TRAINING NEW CHRISTIANS

The value of a new, uninitiated Christian, one who has been saved from a background removed from church attendance, is that in his freshness, never being influenced by tradition, he can understand the Scriptures free of possible error introduced over the years by the tradition of men.

On the other side of that coin tradition built through the years by earnest men who have studied the Scriptures can keep new believers from wandering into erroneous territory.

To be protected from error one must read the Scriptures for himself.  Then he has some background against which he can compare to what his teacher is telling him.  It takes time to build up this background.  It also takes time to gain an apprehension of the organization behind the teaching.

A question worth asking is: “what does this man gain by teaching me this, does he have an angle or agenda?  Is the result of this teaching to advance the position or influence of the organization he represents?”

FARMER OR HERDSMAN

Noah believed God for things that had not yet happened - - things for which, I suppose, there was no indication they would happen.  But he thought those things so real he dared not go against them - - he feared God; he knew God would do what he said he would do.  His neighbors may have thought him a fool but Noah proved them foolish by his doing of the things God told him.  What God said happened. 

Was Noah a farmer or a herdsman, or both?  As a farmer it would have been easier for him to grow crops while the four men (Noah and his sons) built the ark.  If he were a herdsman he would have to move the flocks around to keep the pastures fresh.  This would have made the construction much more difficult.  In either case, he had to produce enough extra to fund their subsistence, materials and construction of the ark.  This indicates the possibility that he may have hired the work done from people from outside the family.

For such a large structure he and his sons would have needed plenty of “free time”, time away from providing subsistence.  Primitive construction techniques would also consume time.  Did they use contractors, suppliers?  If they did, they needed the funds to pay them.  They probably ran a very successful farm, or they had large flocks over wide areas with many employees to oversee them.

VIBRATIONS

We perceive vibrations at least two ways: as light and as sound.

The visual artist takes a paint brush and with thought and skill (little or much) captures the vibrations of light - - colors - - in a single place for us to view as a picture.  This static color show is concentrated in one place, with all the relationships frozen for a length of time - - as long as the picture lasts.  It is all concentrated in the picture, which does not change, which lasts for a while, and which many can see.  The viewers all see the same unchanging thing.  In a painting or photograph the sun does not rise or fall and nothing in the scene moves.

The sound artist works to produce interesting vibrations either by himself or with others.  But a single tone or note makes little sense until there is change in tone.  Even many voices together make no sense if there is only one tone.  A single note, or a single chord soon becomes boring; so movement - - rhythm - - progress from one tone to another is necessary.  When one voice moves to different tones it is melody.  When many voices move together it is harmony.  Melody and harmony each require some kind of rhythm or progress from one tone to the next.  Thus the progressing sounds must take up some length of time.  Once the time is done the work of art is finished - gone.

Visual and sound art are different.  Visual art is thin, it takes up only specific vibrations which do not change in relationship and which can last for long periods.  Sound is fat, it must take many changing vibrations and change in relationships which last for a specific length of time.  Paintings can hang in art museums for hundreds of years.  Once a music concert is performed it is over.

THE INCONVENIENCE OF SELF CONTROL

The need to use self control comes at inconvenient times.  They come at times when I am not listening for direction, or don’t particularly want to seek direction.  For example, last night I stayed up late because a) I am used to staying up late and because b) I wanted to do a crossword puzzle.  I did not even think to seek for God’s advice much less dedicating the time to God.  I was busy with the activity I wanted to do.

There seems to be two easy ways to slip off the path of self control.  One is pursuing a path you are "used to": an established routine, something familiar, a habitual activity.  Another is doing something you "want to do": something easy you enjoy and it feels good at the time.

But what I’m used to and what I like to do (crosswords, for example) may not be what at that particular time is the most profitable for me.  More profitable things might be:  memorizing Scripture, reading a book, or practicing drums or another musical instrument.  For the long picture literature and music are more noble things than the number of crosswords I complete or the TV programs I watch.

Maybe I should recognize these "used to it" "want to do" times.  Recognize that they exist, that they will appear at inconvenient times, and make plans to resist them.

SETTING ASIDE SELF CONTROL

How sweet is it to think of self control when I am removed from temptation and, how dim the goal of self control seems when temptation looms near. I remember one night I had the opportunity to a) control my eating, b) study the scripture, and c) practice the congas. Instead I watched PBS. It seems easy to quickly push the right things aside so I can take advantage of the less useful things. It's as if I realize the right thing will have it's way and I won't get to do the less useful thing. Accordingly I just pass quickly as possible over the right things putting them aside. I'm good at doing that and thereby I miss a) the Spirit of God and b) the benefit of accomplishing the right things.

