Consider 1 Timothy 5:
I was told that my use of 1 Timothy 5:8 to defend a father who aggressively defends his family from harm is an abuse of this scripture. Perhaps. I'm willing to concede that possibility, however, I think this serves as a useful example of why certain protestant assumptions about scripture don't necessary work as well as we'd like to think they do. From my perspective, 1 Timothy 5:8 carries a connotation of general provision, meaning that each person in the family is to provide with regard to their traditional role. For a man, part of his natural, God-given role is to provide for the defense of his wife and children.
Cases like this show that it's not enough to just look at scripture. One must also be aware that scripture can say things which can be legitimately read on different levels, and then thoughtfully compare the different interpretations to find the one most suited to being applied for the good of the church and oneself.
1Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.We protestants take it for granted that Sola Scriptura can provide us with the answers, and in a lot of cases it can. At least macro-answers. From verse eight, we clearly, unequivocally know that a family has a responsibility to its constituent members to provide for one another. Yet, what does it mean to provide? If we take it for granted that Paul is speaking only about material needs, then it would be entirely reasonable for a father to work the entire week, and most of the weekend, to provide for his family's purely material needs even when that it is not necessary. Doing that wouldn't be a sign that he doesn't love his family, but would rather signify only, perhaps, that he cares as much for his career as his family, which is something that doesn't really enter into the realm of being a vice as far as the Bible is concerned.
3Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame. 8If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
I was told that my use of 1 Timothy 5:8 to defend a father who aggressively defends his family from harm is an abuse of this scripture. Perhaps. I'm willing to concede that possibility, however, I think this serves as a useful example of why certain protestant assumptions about scripture don't necessary work as well as we'd like to think they do. From my perspective, 1 Timothy 5:8 carries a connotation of general provision, meaning that each person in the family is to provide with regard to their traditional role. For a man, part of his natural, God-given role is to provide for the defense of his wife and children.
Cases like this show that it's not enough to just look at scripture. One must also be aware that scripture can say things which can be legitimately read on different levels, and then thoughtfully compare the different interpretations to find the one most suited to being applied for the good of the church and oneself.
Mike, I consider myself a Sola Scriptura kind of guy, and I think that Verse 8 is very general in nature. There is nothing in the text that tells me to limit my interpretation to only financial needs. I contend that those mainstream Evangelical types who think it is limited to material provision are abusing scripture themselves, and applying modern paradigms to an ancient text. Then they use it to browbeat men into being financial providers and that's it. I take those kinds of Evangelicals who put men into little boxes like that quite often.
To me, the 'care and feeding' referred to by v8 means not only material needs but other ones too. Spiritual, moral, even childcare, and yes, security. A man's home is his castle, and he is (supposed to be anyway) the resident samurai of that home.
I don't know of the incident you refer to, but if someone cracked some skulls defending his home and family from violation, I don't think I'd be criticizing that too much.
I think you illustrate my point rather well. Those evangelicals you dis take a literal view of the command to provide, but that is a technical understanding of the word that we both know that God doesn't accept as a boundary for our duties. Such an attitude is a well-meaning pharisee attitude.
Looking at the context... "these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents," or from the KJV "let them learn first to shew piety at home" Also chapter 4 is talking about gifts of the spirit. I see no reason to believe that purely physical needs were being spoken of.
But certainly no doctrine should ever be based on a single verse, rather on several. The Bible is replete with duplicate verses, worded differently and in different books. Are we not to defend the weak? Does not the Bible tell us that if we take the life of the thief in the night that we commit no offense? Does not the book of Esther show how the Jewish people had to defend themselves from any who cared to attack them? Why did Jesus command his followers to buy a sword, selling their cloaks to get it if need be?
1 Tim 5:8 may not specifically be talking about defending life and well-being, but it certainly is not out of its scope. It is written that we are not to wish someone to be warm and filled, but not give them our cloak and some food. Likewise, when in immediate physical danger it is not enough to stand by and speak words without taking action. Christ also gave us a parable saying if we know how to give good gifts to our children, how much better will He be able to give us. One could extend this with the previous verse and say if we can know the physical needs of a stranger and take care of them, how much greater should we be taking care of our immediate family whom we know better than anyone save G-d Himself?
Mike, the problem isn't Sola Scriptura, it is not taking ALL of the Word and then applying a modern filter to the snippets. This is no doubt what you encountered.
Resident samurai; I like that mental image, EW.
Excellent posting and comments, all around.
And Merry Christmas, Mike, to you and yours!
"Mike, the problem isn't Sola Scriptura, it is not taking ALL of the Word and then applying a modern filter to the snippets. This is no doubt what you encountered."
But the little bit "extra" you add to "incorrect" interpretations is a ruse, is it not? What is a "modern filter"? It's what you say it is. From my perspective, Sola Scriptura is a modern filter, as no such idea or phrase exists anywhere in history before the Reformation. In fact, as practiced now for 500 years, Sola Scriptura has functioned as kind of a proto-postmodernism. But then you might add that Sola Scriptura only functions incorrectly for those that interpret incorrectly, in which case, we are right back at the circular reasoning you end up in when you apply that "extra" bit about a "modern filter". There is no way to escape the fact that Sola Scriptura functionally ends up just giving people license to interpret as they are able, or as they see fit, or both. This is simply a fact of history. Well meaning good people sincerely read it differently. This is the legacy and destiny of Sola Scriptura.
Catholics recognized this problem from the outset, and took great pains to even slowly define what Scripture was. It took 350 years in fact! I collect and post articles about Sola Scriptura at my Catholic news website - this is a great topic for continued discussion among all God's faithful. May we all be blessed in our studies of his endlessly rich Word!
What you say is true, but as Martin Luther found, your church has an equal, but opposite problem. The Roman Catholic Church is slow, if even ever willing, to correct its own theological mistakes. The Roman Catholic Church has a very hard time accepting and even considering dissenting views. That has cause it to institutionalize many of its own serious theological errors, a problem which lead to the Reformation.