I advocate education, as well, on Scripture and consciously learning... that doesn't mean that someone who hasn't been formally trained can not speak intelligently on the matter.
I generally agree with this statement.
I also believe that
the number
one cause for
most of the
error in the "modern thinking" of biblical learning ( in terms of sustaining it ) came from "formally trained" people who - by the nature of
having the title - effectively "lifted up" man's thinking in a way that "trumped" God's thinking and set "traditions of men" as the
standard for learning...
In other words -- "formal training" is the number one promoter of error in biblical learning.
So -- education is good --
too much education is
not good.
How can you have too much education on the Bible?
When it gets bold enough to think that it has a "lock" on knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.
There are many seminaries "churning out" many "educated" people who are in error concerning the Scriptures. Why?
Because, "education" has
usurped the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical learning -- thereby placing "traditions of men" ahead of the Holy Spirit.
And - because "formally trained" is considered to be the pinnacle of authority in learning -
the smallest amount of error that creeps into the "education system" is
amplified and spread around and about like wildfire.
Please do not misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not against education.
This is coming from someone who may be considered today to be "highly educated" -- but who has the wisdom ( and all wisdom comes from God, we have none of our own ) to discern that, while "education" and "formal training" can be a good thing - they are also very powerful instruments in the hand of Satan - which Satan is using today to steer people away from God.
For a good example, think 'evolution'...
As far as "standards" there is a universal code of ethics, that is supposed to be universally known, accepted, and followed. Everyone doesn't have to believe in the Bible to have a decent society.
True; however, keep in mind that this "universal code of ethics" originated from the Word of God - and is the 'standard' that has held every society on earth together ( in the sense of "able to function" ) since the time of Adam and Eve. Without this 'standard' of "decency", any society will fall apart.
To me, if you want to claim Scripture as absolute and the source of all moral advice for all people, then it should follow logic. This is what trips many people up, in coming to Christ. The reason I think teaching that a literal interpretation or absolute adherence is dangerous, is because it is the most likely way to push an unbeliever away.
You tell someone to obey Scripture, and you must obey to have God's favor, or to show you are saved.
"Well, I don't know Scripture fully, so I must be breaking all kinds of rules I would otherwise follow as I learn." And of course, this person would be assured that God is merciful, and forgives those sins, if they ask.
This is where "logic" fails -- and is what trips people up in coming to Christ. The problem is that, people try to use 'logic' to
reason the Scriptures. The thing is -- 'logic' is but one
form of
reasoning. It cannot be used to discern 'spiritual' things. There is another
form of
reasoning that must be used to discern 'spiritual' things.
We call it 'faith'.
These two
forms of reasoning - 'logic' and 'faith' - "work" and "operate" differently, and do not mix well. While 'logic' works really well in physical-realm things ( Math / Science / etc. ), it does not work well in spiritual-realm things ( God / Faith / etc. ). Why?
Because [ the "operation" of ] 'logic' is based on man's thinking, and [ the "operation" of ] 'faith' is based on God's thinking.
The "literal interpretation" of Scripture is
not dangerous. It clearly defines God's expectations of us ( At our core, that is what we really want - and, it actually best serves us to know exactly "where the lines are drawn"... ) - "absolute adherence" is the expectation of God. Having a clear-cut definition of what God expects, it is up to each individual person to choose which path they wish to follow. God is not a god of deception. He "lays it down" very clearly - "Follow Me or Follow Sin" - it is then up to the individual person to make their choice.
It is Satan that "draws people in" based on "partial knowledge" of "what they are getting themselves into" - operating by deception, instead of "putting all the cards on the table" - as is honest and good and right.
God is honest and good and right. However, God will not be mocked.
He "says it like it is" very openly and "to the point":
~ I am God.
~ You are my creation.
~ You will serve me. Otherwise, you will "burn" for all eternity... [ because... ]
~
I will be glorified by each and every one who I have created -- either voluntarily or by "the smoke of their torment" ( Revelation 14:11 ).
He is God. He created everything. He has the right to make such an edict.
A person may accept it or not accept it. It is their choice. However, "there are consequences"...
What if they don't ask (cause they don't know what sins they committed or forgot)? "God's forgiveness covers all your sins once and for all." Then what is the rush to learn the Bible, to read a chapter a day? "Well, you shouldn't sin that grace abound." That makes sense, but if I can lose my salvation by being complacent or lukewarm, but keep it if I TRY, but STILL sin (and unconscious sins are covered by the cross, mind you), then doesn't that alone upset the law of absolution? You are either forgiven all, or forgiven none. (See, how this absolute thinking leads to threads miles long - because everyone doesn't think exactly the same, and if they are thinking in absolutes, they will conflict) And if you must constantly ask to stay forgiven, then you weren't forgiven completely to begin - it wasn't "once and for all."
