Nashville Statement

[Spartacus]

For whatever my opinion's worth, to the extent that this is just a reiteration of what they all had been saying prior to Obergefell, I don't have problems with it that aren't fairly nit-picky. I'm intrigued by Russell Moore signing on- is he trying to re-build bridges after his critiques of Trump?

[NorrinRadd]

But the thing is... you aren't correct.

Well of course people who don't agree with me believe I'm incorrect. I agree with me, so I believe I am correct. :-)

This is the sort of thing that confirms to me the relevance and value of my sig.

[Bill the Cat]

Well of course people who don't agree with me believe I'm incorrect. I agree with me, so I believe I am correct. :-)

And Joseph Smith believed himself correct.

This is the sort of thing that confirms to me the relevance and value of my sig.

And some actually ARE heretics.

[NorrinRadd]

I am, if you wish, hyper-Protestant (especially vis-a-vis the Five Solas) and hyper-New Covenant. In terms of the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I place by far the least value on "Tradition."

I believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. I'd like to believe in the Perspicuity of Scripture, but I don't see how anyone really can. If it really were "clear," even on the relatively few things that constitute the essentials of salvation, many of the differences between Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians would disappear.

In the interest of convenience, I will here paste and adapt some comments I made on Facebook:


I agree that certain passages in the Obsolete Covenant pretty clearly proscribe homosexual practice -- mainly Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. But in that same Covenant, He just as clearly said that all He really requires is to act justly, love showing loyal kindness, and walk humbly with Him (Mic. 6:8). Jesus, surely as competent an OT commentator as anyone, said that the single two-fold (Luke 10:26-28) Commandment to love God and neighbor supersedes all others (Matt. 22:39), and that observance of that simple Commandment was sufficient to procure eternal life (Luke 10), and that the entirety of the Law and Prophets can be summed up as "Treat people as you wish to be treated" (Matt. 7:12). Paul said that the entire old Law could be fulfilled by observing "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Rom. 13:9-10; Gal. 5:14) or, equivalently, by doing no harm to one's neighbor (Rom. 13:10).

So which is "the truth"? In order to not "sin," must we observe various and sundry rules, including "Don't do gay stuff," or is it sufficient to simply treat people as we wish to be treated, with love, justice, kindness, loyalty, and humility?

And for us under the New and better Covenant, how important really are the laws of the Obsolete Covenant? The clear implication of Gal. 3:10-13; Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15-16; and various places in Hebrews is that the entirety of the Law -- every regulation, ordinance, decree, and Commandment -- has been cancelled, abolished, nailed to the Cross, hung on the Tree.

In the NT, we have Rom. 1:26-27... but this is in the same book where Paul (7:9) implies that laws and commandments actually *cause* sin and death, and that the only "debt" to which we owe obedience is the debt to love (13:8). We have the vice list in 1 Cor. 6, and it certainly sounds explicit and law-like... but in his next letter to the same church, Paul (2 Cor. 3:6), speaking of written laws, says that the letter kills. Isn't there a conflict between what Paul says about written laws on the one hand, and on the other hand treating his comments about homosexuality as new written laws?

So, on what sure basis do we decide how to interpret the various passages, and which ones to prioritize in cases of conflict? For me, "tradition" is not a sufficient response.

[Bill the Cat]

I am, if you wish, hyper-Protestant (especially vis-a-vis the Five Solas) and hyper-New Covenant. In terms of the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I place by far the least value on "Tradition."

But one can not simply discard tradition when inconvenient for a particular position.

I believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. I'd like to believe in the Perspicuity of Scripture, but I don't see how anyone really can. If it really were "clear," even on the relatively few things that constitute the essentials of salvation, many of the differences between Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians would disappear.

TBH, there aren't really that many differences when we boil the doctrines down. A majority of the differences deal with hierarchical matters, not doctrinal.

In the interest of convenience, I will here paste and adapt some comments I made on Facebook:


I agree that certain passages in the Obsolete Covenant

Here's part of your problem, IMO. That something has been superseded does not mean it isn't useful. It still serves, as Paul said, as a schoolmaster - teaching us what is holy and what isn't. When you realize Paul's explanation of that fact, all of the apparently contradictory statements melt away. The Law is not bad. It is still of use to those who need it. It still defines what God considers sin and what He doesn't.

pretty clearly proscribe homosexual practice -- mainly Lev. 18:22 and 20:13.

And it is in that high context that Jesus preached. He didn't have to reiterate the Torah to his hearers. They already knew it. Therefore, He could teach the more life-applicable facets.

But in that same Covenant, He just as clearly said that all He really requires is to act justly, love showing loyal kindness, and walk humbly with Him (Mic. 6:8).

Exactly. In the midst of telling them He was destroying them because of their sin (vs 13). Their sin was why they were not acting justly. The Hebrew terms translated "act justly" refer to taking action to set things right. Or in other words, repentance from sin. Because the Israelites were not repenting, and assuming that all they needed to do was to sacrifice a few animals, God had Micah rebuke them for their lack of repentance. When we refuse to repent, we are not acting justly.

Jesus, surely as competent an OT commentator as anyone, said that the single two-fold (Luke 10:26-28) Commandment to love God and neighbor supersedes all others (Matt. 22:39), and that observance of that simple Commandment was sufficient to procure eternal life (Luke 10), and that the entirety of the Law and Prophets can be summed up as "Treat people as you wish to be treated" (Matt. 7:12). Paul said that the entire old Law could be fulfilled by observing "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Rom. 13:9-10; Gal. 5:14) or, equivalently, by doing no harm to one's neighbor (Rom. 13:10).

Loving God means you seek HIS righteousness, and seek to conform to HIS image. Expecting Him to conform His justice to our sin is not loving God.

So which is "the truth"? In order to not "sin," must we observe various and sundry rules, including "Don't do gay stuff,"

In a way, yes. When we sin, as we all do, we understand it is a sin, and we begin taking action to set things right. We do not take God's righteous standard and conform it to our plumb line.

or is it sufficient to simply treat people as we wish to be treated, with love, justice, kindness, loyalty, and humility?

No. It is not sufficient to live half of the Gospel. Loving God is the greatest commandment (Matt 22:37). One can not truly love God by basically telling God that you know better than He what is sinful and what isn't.

And for us under the New and better Covenant, how important really are the laws of the Obsolete Covenant?

Since ALL scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), it is still of importance to us. We understand that it is our school master (Galatians 3:24) that brought us to Christ. It is what condemns the unbeliever. It is what the Spirit uses to convict the believer in their heart of their sinful ways.

The clear implication of Gal. 3:10-13; Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15-16; and various places in Hebrews is that the entirety of the Law -- every regulation, ordinance, decree, and Commandment -- has been cancelled, abolished, nailed to the Cross, hung on the Tree.

Uh, no it isn't. The CURSE of the Law, i.e. death, has been abolished for the believer, but the Law itself still exists to define sin. It does not grant righteousness - it never has. It does not grant eternal life - it never has. Its purpose was never to save. Its purpose was to define what sin is. It's not like buying a new car to replace the old one where both cars serve the same function. That's where I think you are misunderstanding this whole thing. It was explained to me like this a long time ago by a Messianic Jew rabbi:

The Torah is like a map of how to get to work. It shows you the one safe path, the paths where the bridge is out, where construction is happening, speed limits, and punishments for not following the safe path at the safe speed. It also shows why the one safe path is impossible for us to stay on by ourselves. The New Testament is like a self-driving car. It gets you there without you having to make the effort of walking on your own while trusting the car to take the safe path safely. The safe path is still there, and the pitfalls are still there, but if we realize that we simply aren't capable of getting there safely by ourselves, and if we trust the car, and obey its direction sense, we will get there safely.

In the NT, we have Rom. 1:26-27... but this is in the same book where Paul (7:9) implies that laws and commandments actually *cause* sin and death, and that the only "debt" to which we owe obedience is the debt to love (13:8).

You've oversimplified Paul's argument to the Romans here. He specified the TORAH commandments as what causes death because Paul knew that it was impossible to follow them perfectly. Only Christ could, and therefore, we follow Him in His example. Seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Or in other words, repent, forgive others, and serve. Demanding God accept a sinful lifestyle and not call it sinful is not repentance. It is making ourselves God.

We have the vice list in 1 Cor. 6, and it certainly sounds explicit and law-like... but in his next letter to the same church, Paul (2 Cor. 3:6), speaking of written laws, says that the letter kills.

Again, Torah commandments, not all commandments in general.

Isn't there a conflict between what Paul says about written laws on the one hand, and on the other hand treating his comments about homosexuality as new written laws?

No. Because they aren't like Torah where commands are bound to the covenant itself. These are Paul's way of telling believers that these are the things a believer should not do. But since God's grace rules the New Covenant, a breaking of one of these things isn't sufficient to destroy the human's side of the Covenant the way breaking a Torah command could (James 2:10). A sin does not cost a believer their salvation, but a sinful and unrepentant life shows that you are simply not in covenant with Him.

So, on what sure basis do we decide how to interpret the various passages, and which ones to prioritize in cases of conflict? For me, "tradition" is not a sufficient response.

It's part of the puzzle. And one that can't simply be dismissed because of a private interpretation of a particular verse. That's why study and discipleship are so critical.

[Darth Executor]

Jesus, surely as competent an OT commentator as anyone, said that the single two-fold (Luke 10:26-28) Commandment to love God and neighbor supersedes all others (Matt. 22:39), and that observance of that simple Commandment was sufficient to procure eternal life (Luke 10), and that the entirety of the Law and Prophets can be summed up as "Treat people as you wish to be treated" (Matt. 7:12).

Well, if the entire Law and Prophets can be summed up as "treat people as you wish to be treated" then "thou shalt not do gay stuff" must fall under the same summary. So I would guess that it is your understanding of "Love God" and "love your neighbour" that is deficient, rather than ours.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Hey, Bill the Cat. Glad you had the time to respond in such detail. I learned a couple things from it.

[Sparko]

Jesus, surely as competent an OT commentator as anyone, said that the single two-fold (Luke 10:26-28) Commandment to love God and neighbor supersedes all others (Matt. 22:39), and that observance of that simple Commandment was sufficient to procure eternal life (Luke 10)

Wait a sec, are you saying that you can be saved merely by obeying that commandment? That you don't need Jesus' sacrifice? or him to be your savior. That YOU can save yourself by following the LAW?

[hedrick]

I am, if you wish, hyper-Protestant (especially vis-a-vis the Five Solas) and hyper-New Covenant. In terms of the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I place by far the least value on "Tradition."

I agree with you on Jesus. Paul is a bit more complex. But I’d like to comment on something else.

Taken without further discussion, your position amounts to “situation ethics,” as proposed in the mid 20th Cent. That approach largely died out, for good reason. If you simply go into each situation and try to show love, it doesn’t account for longer-term implications such as fidelity to commitments. Nor does it let us benefit from the experience of the community as to what kinds of behaviors are helpful and unhelpful.

So while I don’t think tradition is a source of revelation in the Catholic sense, I do think that both theology and ethics should be worked out in the Christian community, and one’s ethics should reflect that discussion. Not that it becomes a new law, but you should only depart from it with care.

The problem with tradition or community is what tradition and what community. In my view, the only community that matters is the one that shares my general principles, and I think yours as well. In practice that turns out to be something like the mainline Church.

Jesus gave the power of keys to the Church. In Jewish tradition loosing and binding was the rabbi’s authority to make authoritative interpretations of Torah. I believe Christian communities actually have that. But they can, and often do, misuse it. All too often the Church has provided rules looked more like something the Pharisees would teach than Jesus. But idiosyncratic theology has often been even worse.

[Terraceth]

That was even a point of the show Orange is The New Black, where it turns out all the religious characters don't really believe in God or the edicts of their religion, perhaps with exception of the black woman who converted to judaism (diversity - lol), they all secretly 'know its all bull****'.

The only character I can think of that your description particularly applies to is Pennsatuckey. Or are you referring to something that happened in the most recent season that I haven't seen yet?

Though as the series takes place within a prison, it would logically make sense that many of the religious characters don't really believe in the edicts of their religion, as if they had, they wouldn't have committed the crimes that caused them to be in prison to begin with.

[Rushing Jaws]

I know this is a concern you've shared a lot, I disagree with it, and frankly the overwhelming pastoral experience with people who have these desires, which concurs with what modern day psychology finds to be the case, and matches my own experience, is that voluntarily changing these inclinations is close to being impossible. In a way it can happen, as in most cases the sexuality is not primarily of one type. So some people who lived a homosexual lifestyle were able to leave it and live a heterosexual lifestyle. Others, I know, have no ability to form romantic attraction to women, myself included, and I've been a Christian for over a decade and have only recently given up on anymore direct attempts at this.

I personally think its better to encourage people with empowerment to take charge of their own life, to love God and pursue a holy life, and not act on these desires, break the habits and cultivate new godly virtues. Celebrate the gift of celibacy for the Kingdom of God, and other such things.

The idea that you're not fully, or authentically, or piously a Christian if you have homosexual attractions you cannot control, is to me a ludicrous proposition.

As for the non-sequitur about those who experience abnormal attractions to pre-teens, or those who experience ephebophilia, then its not a matter of mere guesswork to me, I know personally some with those attractions who keep it hidden, have struggled with it, and sublimated those desires in various ways. I think they should celebrated, if the subject wasn't so taboo and scandalous to people. I don't think they should be treated with deep seated suspicion as to their love of God.

