Since some of our biggest difference sometimes is not in what the Bible says, but in how we read the Bible, I thought I’d post some thoughts on that.
Now, I’m no theologian. I’ve not attended a seminary or a Bible college.
But I have read the Bible a good bit. I’ve been part of churches where they teach it all my life and studied on my own, as well. So, these are my amateur thoughts. I think some of them are fairly straightforward and difficult to disagree with, but we’ll see.
What do you think?
======
1. The Bible never in any of its pages tells us to take its words literally - that is a human tradition. Inerrancy, infallibility, the Bible is perfect, these are all human takes on the Bible and not biblical teachings themselves.
2. The Bible never in any of its pages tells us that we MUST consider the 66 books of the Bible as "Scripture." This, too, is a human tradition.
3. "God's Word," is what God says. As such, it is larger and more comprehensive than just the Bible. The Bible contains God's Word, but God's Word is not wholly contained within the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that God is too large and wild to be contained by a building, that all the stories of Jesus could not be contained within its pages.
4. That being the case, we know that God reveals God's self in many ways, not just the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that God's Word is written on our hearts and in nature.
5. Of course, the Bible is not God, nor something to worship. If we elevate it to the place of Perfection, we need to be careful not to begin worshiping the thing describing God rather than God's Self.
6. So why this human tradition surrounding the Bible? It's certainly not without reason.
With much prayer and research and debate, Christian protestants have agreed that the 66 books of the Bible ARE scripture for us, God's Word for us. This is a point with which I agree.
The 66 books of the Bible are a special and unique revelation of God. I agree with that much of that extrabiblical teaching. That notwithstanding, I still understand that it is a human tradition to consider it as such and not something handed down to us from God's hand - nor did God audibly speak to the Council and say, "These 66 books shall ye consider to be my Word."
7. Just because many consider the 66 books of the Bible a unique revelation from God does not mean that everyone accepts the extrabiblical teaching that we must take those 66 books literally.
8. And no one does. I'm sure we all agree that we don't take the Bible literally literally. We recognize that some stories are parables, some are mythical in nature, some are historical, but not told in the same manner that a history book written today would be written, some written to a particular place in a particular time, that some places hyperbole and other literary techniques are used.
Yes? And that we must use our logic, human tradition and understanding to come to an understanding about what to take literally today and what not to take literally. Most of us don't advocate the Sabbath Laws, the Holiness Code, the Jubilee laws. We don't usually think we should literally pluck an eye from our heads, nor that we should "sell our goods and give it to the poor."
Or DO some think it all – each and every line – should be taken literally for our lives today? I don’t think so. I think we mostly agree that there needs to be some interpretation involved.
9. Similarly, the tradition of considering OT Law as coming in three flavors - some that can be ignored and some that are eternal truths - is an extrabiblical teaching - a construct to explain why we don't believe in literally heeding each and every rule written therein.
10. If we DO think we take the larger teachings (setting aside the parables, hyperbole, etc for a minute) of the Bible literally, then we have to say that God sometimes commanded or endorsed killing children, genocide, rape, slavery, selling your children, polygamy and a long list of nasty yuckiness that we reject today as being Moral or Holy.
Where in all that do we disagree?
113 comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm afraid in number one, you are conflating the ideas of literalism, inerrancy, and infallibility. They do not all mean the same thing.
Wendell Berry writes:
"I need to say also that, as a reader, I am first of all a literalist, as I think every reader should be. This does not mean that I don’t appreciate Jesus’ occasional irony or sarcasm ("They have their reward"), or that I am against interpretation, or that I don’t believe in "higher levels of meaning." It certainly does not mean that I think every word of the Bible is equally true, or that literalist is a synonym for fundamentalist. I mean simply that I expect any writing to make literal sense before making sense of any other kind. Interpretation should not contradict or otherwise violate the literal meaning. To read the Gospels as a literalist is, to me, the way to take them as seriously as possible."
See his entire essay here:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3248
A lot of swallowing camels and straining at gnats here...
Sorry for being short with you on the comment section, we just disagree...it's been a bad weekend, the gamecocks SHOULD have beaten the Vols...oh well.
