Whose Medicine are You Taking? The Dangers of Taking Scripture Out of Context

[Grace777x70]

Two men go to see the doctor. The first is suffering from advanced cancer and needs a life-saving intervention. The second is completely healthy and is going for a routine check-up. The doctor is a perfect physician and prescribes the appropriate medication in each case.
However, the pharmacist bungles the prescriptions and gives each man the other’s medicine. The man with cancer is given multivitamins and told to exercise daily while the healthy man is given an extensive course of chemotherapy. Unsurprisingly, the sick man dies from taking the wrong pills while the healthy man suffers unnecessarily.
In this parable the perfect physician represents Jesus. Jesus understands every single person and always prescribes the perfect medicine.

For the self-righteous sinner that medicine might be a judicious application of the law. The Bible tells us that the law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8). Its purpose is to break our pride, silence our self-righteousness and reveal our need for a Divine Savior. Ultimately the law is meant to lead us to Jesus (Gal 3:24) that we may receive the gift of his righteousness (Rms 5:17).

But the law is of no use to the saint who has already been set free from the cancer of sin. The observance of regulations, which has an appearance of wisdom, will enslave the free and do nothing to promote godly living (Gal 5:1, Col 2:23). The best medicine for saints is a healthy dose of God’s grace supplemented with the daily exercise of faith in the One who is able to keep us from falling (Jud 1:24)

More in here...if you want to feed yourself. Be blessed and have a great day!


Whose Medicine are You Taking? The Dangers of Taking Scripture Out of Context – Escape to Reality

 

[Willie-T]

That was great. And probably a lot more true than we might want to believe. We have a tendency to think that what WE see as right is the only way.

 

[Grace777x70]

Yep..we can keep the Old Covenant thoughts or Jesus's life in us..big difference..eh?


Luke 9:54-56 (NASB)
[SUP]54 [/SUP] When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
[SUP]55 [/SUP] But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of;
[SUP]56 [/SUP] for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

That was great. And probably a lot more true than we might want to believe. We have a tendency to think that what WE see as right is the only way.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yep..we can keep the Old Covenant thoughts or Jesus's life in us..big difference..eh?


Luke 9:54-56 (NASB)
[SUP]54 [/SUP] When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
[SUP]55 [/SUP] But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of;
[SUP]56 [/SUP] for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Such a mischaracterization. Everything on the OT points to and glorifies Christ. Overcomers are able to feast on the OT without harm.

 

[Grace777x70]

There is a difference between the OT and the OC...

it shows the "spirit of religion" based on the Old Covenant...because in the Old Covenant..this is exactly what Elijah did in the exact same place in Samaria....we have a New Covenant based on Jesus now!..It's far better!!!

Such a mischaracterization. Everything on the OT points to and glorifies Christ. Overcomers are able to feast on the OT without harm.

 

[epostle]

INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE

Fundamentalists’ interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the Word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development.

Fundamentalism is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

Fundamentalism interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture.

After the century of the Enlightenment, it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis. The actual term "fundamentalist" is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, New York, in 1895.

At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ.

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the Word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points.

But their way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of his approach might say.


For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

The basic problem with Fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the Incarnation itself.

As regards relationships with God, Fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human language and that this Word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.

For this reason, Fundamentalism tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the Word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.

It pays no attention to the literary norms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.

Fundamentalism often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

Fundamentalists often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day.

By the same token, it fails to take account of the "re-readings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

In what concerns the Gospels, Fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).
At the same time Fundamentalism neglects an important fact: the way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message.

But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the gospel itself.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. They accept the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology, simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.

Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices-racism, for example-quite contrary to the Christian gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," Fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the Tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith.

It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian Church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this Church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts.

Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-Church; it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of Church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the Church itself.

It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the Church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem.

Without saying as much in so many words, Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. They injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

 

[crossnote]

Re: INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE

Fundamentalists’ interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the Word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development.

Fundamentalism is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

Fundamentalism interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture.

After the century of the Enlightenment, it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis. The actual term "fundamentalist" is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, New York, in 1895.

At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ.

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the Word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points.

But their way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of his approach might say.


For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

The basic problem with Fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the Incarnation itself.

As regards relationships with God, Fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human language and that this Word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.

For this reason, Fundamentalism tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the Word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.

It pays no attention to the literary norms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.

Fundamentalism often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

Fundamentalists often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day.

By the same token, it fails to take account of the "re-readings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

In what concerns the Gospels, Fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).
At the same time Fundamentalism neglects an important fact: the way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message.

But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the gospel itself.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. They accept the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology, simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.

Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices-racism, for example-quite contrary to the Christian gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," Fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the Tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith.

It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian Church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this Church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts.

Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-Church; it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of Church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the Church itself.

It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the Church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem.

