(A few friends and I are reading this book together. Each week we are reading one chapter. On Fridays, I am posting my comments, then giving them the opportunity to add their thoughts as well. If you would like to join us or simply find out more about the book, you can read about it here.)
Chapter 4
In this chapter, the author discusses how discernment touches judging. He explained what we are not to judge and what we are to judge. He explained what it means to "prove all things" and gave examples of areas we must prove. Here are some things that stood out to me:
- "We live in a culture that values autonomy to the point of irrationality." He pegged it!
- He pointed out that if God is the author of the Bible, and if God only speaks truth, then the Bible never truly contradicts itself. Just because I may not be able to understand something does not make it a contradiction.
- "We may judge doctrine and behavior by the objective standards of right and wrong that are given to us in Scripture." I think most people would agree with this statement. However, because people interpret things different and apply principles differently, it can be frustrating. For instance, there are plenty of principles I would use to come to the conclusion that going to a PG-13 movie (just picking a rating) would be wrong. However, I know many believers who would not see it as a problem. We both would say we can judge by what the Bible says. I would say Bible principles forbid it. They would say the Bible does not condemn it. My point: I agree with his statement, but people will often only listen if it is explicitly stated in Scripture, and will not if it is a principle applied to a situation/decision. Do you guys agree?
- Maybe another way to say what I was trying to express above is this: there are things that, if we apply principles, we see as clearly wrong. However, others think they are simply matters of "Conscience" (the 2nd area he gave in which we aren't supposed to judge) and get upset if we speak against those things- again because we have applied clear principles to things not specifically stated in Scripture.
- I liked his illustration of an individual's responsibility once they have accepted a counterfeit bill and once they have accepted false doctrine.
- The idea of testing things resonated with me. In my short life, I have come to really dislike when a preacher will blast something but will not give his Biblical reasoning. When they do that, I am left only with man's opinion as to why it is wrong. I want to know why an idea/person does not line up with Scripture. If we just immediately reject an idea and don't test it by Scripture, we are asking others to follow our opinion. If I test it long enough to see where it deviates from Scripture, then I can give others a Scriptural reason to avoid it.
- He said that it is the right and responsibility of both churches and individuals to test all things. I would submit that a church will test things to the extent the members of the church are testing things individually.
- "To some extent, everything relates to life and faith!" Amen!
- I appreciated his illustration with his son, showing that we are to test everything, but not necessarily try everything once. However it did make me wonder: How can I accurately test things? To be able to test it, I need information about it. How do I go about getting that information? For instance, I have never been to a movie theater. If I am going to preach against going to a movie theater, how can I gather accurate information about it in order to compare it to God's Word? I do not want to preach against something just because someone else has preached against it. I think in areas like this we can be creative in our information gathering (visit the theater and ask manager questions, as an example). We can test without trying. Any other thoughts/suggestions on how to information gather without trying?
- [Another Lord of the Rings reference will always bring a smile to my face!]
- [Personal pet peeve: the people commended for their searching the Scriptures in Acts 17:11 were not Christians. They were unbelieving Jews. If you don't believe me, check it out. Verse 12 says that they believed. Maybe it is just me, but I think belief comes before salvation. I know they are still commended as "more noble" for searching the Scriptures, and we can still apply the passage to others who search (whether believers or unbelievers). It doesn't make a ton of difference, but since I have noticed this, it bothers me when people explain it incorrectly. It is like after you learn there is an arrow in the Fed-Ex logo, you always see it after that.] - He said we are to test leaders. It got me thinking: Paul told Titus that he was to ordain elders that had the qualities that Paul then laid out. They were not only to live up to that standard, but also to be meeting it already. If that is the case, are these qualities just for preachers, or are they truly for every man in a church? I would say they are for every man. - He gave Al Mohler's three levels of issues. Many evangelicals would say that we should just focus on the Gospel and not bring up the "third-level" issues. I would slightly change that. I think we should bring those up, but too often we become so consumed with the "third-level" issues that we completely ignore the "first-level" issues. That is when I think we are out of balance.