No problem, Fred - I was harsher than you were. Welcome to Payne Hollow.
Eric, what does that mean in relation to what I've posted?
Jonathan, thanks for stopping by. And I understand there are differences between literalism, inerrancy and infallibility. All three are extrabiblical notions, as it relates to the Bible. Right?
The Wendell Berry quote describes, I think, a good principle of literary exegesis. . . i.e. first try to consider it literally, or believe that the author is literally meaning what he or she is saying. This doesn't always work. It doesn't even usually work with modern/post-modern literature. It does often work with the Bible.
And what Berry wrote works quite well with the Gospels and pretty well with the NT, and largely well with the OT until you get to passages where God appears to command atrocities or just bad behavior (ie, when you destroy a city, you may save some of the purtiest virgins for yourself, but first you must shave their heads and "pare" their fingernails and let them mourn their kin that you just wiped out for one month... yikes!)
Dan, are you entirely comfortable with the New Testament's clear and repeated doctrine of Hell?
It makes no sense to me to object to the supposed atrocities in the Old Testament while calmly affirming the New Testament's teaching that vast multitudes of people will be damned to eternal torment. It's like accepting as reasonable the miracles of the Incarnation and Resurrection while insisting that the story of Jonah must be mythical. If God can become a man and that man can be raised from the dead, surviving in a fish for a couple days is easy to accept; and if God can judge large swaths of humanity and condemn them to eternal separation from Him, I don't see how anything in the Old Testament is worse, much less that it's so much worse that it must ultimately be dismissed as a mystery we cannot fathom or as a fraud that we should reject.
"Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
I believe we have free will and God makes no one "go to heaven" who doesn't want to. I believe hell is separation from God, here and hereafter. So, yes, I believe in that concept of hell.
Do I believe in an angry God sending people to a burning hell? No, not so much. But that is just one sort of imagery offered in the Bible around hell, which is spoken of in many ways in the Bible, not just the one that many evangelicals have decided is the only way to interpret hell.
For the record, I believe being separated from God and God's ways (kindness, love, justice, solidarity with the least of these) is a fate much worse than a burning hell, but then, I have a pretty high opinion of God.
It makes no sense to me to object to the supposed atrocities in the Old Testament while calmly affirming the New Testament's teaching that vast multitudes of people will be damned to eternal torment.
For the record, I love the OT and its teachings. Man, what a beautiful, heartwrenching and human collection of stories, songs, prayers and works for justice and God's kingdom.
I just don't accept the more atrocious elements found scattered here and there in the OT which conflict with the rest of biblical testimony. I think we have to interpret the individual verses through the testimony of the whole.
You might notice that I didn't mention any, um, incendiary language: I described Hell as eternal torment and eternal separation from God, not as eternal flames.
You write, "I believe being separated from God and God's ways (kindness, love, justice, solidarity with the least of these) is a fate much worse than a burning hell," and I agree. But the question still remains:
Is what the Old Testament records about God's actions and decrees worse than Hell?
If those supposedly "atrocious elements" aren't worse than Hell, and if you affirm the doctrine of Hell, why do you admit that you cannot accept the former?
Because of free will, Bubba. People are free to choose separation from God if they wish. That's not horrifying. It would be horrifying if God were to force people to do stuff (including go to heaven) because that would mean that we have no free will, just puppets with our strings being pulled.
That is quite different than a god that would actively command atrocities.
Dan, in comparing damnation that is freely chosen to a salvation or damnation that isn't freely chosen, you still do not explain why a damnation that is freely chosen is better than the OT passages you dismiss as atrocities.
Because God is a good God, a righteous God. A good God that lets people make their own decisions - even decisions that hurt them - rather than makes them automatons.
A good God that would not command people to commit atrocities. Because once your god is commanding atrocities, that god is no longer a good and righteous God, but something much less.
I for one have never been convinced that what the OT documents as divine commands are atrocities. You're begging the question, and you're doing so, I might add, even though I have never seen you address (much less refute) the theologically conservative scholars' explanations for those passages. Your argument resembles the following:
P1: In some passages of the OT, God commands atrocities.
