I think this may be the one I saw:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4273893/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4273893/
The sin of refusing sex
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
I moderate a forum elsewhere on a niche discussion of a specific topic in theology. I had someone else lecture me on various aspects of hermeneutics, as if I had never heard of the points he is making.
I am aware that understanding the cultural and historical context is important for exegesis. I was dismissing your approach to the topic. You seemed to be dismissing the importance of certain scriptures on the topic because the culture was different back then. That's using culture as an excuse to disregard scripture. For example, pointing out that Greek culture was patriarchal in the first century and that some of Paul's writings bear some vague resemblance to household codes of the times does not prove that the instructions Paul give are irrelevant or not binding. The understanding of some people is that God shares the same values and morals with moderns and he was only giving laws to nudge them slowly toward modern, liberal, democratic values. I reject this agenda. There are some people who appeal to a cultural-historical approach without even realizing their underlying bias to causes them to think God shares all their liberal values. There are also those who hold to process theology who think God eventually learned over time that modern liberal values were right. (I realize that's an oversimplification of process theology.)
I've got a PhD that involved some seminar work in cross-cultural psychology, so I do appreciate the study of culture. I also realize it is important to view and interpret scripture with knowledge of the cultural background. But being in academia, I also realize that academics can have hobbyhorses and academics, or especially Internet posters who read some book carved out of a master's thesis or PhD dissertation in ANE or first century Grecco-Roman or NT studies can try to interpret passages to be about their little niche topic when that isn't the case. For example, there are those who interpret comments in I Timothy 2 to have something to do with Diana worship. That seems far-fetched. There is a website that tries to argue that the divorce passage in Matthew 19 is agunah problem of men abandoning women without certificates. In this case, the website is written by someone who is admittedly not a language scholar. The passage is clearly talking about divorce with a certificate, and for a cultural background, it makes more sense to consider the debates between the Shammai and Hillel houses on the subject.
What I am saying is that there is widespread misuse of appeals to culture and history to promote a loosey goosey liberal approach to scripture, and there is also plenty of faux cultural-historal scholarship that tries to interpret certain passages through the lens of historical information that is not relevant to the passage.
What words did I twist. if I misrepresented you, show me clearly and I will apologize. I do not try to misrepresent people. Saying the culture was different in the first century does not exempt married believers from rendering 'due benevolence'. I don't care for your posturing here-- trying to paint me as someone who doesn't appreciate exegesis or the role of the study of history and culture therein for pointing that out.
You can consider it an assumption to think that apostolic instructions given to churches given to churches usually apply unless there is a reason to think otherwise. Something extremely specific, like specific instructions to receive a specific brother may not apply directly, but the principle of receiving brethren may. This is a very ancient and historical approach to scripture. For example, Christians have historically taken teachings on marriage, murder, theft, sexual moraity, etc. to apply to themselves and not just to the Christians living in a particular time in a particular city.
Is there any aspect of 'audience' here that would lead you to believe that married Christians no longer need to render 'due benevolence'? Is there any point in your other list of points for exegesis that you think would render the instruction not valid for us today?
I am aware that understanding the cultural and historical context is important for exegesis. I was dismissing your approach to the topic. You seemed to be dismissing the importance of certain scriptures on the topic because the culture was different back then. That's using culture as an excuse to disregard scripture. For example, pointing out that Greek culture was patriarchal in the first century and that some of Paul's writings bear some vague resemblance to household codes of the times does not prove that the instructions Paul give are irrelevant or not binding. The understanding of some people is that God shares the same values and morals with moderns and he was only giving laws to nudge them slowly toward modern, liberal, democratic values. I reject this agenda. There are some people who appeal to a cultural-historical approach without even realizing their underlying bias to causes them to think God shares all their liberal values. There are also those who hold to process theology who think God eventually learned over time that modern liberal values were right. (I realize that's an oversimplification of process theology.)
I've got a PhD that involved some seminar work in cross-cultural psychology, so I do appreciate the study of culture. I also realize it is important to view and interpret scripture with knowledge of the cultural background. But being in academia, I also realize that academics can have hobbyhorses and academics, or especially Internet posters who read some book carved out of a master's thesis or PhD dissertation in ANE or first century Grecco-Roman or NT studies can try to interpret passages to be about their little niche topic when that isn't the case. For example, there are those who interpret comments in I Timothy 2 to have something to do with Diana worship. That seems far-fetched. There is a website that tries to argue that the divorce passage in Matthew 19 is agunah problem of men abandoning women without certificates. In this case, the website is written by someone who is admittedly not a language scholar. The passage is clearly talking about divorce with a certificate, and for a cultural background, it makes more sense to consider the debates between the Shammai and Hillel houses on the subject.
What I am saying is that there is widespread misuse of appeals to culture and history to promote a loosey goosey liberal approach to scripture, and there is also plenty of faux cultural-historal scholarship that tries to interpret certain passages through the lens of historical information that is not relevant to the passage.
What words did I twist. if I misrepresented you, show me clearly and I will apologize. I do not try to misrepresent people. Saying the culture was different in the first century does not exempt married believers from rendering 'due benevolence'. I don't care for your posturing here-- trying to paint me as someone who doesn't appreciate exegesis or the role of the study of history and culture therein for pointing that out.
You can consider it an assumption to think that apostolic instructions given to churches given to churches usually apply unless there is a reason to think otherwise. Something extremely specific, like specific instructions to receive a specific brother may not apply directly, but the principle of receiving brethren may. This is a very ancient and historical approach to scripture. For example, Christians have historically taken teachings on marriage, murder, theft, sexual moraity, etc. to apply to themselves and not just to the Christians living in a particular time in a particular city.
Is there any aspect of 'audience' here that would lead you to believe that married Christians no longer need to render 'due benevolence'? Is there any point in your other list of points for exegesis that you think would render the instruction not valid for us today?
Does it really say that?
Remember too that Paul wanted nothing to do with sex or marriage.
1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Remember too that Paul wanted nothing to do with sex or marriage.
1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
- Status