BLUE VIEWPOINT
As mentioned elsewhere on this site, the ability to tell the
difference between truth and lies is very important, especially when you
are listening to someone explain the Bible.
The name for the ability to properly tell the difference is discernment.
Discernment definition
Dictionary.com defines it like this:
dis - cern - ment
di'sernment/
noun: discernment
1. the faculty of discerning; discrimination; acuteness of judgment and understanding.
"an astonishing lack of discernment"
2. the act or an instance of discerning.
"without providing for a time of healing and discernment, there will
be no hope of living through this present moment without a shattering
of our common life"
But, Wikipedia adds a little:
Discernment is the ability to obtain sharp perceptions or to judge
well (or the activity of so doing). In the case of judgment, discernment
can be psychological or moral in nature.
Within judgment,
discernment involves going past the mere perception of something and
making nuanced judgments about its properties or qualities. Considered
as a virtue, a discerning individual is considered to possess wisdom,
and be of good judgement; especially so with regard to subject matter
often overlooked by others.
One word often overlooked in the definition of the second box is
"perception". Poet William Blake made a statement that explains an
important concept:
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear
to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees
all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."
- William Blake
There are always obstacles
While not everything is "Infinite", men generally close themselves
up based on their preconceptions and personal experiences and do not
start from a common point when trying to discover truth. By starting
from different points, the trek to find the truth must take each man
through different obstacles (untruths disguised as "truths") placed in
the way by others. For most churches today, these obstacles are placed
in our path by our trusted pastors and their predecessors.
Discard the rose-colored glasses
Some of these obstacles are so large that the journey stops there,
with many accepting a seemingly insurmountable obstacle as the final
destination which is not necessarily the intended destination of truth.
When these personal preconceptions and experiences are removed, the path
becomes much clearer, if not always easy, and the journey results in a
more direct route to the truth destination.
OK, so?
While it's easy to say that you can tell the difference, let's take a
few examples to get an idea how easy or hard it really can be. First,
speaking to someone directly, you have no point of reference unless you
know the person well enough to spot the truth from the lies. One way to
do that is by recognizing a direct contradiction:
If someone tells you that he always does something, and five minutes later he tells you that he never does that same thing, how do you discern the truth?
Well, both can't be true
This one is relatively straight forward. Both statements by this
person cannot be true at the same time. Unless this person changed
something big in that five minute period, one of the statements is a
lie. For example, if he told you he washes his car every day and then
five minutes later says he never washes his car, there is a way to see
which is true. Even if you don't know them, you can watch the person or
ask someone who knows them to see which one is true. The most important
thing to be able to discern is that two opposing statements cannot be true at the same time. However, if you accept both statements as true, then you have a "lack of discernment".
What about those times when it is not so clear?
Someone tells you that she never eats chocolate, but while
she is saying that, she bites into a Humphrey's candy bar. You ask her
about it, and she replies "This is carob, not chocolate."
Appearances can be deceiving
OK. Now you can see where what appears to be the case can lead to a
mistaken impression on the part of the observer. Anyone observing this
person taking a snack, by appearances alone, may easily conclude that
she is eating chocolate. This happens a lot when referring to the Bible.
The author of the Book or letter may be speaking of one thing, but the
translation into English often is misunderstood by the modern reader.
This causes a misunderstanding of the intent of the author, leading to
the passing on of ideas that are not true. Example? Let's see if we can
find one.
In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul wrote of the methods by which he passed the
Gospel of Christ to those he encountered. Verse 20 says:
20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To
those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am
not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
Clear enough, or...?
This verse is used by many Christians to "prove" that the law no
longer applies to Gentiles. In fact, they claim that it never did. They
show this by Paul's statement that they claim means that he, a Jew, is not under
the law, which is what it says. However, this statement does not say
that the law no longer applies to Gentiles. OK, let's look at this with
discernment by seeing if there is more information on this topic before
we make a decision. Is there anywhere in the Bible where Paul makes a
claim that would make this interpretation of Paul's statement an
apparent contradiction? How about Acts 25:8:
Then Paul made his defense: "I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar."
