Doxa

Has anyone actually read this book? I watched his presentation and read a few a counter-argument against it by Robert Gagnon, who is one of the leading New Testament scholars from the Reformed/Lutheran tradition. I have to admit, both arguments were very good and its easy to see how reasonable people can disagree on this issue, and why it is dividing the Church so much across denominations.

My mind was made up a long time ago by reading the liberal Catholic James Alison. He is not working from a strict Sola Scriptura hermeneutic, more of a "tradition" type approach that I tend to favor; his arguments were convincing me enough it changed my mind on this issue years ago. But I think it's noteworthy that Matthew Vines shows that there is the potential among conservative Christians with a strictly regulative, Reformed hermeneutic to rethink the issues, especially if one comes to believe that many of the passages are not as clear as once thought. If anything, if one takes a strictly Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura, then there is little room to appeal to extra-biblical, tradition-based understandings of what the passages mean (as Gagnon tends to do).

I think as far as hermeneutic appeals go, the problem for a strictly Reformed understanding is an accusation of 'selective Bibliacity' in the sense that it's easy to take on a small minority group like the gays, while ignoring the stronger and clearer Biblical injuctions against divorce and failing to strongly assert a position that half or a third of contemporary adults are likely to be offended by.

The ideas that their readings are exceptionally u tainted, that they don't pick and choose, and that their interpretations aren't also grounded in a tradition - their own tradition - imv are all just patently ridiculous.

People tolerate divorce by way of a sort of Protestant equivalent of "economia" that the Orthodox practice (grace or leniency). But of course such consideration for gays are usually drawing the line... my criticism of economia is that it's often done for cultural reasons rather than the genuine spiritual welfare of the believer (else why would someone shut out a gay man or woman from the sacraments of the Church altogether for one single sin in their life).

I'd really encourage you to look at the theology of James Alison however. He goes beyond merely arguing that gays should be given leniency to questioning the whole traditional Christian assumptions about sexuality (which are basically based around the unitive + procreative or complimentarian memes). I also recommend Rowan Williams The Body's Grace for an argument why heavy-handed condemnations of cohabitation and pre-marital sex are wrong-headed.

All is lawful, but not all is beneficial, I will not be ruled by anything. It seem to me that people idolize the law way to much. For many people the law is God.

rvhill wrote:All is lawful, but not all is beneficial, I will not be ruled by anything. It seem to me that people idolize the law way to much. For many people the law is God.

They want a compromise, a minimum standard by which to get a C- and sneak into heaven (or at least avoid hell). Kierkegaard and others have said that religion has always been just that, a way to minimally acknowledge the divine and thus try to avoid any actual contact with God or the gods...

Back to the topic of marriage. Neither the sanctity of marriage nor any family values at all seem to me to be present in the NT, unless you want to count when Paul says,"well, it's better for you to marry than it is to burn...." so, for him, it seemed the married state was at best second-rate and perhaps just barely tolerable by God, which hardly suggests any particular holiness. But then, he was a person of his time in many ways...

The only passing grade is perfection. That is why the NT is about grace. As far as heaven and hell go, I only believe in life, death, and the resurrection. As far as marriage goes, God smiles on a lot of things.

met wrote:

rvhill wrote:All is lawful, but not all is beneficial, I will not be ruled by anything. It seem to me that people idolize the law way to much. For many people the law is God.

They want a compromise, a minimum standard by which to get a C- and sneak into heaven (or at least avoid hell). Kierkegaard and others have said that religion has always been just that, a way to minimally acknowledge the divine and thus try to avoid any actual contact with God or the gods...

Back to the topic of marriage. Neither the sanctity of marriage nor any family values at all seem to me to be present in the NT, unless you want to count when Paul says,"well, it's better for you to marry than it is to burn...." so, for him, it seemed the married state was at best second-rate and perhaps just barely tolerable by God, which hardly suggests any particular holiness. But then, he was a person of his time in many ways...

I am having an argument with an atheist on secular outpost. It's on that concept of religion. I'll put up a post about it

Back to the topic of marriage. Neither the sanctity of marriage nor any family values at all seem to me to be present in the NT, unless you want to count when Paul says,"well, it's better for you to marry than it is to burn...." so, for him, it seemed the married state was at best second-rate and perhaps just barely tolerable by God, which hardly suggests any particular holiness. But then, he was a person of his time in many ways...

Doesn't Paul say in the NT that a married man has to be more pleasing to the world or something?

JBSptfn wrote:

Back to the topic of marriage. Neither the sanctity of marriage nor any family values at all seem to me to be present in the NT, unless you want to count when Paul says,"well, it's better for you to marry than it is to burn...." so, for him, it seemed the married state was at best second-rate and perhaps just barely tolerable by God, which hardly suggests any particular holiness. But then, he was a person of his time in many ways...

Doesn't Paul say in the NT that a married man has to be more pleasing to the world or something?

\no. He says he has to be more concerned with cares of the world he means like paying the rent.

Metacrock wrote:

JBSptfn wrote:

Back to the topic of marriage. Neither the sanctity of marriage nor any family values at all seem to me to be present in the NT, unless you want to count when Paul says,"well, it's better for you to marry than it is to burn...." so, for him, it seemed the married state was at best second-rate and perhaps just barely tolerable by God, which hardly suggests any particular holiness. But then, he was a person of his time in many ways...

Doesn't Paul say in the NT that a married man has to be more pleasing to the world or something?

\no. He says he has to be more concerned with cares of the world he means like paying the rent.

Oh, yeah. Now I remember.