Two days ago, the Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in my state. The web is a buzz over the issue. Across America, pastors addressed this topic in their sermons today. In this post, I do not want to speak on the legality or rationality of this decision. Rather, I have some questions for Christians about their involvement in social issues. American Christianity has always been involved in politics. Believers have not just participated but been leaders on issues such as slavery, women’s rights, prohibition, abortion, and gay marriage. American Christianity is full of victories and failures in the realm of social activism. How effective have we been and what have we lost in this pursuit? These are areas that I have been thinking about lately. I am interested in your take so leave comments below.Christianities Christianty's loss of respect as being directly connected to her involvement in social issues. Is this a result of the churches actions or the secularization of society?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
An Open Question to Christians on Social Issues
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Russ, one modification to question 2. Abortion is fighting for the rights of others, the most innocent others one could ever fight for. I have no idea when Christians tried to legislate tithing or church attendance, is this true?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't believe that the church was particularly "respected" when it was fighting against slavery. That's either revisionism or idealistic hindsight. The Church is respected NOW that slavery is overwhelmingly agreed to have been evil. And do you believe that the Church should desire (or even expect) to ever be respected by the unregenerate world? Jesus seemed to indicate quite otherwise.
With that in mind, now to answer your questions (as best I can)...
ReplyDelete1. The "loss of respect" is largely due to the huge increase in the secularization of the American society. Yes, some churches have not helped. But lest we forget, the most "respected" churches in America are those who ordain women and homosexuals, and preach an "everyone goes to heaven" gospel. I don't think churches should care to be respected by the world.
2. If it's truly "legislating morality," then the Church should stay out of it. The Prohibition was pointless, and the modern version of it with regard to smoking is also pointless and immoral to boot, so the Church should not involve itself with that kind of legislation. If it's about legislating to give people God-given rights, then the Church should be for it. With regard to homosexual marriage, the Church should be careful how it presents its case. It's not a matter of keeping people from doing whatever they want, they will get their due judgment from God. It's a matter of our government (which is us, the people) promoting healthy relationships and fellow citizens.
3. I agree if one understands what Piper means by that. After all, he later railed against Obama for his anti-life policies, and John the Baptist repeatedly attacked Herod for his immoral lifestyle. What Piper must mean is care about the issues, but remember our hope is not in politics or parties. For example, I once discussed the merits of homosexual marriage on a small-town newspaper website, and a fellow Christian said something to this effect: "I don't want to see gay marriage because it offends God and will make me unhappy." I told him that while I agreed with his position on marriage, I didn't agree that it would make me unhappy. It would make me sad in a sense to see our society praising that which is perverted, but I still know that my hope is not here. So I'm joyful for the hope set before us even though the world is burning.
4. I'm sure we've lost some opportunities and gained others. Who knows if it is a total plus or minus? Because the Church has focused on abortion, thousands of crisis pregnancy centers have sprung up bringing hope and the Gospel to women and families all over the country. But that is a fair question to always ask: will fighting for or against this social policy ultimately spread the Good News? Or, better yet, can I spread the Gospel light while supporting certain social issues?
Thanks for the comments Darius. You make a lot of good points. Let me see if I can answer some of your questions in your first comment.
ReplyDeleteDuring the early sixteenth century in New England, if one wanted to vote he needed to be a member of the church. Over time this was gradually relaxed until it was done away with. Also in New England and other parts of the country, the state made sure people gave money to the church through taxation. These policies were instituted when Christians controlled both the state and the church.
I should have qualified why I placed abortion in that category. I believe that of all of those issues that abortion is the most altruistic to defend. It is striving to protect the right to life of the unborn, the most innocent of victims. That being said, I placed it in the other category because of the type issue. Slavery and women’s rights were issues where the victim was easily observable. It would have probably been better for me to leave that issue out of both categories.
In regard to your question over respectability, my article was concerned with American Christianity. America was unique in that it began as a nation with a heavy concentration of Christians. Up to the 1920’s, it was fashionable to go to church. Church attendance was a communal event. Thus because of its unique environment, Christianity was respected.
Also, many of the leaders of the abolitionist movement were ministers (all were religious to my knowledge). Elijah Lovejoy was a Presbyterian minister who printed abolitionist literature. In 1837, he was killed outside the building which housed his printing press because of his anti-slavery views. In the North and Midwest, Christianity was respected by many for its sacrificial stand against slavery.
To answer your last question, I believe that it is immaterial whether Christians are respected by unregenerate society. The church should desire to please Christ not gain the respect of the world.