P2: The Bible is clear that God is benevolent.
P3: A benevolent God wouldn't command atrocities.
C: Therefore, those OT passages must not be accepted.
While I agree with the other two premises your first premise is by no means uncontroversial, but you consistently treat the premise as already proven and accepted.
I would invite you to justify that premise, to do so strictly from Scripture rather than from your own ideas -- since, after all, you argue that those passages "conflict with the rest of biblical testimony" -- and to do so without begging other questions. "Overcome evil with good" is not proof that some particular passage of Scripture is prima facie evil.
And I would like to point out that I think that quite a strong case can be made that Hell is an atrocitiy. Yes, free will is involved, but eternal consequences for the temporal decisions one made could be seen as infinitely disproportional; surely not everyone who is damned explicitly chooses separation from God; not everyone who is damned is fully cognizant of the infinitely dire consequences of their decisions; and since the consequences are eternal, it can seem cruel to give people a limited amount of time to repent, and to give some people much less time to repent than others.
I mention this, not because I think Hell is an atrocity, but because any argument that the OT commanded atrocities must still account for Hell: any argument that precludes the doctrine of Hell can be dismissed immediately.
For my part, I humbly admit that I don't wholly fathom how the doctrine of Hell is just. God's thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and because the Bible is clear about the doctrine of Hell and God's goodness, I accept in faith that the two are compatible.
I take the same approach with the passages that I admit are difficult but deny are literal atrocities, and I would like to know why take a wholly different approach: how do you know that those passages are truly incompatible and irreconcilable with God's goodness and love?
If you don't know, I encourage you to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt: the risks in denying the Bible's perfection are at least as great as the risks in affirming it, because those who begin the game of deciding what belongs in the Bible often do so by using a standard of their own making.
Perhaps, Dan, I could better grasp the assertion that the OT commanded atrocities if we focused on a single case. Perhaps the earliest candidate is the story of God's commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
God commanded a man to kill his own child.
Never mind that God stopped the man before the blade hit home: He still commanded a man to kill his child and, after stopping the act, actually praised the man for his willingness to kill his own child.
Does this qualify as an atrocity? Why or why not?
Not a bad summary, I think. I believe you're representing the arguments before us fairly well.
A few notes, though:
1. I think you summed up my premises fairly, and your statement of my conclusion (C: Therefore, those OT passages must not be accepted.) I'd change to read:
C: Therefore, those OT passages must not represent God well/accurately.
2. A few questions for you: How do you (or How do you think so-called conservatives) sum up commands to wipe out entire villages? Commands that state that once you've done so, you may take the comely virgin daughters of the dead and choose one to be your wife? Commands to kill disrespectful children?
As to your example, no atrocity was committed because the child wasn't killed. But I would question how accurate a representation it is to have a God that would ask someone to stab to death his son.
If someone were to tell you, "God has told me to stab my son to death on an altar," would you be inclined to think it an atrocious idea? (I'm sure you would.)
Does the mere fact that such a story is in the Bible mean to you that somehow it isn't an atrocious idea?
As I understand the more traditional view, the way they explain this is that, if God commands it, it's not an atrocity (because God is just and beyond our knowing and we can know that God is good even if God is commanding what would otherwise obviously be an atrocity). Or something like that.
Which I think does damage to the English language. An atrocity is an atrocity is an atrocity, seems to me. And an atrocity that one has committed because, they say, "A just and loving God told me to," is no less an atrocity and is approaching blasphemy, to boot.
Dan:
As to your example, no atrocity was committed because the child wasn't killed.
I didn't ask whether an atrocity was committed, but whether it was commanded, and earlier you wrote this:
And what Berry wrote works quite well with the Gospels and pretty well with the NT, and largely well with the OT until you get to passages where God appears to command atrocities or just bad behavior (ie, when you destroy a city, you may save some of the purtiest virgins for yourself, but first you must shave their heads and "pare" their fingernails and let them mourn their kin that you just wiped out for one month... yikes!)
Then, your focus was on what God apparently commanded, not strictly passages where these commands were explicitly obeyed. I don't understand the change of mind.
