5
THE NEAR IMPOSSIBILITY
OF SIMPLE REFUTATIONS

Some evangelicals believe that dispensationalism is wrong. But it is not at all easy to show that it is wrong. Well, many can show to their own satisfaction that it is wrong. But they cannot easily show it to the satisfaction of someone who is a dispensationalist. Why is it difficult to persuade people? Important issues are involved, because many aspects of the relation of the Old Testament to the New depend on one's decision concerning dispensationalism. If such important issues are involved, why is it difficult to establish the truth? I think that there are several reasons.

For one thing, classic dispensationalism is a whole system of theology. It has a great deal of internal coherence. A system that is carefully and thoroughly elaborated, whether right or wrong, will almost certainly include answers to standard objections. And different parts of the system "come to the aid" of any part that is challenged. To a certain extent this is true of any system of theology. However, generally speaking it is less true of modified forms of dispensationalism. The modifications noted in chapter 3 have produced "looser" systems allowing more room for each particular text to say something less easily harmonizable with the whole. Hence my observations in this chapter will apply mostly to dispensationalism in its classic form.

16. Hedging on fulfillment

In classic dispensationalism, one of the key points of controversy concerns the nature of OT prophecy, in particular the nature of prophetic fulfillment. Are the fulfillments always "literal"? And what do we mean by "literal"? The classic dispensationalist claim is that all fulfillments in the past have been purely and simply "literal." Hence we are to expect the same for prophecies as yet unfulfilled. There are no grounds for doing otherwise. Scofield (1907, 45-46) says, "Figures are often found in the prophecies, but the figure invariably has a literal fulfillment. Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfillment of prophecy."

Now, it is very hard for a nondispensationalist to argue effectively against this claim. The reason is that classic dispensationalists have "hedged" on the idea of fulfillment. They possess an idea of "fulfillment" and an idea of "literalness" making it almost impossible in principle for the opponent to give a counterexample.

Of course, there are some obvious cases of "literal" fulfillments in the NT. These the dispensationalists count as supporting their case. But what happens when a nondispensationalist brings up apparent cases of "nonliteral" fulfillment, like Luke 3:5, Acts 2:17-21, Gal 3:29, Heb 8:8-12? Dispensationalists have several resources at their disposal. For one thing, they can claim that the original prophecy had "figures," as Scofield says. Thus Isa 40:4 is a figurative prediction of the coming of John the Baptist, and does not commit us to expecting topographical changes. But now how do we tell the difference between a figure and and nonfigurative expression? Is this always perfectly plain to everyone? Dispensationalists have in fact left themselves some convenient maneuver room. It is possible that sometimes they have decided what is figurative and what is nonfigurative after the fact. That is, they may have conveniently arranged their decisions about what is figurative after all the Bible is written and many fulfillments have taken place, and after their basic system is in place telling them what can and cannot be fitted into the system. The decisions as to what is figurative, and what way it is figurative, may be a product of the system as a whole rather than the inductive basis of it. Or rather, we may have a circular process. The needs of consistency with the system help them to decide what is figurative. And making those decisions helps them to produce interpretations of particular texts which support the consistency of the system. Hence we will have to take up in detail at a later point the question of what "literalness" means.

Another route available to dispensationalists is to claim that some apparent nonliteral fulfillments are NT "applications" rather than fulfillments. Thus Tan (1974, 193-94) remarks:

By giving such a broad definition to "fulfillment," [all citations from the OT in the NT] nonliteral interpreters clearly prejudice the case in their favor, for such a definition assuredly points to spiritualized fulfillments. It is necessary that this technique be exposed, or attempts at refuting amillennial and postmillennial evidences will have to be on a book-for-book basis.

. . . Literal prophetic interpreters believe that citations made by New Testament writers from the Old Testament Scriptures are made for purposes of illustrating and applying truths and principles as well as pointing out actual fulfillments.