Lastly, I appreciated your answer that our hope is set before us. Our hope is not realized in the Christianizing or re-Christianizing of society but in Christ.
Did you hear about Vermont legalizing homosexual marriage today April 7, 2009.
ReplyDeleteA Christian is foolish to just sit by and do nothing when we are called to be salt and light. It is much easier to get along in life if we don't dwell on these terrible things happening in our country and trust that God has everything taken care of. This is no excuse for derelict behavior and wanton abandonment of God given responsibility and commissioning. We should do all we can and in the end no matter what the outcome know that God has it taken care of. If you are in a church praying and the house next door is burning down you should grab a bucket of water and let those who are unable to fight fires continue to pray that God will extinguish the flames.
I hadn’t heard about the Vermont decision; that is unfortunate. Also, I would like to comment on your response.
ReplyDeleteIn Matthew 5, it uses salt and light to refer to a Christian’s testimony. Christianity is a light and preservative (salt). Matthew is saying that to be salt and light is to reflect Christ (specifically in principles seen in the first twelve verses). You may be trying to make this verse fit your view by application but the verse is not espousing this. I am not saying it disproves your point, but I don’t think it can be used to support your view since it is not speaking about this topic.
Also, I hope my article did not give you the impression that I am saying to do nothing. Its purpose was to find out people’s opinions on whether social action is something that a Christian should be predominately occupied with, if so how much is a Christian to participate, and has it resulted in some kind of loss for Christianity (in the area of testimony and evangelism). I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.
To be salt and light is to reflect Christ. Christ was without sin (perhaps you need a refresher on your Christology). If we are to reflect Christ as much as possible we should be as perfect as we can so as to conform to His image. If one sits passively and does not stop evil when he can he is not being salt or light. He is not reflecting Christ in Christ's impeccable moral character.
ReplyDeleteSome are called to be pastors, teachers, politicians etc. ;-)
I understand the fact that Christ is sinless. What did you think I was saying?
ReplyDeleteIf I understand your reasoning, you are saying that we are to reflect Christ. Christ would be actively involved in these social causes. Therefore, we should be involved. This is fine. But, this specific verse does not teach social action. This is your application of the verse. There is a big difference. There are passages that have application tied in (such as the rest of this chapter), but this is principle based. My point is that if you want to prove your conclusion this is not where to stake your claim.
Also, I would still be interested in hearing you expand your view along the lines of the questions I asked. Currently, I have just heard that Christians should do something. Look forward to your reply.
Wait a minute, you say Matthew 5 is about our testimony - are you seriously suggesting that our testimony doesn't bridge into all area's of life? What about the "Anchor and Faith" post? At what point does it stop being our testimony and start being a social issue? Isn't everything a part of our testimony whether it be our involvement in church or a social issue? Where and how does being salt and light apply if not here? It sounds like hermeneutics is taking a real hit on this one.
ReplyDelete1. I am not sure what is meant by respect here, so I am not sure that I have a good context for answering this question. However, if you mean that Christianity has lost much of her prestige within American politics, then I would place the blame at the feet of the church. In fact, I think a good case can be made that the secularization of society is a direct result of the church's poor handling of her political responsibilities. It seems to me that when Christians are content to leave academia, politics, etc... to unbelievers, then we should not try to lay the effect at their feet.
ReplyDelete2. Again, I think I am lacking in context here as I am not particularly familiar with much of this historical data. However, legislating morality is counter-intuitive. Christians involved in legislation should legislate morally and ethically, however, they ought not try to legislate that morality. There is a distinct difference in both political and moral philosophy.
3.I agree with those that don't think that Piper meant to say that Christians should see Christianity as an immaterial issue. It is simply one of priorities. I am less interested in the legislative process than I am in the opportunity to lead someone to the Lord. However, it does not follow that politics is unimportant, only that other issues are more important.
4. I think that we lose opportunities to focus when we have an improper focus on social issues. We need to view them and prioritize them properly.
Scott, I would definitely agree with you that our testimony affects all parts of life. My whole point is that Matthew 5 cannot be used to prove that we should be involved in social causes. The commandment to reflect Christ does not imply that application. I am not saying we are not to be involved; I saying you can’t use this verse to prove that we should. It seems to me that this is a classic example of proof-texting. You are beginning with a conclusion and reading it into the verse.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I appreciate your comments on priorities. Being involved in social causes is not necessarily wrong as long as you maintain balance. In fact, this is one of the hardest things in the Christian life. For example, it is easy to be big on action and forget the devotional part. I was hoping somebody would bring this out.