I need somehow to stop the rush. How do I do that? Do I look at my watch and make myself think about what I’m doing for one minute? Two minutes? Do I quote scriptures? Do I say aloud to myself the choices I am considering, announcing to myself the benefits I will have from doing of the good things? Should I do ten push-ups before I can commence on the bad thing? Sit-ups?

I may be my own worst enemy when it comes to acting on my feelings. The things I feel like doing (watching TV) will not benefit me whereas the things I do not feel like doing (memorizing, practicing) will greatly benefit me. This is a case where working from the mind is better than working from the feelings (maybe it always is).

ASKING FOR SELF CONTROL

I noticed at one time in my journal I was asking the Lord for self control.  I seems odd for me to ask the Lord to give me self control since I am the one who should be controlling myself.  I thought either should have it or, minimally, I should want to develop it.  I am the one who should be controlling myself.  If another controls me, it is not myself.  Certainly I would not want someone to force control over me, yet there may be times where I need some assistance.  If another assists me in my control is it a flaw in my spirit or is it it an opportunity to develop my spirit?

I need to consider if I need assistance the Holy Spirit is known to be our "helper".  What is wrong with asking the helper to help?  Self control is identified in the Bible as a "fruit of the Spirit".  Since I have the Spirit residing within me, the fruits thereof are available to me.  This alone is a justification for me to ask.  Not asking for help might be a demonstration of being insensitive to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps if I would ask and then listen I would hear.  Certainly if I do not listen I will not hear.  If I do listen I might hear.  Perhaps the habit of asking and listening increases my sensitivity to hearing.  This may build to a point where I will more thoroughly know God:  know what his will is, sense his direction of my life, feel his direct presence.  This could result through the practice of listening for God's guidance. 

REINS

Jer 17:10 - - The Lord searches the heart and tries the reins of a man in order to give every man according to the man’s ways and according to the fruit of the man’s doings.

God has a continuous view into each person’s thoughts, intentions, feelings, hopes and emotions.  As we can control a horse’s direction with reins, the Lord can control our direction but gives us decisions to make.  The question is: will we obey Him?  Once God tries us (pulls on our reins), he rewards or corrects according to what we have been thinking or according to how we have acted.  Once our thinking or acting has produced a product, he rewards or corrects us for that product - - according to the accomplishments, or mess, we have made for ourselves.  God is directly involved with our lives.

“For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.” (2Ch.16:9)

ONLY THE APOSTLES ARE WORTHY

A reformed pastor I was listening to said of the “you” in John 16:13 that it was written to the Apostles and not for us.  I wrote in the builtin when he preached it:  “If the ‘you’ is only the apostles according to the context, then should we throw the Bible aside and ignore these verses?  Context only applies = Apostles = Early Fathers = Tradition.  Tradition interprets the Scripture.”  We have to be careful of men’s logical devices such as this one, since they can take us the wrong way from the truth.

At the time I was feeling very sad, almost to tears, for the idea that God does not communicate to me, only to the Apostles, only to this pastor.  Can I take nothing from Corinthians because the book was written to the Corinthians?  Can I take nothing from the Psalms because it was David writing to God?  Or - - is what was good for the Corinthians also good for me?  Are David’s feelings like my feelings and the answers from God also valid for me?  Was what was said to the Apostles also valid for me?

In v25, when Jesus says “I shall show you plainly of the Father” does it mean that at this time, at the coming of the Holy Spirit, that he will show it only to the Apostles?  If this is only for the Apostles then does John 14:15 - 19 mean that only the “yous”, the Apostles, get the Holy Spirit”?  Does this pastor have a lock on Bible meaning that I, the peon, the non-seminary trained dolt, can not have?

Maybe rather the “Apostles” or “disciples” (KJV) are those who are closest to Jesus in a personal commitment level.  They follow closely to him, depending on him, while others come and go.  They are capable with their own intellect to interpret the Scriptures.  They represent Christians while the others, the well trained egotistical others, represent the religious lost.

BUT ITS MY PARTY

At the turn-of-the-century (August 1999) I had a birthday party at my house with my family and some others. During that party my wife and children gave me a djambe which is a type of drum. They all started to sing and I played along with them with my drum. After the first song one of the women there asked if I could play any softer, so I just put my drum aside. Her husband was obviously upset and remained upset the rest of the evening. The others played and sang at my birthday party but I was not welcome to play my drum in my own house.

