Hi Dan,
I said: 'First point I want to make, and I say this as loving as I can: it's very difficult to discuss Scriptural issues when attempts at a straightforward reading and application of the Scriptures are repeatedly dismissed as "human understanding".
'We are advised earnestly throughout them to read and study them'
You said:
I haven't found that to be true. When two people led by the spirit talk, there is an easy communication between them, a kind of recognition.
LUKE 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
I'm not sure to which of my statements you are responding. If the first, then here are a number of Scripture portions to back up this point: Deut. 11:18-23; Jos. 1:8; Hos. 4:6; Psa. 119; Pro. 2:1-5; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:14-17; Rev. 1:3, et al.
If the second, I don't see how your statement or Scripture quote are applicable. Mary and Elizabeth were not discussing theology and neither of them were accusing the other of having a "human understanding" of Scripture based on a disagreement between them. Moreover, the New Testament depicts multiple instances of Spirit-filled believers having disagreements, and those don't seem to go very "easy". One clear example to point to is the dust-up between Peter and Paul as detailed in Gal. 2:11-21. Lastly I believe this to be probably the least substantive portion of my previous post. The meat and potatoes of that post are found in most of the rest of it, which would be more worthwhile for us to discuss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: 'Secondly, it's very easy to come up with scenarios where a decontextualized "love your neighbor" creed is an excuse to condone all sorts of sin.'
You said:
this is not true if one is led by the Spirit.
were you around when I talked about this passage?
ROMANS 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are children of God.
ROMANS 8:15 For you didn’t receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
ROMANS 8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God;
I believe you're talking about an idealized understanding of what it means to be led by the Spirit, essentially amounting to walking in absolute perfection. Can you name one person who lives like this, whose leading by the Holy Spirit has led them to perfectly avoid sin or misapplying commands? The weight of evidence is against your statement as the history of the church and its 40,000 denominations testifies to the reality that our flesh and carnal understanding get in the way of the Spirit's leading. This happens on all sorts of Biblical issues from homosexuality (the example I cited) to eschatological beliefs to methods of water baptism and much more.
The same applies to correctly carrying out the command to "love one's neighbor", and my point still stands that people will incorrectly use that command to condone sinful behavior, despite their sincerity and best intentions. Spirit-filled/led people make mistakes and that's a fact of this life. This is why, when deciding what is proper Christian behavior and what is not, we cannot simply rely on whether a specific action is "beneficial" or not. "Benefit" is not the decisive factor -- the Father's will for us is the decisive factor, and He makes that will for us explicitly known in the Scriptures, and the Spirit helps guide us in that understanding so that we don't end up just coming up with our own standards (though we almost all do anyways). "Benefit" comes off to me as a new-age-y method of dismissing the clear commands of the Father for subjective reasoning falsely under the guise of being "Spirit-led".
Anyways, I want to drop this point moving forward since we're getting too far away from the central issues we've been discussing. In fact, I think a major issue within the Christian faith today is that some people are getting way too mystical about their faith (When I say "people", I'm not pointing the finger directly at you, and I've also been guilty of it at times). They prefer "mystical interpretations" over the clear words of Scripture and commands of the Father, and they rely on verses about being "led by the Holy Spirit" as justification for denying simple truths.
This thread is clear evidence: passages discussed so far have specific contexts with lessons applicable to those specific contexts. But the contexts are swept aside and different lessons are derived in favor of preferred interpretation, despite the Scriptural evidence to the contrary. Too many interpretations are derived from the unstated instead of the stated. When the Messiah says the point of His parable in Matt. 15 / Mark 7 is to teach us that "eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man," then that was His lesson. When Peter says that the purpose of his vision in Acts 10 was to show him that he "is to call no man unclean," then that is the purpose. When James advises Paul to purify himself at the temple and pay for the four men in order to demonstrate that he "walks orderly in keeping the Torah (Law)" and Paul obliges, then that is what he demonstrated.
Why can't we accept what the Scriptures plainly state instead of mystical interpretations? Instead we hear that "Jesus was actually telling us we can eat anything we want" or "God was showing Peter he could eat anything he wants" or "Paul only did that so he could win Jewish people to the Lord but he didn't actually keep Torah". Each of these interpretations have enormous problems when considering the context.
Are there deeper Spiritual lessons to the Scriptures? Yes, but that doesn't always mean sacrificing the plain sense of things. When the Messiah says that we've heard that we shall not murder, and then adds a deeper Spiritual application that we should also not have hate in our hearts, that doesn't cancel out the plain sense of "you shall not murder". It's not like we can suddenly start murdering people as long as we feel there is no hate in our hearts. The hate in one's heart is not the determining factor of whether or not it's permissible to murder someone. The command "you shall not murder" still stands and the Messiah gives us a wider application (or higher calling or whatever you want to call it) which still contains the original command.
Anyways, I'm going to stop here. I actually typed up a lot more but I'm going to save it for a separate thread. Dan, I've enjoyed the conversation with you and greatly appreciate your tone and respect as a fellow follower of the Messiah. I hope you haven't taken anything personally (in a negative sense) since that wasn't my intention, but if so, then I deeply apologize. I need some time to gather my thoughts before continuing on here. We've gone down so many rabbit holes that I will have to think about how to circle back to the important points of this discussion. Blessings to you, friend.