Of course, Tan is correct that there are cases of NT "application" of OT principles. But from this he makes some sweeping conclusions. He thinks it unnecessary to argue his case about fulfillment "on a book-for-book basis." It looks very much as if he himself holds his position on an a priori rather than a genuinely inductive basis. He has gone to the other extreme and prejudiced the case in favor of "literalism." How? He maintains that "instances of actual fulfillment are usually introduced in the New Testament by the formula \Mηινα πληροητηεη, filled with hi(/na plehrwtheh~j. But it must be in Greek characters\m ('that it might be fulfilled')" (Tan 1974, 194). He probably does not realize that this restricts the interpreter almost exclusively to the Gospel of Matthew. Only Matthew uses the word "fulfill" regularly in citing the OT. Other NT authors, even when they had fulfillment in mind, characteristically used other citation formulas. Hence Tan allows "nonliteralists" only a very narrow base (Matthew) for their counterarguments. By contrast, Tan allows himself to use every instance of "literal" fulfillment in the Bible as evidence for his position.

Hence there is a serious skewing of the evidence here. Apparent "nonliteral" fulfillments are either (1) counted as "literal" by pointing to the "figures" in the original prophecy, or (2) are said to be "applications" (not "fulfillments"). Apparent "literal" fulfillments are counted as "literal." When this process is complete, lo and behold, all fulfillments turn out to be "literal." Hence, it is concluded, passages still unfulfilled (including those that have been "applied" in a nonliteral way in the NT era) will also have a "literal" fulfillment. Such an argument has a built-in method of excluding counterevidence.

Myself, I think that Tan will still have difficulties over the fulfillments in the Gospel of Matthew. These, remember, are not subject to elimination by his procedure, because Matthew quite a few times uses the word "fulfill" in a citation formula. Then what about Matthew's fulfillments? When one understands Matthew's citations in their OT contexts, and when one understands Matthew's own theology of fulfillment in the entire context of his Gospel, I believe that the idea of strict literalness becomes problematic. Nevertheless, I do not think that Matthew is a suitable starting point for short discussions with classic dispensationalists. Interpretations of particular texts in Matthew are too much influenced by the global controls of a system (whether dispensationalist or nondispensationalist).

Still one more route is available to dispensationalists to account for apparent nonliteral fulfillments in the NT. Namely, they can say that the NT represents a "spiritual" level of fulfillment in opposition to the "literal" level applicable to Israel. This is what Scofield does when he explains the fulfillment of the promise of offspring to Abraham in the church (Gal 3:29). By such a procedure the level of "literal" fulfillment to Israel is preserved intact. If such a procedure is used, it is hard to see what kind of evidence from the NT could conceivably count against a dispensationalist interpretation of prophecy.

Now, all this does not mean that dispensationalism is wrong. But it does mean that much of the argumentation concerning the nature of fulfillment is circular. The facility with which dispensationalists answer critics may be due to artificial elimination of counterevidence rather than to having truth on their side.

Critics of dispensationalism can also learn a lesson here. It is normally unwise for critics to concentrate their discussion on NT texts that speak of fulfillment. They will only frustrate themselves and their dispensationalist respondents. The more basic issues concern what counts as evidence for fulfillment, and how that fulfillment is itself to be understood. These prior issues largely determine how the dispensationalists or their critics undertake to explain the text and integrate it with their whole system. Hence, NT texts concerning fulfillment usually will not persuade anyone unless these issues are confronted. We should search for better platforms for dialog.

17. Dispensationalist harmonization

Critics should also appreciate the remarkable degree to which dispensationalism is a harmonious whole. Every part harmonizes with almost every other part. If critics attempt to reinterpret in their favor a single text, dispensationalist respondents can often cite two or more other texts which support their own interpretation. Critics soon find themselves called upon to reinterpret many, many texts simultaneously.

One element of dispensationalism making this impressive harmony possible is a joint working of two complementary hermeneutical procedures. The first of these procedures is the multiplying of distinctions. Dispensationalists are willing to introduce some sharp, fine-grained distinctions where almost no one else has seen distinctions. For instance, the rapture is distinguished from the second coming of Christ, even though (as many dispensationalists acknowledge) there is no consistent terminological difference between the two in the NT. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are distinguished from one another. And so on. (However, many modified dispensationalists no longer hold to as many sharp distinctions. One must be prepared for differences on this point.)

Complementary to this procedure, there is the procedure of doubling the application of a single expression in a single text of the Bible. Many prophetic texts are thought of as having an earthly fulfillment in Israel and a "spiritual" application to the church (recall diagram 2.2). Whereas the first procedure splits apart texts that are verbally similar, this procedure joins a single text to two different levels of fulfillment.

