Warfield continues to challenge me. He says–"No doubt, it was as possible then as it is now to honor the Bible in appearance rather than in fact. As we may find today great "family Bibles" encumbering the "parlor-tables" of households little interested in their contents, so we read of sumptuous Bibles then, written in gold letters on purple vellum and glittering with gems, which were kept for show rather than for use. But this very practice among the wealthy is a speaking evidence of the value universally placed upon the book. It was the family -book above every other. Husbands and wives read it daily together and Tertullian knows no stronger argument against mixed marriages than that in their case this cherished pleasure must be foregone."
He just assumes that "husbands and wives read it daily together!" I fear that is not a safe assumption. Can you believe that there is no stronger argument against a believer being married to an unbeliever than - "They wouldn't read the Bible together daily!" The sense of guilt and shame that comes from thinking about Warfield's statement not only reflects the state of our marriages but our value "placed upon the book."
No comments:
Post a Comment