RE: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin

[ShieldsFamily]

Interesting websites, and interesting subject, Jonathan.  But don’t you think that generational “curses” (such as genetic “imprinting” of sinful behavior, for lack of a better way to put it) can be passed down from generation to generation? I believe you have children, and there is no bigger convincer of the power of genetics than having your own children!  I recently heard someone on TV say (re: a study on twins) that we are 50% formed by our genes, and 50% by environment. Certainly the Blood of Christ redeems us from having to sin, but we can still have a more of a disposition towards it in the flesh, I think, if it is in our generational lineage.  Yet I agree with you that we can make generational sin a bigger bugaboo than it really is, once we are Believers.  Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin   Hi Slade,   If you read what Judy says below I hope alarm bells are going off in your head.  This is an excellent example of how we take scripture and make it mean whatever we want it to.  In other words we force our meaning on the text.  Judy is an expert at this.  Note that she is completely sincere and is not conscious of doing this.  Credit must be given to Judy for attempting to be Berean, possibly more so than anyone else on this forum.  However, her refusal to look at where her doctrines/beliefs come from and a blind adherence in believing that the Spirit communicated all her beliefs to her leads her into positions such as this one.  Here is what is done:   1)  Choose a passage that is completely out of context to the one in question.  We will then make this passage speak to another, helping us to interpret it.  In this case Judy chose a passage in Proverbs.  Now Proverbs is a collection of sayings that can lead one to wisdom.  It is not a doctrine manual.  We do not get doctrine from Proverbs; we get principles that demonstrate wise living.  People often use the book of Psalms to do this type of interpretation as well.  So we take a wise saying and then turn it into a doctrine (i.e. “the scriptures teach”).  Now that we have the Bible on our side we go in for the next strike. 2)  If the plain meaning of the text differs from what we hold to be true we must find a way to adjust it, to make it say something it doesn’t or at the very least to make explicit what we feel is implicit.  A favourite way of doing this is by using the ‘argument from silence’ technique.  That means that if something is not specifically stated then we can always assume that it should have been and moreover treat what we believe was implicit as binding doctrine.  So if Jesus (Yeshua) does not mention grandparents or great-grandparents than we can just add them in as if He meant to.  This is a dangerous and reckless way of interpreting scripture.  Last week Terry and Judy both made use of the argument from silence technique.  If Paul or Jesus did not ask any of the centurions/members of the military to leave the military then we must assume that being in the military is ok, and more so assume that it is a good thing (i.e. increase it from being acceptable to being a good moral choice).  Nothing of the such is taught in scripture in an explicit way.  The only way to make it fit is to do so implicitly.  It is a sneaky way of taking our beliefs (be they valid or invalid) and putting them into the text in order to justify what we already believe.  Let it be noted that all of us are guilty of doing this at one point or another, including myself. 3)  Now that we have added our argument from silence to our passage and no one has objected so far we can continue to the third strike.  Judy is aware that the orthodox rendering of this passage “prove[s] that sin and this man’s blindness are unrelated.”  However, due to her own beliefs on generational curses (usually found in the charismatic/Pentecostal strains of evangelicalism) the passage cannot mean what is plainly says.  The third strike builds on the first two by now presenting an alternative meaning to the text.  It must be referring to something different which is why Judy changes it to mean that “Jesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with.”  The plain meaning of course is that sin was not involved; rather it was “that the works of God might be revealed in him.”    It is all nice and compact.  We have started with scripture, moved to something that sounds logical (the argument from silence) and then provided an alternative reading that supports our beliefs prior to coming to the passage.  None of us here are perfect interpreters (including myself).  We all need to be on the watch for when scripture is mishandled.   If any are interested in learning more about generational sin and why I believe Judy’s beliefs are not only Biblically wrong but hurtful please see the links below: http://www.tmch.net/gensin.htm http://www.voiceofonecrying.com/generational_sins_or_god.htm http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_curses.html http://www.geocities.com/Bob_Hunter/csch6.htm http://www.nireland.com/evangelicaltruth/generationalcurses.htm http://www.answers2prayer.org/bible_questions/Answers/deliverance/generational_curses.html Peace and joy,   Jonathan   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 4:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request   Hi Slade: Thank you for posting this scripture. I know a lot of people interpret Jesus' response to the disciples query to mean or to prove that sin and this man's blindness are unrelated.  However, the scriptures teach that the "curse causeless does not light" (Prov 26:2) so there was definitely a cause even though Jesus did not choose to discuss it right then.  It could have been grandparents, ggrandparents or gggrandparents. Jesus was wanting to focus on the works of God being revealed in the man that day rather than what caused his problem to begin with .. judyt     From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) -- slade -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, 25 June, 2004 09:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request I have no idea Chris; our family are believers who are working through our issues also.  However, we do know where to go for help in time of need and we are grateful for those willing to encourage and pray.