Now, in principle, it is altogether possible for us to discover in the Bible some distinctions that have not been recognized before (procedure 1 above). And it is possible for some texts to have more than one fulfillment or "application" (procedure 2 above). But one must also recognize that dangers accompany the application of these procedures. If we permit ourselves to invoke both procedures a lot of the time, we greatly multiply the number of options available for harmonizing different texts of the Bible. We increase enormously the flexibility that we have in interpreting any one text. Hence, it becomes relatively easy to harmonize everything even under the umbrella of an over-all system that is not correct. Dispensationalists rightly feel that the dispensationalist system is in large measure harmonious, stable, consistent. But this consistency may all too easily be the product of a hermeneutical scheme that is capable of artificially generating consistency by (1) the multiplication of distinctions and (2) the doubling of relationships. Thus, in the case of dispensationalism, consistency is not a guarantee of truth.

One should realize also that the backgrounds of dispensationalism have promoted this harmony. Darby and Scofield both had legal training and were members of the bar. Both had some considerable skill in logically harmonizing and arranging into a single coherent system a great multitude of texts. If their scriptural and hermeneutical foundations were correct, so much the better. But if not, they might well have succeeded in producing a very high degree of harmony even on the basis of some false premises. Moreover, it must be remembered that their strong point was in logical harmony and contemporary application rather than in grammatical-historical interpretation. Darby's extremely negative attitude to the institutional church virtually cut him off from the use of the fruits of scholarly reflection and interpretation in the generations of church history.

Of course, contemporary dispensationalists have attempted to refine grammatical-historical interpretation within their system. But, in my judgment, the attempts at such interpretation within classic dispensationalism are often still too dominated by the presuppositions and mind-set of the over-all system, a system which is already operative when dispensationalists come to examine particular texts. Grammatical-historical interpretation remains a weak point in classic dispensationalism, as we shall see.

18. Social forces

Finally, there are some psychological and social forces at work in dispensationalist groups. These forces make it difficult for dispensationalists to leave behind the patterns of biblical interpretation to which they have grown accustomed. To some extent, cohesive social forces are at work in any culture or subculture with shared worldview and shared doctrines (see Berger and Luckmann 1967). In itself this counts neither for nor against the truth of the worldview or the doctrines. But it does mean that things that seem "obvious" or "plain" or "commonsensical" to members of a social group need not be at all obvious to those outside.

One special factor operative among dispensationalists is the reaction against the destructive forces associated with Darwinism. Darwinism together with the growth of other sciences has radically undermined the previous broad Western cultural commitment to a Christian or at least semi-Christian worldview. Dispensationalism has answered the challenge of the supposed exact truths of the sciences with an exaltation of the exactitude of the truths of Scripture. Scriptural use of figurative, not-perfectly-clear, or not-perfectly-precise language can easily seem like a liability. Hence there is pressure on dispensationalists to believe that the Bible has a great degree of precision in its language, and to interpret its language in the least figurative way possible. To leave dispensationalism might seem to be to leave behind the claims that the Bible can really stand up to the standards of modern science, and to leave behind the certainties obtained by operating with precise, everywhere-clear-cut language.

A second, related area of concern is the fear of subjectivity. Dispensationalists have seen modernists and cultists wrest the meaning of the Bible on the basis of subjective biases. Often these are biases influenced by full-blown religious "systems" and worldviews. Dispensationalists naturally repudiate the use of these biases. An interpretation governed by subjectivity is deeply wrong. But fear of subjectivity easily leads to the rejection of explicit reflection on hermeneutics. Instead, the Bible student simply appeals to the "plain" meaning of the text. The text hardly needs intepreter's input, since it stands there already with a "plain" meaning. If one keeps operating on this level, one appears to have the assurance of a maximum objectivity. On the other hand, suppose that one examines many hermeneutical principles explicitly. One takes things less for granted, and one may soon begin to realize that there are other possible options--options not only for the interpretation of this or that text, but for the formulation of hermeneutical principles. The principles themselves must be justified, partly by an appeal to texts. But then the process threatens to become circular. One becomes a lot less confident about one's pure objectivity.

Moreover, hermeneutical reflection can also include reflection on the influences of whole systems on interpretation. Theological systems, whether dispensationalist, covenantal, Calvinist, Arminian, or even modernist, have a profound influence on the way in which we approach a given text. Worldviews and social context influence what we notice, what we assume as "obvious," what we emphasize.

