because he did adopt that practice. But to not obey headcovering, and justify that by finding a verse in the NT that the CA's (supposedly) don't obey, is rhetoric to justify disobedience.
Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Read the following in an even, matter-of-fact tone, not trying to be argumentative...
You don't have to agree with the difference that I see here. But since I consider the difference very important, if you are unable to understand it, we're going to have a difficult time communicating.
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
cmbl wrote:You don't have to agree with the difference that I see here. But since I consider the difference very important, if you are unable to understand it, we're going to have a difficult time communicating.
Very well said. And I think it is important to be able to understand what people are saying even if we don't agree with it. In fact, it can be harder to understand what someone else is saying at all if we don't learn to do that.
If we can't do that, there is little hope for accepting the discipleship of others who have different understandings of how to apply the Bible. And I do think the New Testament encourages us to do that for at least some of the different understandings present at the time of the New Testament.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
I had to go back over this and look at it again to understand what was the important difference I missed. I guess I'm just not as intelligent as others to pick up some things that fast. And I interpreted 'the man who is told to submit' and then asks a question as challenging whoever told him to submit. Anyway, sorry, I didn't get the point first made.
Bootstrap wrote:Heirbyadoption asked: "if Jesus commanded us to do something and we knowingly refuse to do it, what is the consequence, in your understanding?
Sorry I got away, but am still curious your personal take on this question, Boot, regardless what your affiliated congregation does. Thanks.