He keeps the law, but he is "not under it"?
Interestingly, Paul makes it clear that he has never broken any
law, whether God-based (temple), Jewish (God's law), or secular (Roman
law). So, how can he claim to be "not under the law" if he is proud of
never having broken any of them? If you read the two statements side by
side, one "appears" to contradict the other. We will see that this is
not the case.
In our previous example and discussion, two contradictory statements
about the same issue means that one of them is a lie. Is that what we
have here? Well, look at the next verse in 1 Corinthians 9:21:
21To those not having the law I became like one not
having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under
Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
Here, we have a little difference in the phrase where it appears that Paul is contradicting himself in the very next verse.
Did he mean in verse 20 that he faked being under the law, really being
outside the law, therefore lying to convince the Jews of the truth? In
verse 21 did he "become like one not having the law" by lying to them
because he is really under the law? If that was the case, what did he
mean by that statement about "not free from God's law"? This could be
confusing if you try to follow by assuming an incorrect association with the word "law" and the meaning of the phrase "under the law".
A little background
On another page of this site, I speak of the word "law", discussing how the word is used by most Christians to mean all
law. If you say that we are no longer under the law of gravity, how
would that sound to someone standing on the ground in front of you? If
you say we are no longer under the "law of the land", how would that
sound to a lawyer or a policeman? However, if you just say we are "no
longer under the law", Christians substitute their own meaning for the
rest of the "law of" phrase. If we get to do that, we can pretty much
choose what laws we want to follow and which we don't.
Using discernment
But, if you look closely, Paul is speaking of two different
situations, as well as two different laws, in the two passages. How can
we tell? Well, to think that he means we don't have to obey any
laws will cause some irreconcilable problems. When he says he is not
"under the law", what does he mean? We need to use some discernment and
see if we can find out what he is talking about.
Now, what could that mean to us modern day dummies? Well, in the
days of Paul, there were God's laws and there were the "safety cushions"
added by the Pharisees to build a hedge around the laws of God to keep
people from breaking them "accidentally". These are most often referred
to as the "oral law", or better yet, "traditions", because they are not
real laws but manmade rules. These are some of the "laws" that Jesus
spoke about in Luke 11:46:
Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you
load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves
will not lift one finger to help them.
and what the Jews referred to in Matthew 12:2:
When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
These pharisees refer to their oral laws, and not the "law of God", but enhancements made by the non-Messianic Jews of the day.
No longer under the law
When you have broken a law, you are under the penalty required by
the law. Until you meet that penalty requirement, you are considered "under the law". When you are exonerated, or forgiven, or pay the penalty for
breaking that law, you are no longer under that law. However, if you go
out and break it again, you are right back under the law. It's the same
here whether we are talking about a speeding ticket or a broken
commandment.
We all break a rule now and then, and most of us feel bad about it.
We "ask forgiveness" and try not to do it again. This forgiving action
by Jesus and the Father is called grace, comes from mercy, and is
expected between people as well. If we deliberately break a rule and
think that we are no longer responsible to the authority, whether God or
each other, then we are not forgiven because we are not repentant (Luke 17:3
3So watch yourselves. "If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.
), and are required to accept the consequences of deliberately disobeying (Luke 13:3
3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
).
"Once saved, always saved?" Nope.
The parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35
21
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I
forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
23 "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. 25
Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife
and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26 "At this the servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27 The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28 "But when that servant went out, he found one of his
fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and
began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
29 "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.'
30 "But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32 "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked
servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged
me to. 33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart."
)
is often misunderstood because people stop listening at the end of
verse 22. To get the whole story, you must read the whole passage. A
forgiven person trying to stay within the will of the Authority is no
longer under the law. One who has been forgiven but then deliberately
defies the authority or does not pass on the blessing will be put back under the law and be held accountable. The authority in this case is the Father and the result is described in verse 35.