Any Christian theology that cannot deal with life-long suffering is not genuine. Even St. Paul had a "thorn in the flesh" that God refused to remove no matter how many times he asked for it.

Attractions are not desires; and are not sins either, unless one assents to them. This has to be made clear beyond all doubt. Temptation is not sin - otherwise Christ would be a sinner ! - and attractions are not sins. Sin, and guilt for having sinned, come in only when one agrees to a temptation, and acts on it.

Very good post BTW.

[lee_merrill]

Wait a sec, are you saying that you can be saved merely by obeying that commandment?

Well, yes, Jesus said so.

Source: Luke 10:26-28

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

© Copyright Original Source

The only trouble is that we are sinners, and we can't keep the law.

Blessings,
Lee

[One Bad Pig]

Well, yes, Jesus said so.

Source: Luke 10:26-28

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

© Copyright Original Source

The only trouble is that we are sinners, and we can't keep the law.

Blessings,
Lee

Rather, we don't keep the law, because the curse biases us toward sin.

[NorrinRadd]

But one can not simply discard tradition when inconvenient for a particular position.

Short response: Sure I can. If I judge "tradition" to be "inconvenient" in that it does an insufficient job of reconciling conflicting portions of Scripture, I freely discard it.

TBH, there aren't really that many differences when we boil the doctrines down. A majority of the differences deal with hierarchical matters, not doctrinal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hierarchical" in this context. In any case, even if the differences are not numerous, the ones that do exist are not trivial.

Here's part of your problem, IMO. That something has been superseded does not mean it isn't useful. It still serves, as Paul said, as a schoolmaster - teaching us what is holy and what isn't.

But that does not seem to be what the context of Gal. 3 is saying. The pedagogue-slave does not (explicitly, at least) "teach us what is holy and what isn't," it taught *something* -- to Israel, not us -- until Jesus came. Those under Law were slaves and prisoners, and the Law itself was a special kind of slave. Some were never under it, and no one in Christ is under it.

When you realize Paul's explanation of that fact, all of the apparently contradictory statements melt away. The Law is not bad. It is still of use to those who need it. It still defines what God considers sin and what He doesn't.

This, IMO, is begging the question.

Does the Law really, in all its hundreds of details, "define what God considers sin"? Or is "what God considers sin" much more simple -- e.g. refusal to believe in Him, and/or failure to treat others as we wish to be treated?

And it is in that high context that Jesus preached. He didn't have to reiterate the Torah to his hearers. They already knew it. Therefore, He could teach the more life-applicable facets.

I don't believe that does justice to what He said. In fact, the details of the Torah are very "life-applicable." But He said that "Treat others as you wish to be treated" sums up all of it. Now, pretty damn clearly, it does NOT. There are many details that do not fall into that category in any recognizable way.

Exactly. In the midst of telling them He was destroying them because of their sin (vs 13). Their sin was why they were not acting justly. The Hebrew terms translated "act justly" refer to taking action to set things right. Or in other words, repentance from sin. Because the Israelites were not repenting, and assuming that all they needed to do was to sacrifice a few animals, God had Micah rebuke them for their lack of repentance. When we refuse to repent, we are not acting justly.

But again, IMO the context suggests otherwise. Look at vv. 10-12. The specific sins listed are *all* acts that involve treating others badly -- ill-gotten treasures, cheating with false scales and measures, violence, lying. All are fairly obvious violations of "Love your neighbor as yourself" or Treat others as you wish to be treated" or, in the immediate context, acting with justice, lovingkindness, and humility.

Loving God means you seek HIS righteousness, and seek to conform to HIS image. Expecting Him to conform His justice to our sin is not loving God.

No one is suggesting He "conform His justice to our sin," so this is a red herring.

I'm not sure what relevance your comments even have to what I actually said, unless *maybe* along these lines: You may be thinking that they are two totally distinct Commandments, and that "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Treat others as you wish to be treated" covers a bunch of stuff, and then every jot and tittle of the hundreds of detailed regulations are included in "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." I do not see them so. I see one Commandment that is two-fold: We love God, and therefore we treat others with love. The wording of Luke suggests the two are one compound Commandment. The wording of Matthew 22 in Greek says the second is "the same as" the first. Paul says that the single Commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the whole law. James says that following that Commandment is "doing well" or "doing right."

In a way, yes. When we sin, as we all do, we understand it is a sin, and we begin taking action to set things right. We do not take God's righteous standard and conform it to our plumb line.