This helps you to thin out your guest list for future events.

DOES IT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS

I went to a men’s Bible study at a church I once attended where the pastor trotted out his “the primary purpose of the Old Testament is to show Jesus Christ” routine.  I don’t dispute it is A purpose of the Old Testament but I wonder about being the PRIMARY purpose.  It makes it seem that anything else we get out of reading the Old Testament is of lesser value - - value that is inferior.  Therefore any other application we can draw, since it is inferior, can be lightly esteemed or even discarded.  According to this man such applications are more or less worthless.

Why then should we have an Old Testament study if the only answer of worth must be “How does this demonstrate Christ?”

What do I do with a scripture that says, “All Scripture is given for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”?

So, now that I know (according to this pastor) that the Bible is only about Christ, what good is the rest of it?  All I really have to do is see how it relates to Christ, then close the book and forget about the rest since it is minor anyway.  Once I know the one important fact - - that the writing is somehow showing me about Christ - - what else do I need to know?

If I want to find out about homosexuality I should read contemporary books about homosexuality.  The Bible may define the homosexual act as wrong but, so what, since that is not the main intent of the Scriptures, which is to reveal Christ, not necessarily to teach us what is right and what is wrong.

It it permissible for me to ask of the Bible, “does it mean what it says”?

Here are three statements encountered from that particular Pastor:

Statement 1. “Because the culture today is different from the culture of Biblical times we can think of things differently than what the Scriptures say.”

This depends upon what the overarching intent of the Scripture is.  Although some things are definitely different between past and present cultures, other things are comparable.  The role of family, for example, existed and was important in the past as it is today.  While I may not tend sheep as many in ancient Biblical lands did, I can learn from the role of the shepherd basic, important character traits like faithfulness, watchfulness and diligence.  A problem arises when we try to relieve ourselves from the types of personal and social responsibility that is called for in the Scriptures:  for example a life-long marriage to one person.  Because in this present day culture it is easy and acceptable to get divorced does not mean it is an option to choose because it is convenient.  Because today’s society embraces sexual intercourse between people of the same sex does not relieve us from the prohibition of that activity as expressed in the Bible.

Statement 2. “The primary purpose of the Scriptures is to reveal Christ and other revelations are of lesser importance.”

Of course the revelation of Christ is important - - crucial - - to the eternal life of any person, but to say other lessons that could be learned from the Scriptures are of “lesser” importance seems to be a semantical trick.  We know that knowing Christ is vital, yet we still need to know other things like:  we should not kill, we should not steal, we should not commit adultery, etc.  Clearly we must first breathe to stay alive after which we need to do other things like drink water and eat food.  I can not (or at least I should not) pick up The Book, learn about Christ, and then toss it aside as if it’s all I really need.  There is so much more of inestimable value to be found, if we will but pay attention.

Statement 3. “The context of certain Scriptures eliminate the reader from taking the plain meaning of the text as for himself.”

Without an example of a specific scripture this statement makes no sense.  It seems to me you have to first know the plain text meaning of the words you read.  Then you compare what knowledge you have of the context to the meaning of the text.  From the comparison of the text and context you arrive at a conclusion about the intention of what was written.  Whatever conclusion the reader arrives at has meaning for the reader.  What I think this pastor was really wanting to say is that he only is capable of interpreting the meaning.   The average parishioner must look to him, the seminary graduate, for the correct interpretation.  He once said, "The Holy Spirit teaches your pastor, and your pastor teaches you."  The Pharisees said that too.

SENSES

The Scripture speaks of the “Lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life.”  I notice there is no mention of the “Lust of the ear” or the “Lust of the nose.”  Is this because there is some special property of vision?  Is there some way that this particular sense has more power to be damaging? Is it wired more directly into emotions and passions not being filtered first through the thinking mind?

A nude body is of the eye, but music is of the ear.  You can sexually arouse yourself by seeing images of nudes.  You can even imagine morally damaging visual scenes.  But can not sexually arouse yourself through music absent any visual image.  Today’s options include music videos.  If you heard the music without ever seeing the video could you get the same impressions (thoughts, emotions and feelings) as you could be seeing the video?