Paul explains this in many ways in his writing, but so many refuse to accept an explanation that makes all his statements agree. They insist on interpretations that cause contradictions, then deny that those contradictions exist.
A little experiment
Now, this may be hard, but I think you can do it. Go back through
the statements of Paul and substitute the words "under the broken law" every time he says "under the law". When he says "under Christ's law" or "God's law", then use "under the requirements of Christ's law" or "from the requirements of
God's law". You can just use the phrases on this page, but it also
works every time you see the phrases anywhere in the Bible. While you
are doing that, add the concept of staying within the will of God by
living in the Holy Spirit and not breaking the law. Go ahead, I'll wait.
If you are fair about it, you will see how this allows Romans 2:13-15
13
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight,
but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things
required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do
not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the
law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness,
and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even
defending them.)
to make sense. You are only
"under the law" if you break it and are therefore under its requirement
for a penalty. You are always "under the requirements of the law"
because it always limits your actions (kind of like a traffic speed
limit sign), even if you don't break it it still affects you. If you do
not break it, or sincerely repent and are forgiven, you are not "under
it", but you still must do what it says (under the requirements of it).
Some Gentiles are blessed, because they obey
Notice how Paul even speaks of the Gentiles as doing right when they
"do by nature things required by the law", even when they do not "have
the law". Breaking this down, if you do not "have the law" but still
keep the law, you are not "under the law" because you have not broken
(disobeyed) it. Their (Gentiles) consciences are either clear or not
depending on their actions regarding God's law and Christ's law.
Now, think of that context. This is not an interpretation, just
saying what Paul actually says. If you add to this the phrase in 1 Corinthians 9:21
To
those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I
am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win
those not having the law.
, when Paul "became like
one not having the law", he acted like a Gentile who kept the law, which
was within his own claim of obedience, and won "those not having the
law". When he says "not free from God's law" and "under Christ's law",
it means that he is still "bound by the requirements of" that law, not
"under it" as though he has broken it. It fits perfectly in this case,
and every time Paul makes the statement in other places, it now fits
with every other statement in the Bible with no contradictions. When you
have no contradictions, everything you read in context can be
the truth. Of course, some deceivers can even confuse the issue here,
but Paul is probably someone we can trust.
Put your money where your mouth is...
So, the next time you hear that the Old Testament no longer applies
to us, or that the laws apply to the Jews but not the Gentiles, ask
"Which laws?". If you are told, "All of them.", ask if you can borrow
his wallet. His answer means that you can take a few dollars for
yourself with no consequences - since the laws no longer apply to
Gentiles. Unless, of course, he thinks that causes some sort of
contradiction between his circumstances and his beliefs...
Taking the wrong fork in the path
If you understand the discernment discussion so far, you can see
where one error in judgment can lead to a series of path changes and
soon you are walking down the wrong path. Discarding the law, all law,
may seem acceptable because your pastor has convinced the congregation
that it is true. The trouble with this is that it still causes
contradiction with the statements of Jesus and those of Paul when he
taught through his letters. You know, silly things like Matthew 5:17-18
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
and Romans 3:31
31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
.
If what your pastor tells you causes a conflict with the word of
God, then either God is lying or your pastor is confused. Your pastor
may not actually be trying to tell a lie, but his discernment is not
assessing the truth well enough to prevent a contradiction between his
words and the Bible. His error in judgment is sending believers on a
false path. This is not an accusation, just a statement of fact.
"What do you mean, 'false path'? Not my pastor..."
Don't just take this word for it. Try it when you read the Book. Ask
your pastor about it. If he disagrees, please have him contact me and
"straighten me out". I welcome the discussion.
From now on, when you see or hear something about the Bible that
does not sync with everything else in the Book, don't just ignore it. If
you can't figure it out, ask someone. If your pastor tries to pass it
off, ask him to explain it in a way that does not cause a contradiction.
A contradiction means at least one side is a lie, and the Bible doesn't
lie. If he can't explain it, well...try using some discernment
regarding your church.
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at glenjjr@gmail.com and give us your view.
