I had a few thoughts after last nights meeting.
1. I liked Scott's take on the 2nd Tim. passage - that being we can view what is Scripture based on if it holds up to the things listed: inspiration of God,profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. My thought in light of this however is - what if some of those passages DON'T stand up to the afore mentioned list? Do we not view that as Scripture(even if it's in the Bible)? - and how does that impact us and how we use the Bible?
2. I also felt like it was HUGE that we in essence said that writings that are not the Bible could be viewed as Scripture. That's pretty big for me and leads me to my next question: If that's what we really believe than why do we usually exclusively study just the bible without bringing other sources in? What would it look like to bring in other sources? Are we afraid of this? (Courtesy of Erin V)
Sunday, January 6, 2008
ERIN V's THOUGHTS!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Erin,
These are some really good questions. I am sorry I missed the meeting it looks like there was some good discussion. I think the question of whether or not there can be new inspired words of God is a fascinating one and can take on several levels both politically as well as religiously. To automatically say no seems to put limits on what God can do.
I believe that, as with most things, it is easier to be exclusive than inclusive, and closed minded versus open minded. I think there is, at least for me, a lot of fear that my mental/emotional/spiritual "filter" won't be good enough and that I'll be persuaded or deceived into believing something "wrong". I think that being exclusive about what we study allows us to be more comfortable and a bit more lazy about how much time and effort we spend on seeking and actively living God's truths. Fear of the unknown, of sacrilege, of deception, of being too "Christian-weird", of having to work at active listening and seeing, of going too far off the narrow path...I can see several reasons why the idea of a still speaking and literate God wouldn't make it into most pulpits. Anyone else have a take?
Nicole, I can definitely relate to what you wrote re: The comfort of exclusivity and the fear of a malfunctioning "filter". However, I am intrigued by the idea of new "Scripture" or writings inspired by God coming about since our current Bible was adopted at the Council of Nicea.
I think caution must be exercised in branding something God-breathed, but if it doesn't contradict our "established" Bible and meets the criteria such as what's listed in 2Tim. 3:16, why shouldn't we grant as much authority to those newer writings?
As I wrote that, I experienced mixed emotions. Fear and discomfort that often accompany a shift in my warm, fuzzy paradigm coupled with the excitement that comes with the discovery of a new idea or way of thinking.
Something resonates with me about the idea of needing to be open to a fresh word from God. That feels much more relational to me than trying to pry applications for this era out of writings from thousands of years ago. That doesn't mean that there's no value in those older writings, it just feels like God is still plugged in to what's happening in our world today.
Do they still excommunicate people from the church?
Post a Comment