gordon 2
Senior Member
On changed minds and thinking--- the how to think soberly. Romans 12-3
"3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."
It seems to me that Paul is indicating here how the believer is to think soberly. He is saying, don't forget when your thinking that your thinking needs to be "through" the very grace given to believers and also not to forget that God has dealt to every man ( in this case every believer) the measure of faith.
Why would it be important to the principle of thinking to keep in mind that to every man, or to every believer, God has dealt the measure of faith? Paul seem to say that some might think themselves highly than they ought to think, if they forget that God has dealt to every man the measure of faith--why?
There is today in the sciences, in their fact declarations and in declarations as to truth the discipline of peer review to provide for sensible thinking. Or in Journalism there is corroboration on reported facts.
I suggest that Paul seems to state that a believer's thinking cannot be left to opinions or editorials, but to facts that can be assesses by peers and corroborated especially because all believers have been dealt the measure of faith and all believers can process assessments through grace.
So why do believers today continue with understandings of the gospel that are almost the opposite one the other? Why are doctrines so different? Why are periodic revivals needed? Why does the study of scripture give open to new and dynamic doctrine concerning the gospel's contents, and gives birth to new christian communities, sects and denominations, not to mention dropouts from believer communities-- but who continue in the way as if this way of being is itself doctrinal?
I have some ideas. Spiritual belief gives over to our ways of social life, culture and economic life. When economic and social life is ailing to the point of affecting negatively dynamic social life ( upsetting it) to the point that the very needs of daily living are compromised then their might be thinking by believers in this way: there is something wrong with spiritual belief.
It might be easy therefore to understand or make an assessment that some will align thinking this way: Social injustice = equals errors in spiritual belief and at the expense of Paul's criteria of keeping in mind grace and that all believers have a measure of faith regards thinking and how to proceed as Christians.
I'm thinking of the example of the Peasant Wars in Europe right now for some reason and the peasant's social outlook with the implication on spiritual outlook. The Reformation was it brought about through this outlook? The institutional Church at this time had tremendous economic and social power. Was the thinking then on the right way to come to a positive outcome, ( which led to the the fragmentation of Christians into camps, sects and so on) , biblical thinking or something else ?
"3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."
It seems to me that Paul is indicating here how the believer is to think soberly. He is saying, don't forget when your thinking that your thinking needs to be "through" the very grace given to believers and also not to forget that God has dealt to every man ( in this case every believer) the measure of faith.
Why would it be important to the principle of thinking to keep in mind that to every man, or to every believer, God has dealt the measure of faith? Paul seem to say that some might think themselves highly than they ought to think, if they forget that God has dealt to every man the measure of faith--why?
There is today in the sciences, in their fact declarations and in declarations as to truth the discipline of peer review to provide for sensible thinking. Or in Journalism there is corroboration on reported facts.
I suggest that Paul seems to state that a believer's thinking cannot be left to opinions or editorials, but to facts that can be assesses by peers and corroborated especially because all believers have been dealt the measure of faith and all believers can process assessments through grace.
So why do believers today continue with understandings of the gospel that are almost the opposite one the other? Why are doctrines so different? Why are periodic revivals needed? Why does the study of scripture give open to new and dynamic doctrine concerning the gospel's contents, and gives birth to new christian communities, sects and denominations, not to mention dropouts from believer communities-- but who continue in the way as if this way of being is itself doctrinal?
I have some ideas. Spiritual belief gives over to our ways of social life, culture and economic life. When economic and social life is ailing to the point of affecting negatively dynamic social life ( upsetting it) to the point that the very needs of daily living are compromised then their might be thinking by believers in this way: there is something wrong with spiritual belief.
It might be easy therefore to understand or make an assessment that some will align thinking this way: Social injustice = equals errors in spiritual belief and at the expense of Paul's criteria of keeping in mind grace and that all believers have a measure of faith regards thinking and how to proceed as Christians.
I'm thinking of the example of the Peasant Wars in Europe right now for some reason and the peasant's social outlook with the implication on spiritual outlook. The Reformation was it brought about through this outlook? The institutional Church at this time had tremendous economic and social power. Was the thinking then on the right way to come to a positive outcome, ( which led to the the fragmentation of Christians into camps, sects and so on) , biblical thinking or something else ?
Last edited: