Re: [asa] Fear and Loathing on this list

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:58:04 +0000 Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
writes:
>
> Actually I think you can legitimately say "that was him", in this
> case. It is clear (to me at any rate) that the "voice" being used
> in
> the passage is a prophetic one, and sounds like many passages from
> the
> Old Testament prophets. Calling down woes on people is a clear
> prophetic warning of future judgement from God.
>
> But Jesus calls upon US not to judge - it is for God to judge and
> not
> for us. Indeed, if we judge, we'll be judged for the same faults -
> we
> will be the ones accused of hypocrisy.
>
This claim is common, but is not exegetically correct. Matthew 7:1 is not
followed by the declaration that God is the sole judge, but that we
cannot get by with one standard for ourselves and a more stringent one
for others. I recall one evangelist noting that he was allowed to inspect
fruit (see verses 16ff). Verse 20 is explicit that we know others by
their fruits. To argue that we cannot judge would prevent a physician
from diagnosing a disease and an accountant from noting that taxes had
not been paid.
 
> So I think it is a lame excuse indeed to use the "nasty" tone of
> Matthew 23 to justify being thoroughly obnoxious to folks like
> YEC's,
> unless those who do so are claiming they are "charismatic"
> Christians
> with the gift of prophecy, and were called upon by the Holy Spirit
> to
> use vitriol and sarcasm.
>
> Surely a better model is how Jesus treated the woman taken in
> adultery. Did he condemn her? No. Did he call her a "braying
> jackass"? No. Did he say she was a slut and a whore? No. He
> didn't
> condemn her. But he DID say that she mustn't sin any more.
>
There are two problems here. The first is that John 8: 3-11 does not have
adequate textual support. In addition, taken at face value, the event it
describes involves a violation of the scriptural command (Deuteronomy
22:22 and other passages) that both the man and the woman shall die. This
gang brought only the woman who they claimed was caught in the act. As
for the condemnation, there had to be at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy
17:6; 19:15), but there were none. All had left. Jesus could not have
legally condemned her to death because he was not a witness to her act.
He acknowledged her sin.

If I recall correctly, those who caused an execution contrary to the law
would be subject to execution. Those guys who were protecting the guilty
man while condemning the woman had to be thinking hard. What was Jesus
writing? My guess is the relevant scriptures, but which? Those that spell
out the legal requirements or those that specify the condemnation of
those acting illegally?

> So if your YEC friend comes out with a piece of "scientific
> explanation" that is a clear falsehood - you shouldn't go in all
> guns
> blazing and tell them they're a filthy liar. You should reason;
> point
> that the so-called "science" they are using is utterly flawed and
> false, and that they mustn't use it again. If that person then
> continues to use that fallacious argument - that's their
> responsibility, not yours. But if you go in and tell them they're
> a
> filthy liar, then you will be called in judgement for all the times
> you've been less than 100% truthful, (Matthew 7:1-2), and which of
> us
> can hold our hands up and say that wouldn't happen to us?
>
Is there a penalty for chewing out the brethren?

> Iain
>
Dave (ASA)
____________________________________________________________
Click to find deals on home theater systems.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2npS8AgnQU0f89Vo79xjxFo8ncVvNtCiKDC2Q4SDaWR7mex/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 17 17:08:38 2009