Of course, some dispensationalists have reflected and written about hermeneutics. But even these discussions, it seems to me, sometimes assume principles which the nondispensationalist would like to make points of discussion and debate. In particular, some dispensationalists still appear to the outsider to be working with a rather unanalyzed idea of the "plain meaning" of a text.

A third area of influence lies in the very fact that most dispensationalists are unaware of some social factors contributing to a unified dispensationalist reading of biblical texts. Dispensationalists have been at pains to insist that the Bible is plain and that it is the "plain" meaning to which the interpreter should stick. Unfortunately, because of the historical distance between us and the original human authors of the Bible, the intention of those original human authors is not always immediately plain to us. When we advise average lay readers of the Bible that the meaning is "plain," what will they conclude? They will tend to be encouraged not to read it in its original historical context, but in the context of the twentieth century, their own subcultural context. The Bible becomes a book written directly to us, not mainly to the original readers. Now who is the "us" to whom the Bible comes? Most immediately, it is the circle of Christians in which a dispensationalist moves. To lay dispensationalists, "plain" meaning is meaning which they automatically see in a text when they read it against the background of the teaching and examples they have seen and heard from the fellow Christains, most of whom are themselves dispensationalists. "Plain meaning" can all too easily become, in practice, meaning of a text when seen through the framework of the dispensationalist system.

This immediately explains a number of frustrations that people experience in their encounters with the opposite "camp." Occasionally (more frequently than I would like) nondispensationalists meet lay dispensationalists who are shocked that anyone would not hold the views that they hold. Their first reaction may be to wonder whether the nondispensationalist is a genuine Christian. This reaction is understandable if the hermeneutical stress on plainness has (1) discouraged dispensationalist pastors from alerting their congregations to differences of interpretation among evangelicals, and (2) caused the members of the congregations to regard deviation from their in-group interpretation as a repudiation of the Bible itself (because the meaning is "plainly" there).

The same social tendency also explains the comparative infrequency, even among more scholarly classic dispensationalists, of extended reflection on the theological milieu of the first-century church. To nondispensationalist NT scholars, at least, most classic dispensationalist interpretation of the New Testament is all too obviously interpretation against the background of an already completed dispensationalist system, rather than a genuine attempt to read the books as coming from first century authors to first century audiences. I suppose that it would not seem like this to a dispensationalist. For that reason, I don't think that this is a good debating point. But NT scholars often labor hard to "get inside" the writings of human authors of the Bible. They attempt to understand not only what the authors said, but why they said it in the way that they did. What sorts of concerns animated their entire life and preaching?

Against the background of such concerns, a key question arises. Would the books of the NT have been written as they have in fact been written, if they were written by people who were self-conscious classic dispensationalists? Nondispensationalist scholars do not think so.

Let us use an analogy. The NT teaching as a whole forms the basis on which the church subsequently worked out the creedal formulations of the Trinity and of the two natures of Christ. The creedal formulations are, I believe, firmly based on the NT and are in thorough harmony with biblical teaching. But the NT writers did not necessarily hold all of these doctrines with the self-consciousness which was achieved in later synthesizing reflection. The apostles wrote the pure and final truth for our salvation. But it would be anachronistic to imagine that the apostles must necessarily have had the same self-conscious technical sophistication about Trinitarian questions as did Augustine or Gregory of Nazianzus. In saying this, we are not saying that Augustine had "a better mind" (or worse mind) than Paul. We are simply saying that Augustine's conscious reflections focused in different directions from those of the Apostle Paul. What all the apostles together taught in all the NT writings had implications that no one apostle may have ever had to occasion to think on self-consciously.

Now, compare this with the situation with respect to dispensationalism. I would claim that it is anarchronistic to imagine that the apostles were self-conscious sophisticated dispensationalists. Instead, a dispensationalist should simply claim to have correctly deduced and synthesized the later dispensationalist system from the totality of their teachings, all taken together. If this is so, historical understanding of the NT will take account of the apostles' distance in mentality from ourselves.

So we try to understand Matthew and Paul and John and the author of Hebrews as much as possible "from the inside," on their own terms. To nondispensationalist scholars, at least, it seems that they just don't think like self-conscious classic dispensationalists. Nondispensationalists think that NT authors were operating theologically in terms of a hermeneutics of fulfillment at odds with the basic principle of classic dispensationalism (on this hermeneutics, cf., e.g., Dodd 1953; Longenecker 1975). NT authors may have all been premillennialists, they may have all been amillennialists, or some may not have had a particular worked-out conviction. But all were oriented to the idea of fulfillment in Christ and then in his people, both in his first and second comings. This central motif rather than the millennium as such dominated teaching about the future.

