As for your comments about sexism or racism being things the “Church” has struggled with, I don’t see then what you meant earlier when you said, “Things such as slavery and sexism have all been a part of the church tradition and to simply say to ourselves, ‘Well, that’s just the way it’s been’ is an invalid approach.” I think that some segments of the Church have struggled with these issues (especially in America, which actually makes up very little of the visible Church), but I am not sure how this actually invalidates the use of historical interpretations of Scripture to determine the correct doctrinal position on any particular issue that we should take as Christians. Maybe you could explain your reasoning here a bit more.

Finally, I wonder what you understand inerrancy to mean. Can you give a definition as you understand it. I often find that because of the word itself, many people misunderstand what inerrantists mean when they use it. Thanks again for clarifying earlier.

Whether or not you may think so, the very fact that you seem willing to admit that Jesus was real means that you at least in part interpret the Bible “literally.” I appreciate your comments and the heart behind them. I look forward to hearing more from you.

If you like that particularly Rachel’s record (Egon Schiele), then I’d recommend the Johann Johannsson one as well. Good taste! Feel free to make music recommendations any time!

Maybe my problem is that I find it difficult to accept that the Bible is inerrant and meant to be interpreted literally. While I appreciate you taking the time to write this, I simply don’t agree with a lot of your ideas. That may make me wrong, but that’s a risk I guess I’ll have to take. Maybe my faith is “narrow and minimalistic” as I choose to emphasize Jesus’ teachings, but that’s where I’m at.

Thanks for the encouragement and also for introducing me to the idea that my wife is a “compliment” to me as the leader of the household. She’ll be thrilled when I tell her that ;-)

D.R., I would like to thank you for addressing Zach’s “reading Jesus through Paul/Paul through Jesus” comment. Zach, I don’t know your heart but I can see how that comment appears to communicate the idea that somehow Jesus and Paul must be reconciled which I am not at all comfortable with. I think they are to be read together (after all, as D.R. pointed out, it’s the same Holy Spirit who spoke through both).

Also, to say that considering (historical/universal) church interpretation “lacks a historical perspective” just seems odd. We are saved as individuals, but we are saved into a community which includes saints of old. We must take former views into consideration in formulating our own. To offer slavery and sexism as arguments is simply moot. The church also struggled with the divinity of Christ, but you’re not going to say that that is misguided are you?

As D.R. pointed out, we do not accept “blindly” and when our predecessors erred, we admit it, we learn from it, we submit ourselves to the Scriptures afresh and we move on.

Thank you guys so much for your willingness to participate. This is exactly what makes blogging so exciting for me. I look forward to continued dialogue and continually learning from one another.

As for slavery, the NT assumes it is in culture, but at no time offers anything that could be intrepreted as an advocation of it. Some have twisted Scripture to make it so (mainly during a specific period of time), but the history of the Church does not uphold slavery as an institution compatible with the teachings of Jesus (who incidentally spoke of it as much as any other Biblical writer). And the slavery existent in the 1st c. was a far cry from our Americanized understanding of it (as people often sold themselves into slavery and worked their way out of it - nothing of the sort was paralleled in American history).

As far as sexism is concerned, you might consider the complimentarian position sexism, but that would be illegitimate since many woman thoroughly embrace this position and those who hold it clearly delineate between equality in personhood and yet a differing in God-given roles. As for any true sexism, as was exemplified in some packets of American life in the 20th century, some of that was due to culture and little was actually defended by Scripture.

Still, doctrine is a separate issue that these two issues, both of which are built upon doctrines, but are not doctrines in and of themselves. Doctrine refers to teaching concerning the character of God, the work of the Trinity, and the relationship between God and man, not to human institutions, which are a result of either a correct understanding of doctrine or a mishandled of it.

Also, you act as though I am suggesting that a “blind acceptance” is correct, but that is completely untrue. First, I believe in the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But Calvin and Luther understood this to mean that Scripture was to stand alone in regard to Doctrine, but interpretation is informed by Church Teaching (consequentally, they stated this at a time in Church History where there was an overemphasis on human tradition and they advocated “humanism”, which then meant a return to the original languages and a reemphasis of the text of Scripture itself). I believe that nothing I wrote could be legitimately construed to come to the conclusion that I believe that we should accept Church Tradition over against Scripture. I believe your characterization is a complete misreading of what I said.

And I reject the implication that I read Jesus through Paul. I just don’t think they disagree, even as has been the understanding of the Church for 2000 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Paul’s words are AS authoritative as Jesus words, since it was Paul who was taught by the Holy Spirit in the wilderness and Peter said that Paul’s words were Scripture. Thus, I conclude that what Jesus said is informed by Paul’s teaching to the Church. Additionally, I think it is rather narrow and minimalistic for some to build a complete understand of God from only the words of Jesus, when He Himself said, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:12-14). The history of interpretation of this passage is unanimous in the belief that Jesus was speaking of the apostolic writings, which make up the rest of the NT. Also, John writes in the conclusion of his Gospel, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” Thus, Jesus, Himself, as well as His disciples, recognized the incomplete revelation of Jesus and the need to continue to reveal Himself through the Holy Spirit via the words of the apostles in inScripturization.

Additionally, we must understand that Jesus’ words were remembered by the apostles and recorded, thus any authority we assign to those words comes by faith that the Holy Spirit preserved those words and inspired the composition of the Gospels. Thus it is not any more of a stretch that He would have inspired those same apostles who helped to preserve Jesus’ words to interpret Him correctly and thus to offer to us a complete picture of God by which we can ascertain the Doctrines of the Faith that we ought to uphold.

I am glad that you are open to hearing these things though and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss this. I think one major problem with the conservative Protestant Church is that it has not been open to questions and hasn’t been prepared to answer them, though some great theologians have. One of those is Carl F.H. Henry, whose Magnum opus was a six-volume set called, “God, Revelation, and Authority in which he sets forth rather sophisticated, scholarly, and Biblically sound arguments for inerrancy, the authority of Scripture, and the need for doctrinal fidelity. I challenge you to pick them up and at least skim some of his arguments regarding Scripture. Incidentally, Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, was a moderate to liberal theologian until he met Dr. Henry and was challenged by his arguments. And, yet I have never heard of any moderate or liberal interaction with Dr. Henry’s work.

I think where we differ here is that you seem to be seeing Jesus through the “lens” of Paul and my approach is a bit more Anabaptist in the sense that I choose to read Paul, and all other scripture, through the “lens” of Jesus.

I appreciate the dialogue and you taking time to respond to some of my questions. I think we are simply in two different places in how we view this whole following Jesus thing and, for me, that’s ok. Although I may not be on the same path, I can certainly respect your journey. I apologize for the sarcasm. It wasn’t meant to be mean spirited, but I can see how it translates that way!

Peace.

Your post leads me to ask you what the correct doctrine is?

Well, that depends on what specific view is in question. Are we talking about the Doctrine of the Atonement? Or of the Trinity? Or of salvation? Certainly there is some leeway in each of these for interpretation and nuance, but there is also heresy possible as well.

If the function of doctrine is to be the vehicle in which we seek to understand God, then what importance does it possess beyond that function?

One, it reveals the character of God and of Christ, which leads us to further Godliness. Paul explains this in Philippians 3:8-11 when he says, “that I might know Him.” John 17:3 says, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
Second, it reveals our character and whether we are babes in Christ or mature believers. In 1 Corinthians 3:2, Paul rebukes the church saying, “I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able.” The author of Hebrews uses the same metaphor when he says in 5:12, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.”
Third, sound doctrine accomplishes the work of Christ. Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:16, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”

Is it more importantly used as a way for us to communicate to each other what a proper or improper belief is?

No, the above are the most important purposes for holding to right doctrine and for “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.”

Are you going to be cluing me in on what the precise or correct doctrine includes?

I am sure you are being sarcastic here, but any doctrine must be defensible by Scripture and is usually historically defensible when you examine the beliefs of the Early Church through today.

Finally, after thousands of years of Biblical interpretation, we will have some clarity….can’t wait!

Again, more unnecessary sarcasm, but it you seem to separate what Brent is talking about here from what the Church has beleived for centuries. Often it is one in the same. A rejection of these things is problematic. Take for example the recent increasing popularity of universalism. This is something that while there have been instances of some in the Church believing this, it has been universally rejected throughout Church History. Thus, to separate what the Church has held to from what Christians are to do today is to miss the point.

It’s the way in which doctrines are used to divide and alienate those who are seeking to follow Jesus but either can’t get past all the in-house bickering or can’t get enough of it.

The problem with some of what you are saying here is that from the beginning of Christianity, doctrine has been divisive, and Paul and John both seem to indicate that it is the nature of doctrine to be such, because right doctrine reveals those in the faith and wrong doctrine reveals those who are not. Thus, when Jesus separates the wheat from the chaff (which is a picture of the Visible Church), then one of the ways those who are not of Christ will have revealed themselves on earth is through their rejection of sound doctrine. Let’s return to Paul.
1 Timothy 6:3-9
3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. 6 Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
2 Timothy 4:2-4
preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

Doctrine will always be divisive because there will always be those who refuse to believe in solid teaching. But what these men have proposed is unBiblical because it shuns their responsibility that Paul entrusted to Timothy and thus to all pastors and teachers, which is to watch their doctrine and to watch out for those who reject sound doctrine, not find ways to agree with them despite their false beliefs. Now, having said that, surely there is some unncessesary division in the body of Christ, but not all of it is and some of the most vocal are also those who have the most damnable doctrine, such as universalism, as spoken of above. Some preach a different Gospel, which will never produce true believers. We should be wary of these and when gently rebuke does not work, then we must separate ourselves from them. An example of this is what is happening in the ECUSA and the ABC, as well as the PCUSA. Some in those groups have tried unsuccessfully to call men to repentence, but now, after all has failed, there must be separation.

That is the result that Brent is warning Emergent to be wary of. If Emergent refuses to draw some doctrinal perameters, then one day there will be such diversity that there will be no true unity. And there will be many “converts” among them that are not truly of Christ. Then their lofty goals will fail and the whole conversation will end unsuccessfully. I hope you will see this Zach and heed the words of Paul and encourage others to do the same.