You can get impressions through the lyrics of music.  The lyrics can carry sexual messages.  Lyrics can be carried and reinforced by music, but the music does not carry the message.  Music without lyrics can  not carry the visual image.  The song “The Stripper” by itself will not convey the image of a stripper, the listener has to have, if fact, seen a stripper’s performance.  The imagery of the stripper, once seen, can be overlaid on the music in the listener’s mind.

Can the music alone give all people the same visual impression?  I’ll bet not.  I’ll bet ten different people could get ten different visual impressions from a piece of music – even one with lyrics, but if all ten saw a video with the music they would all get the same impression - - that of the videographer, not necessarily of the one who composed the music or wrote the lyrics.

The song, “the Song Remembers When” talks of a song being able to evoke a strong memories of a past event.  But it was an event that had a host of other senses tagged to it - - not the least of which is what was seen when the event occurred.  These are the events inside the head of the listener, not of the song writer. The lyricist has his memories, visual or otherwise, and the listener has his; they are not the same.

CHOICES THAT SEEM PREDESTINED

I don’t hold with the theological doctrine of Predestination.  But there is a reason to find value in the theory of the “Predestination” position - - not as the sole position, but as a balance for the “Free will” or “Decisional” position.

Joseph said to his brothers, “You decided to do evil to me, but God used it for good.”  God had determined that Abraham’s seed would go into Egypt and grow there.  Joseph’s brothers on their own volition decided first to murder Joseph, but then to sell him into slavery.  Although their free choice was for evil, by God’s sovereignty the results of it turned out for good:  God’s good, Joseph’s good, the brothers’ good, Israel’s good, and even our good.

To say God made Joseph’s brothers decide to do murder is to say that he made his creatures do something which is against the nature of God himself.  They must have chosen to do the evil.  God, being good by definition, converted the evil into good.  But God, being in existence at all times (past, present and future), knew before the bad happened that it was going to happen.  He did not preclude the brothers’ bad decision.

We should not be afraid to make choices, or be made to think that our choices have no real meaning or effect because some others are fully persuaded about predestination.  “If God has predetermined things what choice do we have, is there really any choice at all, why bother?”  Because, as Joseph’s brothers did, we have options before us that we can choose.  But we should also know that God has all firmly in his control and in the end his will will work for the good.  And if God has all in control, we can see he will be more than willing to give us the power to accomplish his will.  And if we fail to accomplish his will God will make it come out his way anyway in spite of the mess we make.

If Joseph’s brothers can choose evil, then so can we.  But, as an extension to this, we can also choose good.

At some time we are going to be in a place where we will have to choose - - we will not have the luxury of passing the choice by.

EMOTION CHANGES DNA

I Read an article that said emotions from negative social activity, like being rejected or ignored, actually changes our DNA.  They cause emotional or psychological results that can eventually express as physical results.  I quote a portion of this article:  “Within 40 minutes, they and other researchers have found, these experiences affect the expression of individual genes, determining which parts of our DNA are turned on or off . . . they have found, [these experiences] can change how DNA behaves.”

So we are to believe that emotion changes DNA.  I have been taught that DNA is a chemical structure within a cell.  It is supposed to resemble a helix, a double coil, having rungs like a ladder.  The "rungs" of the ladder are our genes.  The article states our emotions are supposed to change these genes.

I suppose if someone, who I thought liked me now says he hates me, has made my genes change.  How could you know my genes have changed?  How can this be proved? Will a piece of skin be taken from me, frozen, sliced up, dyed and microscopically analyzed to show the changes?  This presupposes a skin sample was taken before the "rejection" so it could be compared to the one taken after the "rejection" that the differences could be observed.  Do I need to take a blood test, will that work? 

Remember, this all takes place within 40 minutes so we can not allow for the possibility that the emotional trauma may have physical manifestations resulting in lack of care for physical maintenance or safety.  Even if we allowed 40 hours could not eating or lack of sleep (resulting from the despondency) change my genes?

This seems absurd to me.  I doubt if sad (or angry, or happy) emotions can express directly as physical gene changes.  I don't believe it has any bearing in truth.  This statement seems to be a contrivance to have something exciting and provocative  to write about

Maybe time and physical / psychological experiments will prove me wrong, but until then I'll file this away in the "Wacco" bin.

WHAT A FAST IS, IS NOT

ACCORDING TO ISIAH 58
According to Isaiah 58 this is what a fast in not:
- - Finding pleasure (we do it to get something that will give us pleasure)
- - Exacting our our labors ( we require God to pay something back for our inconvenience)
- - For strife and debate (we are at odds with someone and want God to take our side against them)
- - Smite with the fist of wickedness (we want harm to come to someone else)
- - Make our voice to be heard on high (we want our will to prevail in the courts of heaven)
- - To afflict our soul (a time to make ourselves uncomfortable, perhaps thinking we deserve it)
- - Bow down the head as a bulrush (it is not good for us to be happy, we must be sad to please God)
- - Spread sackcloth and ashes under us (make a public demonstration of our discomfort)

What a fast is:
- - Loose the bands of wickedness (from ourselves, from other people)
- - Undo the heavy burdens (things that are too difficult for us or others to bear)
- - Let the oppressed go free (we help the oppressed gain freedom, or release ourselves from oppression)
- - Break every yoke (the things that are controlling us or others, the things for which we need to give up control)
- - Deal your bread to the hungry (do with a little less in order to feed some hungry)
- - Bring the cast out poor into your house (give up space, privacy)
- - Cover the naked (do with less clothing so that others can have at least some clothes)
- - Not hide yourself from your own flesh (endure some inconvenience for the aid of your relatives)
- - The yoke (do away with the unhealthy associations where others are bad for you and where you are bad for others)
- - Putting forth the finger (Stop looking at others for blame and ignoring your own, sidestepping responsibility)
- - Speaking vanity (Stop talking so much about things that have no lasting eternal value)
- - Draw out your soul to the hungry (seek for a few opportunities to feed the poor)
- - Satisfy the afflicted soul (rather than than thrusting the non-repentant aside provide spiritual aid for them)

BE NOT SILENT

There is the old saying:  "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree -- the harder you beat them, the better they be.”

My Wife has written a book, Submission Is Not Silence.  I think some people react to the title itself without knowing its content.  Some have said things like “submission is good”, “submission is commanded by the Bible”, “wives submit to your husbands as unto the Lord”  When they stop there, never expanding on what they mean, it becomes obvious they have either have not read, or have not fully read my Wife's book.  She never says submission is bad.  She says some forms of submission as administered by some authorities or some men is oppressive, and that it is not good to be silent about it.

She says it is not good to be silent about or to endure truly oppressive submission.  For example it is not good for a woman to submit to being beaten by a man.  She should speak and tell him it is wrong to beat her when reasoning could accomplish what he wants.  If that did not work she should report him to the authorities.  In this country the authorities view wife-beating as a crime, and it is.

It is obvious certain submission is good, and we all submit much of the time.  We all stop for traffic lights.  We drive (in the USA) on the right side of the road.  We don’t speak in church when the pastor is speaking.  We don’t beat up people because they disagree with us or annoy us. 

Some have said "Submission is in the Bible” inferring anything objecting to absolute submission is to speak against the Bible.  When submission is oppressive and harmful it needs to be opposed.  That’s what World War II was about.  Even God does not force absolute submission; we are all free to say, “There is no God”.  A woman should not remain silent if she has an idea that may be better, and she certainly should not remain silent if she is being abused.  Hence the title of my wife’s book:   Submission Is Not Silence.  If some had read beyond the title page they would have realized that.

The saying may be cute, and it may roll off the tongue, but it’s not true that, "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree -- the harder you beat them, the better they be.”

SEVEN TIMES AROUND

On Memorial Day in 1998 I was trying to replace the rack-and-pinion of an old Oldsmobile.  It was a very frustrating job with many time stoppers, the culmination of which was trying to get the clamp from the steering wheel apparatus back onto the shaft of the rack-and-pinion assembly.  Working until 10 pm that night I remembered all the old Navy language.  During my sleep (which was uncomfortable because of a sore bruised back from laying on the concrete) I had a dream.  In it I saw the clamp slipping easily onto the shaft and two holes matching up.

When I continued the job two days later I started by walking around the car seven times praying.  After a little fiddling I noticed a notch on the side of the shaft which looked as if it was supposed to accommodate the pinch bolt.  I rotated the steering wheel to match this notch and the clamp “fell” onto the shaft just like in the dream.

I think God was speaking to me about this.  I Think he gave me the dream to encourage me and to show me the nature of how the two parts would come together.

When I walked around the car seven times, like Joshua marched around Jericho, I felt silly and I wondered if it was doing any good.  Maybe those marching around Jericho also felt silly and wondered if it was doing any good - - yet the walls fell down, and the clamp fell onto the shaft.

