"It is better to marry than to burn with passion." [PG-13]

[Bravus]

I guess in part that comes down to individual experience: on balance, for me, marriage has provided infinitely more joys than pain and hassle, even though it has also had its share of the latter. I wouldn't for a moment have missed out on the joy to avoid the pain. Same applies to life in this world - on balance, far more joy than pain, and I wouldn't have missed it for the world. So I feel the same about bringing kids into the world. Others' experience may well differ, but avoidance of all pain just leads to non-life. Better to endure the pains and embrace the life.

[Robert]

That's your choice....As Paul states it is not sin. However, in my older age I have come to the conclusion that in this day and time it is a bit irresponsible to bring kids into this world.

Yes...maybe it brings you happiness, but what about theirs when and if they hit rock bottom?

Rob

[olger]

Dear Bravage: How's my favorite flaming liberal?

Note that Paul begins chapter 7 By referring to a specific question that they sent to him. This is significant, because much of this chapter deals with his answer. The Bible is also careful to announce the context of the discussion to disclaim the fact that Paul is being asked for his opinion. Three salient points arise in that answer.

1) The question centers around the theme of marriage.

2) Paul is not given a direct command from God for his answer (v 6). Where he states his opinion, he carefully says so.

3) Paul is a single man (vv. 7-8).

more later..

[Bravus]

I'm doing really well, thanx olger.

Good and important points you raise.

I do wonder whether according the Bible appropriate respect means actually reading what it says, as a unit (i.e. as a whole letter), rather than taking individual texts out of context. I suspect that approach would largely defuse many of the problems around this section.

BTW, do we have more info on the specifics of the 'current crisis'? Surely that is also relevant knowledge.

[David Koot]

I do wonder whether according the Bible appropriate respect means actually reading what it says, as a unit (i.e. as a whole letter), rather than taking individual texts out of context. I suspect that approach would largely defuse many of the problems around this section.

Both are needed--integrity and accuracy in exegeting the individual words and (translator-divided) verses, and understanding the whole. The two are inseparable. If careful attention is not given to the individual building blocks which make up the whole, then you have 'the house that Jack built.'

One of the great dangers of focusing inordinately upon the 'meaning of the whole' is the danger for inaccuracy. Someone looks at a 'book' or chapter and decides that 'thus' is what it means. It becomes a private interpretation, where each reader becomes a law until himself. It is deculturizing Scripture to fit the reader's ideas.

Dave

[Woody]

Quote:

It becomes a private interpretation, where each reader becomes a law until himself.

In the end ... we each have to study for ourselves and come to our own private conclusion. Can you name me any two Christians who see eye to eye on the Bible interpretations?

It has to be private. But I think we place far too much importance on all this. The Gospel is simple enough for the most simple. It does not take scholarly investigations to know what we need to know. God is Love. He died for you. Share this love with others.

I really don't have to know 1844 if I know God. But, to each his own. Some enjoy the mystery. And that is fine. But it is not for everyone.

[Bravus]

I agree largely with what you say about interpretation, David, though I suspect that sometimes your own methods may lean too strongly on the word-by-word and not follow up to the 'whole of text' approach. I think both are important, but agree that the latter should not contradict the former.

[Jeannieb43]

I guess in part that comes down to individual experience: on balance, for me, marriage has provided infinitely more joys than pain and hassle, even though it has also had its share of the latter. I wouldn't for a moment have missed out on the joy to avoid the pain. Same applies to life in this world - on balance, far more joy than pain, and I wouldn't have missed it for the world. So I feel the same about bringing kids into the world. Others' experience may well differ, but avoidance of all pain just leads to non-life. Better to endure the pains and embrace the life.

From my observation, Bravus, it is you and others like you who should be bringing children into the world. You make parenting a full-time, and fully responsible, job. Your kids will grow up well adjusted. And if they have a few "bumps in the road" you'll be there for them to help them through.

On the other hand, it's the careless, unprepared folk these days who are populating the world with unwanted, uncared-for and uneducated children, who should not be propagating.

[olger]

Well taken, Jeannie.

[fccool]

On the other hand, it's the careless, unprepared folk these days who are populating the world with unwanted, uncared-for and uneducated children, who should not be propagating.

I agree, although it is not a black and white issue. We can look at world through rose glasses and decide should and should nots, but the reality is that we are all connected in one way or another. The bell tolls for me. All of us can potentially be those careless folk. So, the change starts with us. A part of me would like to say that AMEN, we should be sending condoms to Africa, along with the food. But at the same time I realize that there are other factors involved, and we are dealing with human beings here... especially children. Who am I to say that a child should not be born? I was such a child, and I really appreciate that my parents did not listen . I would pick poverty and dysfunctional family over non-existence any time of the day.

[David Koot]

Can Paul be mistaken on this issue in the Bible. Does inspiration stop him, for example? Can he be wrong on this and still right on justification by faith?

[olger]

Just saying that I appreciate your post, Dave...

oG

[Bravus]

Quote:

I would simply say to be careful not to try to substitute human reasoning for God's inspired Word. Approach the study of the Word with humility of mind, setting aside our own ideas, and be willing to receive the Light from heaven, without argument.

Fair enough. But apparently my own personal study of the Bible is not appropriate grounds, since I might be deceived or rationalising. So I need to accept someone else's scholarship on what the Word says. And I can't find any two people who agree. Dilemma.

