@Eddi I am responding to you post
here, but I did not want to edit your post, nor split this, so I have excluded the quote.
I understand your position... Not that I agree with it.
Thanks for explaining it though, and I don't disagree with everything you said.
I will explain why some goes against what I believe to be the godly required way, and what my position is. (This may be long
). Bear with me please.
Perhaps I had better start with the video (interesting clip).
The "President" obviously thought he was using
proper reason, while the "Doctor" was burying reason with Biblical and religious "nonsense". I picked up, that was what the movie was supposed to accomplish - the usual misrepresentation of reality from a Biblical perspective.
The facts Bible bashing worldly people don't reveal, or rather, ignore, or ?perhaps? in ignorance just fail to grasp, is that the same Bible reveals that two different situation existed, and each situation had its own arrangements.
According to scripture...
When Jehovah chose the nation of Israel as his people, he was their king, and ruler, having authority to set laws, and enforce them, and punish wrongdoers.
That was an entirely different system, for the reason that Jehovah - the holy one - was in their midst, abd therefore a very strict, if you will, system was necessary from God's perspective.
He also had arrangements in place, which were for the purpose of fairness, and to benefit the people.
When Jehovah stopped dealing with the nation of Israel, that ruler-ship no longer is exercised, based on it's laws, and judicial decisions.
The rule that is to be exercised is the one, Jesus - the appointed ruler - spoke about, while on earth... the kingdom of God.
Currently the kingdom has not begun ruling the whole earth. However, it's laws were being utilized, and promoted by the heir.
So basically, what the "President" in the movie, and this is done by individuals of like mind, did, is mix the two systems, thus confusing the situation.
For example, the creator of the clip, cleverly used a scripture in Deuteronomy on homosexuality, as a stepping stone, to his arguments against the present system, by mixing in
judicial action from the former system - which doesn't apply to the present.
These clever individuals always remind me of Genesis 3:1, against which apostle Paul gave this warning...
(2 Corinthians 11:3, 4)
3 But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, your minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ. 4 For as it is, if someone comes and preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached, or you receive a spirit other than what you received, or good news other than what you accepted, you easily put up with him.
We don't need to resort to the Mosaic Law, for laws against sexual immorality, including homosexuality. There are many in the present laws of conduct(1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 ; 1 Timothy 1:8-11)
It is true we can benefit from the Laws given through Moses, which are not explicitly spelled out in the present laws. For example, not putting markings (tattoos) or cuttings, on your skin. That along with others, can guide us in principle, and help us get God's mind on matters, but the judicial action taken or recommended under the former system, does not apply to the latter system (Ephesians 2:13-18; Galatians 3:10-14).
This is why I believe reason, and not just any reason, because reason is fine, but I think it depends on what kind of reason one uses, because even though God gave us ability to reason (I am glad to know you appreciate that gift. It's wonderful)... He gave Adam and Eve also... and they used reason, but how? Even though God gave us ability to reason, we may use worldly reason, as opposed to scriptural reason. Let me explain what I mean.
Let me say first of all, that I understand you are not saying that reason alone is all you need. You probably share Robert Boyle's view, who said,
"For as though a man may, with his naked eye, see heaven to be a very glorious object, ennobled with radiant stars of several sorts; yet, when his eye is assisted with a good telescope he cannot only discover a number of stars, (fixed and wandering), which his naked eye would never have shown him, but those planets which he could see before will appear to him much bigger and more distinct: so, although bare reason, well improved, will suffice to make a man behold many glorious attributes in the deity; yet the same reason, when assisted by revelation, may enable a man to discover far more excellencies in God and perceive them than he contemplated before, far greater and more distinctly. And to show how much a dim eye, illuminated by the Scriptures, is able to discover of the divine perfections, and how unobvious they are to the most piercing philosophical eyes . . "
I believe we can reason from, or on the scriptures (and Bible principles), which is what we are considering, or we can reason from our own ideas, viewpoint, etc.
Jesus obviously used reason - the best kind (Matthew 7:28, 29; John 7:45, 46) , but didn't he use God's word, or scripture? He did, of course, direct attention to the scriptures.
The apostles reasoned from scripture. (Acts 17:2, 3, 17)
2 . . .for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and proving by references . . .
17 . . .he began to reason in the synagogue with the Jews and the other people who worshipped God . . .
(Acts 19:8) Entering the synagogue, for three months he spoke with boldness, giving talks and reasoning persuasively about the Kingdom of God.
It was this kind of reason that allowed them to take the course they did.
(Romans 12:1, 2)
1 Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
However, I don't want to make this too long, so in a nutshell, the Bible does not override reason, as is suggested in the first column of the chart you attached. I think the chart does not present an
entirely fair "approach".
So I will have to add my approach. (The chart is not bad though)
After investigating whether the Bible is indeed truthful or not, I have come to the conclusion that
the Bible is the inspired (God breathed) word of God, and can be trusted completely. Therefore, worldly reason, and experience - e.g.. (1 Corinthians 3:18-20)
18 Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, so that he may become wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.”
20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.”
are indeed judged in light of the Bible, along with scriptural reason and experience, e.g. (Psalm 34:8) . . .Taste and see that Jehovah is good; Happy is the man who takes refuge in him.
Sounds good to me.
I can illustrates it with
this (
just the first four (4) paragraphs).
I can compare it to a few other situations.
A person who is uncertain whether God is, or not...
in doubt... will act on worldly wisdom, so rather than trust what God says, they will reason on their own ideas, views, etc.
Take for example two situations that occurred in Babylon in the 6th century B.C.E.
When the three Hebrew boys whom were better known by the Babylonian names given them - Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego - were threatened with death, if they doubted God's word, or were uncertain, they would have found themselves
reasoning, as I have heard some people reason, "Well it's only a statue, made of wood. So bowing to it means nothing. It's not like we don't know it's not real, and we would not be worshiping it... just bowing"
That's using reason, but isn't there something wrong with it?
Similarly, I have heard some persons reason, "Well Daniel didn't have to pray at the same time, and he could have shut his window."
This is how I see reason tripping persons up, who do not hold the Bible, as the complete word of God, or may have doubts about it, or about God.
This apparently is why Paul wrote... (Hebrews 11:6)
Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.
If however, one has proven to themselves, that God is, and that the Bible truly is the word of God, which is what I have done, reason, as I described earlier, would not override what is written. What is writen, overrides that reason.
To further emphasize that point. Recall that you were reasoning on why you think God does not kill, and why you think God does not torment. Say that reasoning were based entirely on what the scriptures actually said, it would be taken from scripture, rather than personal views, or ideas, or even feelings.
For example, there is no scripture that says man has an immortal soul, and there is no scripture that says, man will be tormented in hell forever.
One reading the scriptures, and seeing what they actually say, will see
what I had pointed out - man, the soul - dies, and does not keep on living. Hell, as used in the Bible, becomes empty, and is removed forever - cast into the lake of fire,
which the scriptures clearly says, is symbolic of the second death.
So in that case, it is just a matter of having accurate knowledge from scripture.
From what I have seen, the two things that get in the way of that, are 1) not being sure of the scriptures, and 2) not knowing what the scriptures say.
I can understand how that... along with other things, would affect one's choice of their approach to using the Bible. I totally understand your position.
This is something I am quite familiar with, because it is a fact that knowing what the Bible says, depends on our being associated with a community that takes it seriously - that is, that views it as completely the word of God.
In your experience, do you find that is the situation with most pastors or clergy?