Perhaps a comparison will help in case I am not being understood. I think we finally agree that in Matthew 5 the principle is that we are to reflect Christ. The world should be able to see Christ in us. It should permeate our lives. While that is true, you cannot use the verse to then prove how we should live our lives. For instance, the verse is not saying we should go to church, it is not saying we should pass out tracts, it is not saying that we should go to the abortion rally. It is simply saying for us to reflect Christ.
ReplyDeleteI think the comment about proof-texting helps clarify your point. I think that the logic of the argument is misplaced though and ought to be clarified. I would agree with you that it is wrong to INTERPRET this particular text to say that one ought or ought not commit a certain act. However, that does not invalidate the APPLICATION of the verse with regards to a specific act. Given that the APPLICATION is not invalid, then it does not follow that this is an improper use of or a proof-texting with the verse. Rather you are committing what a logical fallacy. The argument on this end is not that the verse is saying we MUST BE INVOLVED. The argument is saying that BECAUSE WE OUGHT TO REFLECT CHRIST ... WE OUGHT TO BE INVOLVED. You cannot invalidate the OUGHT by invalidating the MUST. What's more, you cannot invalidate the prerquisite for the OUGHT because of a lack of prerquisite for a must.
ReplyDeleteMy Argument:
1) If we are to reflect Christ in this world, then we OUGHT to be involved in social issues
2) We are to reflect Christ in the World (MATT 5)
3) Therefore OUGHT to be involved in social issues
The Argument you are Refuting:
1)If we are to reflect Christ, we MUST be involved in social issues
2)We are to reflect Christ
3)Therefore we MUST be involved in social issues
You are inadvertently creating a straw-man.
Whether the application is valid or not does not disprove my point. That verse does not specifically prove the application. If you prove it elsewhere, then you may use it as a motivating factor. But Christ does not give us content of what “salt and light” means in that verse. Also, the verse is not saying because we are to reflect Christ we ought to be involved in social issues. The verse is only saying, “REFLECT CHRIST TO THE WORLD.” How we are to reflect Christ is not immediately flushed out (if you want to be very precise, it is detailed in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount).
ReplyDeleteMy point I have been making the whole time :)
1. You must prove we ought to be involved in social issues from another verse before you move to #2.
Alright, perhaps I need to clarify what a straw-man is. Essentially, when I make an assertion, it is the oppositions job to attack either the premises, the logical formulation of the argument, or show how the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Now, a straw-man argument is when I make an assertion and the opposition chooses instead to attack a different argument, whether that be a different formulation of the same argument or a different argument altogether. Then, the opposition stands triumphantly over their victory, when in reality, they have failed to deal with the issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteNow, having established what a straw-man is...when you make claims like "Whether the application is valid or not does not disprove my point.", you are making a straw-man argument because I did not say that the applications validity proved or disproved your point. What I said was that the applications validity is the issue at hand and not the interpretation of the passage. In hermeneutics, interpretation and application are two seperate issues. interpretation is the intended meaning of the passage, application is the imparting of that meaning on a specific situation. For example:
Matthew 5:
Interpretation - Reflect Christ in the World
Application - be involved in social issues; make choices that are God honoring; etc...
When I make an argument regarding the application of a verse, and then you make an argument regarding the interpretation of that verse, your argument...while it may be right...is immaterial to the discussion at hand and is thus a straw-man.
That being said, you make my point for me in the rest of your paragraph. You say that Christ does not give us the content of what "salt and light" means in that verse. Exactly my point. We make application of "salt and light" all the time including in regards to social issues. Therefore, by saying that Christ leaves the content of "salt and light" open, the APPLICATION (notice not the interpretation) of "salt and light" as our involvement in social issues is perfectly valid. You cannot say that it is the wrong interpretation because I am not making an interpretation. I am making an application and if you were to make said claim, you would be making a straw-man.
Next you say, "the verse is not saying because we are to reflect Christ we ought to be involved in social issues". However, you evidently misunderstand the flow of a syllogism. Did you notice that in my argument, Matthew 5 was placed under the second premise? It is a straw man to then say that I am interpreting the verse wrong. In hermeneutics, we make interpretation first and only then do we make application. My argument is one of application and in application, the verse MUST be under the second premise since the verse is the antecedent in premise 1. If my argument were one of interpretation, the verse itself could not be the antecedent since it must result as the conclusion. Again, you have made a straw-man argument. Let me demonstrate this again.
My Argument:
1) If we are to reflect Christ in this world, then we OUGHT to be involved in social issues
2) We are to reflect Christ in the World(Matt 5)
3) Therefore OUGHT to be involved in social issues
Obviously, my argument has Matt 5 in the second premise because it is the antecedent in premise 1.
The Argument you are Refuting:
1)If we are to reflect Christ, we MUST be involved in social issues (Matt 5)
2)We are to reflect Christ
3)Therefore we MUST be involved in social issues (Matt 5)
Obviously, here, because we making the INTERPRETATION of Matt 5 as referring to social issues, this argument has Matt 5 in the conclusion and not in Premise 2 at all. Furthermore, you are right to refute this argument as it is an improper interpretation of the passage. Premise 1 has many problems with it. However, since I am not positing this argument, your refutation is immaterial and thus a straw-man.
Finally, you claim that I must prove that "we ought to be involved in social issues from another verse before" moving to #2. This is the first argument you have made that is not immaterial. However, I think you will see from my previous paragraphs why this is false. It is simply a wrong understanding of logical forms.
Now, I am not saying that you are intentionally forming straw-men. Rather, I am saying that because you are confusing the application and interpretation in hermeneutics, your misunderstanding of logical forms is forcing you to make logically fallacious arguments. But then...we have cleared that all up now...haven't we? ;)
Whew, that is a lot to read. I think the main problem is that my main assertion is not being understood (It could be my fault, I suppose). My point is that you cannot not make any application from that verse besides its own intended application. I am arguing with your application because the application of this verse is the same as the interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThere is no “We are to reflect Christ, so…” There is only, we are to reflect Christ.
Since we are defining terms, let me define what proof-texting is. Proof-texting is the process of decontextualised quotations from (in our cause the Bible) to establish a proposition. Your initial proposition seems to me to be flawed. You are assuming that reflecting Christ is being involved in social issues. While that may be true, you do not find it here (interpreted or applied). You do not find making choices that are God-honoring. The verse stands alone. There is not content you flush out of this individual verse. Also, Christ has not left the application open. The application is there. It is just not the application you are coming to.
Also, since we are speaking so much about hermeneutical principle, let me quote from a basic undergraduate book on the topic.
…the New Testament includes several forms of discourse: commands (which is our verse) and prohibitions, exhortations, wishes, examples, permissions, narratives, parables, and themes. The commands, prohibitions, exhortation, wishes, and permissions give instruction for direct application, whereas the others are more indirect (Basic Bible Intrepetation. Roy Zuck. 1991, 283)
Application stems from what the author was intending to apply (Ibid) not how you think the verse fits in our present day.
Our passage is direct application. It is not the genre to imply your application. The application for today is to encourage people to reflect Christ-likeness to the world.
The problem with your argument is that your premise is flawed. You must establish first that reflecting Christ is being involved in social issues before you assume. That has been my point.
A question must be asked of your position. Can we or can we not make application to our own lives from the Bible and this verse in particular? If indeed your point is that we cannot make any application outside of its own intended application, then you are again making my point for me. You have confused interpretation and application all over again.
ReplyDeleteThe intended application of a verse is not the same as our application of a verse. Rather it is a subsection of the interpretation of that verse. The purpose of the interpretation, including the intended application, is to draw parameters within which our application can be made to the issues we are dealing with. However, you yourself have said that the verse says nothing more than that we ought to reflect Christ and that the content of that reflection is not defined specifically for us. The best you do is say that examples are given to us in the rest of the sermon. Evidently, even you are forced to admit that this does not fully define our reflection of Christ and so you (rightly) say that the content of our reflection is left undefined by the passage. This is where our application (not the intended application) is to be made.
You see, while there is only one proper interpretation of the passage, including only one intended application, there are a nearly infinite number of applications that can be made following that interpretation. Otherwise we run into some serious hermeneutical and theological problems. Take for example Paul's admonition that women should not cut their hair short. The proper interpretation of the verse is that the principle being taught is one of modesty. A part of that interpretation is Paul's intended application of the principle of modesty to specifically say that women should not cut their hair short. However, it is improper to say that the only application that can be made from this verse is the intended application of the prohibition against short hair. Rather, the proper application is one of modesty, thus, women shouldn't wear bikini's to church, or show up wearing nothing but a towel. Obviously these are extreme applications, but the point is made nonetheless. You can see how the applications are nearly infinite when the intended application is singular.
You misunderstand Zuck as saying that the application for a command is localized within the text. However, his point is not that the application is localized, only that the parameters for the application are localized. In fact, Zuck makes my point for me when he says that "application STEMS from what the author was INTENDING to apply". How can there be more than one application for this sentence to be meaningful if not one intended by the author and one appropriate for us?
Your charge against my "flawed proposition" is simply wrong. You would be right if and only if, I were speaking of the intended application, which again, is an interpretation issue, not one of application. You can refer to my previous post to see my point.
If indeed our passage is direct application, then what does the application MEAN? Surely it is not just this nebulous concept of the reflection of Christ. There must be something more substantive. There must be an application to specific issues. Whether that issue be social issues, witnessing, decision making, work ethic, etc... is where our application is appropriately made.
My premise is not flawed, and if it is, then you must show how. You cannot simply make the claim that it is and expect justification. This is another logical fallacy and is really little more than a debate trick to discredit an opposing position against which one has no argument. The premise would only be flawed if I were saying the direct interpretation of the verse was one about social issues. Since I am only making one about the application of our reflecting Christ, I need not justify it unless one means to say the opposite:
1* Since we are to reflect Christ, we ought NOT be involved in social issues.
But surely this is not your argument.
Finally, you have simply not dealt with the charge that you are inadvertently making straw-men. I have shown time and again how your hermeneutic and logic are forcing you to argue a point different then mine and how you are right in your point, but it is immaterial to the discussion at hand. Do you disagree with this charge or do you simply choose to ignore it?
What is a straw man? Does this have something to do with the level of creek water in Georgia?
ReplyDeleteI disagree. This would probably be best if we discussed this directly. Either that, or I could give a few posts on how to biblically apply passages to enlighten your understanding :).
ReplyDeleteRuss, If you don't think this is "how to biblically apply passages" then your opinion flies in the face of nearly every commentator I have read including Zuck himself. They all apply the Matt 5 passages to include social responsibility. It is ok if you want to disregard the opinion of scholars but hopefully you are not willingly disregarding logic itself. Apparently logical arguments hold no weight on your "blog not forum". If you wish I can give you a few elementary pointers from abstract algebra or discrete mathematics.
ReplyDeleteIn either case there are many other ways we can approach this situation. We are told to care for the poor; this is social action and responsibility. We are told to love our neighbor; this must be social action on our part. We are commanded to help widows; surly this is social action.
Matt, A straw man is something that is usually built in restaurants where straws abound. Usually seen more commonly in urban and metropolitan areas. ;-)
Well, I just popped open D.A. Carson, Walvoord, and Weirsbe, and they all applied the passage the same way I did (the application is that we are to reflect Christ (our testimony) to the world. I'm not saying you haven't read much, but it is probably not very broadly. Also, since you have read Zuck I would appreciate it if you gave me the reference that you are referring to so I can double check your claim.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I am glad that you are referring to principles outside the passage. This has been my point all along.
You should give us the quotes from Carson, Walvoord, and Wiersbe, because I am willing to bet that they do not limit the application of the passage to some ambiguous concept of reflection. I am willing to bet that they either give some concrete pragmatic examples of reflection or infer that its application should be left open to the reader.
ReplyDeleteI want to make a few things clear before I post these quotes. I only want Philip to give me book and page number because I want to make sure I understand the context of the author. Also, I am not aware of any commentary Zuck has written on Matthew which is why I am interested in checking out the work that he is referring to since it won’t be a work intended to cover it. Is it a journal article or pamphlet?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to check these quotes out for your self, you will find them in the commentaries that each author wrote (they are easy to find so I won’t list the biography details, but I will list the page numbers). Also, I am not typing out the multiple pages for each book. I’ll give you a few quotes that pertain, and if you want to check further you are welcome to look it up.
Also, you are hinging or hoping that they give concrete pragmatic (practical is probably a better word because of the implications that come with the other) examples or infer that the application should be left open. The latter argument is interesting because it is an argument from silence. I am going to hope that you are expecting a very apparent infer because my point is that they do not say that this verse proves anything besides its intended interpretation. Also, I want to add that all three of these works have a homiletical emphasis(application) unlike other commentaries.
Anyway, here we go:
Walvoord: The implication of the passage is that only those who have experienced conversion and transformation by the grace of God can be true citizens of the kingdom of heaven…Matthew considers as result, new morality, new character, new witness (47)
There is no concrete application in his entire comments on these verses and there is no inference that our application is open to the reader.
Carson (In his outline, he drops these verses under “the witness of the kingdom”): What the disciples must show is their “good works, “i.e., all righteousness, everything they are and do that reflects the mind and will of God. If salt exercises the negative function of delaying decay and warns disciples of the danger of compromise and conformity to the world, then light speaks positively of illuminating a sin-darkened world and warns against a withdrawal from the world that does not lead others to glorify the Father in heaven (139-140). (This is technically not Carson’s words, but he did include them at the conclusion and since this was your best shot I figured that I would include them.)
I believe that if you read carefully this quote you will see that he definitely is not stating that this verse wants us to be involved in social causes (remember I am not saying we shouldn’t, just that this verse does not give you biblical authority to do so). He mentions that salt delays decay. There is no implication of how that delay happens. Also, a personal point that the verse says that if salt has lost its savour. The savour definitely refers to character that shows witness which further distances itself from social causes. Your best bet is to hinge on withdrawing from the world (this is in reference to showing our good works) though that doesn’t imply social action. If you look at his definition of good works (righteousness), you see that it is a matter of stifling our testimony. It is an engaging of active righteousness so that they glorify God. “Glorify God” is one of the best parts of the verse. Unsaved do not glorify God because of our social action. But they are amazed at true Christian character. Regardless Carson, does not make any practical assertions to any of his principles. He leaves it at that. He definitely does not infer (key word) that the application is left open. He applies this passage as I do (through principles to live life).
Weirsbe (this is one of the most interesting): It is not easy to be a dedicated Christian (testimony). Our society is not a friend to God nore to God’s people. Whether we like it or not, there is conflict between us and the world…We must expect to be persecuted if we are living as God wants us to live.
Weirsbe makes an opposite application than you do. Rather than speaking how we can uplift society by being involved, he speaks of the utter sinfulness and the importance of being a dedicated Christian (testimony). He does not infer openness to interpretation in any of his material or show pragmatic examples of how to show this light. He applies it, principally, as I do (21-22).
I want to add that I didn’t check these guys out to validate my opinions. I had already read these books before Philip mentioned that in all his voluminous reading on the subject he had never seen anything like my interpretation and how it flies in the face of reputable scholars. I also don’t believe that this validates my opinion to you. Even if you accept what I have said as being true, that doesn’t mean it is. It merely means that these men don’t agree with you.
I am still very interested to finding out the reference works of Zuck from Philip. I have read his hermeneutic book several times and have read other works by him. So, it would be interesting for me to read this part that disagrees with me since it seems that it would fly in the face of his chapter on application in his book (I would encourage you guys to read this part to understand where I am coming from).
Regardless, this is a bet that I believe you have lost. I have given you three homiletic and dispensational commentaries that do not come close to making practical application you are looking for and do not infer that we have the right to treat the application of this passage how we want (I want to repeat that you are able to imply somethings by going outside the text but not from within). Look forward to reading your spin :).
Bible Knowledge Commentary
ReplyDeleteBy John F. Walvoord, Louis A Barbieri Jr, Roy B. Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary
Published by David C. Cook, 1983
ISBN 0882078127, 9780882078120
p. 26
"It is also possible that salt means these people serve as a preservative against the evils of SOCIETY." Emphases added.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5e5fJjEbf_MC&dq=bible+knowledge+commentary+online&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=sNwFPJzm78&sig=m5iCUfptsysteZqJerlKYB_YjJ4&hl=en&ei=jYDiSYrUAsfqnQfnx8CuCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15#PPA29,M1
First things first - All three of your quotes are clearly comments about interpretation and not valid applications. If you don't see that the way I do, then I think we still have a serious problem in the specific layout of the hermeneutical logic at hand. Of course, this has been a large part of my argument throughout the discussions.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Your comments about my "hope" are rather inane. In reality, the issue was not that I hoped they supported my view, but rather that it seemed very unlikely that they would support such a strangely strict view as yours. In fact, I find those quotes prove my point for me again given that I am still arguing about application and not interpretation and your arguments and evidence are still discussing a different issue.
Finally, you still have not responded to the idea that these are straw-man arguments, albeit, inadvertent ones. You still have not discussed the difference between the intended application of the verse and the permitted application of the hermeneutic.
In any case, I am not really sure how else to argue a point when I still see no evidence or arguments that contradict my point. I have clarified into oblivion and yet you still discuss a different issue. I suppose somewhere along the line we will have to stop beating a dead horse and simply leave the discussion be.