[John317]

Quote:

I would simply say to be careful not to try to substitute human reasoning for God's inspired Word. Approach the study of the Word with humility of mind, setting aside our own ideas, and be willing to receive the Light from heaven, without argument.

Fair enough. But apparently my own personal study of the Bible is not appropriate grounds, since I might be deceived or rationalising. So I need to accept someone else's scholarship on what the Word says. And I can't find any two people who agree. Dilemma.

Each of is responsible and answerable ultimately only to God for what we honestly understand the Bible to say to us. But that is assuming that we pray that God will send His Spirit to teach us and convict us of truth and that we will follow it once the Holy Spirit does this. No human can take the place of the Holy Spirit as our teacher, but at the same time God does use other Christians to help all of us understand the Bible. (There are many examples of this in the Bible.)

It's always possible that I could be right and all other Christians wrong on certain understandings, assuming they agree together, but it's very unlikely, and I ought to be very careful before I conclude that the church is wrong and I am right. Yet after careful and sincere study and prayer, and after listening to what other Christian scholars and writers have said about a particular verse or doctrine, if I still honestly believe that the Bible teaches differently than others are telling me, especially on a subject of substance, it would be best for me to follow my own conscience.

Almost always you will be able find a large number of Christians, or SDA, who agree on a particular doctrine or understanding of a verse. It's very rare indeed that you would not be able to find any two people who agree. They may not agree in every detail or they might have some differences on a certain aspect, but they will usually be in general agreement. At least that's been experience.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Bravus]

But if I am fully convicted, after praying and studying, that Paul is dead wrong in his advice in the passage under discussion, I'll still be wrong, right?

[monica]

1] If you are not weak sexually, don't get married.

Sexual desire isn´t the main reason people get married (at least for women). One simply needs a soulmate. It´s really sad to live by yourself.

[Woody]

But if I am fully convicted, after praying and studying, that Paul is dead wrong in his advice in the passage under discussion, I'll still be wrong, right?

This is a great point Bravus. In the end ... it really doesn't matter who is right. IF your heart is right and you have sincerely searched ... YOU ARE RIGHT no matter what conclusion you have come to.

All the details will come out when we see His face and have eternity to study. What we do here on earth is a drop in the bucket compared to what we will learn THEN.

[John317]

But if I am fully convicted, after praying and studying, that Paul is dead wrong in his advice in the passage under discussion, I'll still be wrong, right?

I firmly believe-- based on my understanding of the nature of the word of God-- that if I see clearly that the the New Testament is teaching a certain way, I would be in error to say that the NT is wrong.

For instance, if I am persuaded by the evidence and through prayer and study that the Bible teaches Jesus will return visibly and literally to this earth, and raise the dead, I would be wrong to set my opinion up as more correct and deny these teachings of the Bible.

Everyone has to wrestle with these issues of faith and reason and no can settle them for someone else. All we can is do express our convictions and give the reasons and evidence for them, and pray for each other that God will lead and that we will allow Him to teach us.

It'd be great if parents and others could believe for their loved ones but it doesn't work that way, of course. Each one has to come to his own personal faith.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

But if I am fully convicted, after praying and studying, that Paul is dead wrong in his advice in the passage under discussion, I'll still be wrong, right?

This is a great point Bravus. In the end ... it really doesn't matter who is right. IF your heart is right and you have sincerely searched ... YOU ARE RIGHT no matter what conclusion you have come to.

All the details will come out when we see His face and have eternity to study. What we do here on earth is a drop in the bucket compared to what we will learn THEN.

Doctrinal error can, and does, lead to tragic and disastrous consequences. It matters what we believe. False doctrine effects the life. For instance, if I believe that the dead are conscious and able to communicate with us, it could easily lead me into all kinds of dangerous practices and beliefs. Again, if I don't believe Jesus is even coming back, it isn't very likely that I am going to be prepared to welcome Him when He does return.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Praise God. HE knows our heart.

[David Koot]

But if I am fully convicted, after praying and studying, that Paul is dead wrong in his advice in the passage under discussion, I'll still be wrong, right?

Bravus . . . I address this to you as a scientist and an educator: Two critical concepts: Accuracy and peer review. Accuracy and intellectual rigor when it comes to studying the Word, and then submitting one's findings and conclusions to peer review. If your findings are valid, then any student, anywhere in the world, should be able to reach similar conclusions using industry-standard methodology. Do you see any problem in applying these principles to the study of the Bible?

Dave

[Woody]

A LOT of good all that peer review and industry-standards have done for the majority of Christians.

[David Koot]

But. my friend, I am addressing this to a fellow voyager in the quest for accuracy and truth, my esteemed internet colleague, Bravus. I am confident that he, as a scientist, will appreciate what I am saying. Certainly, in science there is peer review, and an obsession with accuracy--which I also have. Without accuracy and peer review, science would be reduced to vacant ramblings accomplishing litle or nothing. Accuracy is an end in itself. I do suggest that we need a ban on carelessness and sloppy tecniques when it comes to study of the Word.

Dave

[Bravus]

A left-field thought - who says being married stops you burning with passion?

I get what you're saying, Dave - but the peer reviewed consensus seems to be that the Sabbath has been moved to Sunday, for example, so clearly the methodology is not fail-safe.

[David Koot]

But how, then, would one recognize if a given solution is guided by the Holy Spirit? For example, the gentleman who claimed he was given revelations directly from God--the H.S.--that certain Bible passages clearly stated universalism. How about something like that?

Dave