This is something else people often misunderstand -- the difference between
Salvation and
Service. Where
Salvation is concerned ( Eternal Life ), all sins are forgiven - past, present, and future - 'forgiveness' is "one time" for all sin --- where Service is concerned ( Relationship with God ), 'forgiveness' of sin must be, out of necessity, "continual"...
The sins of a born-again believer will not "keep them out of heaven"; yet they will still "give an account" ( Matthew 12:36 ) for their "works" in this life. The only judgment for
Salvation is Faith; the rest of judgment is about
Service. The result of the
Salvation judgment is
Eternal Life or
Eternal Death. The result of the
Service judgment is [ amount / extent of ]
Reward. This is [ why and how ] a person can "do good works" and still end up in the lake of fire for all eternity. It is Belief and Faith in God and Jesus that saves, and gives Eternal Life. The rest is all about Service and Reward.
And honestly, that's where the continual sacrifice of Christ in the Mass makes sense, to me. I am not advocating it, only I see where the logic comes from.
Yet it is directly contrary to Scripture -- which says that Jesus gave Himself a
one time sacrifice for [ all ] sins ( Hebrews 10:12 ).
The idea of "continual sacrifice of Christ" actually "runs against" the entirety of the Gospel message concerning the whole reason for Christ's first coming.
The work of Christ ( His first coming ) is finished!
No more "sacrifice" is needed.
Again -- 'logic' fails - 'faith' is required.
Remember I said if you want to claim the Bible in absolution, then it must follow absolute ideas and laws. Otherwise, you resort to "God works in mysterious ways" or "His thoughts are above your thoughts." Believe me, I think humanity would do well to draw principals from Christ! Absolutely! But to say the Bible is absolute truth, and it follows all the laws of nature (YEC for example), then if something in it isn't logical, then how can you expect people to take it seriously? Notice how just about every story you hear of someone forsaking their "common sense" for God was in some kind of turmoil or confusion, seeking an answer... well, if it's completely logical, a person wouldn't need trouble to accept it.
Ok, God's thoughts are above ours... well, the handiness in this statement is that you could apply it to anything you have trouble answering. It's not concrete. It can't be proven or tested. And THAT'S not logic, that is nothing we can establish as absolute... so if you explain something in Scripture as vague or having a "maybe" kind of answer, then the bible itself can't remain absolute. As someone said on here "The Bible stands as a whole, or falls as a whole." And honestly, that's true, if you treat it such.
Would you know, EVEN science is starting to deviate from laws and absolutes, to examining things in probability. Google the string theory. Fascinating stuff. And honestly, I think this school of thought promotes God, more than dispute Him.
If a person understands the difference between 'logic' and 'faith' -- all of this "will take care of itself"...
Scripture is not intended to be "logical" -- it must be
reasoned and
accepted by Faith.
As for later books and writings. You mention commentary. Remember that Paul and the Apostles often quoted the OT, and explained them in the context of their time and circumstance. Is that not commentary? It was certainly commentary during that time, as the events of Christ just happened recently.
I'm not sure that you can draw absolutes about Scripture's authority based on time written alone. "They are the ones dated first, so they must be the right ones." Well, take Genesis. Moses wrote it, as oral tradition, long after even the conservative belief of time Adam/Eve fell. And after other creation stories were penned. If you want to say that these oral traditions were highly accurate being penned so long after, then how is it you can just rule out everything after a certain date concerning Jesus? I'm not really wanting to get into an argument of the Gospels' authenticity.
Honestly, if you want to know what I think, I'm not so sure it's the conservative or absolute beliefs in and of themselves that people are repelled by, and fellow Christians even. What is particularly offensive is being called rebellious, or carnal, or some other nasty description for questioning or posing some other view.
I know because I'm guilty myself. Basically what that communicates is the unspoken idea that I could read the other person's mind, and get into the most intimate recesses of their soul uninvited... and yet, don't we in the next breath say that Jesus knocks, and asks to enter? That He doesn't force Himself? This is the problem with absolute teaching of Scripture - it is to pass an omniscient manner of judgement. To pass an absolute judgement (which absolute would include being true for EVERY circumstance, applicable to ANY situation), is to insinuate that you think you're omniscient. You likely don't think that. But that's what people hear, that's what I hear when I communicate a feeling that not 100% Puritan in spirit and doctrine.
What people find offensive is the idea that they have to answer to a "higher" being. People are sinners, and don't like to think of themselves as anything less than [ their own ] god.