Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534
aron, surely you do not compare Paul's practical instructions to Timothy on how to maintain a widows' roll with Job's wife's advice!
|
Why not? They are both humans who are speaking/writing in God's Holy Word. Or did Paul get a special dispensation of inerrancy by holding the office of "Apostle of the Age"?
When Peter said, "Not so, Lord, this shall never happen to you" in Matthew 16, was he speaking for God, or injecting his fallen human thought? Jesus said, "Get behind me, Satan." So obviously it was not the former.
Later, after the resurrection, Peter said, "I am going fishing." The rest said, "We are going with you." Here they seem to be in some error, judging by the Lord's gentle rebuke later ("Peter, do you love Me?"); did they get a special "inerrancy pill" on the day of Pentecost, so that their deeds and speaking cannot be scrutinized afterwards? I think not. They obviously had different opinions at times -- see the record in Galatians on Paul's confrontation with Peter when some came "from James".
I am not holding my opinion as capable of setting Paul's opinion at naught (Except in the case of wine: he told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach; I would have to say, "Sorry brother, can't do that. The stuff makes me crazy"). I apologize if I gave that impression. I have the bad habit of leaving unstated several "connecting dots" in my thinking. My point of Timothy and Titus not being the "last word" was more do to my annoyance at people seeming to imply with their citations of scriptures that it was now and henceforth "case closed", and any further questionings rank of foolish impiety. "God has spoken; we have the cases of eldership cited in Timothy and Titus. It is clear. Cease your nettlesome questionings."
(Forgive me,
Toledo, if I am picking on you here specifically. I am just trying to simplify my sense of the arguments I have heard over the past umpteen years of my christian discussions. Sometimes simplification involves distortion. I apologize if my characterization in any way distorts your argument).
What I am setting against Paul's writing in Timothy and Titus is not my opinion. It is the speakings of Jesus the Galilean. Sometimes Paul's writings smack of "exigencies", i.e. dealing with particular cases which no longer are so relevant (slavery, women's place in the assembly) due to changes in culture over time.
What I am
also setting against Paul's writing in Timothy and Titus is
the writings of others in the Bible. I am specifically thinking of John. Where is John's opinion on this matter? It is never discussed in my hearing or reading, and I think this is due to two reasons.
First, people go "case closed" when they read the verses in question. This is a problem with the "concordance" school of systematic theology. We just look up all verses saying "eldership" or "elder" or "office" and think we have it. I am actually picking on Lee here. He was too quick to say "case closed".
Secondly, John's writings are more elliptical, more inscrutable, more veiled, which I think was done purposefully by him. John picked up Jesus' trick of hiding in plain sight. "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is speaking to the churches" is a direct echo of Jesus' word in the face of the Pharisees, after He threw a parable at them: "He who has an ear to hear, let him hear." John was deliberately playing "games" with his readers; he was setting a puzzle before them. What does John say about the appointment of elders in the assemblies of those who are called out?