What is that about? Did I miss a post from David? Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:45
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Exegetical Fallacies and Generational Sin
I add my amen to this . As for Daivd M-- he is currently slugging
it out with the tough guy Christian club on another channel. I am
sure he is keeping in touch.
John
In a message dated 6/28/2004 1:34:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
A 'must-read' post for all of us. This should include the now absent David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Hughes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 27, 2004 22:42
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