Nevertheless, in debating situations, I do not advise people to appeal to the first-century church. Rather, they should understand why they probably won't get very far by doing so. Many factors are involved in assessing the theological atmosphere of the first-century church and its bearing on understanding the NT.

The "sensationalistic" variety of dispensationalism, including Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, can now also be better understood. Once one assumes that the Bible is written directly into one's own twentieth-century context, the attempt to make detailed correlations between the Bible and the latest political and social events is attractive. Granted the crucial assumption, the result is by no means ridiculous.

Finally, dispensationalists are concerned to preserve the purity of salvation by grace alone, and to maintain the assurance grounded on this grace. Now the assurance of salvation is closely related to the faithfulness of God to his promises. But how are those promises construed? If the promises are not "plain," our assurance is threatened. Moreover, dispensationalists have been among those most zealous to defend the idea that many promises of God are unconditional. Their unconditionality guarantees their fulfillment in exactly the form that they are uttered. The desire for unconditionality may be one subtle factor behind the attractiveness of the ideal of scientifically precise language. In everyday language of the home or the workplace, a statement or a promise may include implicit qualifications or conditions. For instance, "I'll be there at 5" often may be said with the implicit understanding, "If no emergencies prevent me, or if you do not cancel the engagement." On the other hand, in the scientific sphere we expect that qualifications or conditions will be spelled out. To assimilate the Bible to scientific language gives greater weight to the claim that there are many unconditional promises.

On this point, variation exist. Most modified dispensationalists believe that the promises to Abraham concerning seed and land and unconditional, but that our participation in the fulfillment is conditioned on faith. With this position I can agree.

19. Evaluating social forces

So much for social forces contributing to the stability and attractiveness of dispensationism. We should note that there is some element of good motivation and good principle behind each of these forces. But in each case what is good can undergo distortion.

Take first the concern to have a reply to exact science. The good principle behind the dispensationalist reaction is the principle of the divine authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. But there is danger that, in the zeal to maintain this principle, it may be distorted by the imposition of artificial modern standards of precision and technical language.

Next, what about the fear of the subjectivity, and the insistence on the plainness of the Bible? Here again there is a good principle involved, namely the principle of the perspicuity of the Bible. The things necessary for salvation are said so clearly in one place or another that even the unlearned may come to a sufficient understanding of them. However, that does not mean that all parts of the Bible are equally clear, nor does it mean that even clear passages are clear in every respect. Hence it is not equivalent to the view that all or nearly all passages of the Bible have a meaning so evident that the average reader will immediately hit upon it. The principle of perspicuity, like the principle of biblical inerrancy, is subject to oversimplification and distortion.

Next, what about the issue of the influence of tradition on interpretation? Over against the claims of the Roman Catholic church to exercise final control of the results of interpretation, the Reformation insisted that church tradition was not another authority along side of the Bible. Rather, church tradition must continually be resubjected to the criticism of the Bible. This is the element of truth in the dispensationalist tendency to eliminate any reckoning on church tradition. But again, the Reformation principle is not the same as saying that church tradition does not exist, or that we can ever totally eliminate its influence on the way in which we interpret.

What about the dispensationalist love for salvation by grace and for unconditional promises? The element of truth in this dispensationalist concern is obvious and important. Christ fully accomplished our salvation and fully satisfied the justice of God by substitution on our behalf. Hence salvation is guaranteed. It is unconditional, in the sense that Christ fulfills all conditions. The OT promises to Abraham rest ultimately on the grace to be given through the coming of Christ. But this will not eliminate the necessity of obedience and discipleship on the part of Christians. Christ's salvation and the assurance of salvation are only available to Christians in union with Christ, in the exercise of faith. And true faith is no dead faith, but works by love (Gal 5:6; cf. James 2). Precisely in the letter where Paul is contending so vigorously for pure grace (Gal 5:4) and pure faith (3:2-14), he is not afraid to issue warnings to any who would have carnal assurance while they persevere in wickedness (Gal 5:13-6:10, especially 6:8). Paul is not afraid to use a statement with an "if," threatening eternal destruction on evil doers. A bare profession of faith (honor with the lips), accompanied by no change in life and allegiance, will not lead to eternal salvation, because such faith is hypocritical. The unconditional language of other passages does not operate in independence of this type of qualification. We must not oversimplify the NT teaching on grace and convert it into an antinomianism. Hence it is simplistic to label every OT statement about obedience and every statement mentioning a "condition" as merely "law" in antithetical opposition to grace. We may be grateful that many leading dispensationalists of the present do acknowledge this, and are distancing themselves from the antinomian extreme.

