Treating Biblical Commandments as Optional

[Berserk]

1. Here are just 8 biblical commandments that most Evangelicals treat as optional:
   
   (1) Changing dress codes prompted modern Christian women to discontinue the practice of wearing a hat in church. They justify this change on the grounds that the NT commandment on this issue is merely a reflection of ancient culture. But Paul offers a theological grounds for a woman's need to cover her head with a veil during corporate worship: “For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (1 Cor. 11:10).” Paul assumes the presence of angels during public worship and grounds the need for female head covering on respect for angels, prompting the conjecture that he has in mind Old Testament female seduction of angelic beings. But whatever the reason, why do angels no longer need women to cover their heads during worship? How can discontinuance of head covering be dismissed on “cultural” grounds when Paul gives theological grounds for this commandment and insists that it is needed out of respect for angels? Is Paul wrong?
   
   (2) 5 times Peter and Paul command Christians to “greet one another with a holy kiss (1 Peter 5:14; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13;12; Rom.16:16).” Evangelicals consider this command too intimate for modern sensibilities and therefore disobey it.
   
   (3) The OT repeatedly commands believers to lift up their hands in prayer (Lam. 2:19) and in the sanctuary (Psalm 134. 2; cp. 28:3; 63:5). Paul applies this commandment to Christian prayer: “I desire that in every place men should pray, lifting up holy hands...(1 Tim. 2:8; cp. Heb 12:12).” Lifting up hands in worship and prayer helps create an attitude of uninhibited surrender and thus is a valued aspect of modern Charismatic worship. But it makes most Evangelicals feel too self-conscious, showy, and emotional; so they feel free to defy this biblical commandment and treat it as optional. Why is this neglect justifiable?
   
   (4) In 1 Corinthians Paul commands us to “earnestly strive for the greater gifts (12:31)” and to “earnestly strive for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy (14:1).” And what are the “greater gifts?” The greatest is prophecy, but Paul makes its clear that speaking in tongues is just as great if an interpreter is present (14:4). 12:29-30 has often been misinterpreted to mean that not all Christians are meant to speak in tongues and prophesy. On the contrary, Paul teaches, “you can all prophesy one by one (14:31)” and wants every believer to both speak in tongues and prophesy (14:5). He then reinforces this expectation: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (14:18).” Yet most evangelicals defy this commandment to strive for spiritual gifts, considering it optional or obsolete. They therefore blaspheme the Holy Spirit by treating His gifts as junk!
   
   (5) Jesus and the New Testament establish several necessary conditions for effective petitionary prayer. Most Evangelicals pay little heed to these conditions and their implicit commandments. Instead, they imagine that simply making needs known to God should suffice. Are people dead who should be alive because of this Christian neglect of essential biblical prayer principles?
   
   (6) Catholics obey Jesus' command to the apostles and by extension to later church leaders to forgive or retain sins (John 20:22-23). The human authority to mediate divine forgiveness is ultimately based on Peter's power of “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and its accompanying authority to “bind and loose” sins (Matthew 16:19). Possession of the keys of the kingdom entails the authority to govern who can and cannot rightly enter the kingdom. But Evangelicals cite Jesus' unique role as mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) as an excuse to disregard Jesus' commandment.
   
   (7) Catholics take seriously James' command to confess Christian sins to each other (James 5:16) to obtain spiritual and physical healing. Evangelicals defy this commandment and confess their sins directly to God. What they don't get is that confession must be real, the result of much soul searching, and that the humbling inconvenient act of confession to a priest or another church leader inspires deep reflection on one's inner life and behavior.
   
   (8) Baptist believers in eternal security (OSAS) often treat repentance as optional, apparently because Jesus died for all their sins and because their born again status exempts them from ever forfeiting their salvation. So they don't take Paul's command seriously, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:13).” This heresy cheapens and debases God's grace and eliminates the necessity to obey the commandment in God's Word to confess sins to each other and to regularly subject themselves to priestly or other human mediation of divine forgiveness in obedience to Jesus' commandment.
   
   
   

 

[Randy Kluth]

Changing dress codes prompted modern Christian women to discontinue the practice of wearing a hat in church. They justify this change on the grounds that the NT commandment on this issue is merely a reflection of ancient culture. But Paul offers a theological grounds for a woman's need to cover her head with a veil during corporate worship: “For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (1 Cor. 11:10).” Paul assumes the presence of angels during public worship and grounds the need for female head covering on respect for angels, prompting the conjecture that he has in mind Old Testament female seduction of angelic beings. But whatever the reason, why do angels no longer need women to cover their heads during worship? How can discontinuance of head covering be dismissed on “cultural” grounds when Paul gives theological grounds for this commandment and insists that it is needed out of respect for angels? Is Paul wrong?

You were right to suggest that the woman's hat does not need to be practiced for cultural reasons. In a particular culture where a hat reflected submission, not wearing a hat would indicate rebellion. Paul didn't want that. The angels require compliance with God's command from the beginning, that women allow men to rule over them. We should go farther and recognize that men and women should also submit to one another. It's just that there is a male role in the family that wives should recognize, quite often having to do with his labor, or employment.

5 times Peter and Paul command Christians to “greet one another with a holy kiss (1 Peter 5:14; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13;12; Rom.16:16).” Evangelicals consider this command too intimate for modern sensibilities and therefore disobey it.

