Campolo on scripture......

Subject:

Comments:
: : I finally got around to reading this. I won't comment directly on the issues because I think I have made my stance clear in previous posts. : : However, I noticed an interesting assumption within Tony Campolo's comments about which I would be interested to hear people's thoughts -- He states that his belief system is driven by scripture. Then he states that there are two kinds of scripture, and the 'kosher rules' within scripture were dropped when Jesus came around. So he only follows the other scriptures. : : Does anyone else see the dichotomy here? : I don't see it as a dichotomy. I see it as his understanding of moral law verses purity laws. I think he would see the moral law as still standing and the purity laws waived by Jesus and by extension Peter's preaching. In our understanding of the New Testament there was a point where certain Jewish requirements were 'set aside' as the Church took on a more universal identity and grew outside of it's Jewish origins. Not that it abandoned them, but it was not limited by them. For example, certain restricted foods were now eaten. Certain customs, like circumcision were not binding on those who it wasn't natural to. I think they may have still had those purity laws around, but they started to be deemphasized in the Church. : :He follows scripture, unless an accepted spiritual leader says its not valid anymore? : Well, he believes that scripture also works with those who have authority to teach it. This means that he takes the New Covenant understanding of the bible from New Testament techers and leaders like Jesus and Peter. : :By that logic, scripture is secondary to invididual thought, (even if you limit it to the individual thought of spiritual leaders). : Not exactly! Not if you believe that God inspires those who teach in his name. : :When you take that to the next logical level, scripture should be analyzed and evaluated for its 'appropriateness' in today's society (again, even if only by accepted spiritual leaders). But he claims that is exactly what he does not believe. : Well, as to what he calls moral law he seems to still believe it, but then according to what he says about purity laws he thinks it's a looser system. I think he is consistent to his position as I understood it from the article. : : : I could argue it either way, honestly. And I know exactly where my own beliefs fall. But I'm mostly curious to hear what other people's take on the matter is. : Well, there are mine.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: