Hermeneutics 101 (was-Re: Rings and Things)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Mark:

Thank you. Iexpected an intelligent, well thought out reply to my comments,
and got one.


>On Wed, 07 Aug 1996 14:18:41 -0300, you wrote:
>
>Bro Frank,
>

>Im not Catholc.. but I certainly am not independant of others who
>serve God. The man in question is of high regard and speaks with
>sufficent gravity such that the things he says ought to be of interest
>to those that love the same God that has demonstrated a powerful walk
>and ministry in his life. In my personal opinion, there is more than a
>small place for learning from the leadership of the church without
>retreating to the rock throwing position that I am "sola-scriptura",
>for I for one, am not.

I didn't intend to make this out as a rock-throwing attack. What I meant to
do was to point out that this particular message is long on quoting from
books and people and short on Scripture. Maybe I should have said that
clearly. Sorry.
>

>Bugs the daylights out of me, to be honest.. Good point Bro Frank..
>Wanna take the job of prophet? To be sure, theres a position open.
>

I just get sick of talking to G. Boyd and having him throw it up in my face
as an inconsistancy inour testimony. If you think you can geet me a forum,
I might just say something.


>> In no instance in Holy Scripture, neither by priest, prophet or apostle, was
>>>the marriage vows solemnized by the putting on of a ring. God
>>>performed the first wedding in the garden of Eden, and no where can we
>>>find that he married Adam and Eve with rings. 
>>
>>If God performed any ceremony in the Garden, I missed it. EVERY aspect of
>>the modern wedding ceremony (including rings) comes from the tradition of
>>man. Using our brothers logic, we would also have to get rid of the wedding
>>dress (they were naked), a minister (not one there), wedding march and
>>music (none), a marriage license (if I don't need a ring  to show I'm
>>married, I don't need a piece of paper either), etc. Reductio ad absurdum (
>>argument reduced to the rediculous premise on which it stands, for those
>>who don't know Latin)
>
>The point being made here was that the ring is not justtified being a
>component of marriage.  I think you helped to further that point
>greatly.
>

Mark: my point was that if we take away a wedding ring because it is not
Bible, all of the common wedding ceremony goes too. Inckluding a marriage
license, because "it is just a piece of paper". As a pastor you wouldn't
counsel a couple getting married to ignore getting a license would you? Its
avoiding the appearance of evil. A ring can serve the same purpose as a
license, showing on is married. It is neither explicitly approved of or
disapproved of by God in Scripture.


>There is no conflict here. In fact, we recognize couples married while
>anamists, and Hindus as legitimately married. You dont want to know my
>primitive opinion of what constitutes marriage, although I can tell
>you I could be sharply rebuked using Bible for it.. Again, the point
>is not to endorse a "Bible wedding", but to delineate certain customs
>or aspects as without justification, unless personal opinion and
>tradition is to be leaned on.

Once again, I bring up the point, there are no customs of marriage in the
services that UPCI ministers perform that are not based on tradition and
personal opinion. Perhaps, since the idea of a church-based wedding is
developed from Catholic tradition (marriages were formalized by civil
authorities before that in the Roman Empire), UPCI ministers should not
perform weddings, but send their people to civil ceremonies? That is a more
consistent position with regard to abolishing religious tradition. (Let me
state that I am not in favour of this. But the direction of your argument
would seem to lead in this direction)
>
>>In the old Testament God is shown as placing Jewels and Jewelry upon Israel as
>>a sign of His love for her.
>
>I think this has been covered elsewhere, but I would hope that it is
>understood that this scripture, argued extensively by charismatics in
>opposition to holiness standards of any kind, is figurative. Taken as
>a whole, the Bible speaks of jewelery worn as an expression of
>self-adornment or self-exhibition as a mark not unlike the spirit of
>harlotry.
>

>Mark carefully, Bro Frank: we who teach against jewelery are not
>teaching against bits of metal or traditions, but say that it is God's
>will that we demonstrate His ability to supply what the carnal man
>seeks for in terms of value vainly, through fleshly means.
>
>Spiritual life is not empowered lest the flesh is denied. This is the
>principle behind all these matters, and they become twisted without
>such understanding.
>

These 2 paragraphs are without a doubt the best reasoning I have heard so
far for many of the standards we proclaim. Methinks you need to at least
share the prophets mantle with me. You were perhaps deeper than you
realize.
>


>>I agree. So why are we so down on rings? Is it Scripture or custom? If
>>Scripture, lets see some. If custom, who ought we to obey?
>
>I'll publish an extensive run down on scripture related to jewelry. I
>hope that is of some help.
>

I would appreciate that. I have studied it out myself, but you may have it
a touch better than I. As I said before, my aim is not to argue Jewellry,
but to raise the level of Biblical work done in the defense of the
Apostole's Doctrine.


>Well, I dont think you advicated the wearing of jewelry. If you did, I
>did not read it.
>
Thanks, glad to hear there were no misunderstandings

>Mine went down the disposal one day many years ago. Amazingly, though
>I am considered handsome, only a few very sorry women have ever made
>any advances at all.
>
>Given the kind of spirit that would compel a woman to make advances
>toward a man whose own spirit is projecting his holiness, it is ironic
>that the same woman would have no concern as to whether I was married
>or not. 
>

Count yourself blessed. I have found, in my own experience, that a spirit
of holiness draws women with the type of spirit you speak of in some
perverse way. Yet were they to achieve their end, they would destroy the
very thing that attracted them.

>Believe me, I know how to tell devils where to get off so they NEVER
>repeat the same mistake (as though it was a mistake). Married men ALL
>ought to learn the authority and demonstration of carriage that
>projects their power and holiness in the Spirit. And to those who are
>tempted, no, I am not talking about a "proud look". Im talking about
>being a child of God, and Ambassador of Christ. You dont need
>symbolism to do that. You need power.

Sounds like there, might be a thing or two for me to learn on that front.
Any of you married men want to share some of this with those of us new to
it all?

God Bless

Frank

Frank Vandenburg
BKM Research and Development
438 Paul St.
Dieppe, NB
Canada E1A 4Z5
Tel: 1.506.857.9620
Fax: 1.506.852.3728
email: frank@bkm.ca

"You will always get what you need when you help enough others get what
they need."