God commanded Abraham to kill his son -- and, I might add, later commended him for his willingness to obey. Whether Abraham was permitted to follow through is immaterial.
Regardless, you do seem to concede that you're not all that comfortable with the command:
But I would question how accurate a representation it is to have a God that would ask someone to stab to death his son.
Am I right to conclude that you believe the command to kill Isaac was a command to commit an atrocity?
It not as simple as individuals having the right to "choose" separation from God. People who "choose" such separation either don't believe in God, or don't believe, for one reason or another, that they'll end up in Hell.
No sane individual CHOOSES hell. the decision is chosen FOR them by their FAILURE to choose. This doesn't make God cruel, it makes Him Just.
Who willingly chooses eternal torment? Be it fire or otherwise? This whole idea of people having the right to choose separation from God is naively ignorant. Yeah, they have the right to choose, but these people have no idea what is waiting for them once they die without Christ. Do you honestly think that people who Choose Hell are happy about their choice (or lack thereof) once they get there?
Besides which, as a Christian, YOU are COMMANDED to COMPEL them to come to the marriage supper. COMPEL, Dan. COMPEL-- offer them no other choice. To do any less is to have their blood on your hands.
I don't believe God has given ANYONE the right to choose Hell. He's simply laid out what is necessary to AVOID Hell. Failure in that much; in choosing Jesus as the propitiation for ones sin, and God has no choice but to allow the unregenerated soul a swift descent into eternal torment.
I know some will accuse me of being hateful for telling the sinner they must accept Christ as their savior. So be it. But that too is ignorance.
Hey fellas, how's about answering some of my questions?
Besides which, as a Christian, YOU are COMMANDED to COMPEL them to come to the marriage supper. COMPEL, Dan. COMPEL-- offer them no other choice.
You know, Eric, that this sounds a bit overly zealous? What we're to do is, as we're going around into the places we go, teach those things which Jesus taught us.
We can preach the good news as Jesus taught it and accept brothers and sisters into the family, but compulsion is not something that even God does towards anyone, much less expects us to do.
Any thoughts on the actual post?
Just who in the world am I to say that some passages of the Bible poorly convey divine truth?
Well, that's part of the point of this post, isn't it? The Bible nowhere therein says that each line of its 66 books are to be taken as a perfect reflection of God. So, who are we to make such a statement?
You and I are persons on whose hearts God has written God's law and who have been granted God-given reasoning and who have all of creation's testimony as to God's nature, that's who.
We are people created in God's image made to determine what is right and wrong. Even when we find it within the pages of the Bible. Even when we find it within the pages of the NT.
Now, I'm perfectly willing and ready to admit that as a human, I've limited genius and can't hope to understand God's ways, but as I understand them, God does not command us to kill children. If someone suggested that God was commanding such, I'd tend to question their sanity moreso than God's goodness.
Could I be wrong? Heavens, yes. But I'll place my bets on my best understanding that God is good and just and not given to telling people to kill babies and if I'm wrong, I've erred on the side of my best understanding of God as such.
And there's a world of difference in asking a Son to die for others and taking a child by the hand to offer a sacrifice and planning on tying down that child and stab him whether he wants to or not.
Again, free will is important.
You're right in noting that the Abraham story makes a good illustration of Jesus' sacrificial love. But it makes for horrible policy in the real world.
I believe you're right, Dan, that filicide would make a horrible policy, but God didn't command it as a general policy, did He?
I also believe you're right that "God does not command us to kill children."
He didn't command US to kill children: He commanded ABRAHAM to kill the child through whom God promised to bless Abraham through a multitude of descendants.
And, I'm not sure you can argue that it's clear that free will was violated in Genesis 22: Abraham bound Isaac, as he would an animal sacrifice, but nowhere does it say that Isaac resisted.
Nevertheless, I must thank you, Dan. I could hardly ask for a more succinct denial of the final authority of Scripture.
It isn't the case that the Bible says nothing about its own authority: Jesus affirmed the entire canon of Jewish Scripture to the smallest pen-stroke, and Paul wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed.