The Bible software I use shows me the phrase “seven times” occurs 33 times:  Gen_33:3, Lev_4:6, Lev_4:17, Lev_8:11, Lev_14:7, Lev_14:16, Lev_14:27, Lev_14:51, Lev_16:14, Lev_16:19, Lev_25:8, Lev_26:18, Lev_26:21, Lev_26:24, Lev_26:28, Num_19:4, Jos_6:4, Jos_6:15, 1Ki_18:43, 2Ki_4:35, 2Ki_5:10, 2Ki_5:14, Psa_12:6, Psa_119:164, Pro_24:16, Dan_3:19, Dan_4:16, Dan_4:23, Dan_4:25, Dan_4:32, Mat_18:21, Mat_18:22, Luk_17:4.

FROM PROMISE TO LAND

Psalm 105 speaks of remembering and rejoicing in what the Lord has done.  It speaks of the progress of the Children of Israel from Abraham’s time to the promised land.  He gave the promise to Abraham, Issac and Jacob.  He preserved Israel in the places where they were and in the places where they were to come.  He sent Joseph before them to prepare a place in Egypt.  He brought them to Egypt and developed them into a great number.  He delivered them from slavery.  He brought them to the promised land. 

Promise, Start, Develop, Transition, Delivery

For Israel these elements applied to:
- - The initial stage (the giving of a promise, beginning of a concept)
- - Start of an undertaking (the founding patriarchs)
- - Development of the undertaking (growth in Egypt)
- - Moving of the undertaking toward its purpose (delivery from slavery)
- - Formalizing and establishing the purpose  (bring into the promised land)

Can we look at broad pictures like this and see comparisons in our own lives and families?

- - The initial stage
- - Start of an undertaking
- - Development of the undertaking
- - Moving of the undertaking toward its purpose
- - Formalizing and establishing the purpose

STANDING AGAINST SCORNING

According to Proverbs 21:11:  “When the scorner is punished the simple is made wise:  and when the wise is instructed he receiveth knowledge.”   A scorner is someone who unjustly speaks words of disgust against someone or something else.  He disapproves.  He belittles.  This is not a healthy situation and it is a good thing to correct it.  The scorner needs to be publicly told his words are damaging and are not helpful.  Apparently when this reproof happens the simple person now perceives the scorning for what it is.  When they make this perception - - that scorning is a damaging activity - - they become wiser than they were.  Once someone becomes wise they can increase in knowledge.

Several things happen when you publicly stand against scorning:  a scorning is stopped, exposed for what it is, and people are instructed toward wisdom.  The scorner is also spotlighted for what he is.

WRITE IT DOWN

Sometimes I think what I write is not worth writing if it is not related to Scripture or somehow addressing my relationship with God.  I am tempted to think that I should not write it. 

Yet my innermost thoughts are open to God and he knows most of them are neither related to Scripture nor to Him.  If my innermost thoughts are open to him then whatever I write is even more open because it is recorded, it takes a solid form - - writing does not vanish like thoughts do.  Whatever I am should be as open to me as it is to God.  In other words, I should be able to remind myself of the ground I have covered.  That written thought might serve as a sort of marker or mile post from which I can determine a correction (or confirmation) of the direction my life is taking.  It won’t do to restrain myself if the restraining holds back my development. 

The writing time would be a problem if it encouraged a direction away from God.  But, even then, having it on paper might make the mistake so obvious that it identifies it as something that should be avoided. 

When I re-read these things later I find important markers that help to direct (or redirect) myself.

OLD PRINCIPLES STILL APPLY

When we have a difficulty or question about Scripture what should we do?  We can ask:  what does the Scripture tell us to do (think, act, etc.), what do we want to do (think, act, etc.), and how are the two different?  Then we can ask:  is there an honest way to resolve the differences?  If there is no honest resolution, what are we gong to change; our ways, or the meaning of the Scripture?  This sort of question can come about when we notice the differences between the culture of Biblical times and our present time.

It is not that we should ignore the cultural setting in which God sets forth his principles, but if God has set forth a principle in one culture, and the principle was true (by definition God’s principles are always true) then it will be true in any other culture or time.  The application of the principle may take different forms between cultures.

We cannot change the principle.  If we do we are saying God wrote an irrelevant book:  we are saying sections of it have gone out of date and have lost their meaning.  Therefore we are effectively saying we can determine on our own, and without God’s input, what is the best way for us to act.  If we throw out part of God’s word, what other parts can we throw out?  Which of God’s principles can we selectively disregard?

We do not throw out any part of Scripture.  We ask God for wisdom to know how his principles apply in our times.