Without saying as much in so many words, Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. They injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

And basically all this is is setting up a strawman as this form of Fundamentalism no longer exists, it has matured into Evangelicalism which until recently has been a bulwark for God's Word.
Fundamentalism was a needed reaction against the full blown Liberalism at the turn of the Century.
What did Rome do at that time? Discouraged any private bible study completely contrary to Scripture under fear that their false religious system of Priestcraft would be questioned.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

But the law is of no use to the saint who has already been set free from the cancer of sin. The observance of regulations, which has an appearance of wisdom, will enslave the free and do nothing to promote godly living (Gal 5:1, Col 2:23). The best medicine for saints is a healthy dose of God’s grace supplemented with the daily exercise of faith in the One who is able to keep us from falling (Jud 1:24)

This simply is not true. The law is very good for instruction in righteousness. The law is a lamp, but Christ is the light. The law can't justify us or make us holy, but it is very good for edification.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This simply is not true. The law is very good for instruction in righteousness. The law is a lamp, but Christ is the light. The law can't justify us or make us holy, but it is very good for edification.

How. The law can't edify me,

We should be focused on serving others, Not how good or bad we are..

 

[Magenta]

How. The law can't edify me,
We should be focused on serving others, Not how good or bad we are..

People can serve each other by breaking the law.

 

[FreeNChrist]

Such a mischaracterization. Everything on the OT points to and glorifies Christ. Overcomers are able to feast on the OT without harm.

And Christians are able to feast on the One who has overcome, that the OT pointed to.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

People can serve each other by breaking the law.

ok, that's a new one, I must ask

How can a Christian seeking the things of the spirit break the law by doing what the spirit calls us to do (serve each other)

 

[wolfwint]

Re: INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE

Fundamentalists’ interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the Word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development.

Fundamentalism is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

Fundamentalism interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture.

After the century of the Enlightenment, it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis. The actual term "fundamentalist" is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, New York, in 1895.

At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ.

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the Word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points.

But their way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of his approach might say.


For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

The basic problem with Fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the Incarnation itself.

As regards relationships with God, Fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human language and that this Word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.

For this reason, Fundamentalism tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the Word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.

It pays no attention to the literary norms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.

Fundamentalism often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

Fundamentalists often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day.

By the same token, it fails to take account of the "re-readings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

In what concerns the Gospels, Fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).
At the same time Fundamentalism neglects an important fact: the way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message.

But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the gospel itself.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. They accept the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology, simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.

Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices-racism, for example-quite contrary to the Christian gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," Fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the Tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith.

It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian Church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this Church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts.

Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-Church; it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of Church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the Church itself.

It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the Church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem.

Without saying as much in so many words, Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. They injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

I am a fundamentalist. In a world where it does no matter what you believe. In a world where everything is relativ, even the truth. In such a world it is important to have a fundament. My fundament is the word of god. Revealed through the Holy Spirit. Thats wrong?
What is your fundament? Through which glas you looking when you use the word fundamentalist?

 

[notuptome]

If I ever need serious surgery I hope the doctor is a fundamentalist.

The Holy Spirit is the original fundamentalist.

Keep the fun in fundamentalist.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Magenta]

ok, that's a new one, I must ask

How can a Christian seeking the things of the spirit break the law by doing what the spirit calls us to do (serve each other)

I didn't say Christians, I said people.

 

[Magenta]

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I didn't say Christians, I said people.

ok, forgive me.

But then they are under law. They have not come under grace yet.

My point was about Christians Not non Christian.

 

[50C1AL0N3]

ok, forgive me.

But then they are under law. They have not come under grace yet.

My point was about Christians Not non Christian.

There is no law anymore. There only remains saving grace, and righteous judgement.

 

[tanakh]

Re: INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE

Fundamentalists’ interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the Word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development.

Fundamentalism is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

Fundamentalism interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture.

After the century of the Enlightenment, it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis. The actual term "fundamentalist" is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, New York, in 1895.

At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ.

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the Word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points.

But their way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of his approach might say.


For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

The basic problem with Fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the Incarnation itself.

As regards relationships with God, Fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human language and that this Word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.

For this reason, Fundamentalism tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the Word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.

It pays no attention to the literary norms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.

Fundamentalism often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

Fundamentalists often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day.

By the same token, it fails to take account of the "re-readings" (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

In what concerns the Gospels, Fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).
At the same time Fundamentalism neglects an important fact: the way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message.

But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the gospel itself.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. They accept the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology, simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.

Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices-racism, for example-quite contrary to the Christian gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," Fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the Tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith.

It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian Church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this Church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts.

Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-Church; it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of Church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the Church itself.

It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the Church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem.

Without saying as much in so many words, Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. They injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

AMEN! We get plenty of examples of it on this site. Far too many in my opinion

 

[Chester]

There is no law anymore. There only remains saving grace, and righteous judgement.

Verse for that? Can you prove what you say?

The OT law has been fulfilled, but it has not been destroyed. The law leads us to grace and faith in Christ.