We should note that each of the social forces that we have discussed is related in some way to the desire for certainty. The most basic form of certainty is certainty concerning the basic truths of the Bible, including certainty of salvation. Bringing in the law, with its stress of human responsibility and its threats, might easily threaten the certainty of salvation. The sharp distinction between law and grace, and the stress on unconditional promises, therefore become attractive features of dispensationalism. Remember that Darby himself inaugurated dispensationalism in the context of his own "deliverance" into certainty of his heavenly standing in Christ.

Next, dispensationalism appeals to the desire for certainty concerning one's own role in a changing world. What about the changes due to science? Does the progress of science tend to undermine one's confidence in the Bible, both because of the Darwinian view of man's origin and because of the assumption in much of science that the world is a big self-governing mechanism? Over against this threat, dispensationalism would confirm the reliability of the Bible. But in the process it runs the danger of assimilating the Bible too much to standards of modern science. In particular, the emphasis on the literal might sometimes assimilate the Bible to modern science.

What about the changes in the political and social world? Dispensationalism encourages a certain type of correlation between prophecy and our time. The establishment of correlation can provide adherents with a deep sense of orientation to and understanding of events that could otherwise easily be quite frightening and disquieting. By having the events integrated with the Bible as a reference point, the hearers are reassured concerning correctness of their own position, and they are furnished with a stance to adopt. They have a coherent interpretation of the events. "Sensationalistic" dispensationalism can be very appealing for this reason.

Dispensationalism also offers certainty in interpretation to the ordinary Bible student. The subjectivities of non-Christian irrationalism and autonomy are very strong in our time. Over against these, dispensationalism asserts plainness. Over against the threat of sociological relativization, or the problems of doubt that can crop up in earnest theological debate, popular dispensationalism maintains a basic nonawareness of church tradition as an influencing factor in interpretation. Over against the scholarly difficulties and multitudes of unanswered questions involved in thorough-going grammatical-historical interpretation, dispensationalism assures its students of the availability of the Bible to the ordinary reader.

And, of course, there is the certainty involved in having "a system." Any system (whether it be correct or incorrect at this or that point) provides lots of answers. To leave the system would seem to mean going out into a void. Hence people would rather tolerate considerable "difficulties" or apparent contradictions in the system than leave because of them.

We should not imagine that only dispensationalism has these problems. Those of us who are not dispensationalists, are we insecure? We also have a desire for certainty. And God does provide certainty and security in union with Jesus Christ. But we must ask ourselves, are we seeking another security than that of being one of Christ's sheep? Being a sheep means being secure, not because you have all the answers, but because you are in Christ's care.

When we seek security in the wrong way, it will affect our ability to help others. For instance, we may acquire the habit of blasting opponents in order to justify ourselves, and so reinforce our security in "being right." Or, conversely, we may retreat from any confrontation with the erring, for fear of being found deficient ourselves.

Thus, the analysis of dispensationalism up to this point is not really meant to show that dispensationalism is wrong. It is meant to give us all pause (dispensationalists and nondispensationalists alike). To the self-confident it says: there are influences on your beliefs that you don't fully realize. Bad motives or mixed motives of yourself and of others can damage the purity of your beliefs in subtle ways. Hidden assumptions that you have taken over uncritically from others may affect your understanding. Are you really certain that all your beliefs are from God? Or ought you not to wonder whether you've swallowed some of it because you respected the teachers who told you? Don't be so confident about details when you have not really heard an opponent's arguments in full.

To the timid, on the other hand, something must be said on the other side. You must use your gifts, including the educational benefits that you have received from teachers. You must spread around in the church the knowledge that you have. You must teach and be bold about what the Bible has said. But you do it subject to correction by others in the church. Listening to other Christians (including Christians outside your immediate circle of doctrine) is one of the ways that God has given by which he guides us into the truth.