I've had my say, what say you?
Discussion on Chapter 3
Discussion on Chapter 5
In this chapter, the author discusses how discernment touches judging. He explained what we are not to judge and what we are to judge. He explained what it means to "prove all things" and gave examples of areas we must prove. Here are some things that stood out to me:
- "We live in a culture that values autonomy to the point of irrationality." He pegged it!
- He pointed out that if God is the author of the Bible, and if God only speaks truth, then the Bible never truly contradicts itself. Just because I may not be able to understand something does not make it a contradiction.
- "We may judge doctrine and behavior by the objective standards of right and wrong that are given to us in Scripture." I think most people would agree with this statement. However, because people interpret things different and apply principles differently, it can be frustrating. For instance, there are plenty of principles I would use to come to the conclusion that going to a PG-13 movie (just picking a rating) would be wrong. However, I know many believers who would not see it as a problem. We both would say we can judge by what the Bible says. I would say Bible principles forbid it. They would say the Bible does not condemn it. My point: I agree with his statement, but people will often only listen if it is explicitly stated in Scripture, and will not if it is a principle applied to a situation/decision. Do you guys agree?
- Maybe another way to say what I was trying to express above is this: there are things that, if we apply principles, we see as clearly wrong. However, others think they are simply matters of "Conscience" (the 2nd area he gave in which we aren't supposed to judge) and get upset if we speak against those things- again because we have applied clear principles to things not specifically stated in Scripture.
- I liked his illustration of an individual's responsibility once they have accepted a counterfeit bill and once they have accepted false doctrine.
- The idea of testing things resonated with me. In my short life, I have come to really dislike when a preacher will blast something but will not give his Biblical reasoning. When they do that, I am left only with man's opinion as to why it is wrong. I want to know why an idea/person does not line up with Scripture. If we just immediately reject an idea and don't test it by Scripture, we are asking others to follow our opinion. If I test it long enough to see where it deviates from Scripture, then I can give others a Scriptural reason to avoid it.
- He said that it is the right and responsibility of both churches and individuals to test all things. I would submit that a church will test things to the extent the members of the church are testing things individually.
- "To some extent, everything relates to life and faith!" Amen!
- I appreciated his illustration with his son, showing that we are to test everything, but not necessarily try everything once. However it did make me wonder: How can I accurately test things? To be able to test it, I need information about it. How do I go about getting that information? For instance, I have never been to a movie theater. If I am going to preach against going to a movie theater, how can I gather accurate information about it in order to compare it to God's Word? I do not want to preach against something just because someone else has preached against it. I think in areas like this we can be creative in our information gathering (visit the theater and ask manager questions, as an example). We can test without trying. Any other thoughts/suggestions on how to information gather without trying?
- [Another Lord of the Rings reference will always bring a smile to my face!]
- [Personal pet peeve: the people commended for their searching the Scriptures in Acts 17:11 were not Christians. They were unbelieving Jews. If you don't believe me, check it out. Verse 12 says that they believed. Maybe it is just me, but I think belief comes before salvation. I know they are still commended as "more noble" for searching the Scriptures, and we can still apply the passage to others who search (whether believers or unbelievers). It doesn't make a ton of difference, but since I have noticed this, it bothers me when people explain it incorrectly. It is like after you learn there is an arrow in the Fed-Ex logo, you always see it after that.] - He said we are to test leaders. It got me thinking: Paul told Titus that he was to ordain elders that had the qualities that Paul then laid out. They were not only to live up to that standard, but also to be meeting it already. If that is the case, are these qualities just for preachers, or are they truly for every man in a church? I would say they are for every man. - He gave Al Mohler's three levels of issues. Many evangelicals would say that we should just focus on the Gospel and not bring up the "third-level" issues. I would slightly change that. I think we should bring those up, but too often we become so consumed with the "third-level" issues that we completely ignore the "first-level" issues. That is when I think we are out of balance.
I've had my say, what say you?
Discussion on Chapter 3
Discussion on Chapter 5
