Part of the discussion about the pastor's inflammatory statements related to people feeling welcome in his church highlights one of the biggest issues in Christendom. The presumption that it's "his" church! As I understood it, "the church" aka G-1577 ekklesia means congregation... "called out of" (of what?) called out of the old covenant system. The "church" is always said to belong to Christ or referenced as the "church of city X". . . which simply meant the congregation of Christ's called that lived in that city. NOWHERE is any church referred to as belonging to any man. . . nor is there any scripture that refers to "a head pastor". Elders are always a plurality and the head of every man is Christ. (according to the bible) So for any man to stand up from a pulpit and declare who is welcome in the congregation of Christ based on their political affiliation is playing the guilty by association game that he should not play. Any of his "members" could lay the same accusations against him for paying taxes for or voting for politicians who send millions of people to their deaths in wartime activities. Does that guy really wanna play the guilt by association game?
Andy, typically "biblical" is a term used to refer to something as prescriptive, endorsed, commanded, or taught as instructive in the Bible. Cain killing Abel is descriptive...not prescriptive & thus not technically "biblical" in the sense we use that term. However the narrative of God giving king David his enemy's wives was prescripted because it was from God. So trying to put a wedge between acts or edicts of God because the implications don't jive with our culture today doesn't really hold the text up as the authority typically attributed to it.
I would probably go a step further by saying that "biblical" is a term used to refer to something as prescriptive, endorsed, commanded, or taught as instructive for the church today. Ex: is Leviticus' command to not eat shrimp "biblical"? In a way... yes... but I don't think that's how people use the term "biblical" colloquially. It'd probably be good for the podcast to define what they mean by "biblical" because I think the term is thrown around a little loosely. Granted - I think in a previous ep Zach said that it basically cannot be defined. And that people disagree with the definition. I think I'd disagree with Zach's take. I think we can come to a definition of biblical (such as the one you proposed above or the one I proposed), while still recognizing that people may disagree with what specifically the Bible endorses or commands for Christians today. So there's a term that we can all agree on while allowing for flexibility (if that makes sense). So I think Zach is right in that different people will disagree on what the Bible considers "commanded" for the church today, but I think we can still come to a definition of "biblical" that we can all agree on. Thoughts?
@@CamSmith_not_a_Bot_lolI'd have to discuss what God intended to establish as authoritative rather than what the church of Rome or the majority that won out at conventions during the first few centuries C. E. Paul seems to be at odds with others & definitely wasn't one of the 12 chosen apostles as articulated in the gospels. He wasn't witness to Christ's teachings or miracles and yet most chuchianity is based on letters attributed to him.
@@CamSmith_not_a_Bot_lolif right or wrong behavior fluctuates with the ebb and flow of social norms over the centuries then we aren't looking at the written Law of Yahweh for guidance. "Feet firmly planted in midair ". Does God call something unclean because it is inherently or is it unclean because He says so?