But let us not pretend that it would matter to you if the Bible were so explicit as to assert that "each line of its 66 books are to be taken as a perfect reflection of God." You could still just as easily stand by your assertion that we were made to determine right and wrong for ourselves, "[e]ven when we find it within the pages of the Bible."
And let us not pretend that the Bible is the criterion by which you determine to deny the authority of some of its passages, as if you judge passages according to whether they "conflict with the rest of biblical testimony."
You have now implied that you not only question the accuracy of Genesis' account of Abraham and Isaac, you question the praise that is given to Abraham in Hebrews and James.
You have now asserted that the authority of the Bible is subject to the revelation of creation, to human reason, and to the human conscience: not just a particular interpretation of Scripture, but the Scripture itself.
You go so far as to imply that you question even the sanity of Moses, James, and the author of the letter to the Hebrews.
You began this thread by calling the Bible a "special and unique" revelation of God. If, despite your humble admission of your limited genius, you feel free to dismiss and diminish parts of that revelation as you see fit, it's hard to see what you think is just so special about the Bible. It's not as if you try to bend your ideas to its teachings.
While theologically conservative Catholics affirm the authority of tradition, and while theologically conservative Protestants affirm the primacy of the Bible's authority, you seem almost defiant in your insistence to be your own authority: Sola Trabue.
But at least finally you're completely honest about your approach to the Bible.
Thanks for your thoughts, fellas.
A few clarifications.
1. I'm not one of those who say there are two Gods - the God of the OT and the God of the NT.
2. I think God is fairly consistently portrayed throughout both testaments.
3. The portrayal that I think is consistent throughout the Bible is that of a God whose primary trait is Love; a God concerned with Justice, a God who is especially concerned about the plight of the poor and marginalized, who wants us to live aright for our own sake (because living wrongly just leads to pain), who warns us of the traps of wealth (but who loves the wealthy, too, and invites them to give up the trappings of and oppressions inherent in hyperconsumption), who invites us all to trust in God for our defense - not a large military, who is a God of peace, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness but who has a righteous anger about injustices - especially against the least of these.
4. THIS is how I see God being very consistently portrayed throughout the Bible and is why I love the OT as well as the NT.
5. There are a few exceptions to this portrayal of God within the Bible.
Occasionally, there are passages that overtly seem to have God commanding people to commit sin. To kill chidren, to forcibly take wives - the orphan virgins of the people they just killed! (kidnap and rape, where I come from), to kill children merely because they've been disrespectful (which is bad, but still...).
6. THESE portrayals of God do not match the more consistent portrayal of God throughout scripture.
7. We have to do something with these scriptures. I'm hearing you and Bubba (and others) say that, YES, God MAY sometimes order people to commit the most horrible of sins and oppression (some of the very same acts that are condemned consistently throughout scripture and within our very hearts). And when it happens, I hear you say, it's not a sin because God has commanded it.
And besides, you say, it's a less vicious sin than what their neighboring countries did.
8. My explanation, on the other hand, is that the larger biblical witness (and our own God-inscribed consciences) argue against that interpretation.
NO! I say. God will NOT sometimes ask us to commit atrocities. So, in those passages, I think we have a less than perfect representation of God.
9. This leaves us with two camps:
a. those who say that despite these other clear passages, God will contradict those teachings sometimes and tell us to commit atrocities
b. those who say that these atrocity passages are a less-accurate portrayal of God
10. In both camps, both have to set aside some part of scripture as less accurate, it seems to me. Those who defend an atrocity-commanding God are setting aside (or explaining away somehow) scriptures that tell us NOT to commit atrocities. Those of us who reject an atrocity-commanding God are rejecting those passages as less than entirely accurate.
I appreciate the clarifications, Dan, but you're putting words in my mouth.
I'm hearing you and Bubba (and others) say that, YES, God MAY sometimes order people to commit the most horrible of sins and oppression (some of the very same acts that are condemned consistently throughout scripture and within our very hearts). And when it happens, I hear you say, it's not a sin because God has commanded it.
