No time for editing this one. Please over look all the typos!
Okay.
I know that I don't need to give you a lesson in hermeneutics, but I want
you to see how I come to the understanding that I have of the Scriptures that I quote. I do this to be transparent in my thinking - to be absolutely clear, and
also so that others reading my posts will become more familiar with the way I interpret the Bible.
I generally go by the principles of hermeneutics as explained by RC Sproul (yes, a Reformed theologian - but don't jump to conclusions) in his book called
Knowing Scripture. The first of these is called the Analogy of Faith, and is one to which you often refer, Clete - that all of Scripture is "God breathed" or inspired by God. Therefore the entire Bible can be trusted to not
contradict itself any more than would God contradict Himself. This means that when I come to seeming contradictions, I can know that one or another of the passages has been misunderstood to mean something that it does not. Which is the misunderstood passage must be discerned by other hermeneutical tools.
The second most important tool to me is literary analysis, or what Sproul calls "the literal sense" by which is meant to read it according to the basic rules of literature, taking into account the genre of the work being analysed. So when I come to a bit of poetry, I take it as poetry rather than instruction; when I look at proverbs I recognize that they are not apodictic, but situational guidelines; when I look at historical narrative, I realize that it is a straight-up account of actual happenings. This is not to say that there is not some didactic within some narratives, nor that there is not some poetry within some prophesies. The genre gives me a beginning point, but I also try to recognize ordinary literary constructs within the text: metaphor, hyperbole, parallelism, personification, and phenomenological language, among others.
There is another guideline that seems to help me as much as these two, and that is is the general rule that the explicit trumps the implicit. When there is explicit teaching - usually found in didactic passages - I use that explicit teaching to guide my understanding of narrative passages, allagories, poetry, proverbs, and prophesy. So I try to be careful not to draw inferences from Scripture that contradict explicit teachings.
So with these in mind, I offer the following responses.
I agree that we should not let our emotions get out of control but that isn't to say that we should have emotions and the idea that we are not permitted to be angry is not only impossible it is unbiblical. You just got through conceding that Jesus told us not to call people fools without cause; how would that make any sense if we weren't supposed to call people fools (or be angry) at all?
I did mention that "cause" in this passage means purpose. How often, really, is a purpose
best served by an outburst of anger? Look at your results.
I would like to clarify a rather fine point here. I agree that anger is a ligitimate emotion. We certainly will get angry and the anger itself is not a sin. But it is by what we do with that anger that we will be judged:
My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
James 1:19-21
Note here that James likens the result of man's anger to "moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent." I believe that it is the actions that can follow from anger to which he refers because of what he says earlier in this chapter:
but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
James 1:14-15
So the anger is not the problem, it is the sin that can follow if anger is allowed to tempt us unchecked. James tells us what that looks like later in this same chapter:
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
James 1:26
Just to be clear here: anger is not a sin, but it can lead us to sinful speech and action.
If you do not understand what we refer to today as Dispensationalism, you do not understand the Bible. You should read Bob Enyart's "
The Plot" immediately!
That's not just a plug for Bob's book, I'm serious. Your theology will be a confused, conflicted, contradictory mess until you get a handle on just what happened in the New Testament and why and there is no better book on the planet to read on the subject than Bob's.
If you cannot afford a copy, I'll buy you one. PM me and we'll work out the details.
This is a very kind and generous offer, but I have not avoided this topic due to lack of good books on the subject. I have merely not gotten to it yet. I must move along the path of Biblical study that God has laid out for me, which has included many and continued readings of the Bible, learning under such mentors as Elizabeth Elliot, Amy Charmichael, CS Lewis, and Henry Blackaby, and more recently RC Sproul, Nancy DeMoss, Beth Moore, and Hank Hanegraaff. I am new to eschetology and hermeneutics. I am reading this thread mostly to learn more about Calvinism from one who is slowly coming to terms with it's concepts (Lon) - to get a feel for the real-life applications of such an ideology. I have found that the information that I can get on Calvinism, Arminianism, and Reformed Theology by way of the Internet is rather dry and non-personal, but I find that those claiming these basic beliefs are amazingly personal, engaging, and loving individuals. This is interesting to me. If these are the witnesses - examples of their belief system, then I want to know more.
All of this is to say that I'm quite sure that I will get to dispensationalism, but God has not led me there yet. I ask for your prayers specifically in that regard since this is obviously such an important part of your faith.
I don't understand this. You just conceded that the teaching is that we should not be angry without cause and now you seem to be making the opposite argument again.
Which is it?
I think I handled that one above, but if it's still not clear, I'll give it another stab. Just let me know.
Do you really think that it makes sense that God is the only one allowed to get angry?
No, but God is the only one allowed to condemn in His anger - the only one for whom outburst of anger are
never sin, whereas "
man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires."
This is getting rather long, and I need more time to answer the rest, so I will get back to this later (perhaps tonight).
