From: "Robert Schneider" <email@example.com>
> Allen writes:
> 2. Jewish reckoning for a day goes from sunset to sunset. So when we
> > "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul
> > the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on
> > until midnight." (Acts 20:7), it means that the people got together
> > Saturday night to listen to Paul speak because he was leaving them for
> > Jerusalem the next day. He spoke till midnight, dealt with Eutychus,
> > then kept speaking until sunrise on Sunday. So the first breaking of
> > occurred Saturday night after sunset.
> Yes, Jewish reckoning begins the day on the evening before. So, if Paul
> the Trojans met Saturday evening by our reckoning, they were meeting on
> Sunday by Jewish reckoning. But I do not want to prolong this discussion.
> I realize that as SDA you will hold to your views. I respect that and
> let the matter go at that.
I do not hold these views because I am SDA, but rather I am SDA because I
hold these view. That is a significant point of distinction.
The significant point of the story is that this was not a typical meeting.
It was a a 12 hour, all-nighter, goodby meeting that just happened to occur
on Saturday/Sunday night. Paul stopped by to encourage the believers while
passing through on his way to Jerusalem. And, the fact that they broke
bread at that time is not too significant because the disciples at times
broke bread daily.
> The point I was making in the quotations from the _Catechism of the
> Catholic Church_ is that the Church beliefs that Sacred Tradition is also
> inspired by the Word and the Spirit, and that it is incorrect from their
> point of view that call this "the traditions of men." I am not defending
> the RC position, just explaining it; and we can let that one go also.
I agree that there are traditions that do have a Biblical base, and being
creatures of habit we often live by those traditions. However, those
traditions must come from the Bible as we are lead by the Holy Spirit in
rational thought. The traditions must be subject to the Bible and not
allowed to reinterpret the Bible. Those the quotes I mentioned claim that
the Church, because of their traditions, is allowed to reinterpret and
change parts of the Bible.
They may think they have that kind of authority, but if traditions come from
the Bible and the Holy Spirit, then it is not logical for those traditions
to be used to change Bible teachings. Yet that is what the church says it
> Finally, one more point we shall continue to disagree on: it makes
> sense, in my view, to say that Scripture can only be interpreted by
> Scripture. Scripture is interpreted by inspiration but it is also
> interpreted by many methodologies, by reason, by the kind of contextual
> knowledge (historical, cultural, etc.) that is usually brought to bear in
> understanding it.
"Come let us reason together, say the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet
they shall be white as snow." Isaiah 1:18 Reason and logic form the
foundation of the most important topic of the Bible -- salvation. One would
expect no less for other less important issues. The inspiration of the Holy
Spirit in the writing of the Bible did not circumvent reason and logic.
Conversely, inspiration by the Holy Spirit in bringing understanding
Biblical truth is also rationally based. Rational thinking means that one
may employ methodologies and contextual knowledge. But inspiration directs
the rational thoughts while studying the Biblical texts with methodology and
Biblical and historical context. Methodology and historical context have
their place, but letting the Bible interpret itself, under the influence of
the Holy Spirit, will lead to understanding biblical truths. Methodology
and historical context often are found to catch up with positions derived at
by letting the Bible interpret itself first.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 19 2002 - 09:40:11 EDT