Again, I see this as a red herring and begging the question. I am not starting with *my* "plumb line," I am seeking to find God's actual standard obscured in clashing Scriptures.

No. It is not sufficient to live half of the Gospel. Loving God is the greatest commandment (Matt 22:37). One can not truly love God by basically telling God that you know better than He what is sinful and what isn't.

See above.

Since ALL scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), it is still of importance to us. We understand that it is our school master (Galatians 3:24) that brought us to Christ.

We often hear this, but the context seems to be that it brought to Christ those who once were *under* that Covenant, i.e. Jews.

It is what condemns the unbeliever. It is what the Spirit uses to convict the believer in their heart of their sinful ways.

Maybe. Can you support this?

Uh, no it isn't. The CURSE of the Law, i.e. death, has been abolished for the believer, ...

In my Word-Faith days, I was taught that "the curse of the Law" was found in Deut. 28, based at least partly on the idea that Gal. 3:10 clearly alludes to Deut. 27 and a bit of Deut. 29. So, supposedly, believers were "redeemed" from all those curses, and only the blessings remained. Since then, I've moved on. I'm sufficiently satisfied that Fee is correct, and that "redeemed from the curse of the Law" means redeemed from living under the Law, and the concomitant necessity to flawlessly perform every little bit of it.

And anyway, the Eph. and Col. passages are sufficiently clear in teaching that every bit of the old Law has been removed.

but the Law itself still exists to define sin. It does not grant righteousness - it never has. It does not grant eternal life - it never has. Its purpose was never to save. Its purpose was to define what sin is. It's not like buying a new car to replace the old one where both cars serve the same function. That's where I think you are misunderstanding this whole thing. It was explained to me like this a long time ago by a Messianic Jew rabbi:

The Torah is like a map of how to get to work. It shows you the one safe path, the paths where the bridge is out, where construction is happening, speed limits, and punishments for not following the safe path at the safe speed. It also shows why the one safe path is impossible for us to stay on by ourselves. The New Testament is like a self-driving car. It gets you there without you having to make the effort of walking on your own while trusting the car to take the safe path safely. The safe path is still there, and the pitfalls are still there, but if we realize that we simply aren't capable of getting there safely by ourselves, and if we trust the car, and obey its direction sense, we will get there safely.

I agree that Paul teaches (Gal. 3:21) that the Law cannot impart life. However, assuming that when the rabbi says "the one safe path is impossible for us to stay on," he means "it is impossible to perfectly follow the Law," I believe Paul disagrees (Phil. 3:6).

You've oversimplified Paul's argument to the Romans here. He specified the TORAH commandments as what causes death because Paul knew that it was impossible to follow them perfectly. Only Christ could, and therefore, we follow Him in His example.

See above.

Seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Or in other words, repent, forgive others, and serve. Demanding God accept a sinful lifestyle and not call it sinful is not repentance. It is making ourselves God.

Red herring and begging the question. What I am "demanding" is a clear and concise answer as to why Jesus said "Treat others as you wish to be treated" sums up the Law and Prophets if it really does not.

Again, Torah commandments, not all commandments in general.

Why? What makes written Torah commandments deadly, but not others?

No. Because they aren't like Torah where commands are bound to the covenant itself. These are Paul's way of telling believers that these are the things a believer should not do. But since God's grace rules the New Covenant, a breaking of one of these things isn't sufficient to destroy the human's side of the Covenant the way breaking a Torah command could (James 2:10). A sin does not cost a believer their salvation, but a sinful and unrepentant life shows that you are simply not in covenant with Him.

But look at the whole context of James 2. As I noted previously, he, like Paul, emphasizes "Love your neighbor as yourself." When he cites examples of breaking Commandments, he explicitly cites those that involve wronging another person. All the positive exhortations he gives of "works" that demonstrate genuine faith are deeds of kindness and mercy and equanimity. He never says, "Oh, and don't do gay stuff."

It's part of the puzzle. And one that can't simply be dismissed because of a private interpretation of a particular verse. That's why study and discipleship are so critical.

Come on now, it's my private interpretation of QUITE A FEW "particular verses." I would venture to say that there are more "particular verses" suggesting the removal of all laws and Commandments except "Love your neighbor as yourself" than there are condemning homosexual practice as law-breaking.

[NorrinRadd]

Wait a sec, are you saying that you can be saved merely by obeying that commandment? That you don't need Jesus' sacrifice? or him to be your savior. That YOU can save yourself by following the LAW?

I am only reporting what Jesus Himself said. I find this to be one of many inconsistencies in Scripture.