In licentious sensuous societies, a "kiss" may be construed to be a "come on." Whether heterosexual or homosexual, the society may apply the act of "kissing" to be something intimate, rather than congenial. If there is a question, it should not be practiced. It would be the same with hugging. Some places would not countenance it. Some scenarios should discourage it.

The OT repeatedly commands believers to lift up their hands in prayer (Lam. 2:19) and in the sanctuary (Psalm 134. 2; cp. 28:3; 63:5). Paul applies this commandment to Christian prayer: “I desire that in every place men should pray, lifting up holy hands...(1 Tim. 2:8; cp. Heb 12:12).” Lifting up hands in worship and prayer helps create an attitude of uninhibited surrender and thus is a valued aspect of modern Charismatic worship. But it makes most Evangelicals feel too self-conscious, showy, and emotional; so they feel free to defy this biblical commandment and treat it as optional. Why is this neglect justifiable?

We know, from NT theology, that certain acts do not always equate to what the heart is expressing. Surrender can be indicated either by lifting hands or by prayer. It is optional, but desirable.

In 1 Corinthians Paul commands us to “earnestly strive for the greater gifts (12:31)” and to “earnestly strive for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy (14:1).” And what are the “greater gifts?” The greatest is prophecy, but Paul makes its clear that speaking in tongues is just as great if an interpreter is present (14:4). 12:29-30 has often been misinterpreted to mean that not all Christians are meant to speak in tongues and prophesy. On the contrary, Paul teaches, “you can all prophesy one by one (14:31)” and wants every believer to both speak in tongues and prophesy (14:5). He then reinforces this expectation: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (14:18).” Yet most evangelicals defy this commandment to strive for spiritual gifts, considering it optional or obsolete. They therefore blaspheme the Holy Spirit by treating His gifts as junk!

Paul uses "prophecy" as an example of a greater gift. What he is suggesting is the greater use of gifts that help more people. Obviously, God gives the gifts, and we cannot, by wanting it, ensure we get it!

Jesus and the New Testament establish several necessary conditions for effective petitionary prayer. Most Evangelicals pay little heed to these conditions and their implicit commandments. Instead, they imagine that simply making needs known to God should suffice. Are people dead who should be alive because of this Christian neglect of essential biblical prayer principles?

I'm not sure any of us know how much God relied upon our obedience to prayer to help others? But we are told that if we "ask not, we receive not." So obviously, the lack of prayer has serious consequences for ourselves and for others.

Catholics obey Jesus' command to the apostles and by extension to later church leaders to forgive or retain sins (John 20:22-23). The human authority to mediate divine forgiveness is ultimately based on Peter's power of “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and its accompanying authority to “bind and loose” sins (Matthew 16:19). Possession of the keys of the kingdom entails the authority to govern who can and cannot rightly enter the kingdom. But Evangelicals cite Jesus' unique role as mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) as an excuse to disregard Jesus' commandment.

True, Christians who are mature are able to be led when to grant forgiveness and when to bring judgment. Less mature believers will judge by appearances or by their own emotions. Christian leaders *should* exercise this judgment, because God often operates through his human agents. We are called upon by God to share God's grace with others, so that they actually receive it. The same with judgment. Catholics are not properly using this gift, since these "keys" seem to be in possession of the priesthood, and not the laity. But I'm not sure--I'm not Catholic.

Catholics take seriously James' command to confess Christian sins to each other (James 5:16) to obtain spiritual and physical healing. Evangelicals defy this commandment and confess their sins directly to God. What they don't get is that confession must be real, the result of much soul searching, and that the humbling inconvenient act of confession to a priest or another church leader inspires deep reflection on one's inner life and behavior.

This is not ritualistic, ie it is not a prescribed definite order in which repentance is to be done and apologies rendered. The idea is that the one offended be apologized to, whether to God or to men. That is the order in which the Law stated it. Recompense had to be made to those offended, meaning they deserve an apology. If Christians neglect apologizing to those they offend, they may feel that the offended will not accept the apology, or that they have already forgiven. There is no prescribed order--just that the penitent relieve himself of his need to be absolved before God of his guilt.

Baptist believers in eternal security (OSAS) often treat repentance as optional, apparently because Jesus died for all their sins and because their born again status exempts them from ever forfeiting their salvation. So they don't take Paul's command seriously, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:13).” This heresy cheapens and debases God's grace and eliminates the necessity to obey the commandment in God's Word to confess sins to each other and to regularly subject themselves to priestly or other human mediation of divine forgiveness in obedience to Jesus' commandment.

This should be a subject all to itself. But in short, I'm OSAS, but not Baptist, so I can only speak for myself. As I see it, most who adhere to this belief do *not* believe they get off scot free with the obligation to live in righteousness. Even if they believe they are saved and will never be lost, they are concerned with being who they are, and earning rewards in heaven, such as the reward of bringing others into salvation and righteousness, as well. A "reward" is not always gold or silver!

Many, like myself, who believe in OSAS, do not believe all so-called Christians are truly "saved." Salvation, to be real, involves an exchange of hearts, from a carnal heart to a spiritual heart. When we are driven by Christ living inside us, we are less likely to abandon our faith.

That said, I do know those who I believe were truly saved, and have walked away from their faith. But often, this seeming apostasy results from tremendous disappointment in what they thought was the way God or Christianity should operate, and should've been more properly warned that all is not a "bed of roses."

The point is, God's grace is overwhelming, and reaches the most backslidden, horrible sinner. Just opening our rebellious heart brings salvation to someone, even if it appears they had completely abandoned it.