Well, if I argue that it wasn't a sin (and I do), don't write that I say God may sometimes command "the most horrible of sins."
You write about two groups, and write this about the group to which I belong:
those who say that despite these other clear passages, God will contradict those teachings sometimes and tell us to commit atrocities
I do NOT believe that God commands us to commit atrocities. You're grossly misconstruing my position.
We don't agree that God's command to Abraham to kill Isaac was a sin, much less an atrocity. The fairest way to portray my position would be something like, "Bubba believes that God commanded what Dan believes to be a sin or atrocity."
Unless or until I concede that the command was a sin or atrocity, it's disingenuous to presume such a concession.
But let me address the core of the substance of your reply.
In both camps, both have to set aside some part of scripture as less accurate, it seems to me. Those who defend an atrocity-commanding God are setting aside (or explaining away somehow) scriptures that tell us NOT to commit atrocities. Those of us who reject an atrocity-commanding God are rejecting those passages as less than entirely accurate.
Without something resembling an argument, this sort of claim of equivocation (or psuedo-equivocation) just won't do.
You're the one who believes that some passages of the Bible aren't wholly authoritative portrayals of God, not me.
You're the one who has argued that we are free to deny the authority of Scripture...
We are people created in God's image made to determine what is right and wrong. Even when we find it within the pages of the Bible. Even when we find it within the pages of the NT.
...not me.
I can point to specific passages that you reject, including New Testament passages from Hebrews and James; at the very least, you have not yet tried to do the same with my position.
The fact is, I don't reject the authority of any passage of Scripture. I believe they can all be reconciled, and I believe it's much safer on the soul to have the humilty to accept that they could be reconciled than it is to start picking and choosing what passages to disregard.
Can you justify your apparent belief that the entire Bible truly cannot be reconciled with itself? Or can you at least show that our attempts to reconcile fall short and end up setting aside some passages or (somehow) explaining them away?
Can you provide substance to this charge?
If you can't, it strikes me as less than wholly honorable to try to justify your rejection of Scripture's authority with the unsubstantiated claim that we all do it.
Why, thank you, Bonnie, but modesty requires that, if nominated, I will not run and if elected, I will not serve...
Can you justify your apparent belief that the entire Bible truly cannot be reconciled with itself?
I dunno. Perhaps not to your satisfaction.
But to my way of thinking, yes.
How's this:
1. The Bible never specifically condemns genocide, killing children nor rape (I don't believe).
2. Nonetheless, I think that all three are horribly wrong. Atrocities.
3. I think so largely (I admit) intuitively. I think it's written on our hearts that such horrors are wrong, wrong, wrong. Always wrong. Not justifiable.
4. However, I do see verses such as Jeremiah 7:
For, if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place...
Or Jesus in Matthew 25, where he told us what we do and don't do to and for the "least of these," we are doing (or not) to God.
Or other similar verses and I'm convinced that genocide, infanticide and rape all remain atrocities - both because of what the Bible says and because of God's word written upon our hearts.
5. And on this point, you agree - these are horrible, horrible crimes. I don't believe we disagree that these are horrors, but rather, you seem to think that none of these are commanded by God within the Bible? Is that right?
6. I don't think the actual words of the bible support that. Look to some few passages within the bible, such as:
[The Lord said...]"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
~1 Samuel 15:3
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."
~Numbers 31:17-18
When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her... [a full month! What compassion!]
Deuteronomy 21:10-13
And you know I can go on, but those three are a fairly good representation of what appear to be direct and straightforward commands from God. These are exceptions to the overall lessons of the Bible, but they are there in disturbing numbers.
7. How do you interpret that any way but that God has commanded the killing of children and the taking of the virgin girls from the dead enemy to be wives?
I'm suggesting that IF the above is to be considered a literal command from God representing God's Will, THEN I don't see how you can say that it is always wrong to kill children or kidnap virgins to be your wife.
Knock yourself out trying to explain this.
It's odd thing to see you dismiss as mere exceptions, Dan, passages in the Bible that you admit appear "in disturbing numbers."
At any rate, you assert that killing children is horribly wrong and an atrocity.
Thing is, God kills children all the time.
Probably tens of thousands of children died among the roughly 200,000 fatalities from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and every major city has a pediatric oncology ward.
You say that killing children is an atrocity: an atrocity is an atrocity is an atrocity.
If it's an atrocity for God to command infanticide, it must be an atrocity for God to commit infanticide, right?
Or shall we argue that free will is important, and conclude that God doesn't have free will in matters such as human death?
Or shall we argue that natural phenomena like tsunamis and tumors aren't acts of God, even though you appeal to "all of creation's testimony as to God's nature"?
I earlier warned that your explanation for dismissing passages of Scripture cannot unravel the doctrine of Hell -- and I should note right now that Christ who taught to turn the other cheek is quite clear about the harsh nature of His final judgment -- but your explanation must also reckon with the reality of infant mortality.
Your intransigence about what qualifies as an atrocity and a moral outrage doesn't seem to account for the real world around us.
Thing is, God kills children all the time.
Probably tens of thousands of children died among the roughly 200,000 fatalities from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami...
Wrap your mind around this, Bubba: God did not kill those tsunami victims. Rather, they were victims of the tsunami.
God does not kill those with cancer, rather, the cancer kills them.
So, yes, we should argue strongly against the ridiculous notion that weather and health issues are "acts of God."
That made some sense in the pre-scientific world to view these as such, but we know better now, don't we.
That IS the real world around us.
And I'll gladly receive your explanation of how one can believe that God sometimes commands us to commit genocide and rape and how you reconcile that with the command to tend to the least of these and NOT to shed innocent blood.
Thing is, God kills children all the time.
And so God also commands us to kill children all the time, too? I don't think that's what you're saying.
Enlighten me.
I'm sorry... I have to ask... CAN you be enlightened? You seem to have closed yourself off pretty tightly. Bubba's done a fine job of trying to answer you.
Do you understand, Eric, how wrong it sounds to some of us to say that God sometimes commands the killing of children? Commands rape?
And these are the clear, literal words of the Bible.
So, yes, I can be enlightened. I think we can come to some more clear understanding of where one another is in their beliefs.
But you must understand that what I'm hearing you all say sounds so hideously immoral that it is hard to imagine Christians advocating it and so, yes, I need a bit more clarification.
Also, it seems clear to me that we (you and I, Bubba and me, etc) use words or language differently and so it seems we have to wade through relatively simple concepts carefully just to clearly understand one another.
Just in these comments here, Bubba and you have offered some points that you say that I believe that I DON'T believe, so evidently you have not understood me. And Bubba has already said that I misrepresented his position, as well, so when world views clash, careful communication is needed.
Seems to me.
I think I'm asking a fairly straightforward question: Do you think that God might sometimes command us to do wrong (kill babies, kidnap virgins)? It's a sincere question - that seems to be what you're saying.
Is it not just a Yes/No answer to that question?
Eric said:
You seem to have closed yourself off pretty tightly.
But I thought that was the complaint about "liberals" - they're too open-minded...
2nd Tim. 3:16 knocks out number 1, how can God breathed NOT be perfect? For that not to be perfect, means that God is not perfect in every way.
2 Timothy 3:14-16:
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness
Fred, that passage tells us that "all scripture" is inspired and useful for teaching.
How does that refute what I said, "The Bible never tells us to take its words literally... inerrancy, infallibility, 'the Bible is perfect, these are all human takes on the Bible and not biblical teachings themselves."?
It doesn't.
In other words, I didn't say that the Bible isn't "God-breathed" (although the Bible never makes THAT claim about itself, either - it makes that claim about Scripture).
You are interpreting "God-breathed" to mean perfect, by which, I don't know what you mean, since "perfect" could have many meanings in this context.
Dan, I just find it depressing to say that we believe in something or that we base our faith on something that we do not want to defend. It is not worship as we are accused of, but if the Bible is not Truth it is no better than any other book and it seems to me that we are throwing away a very important and basic reason to call ourselves Christians.
You don't want to defend your position, mom2? But the Bible does tell us to be ready to share/defend that faith in season and out.
My questioning your position, your questioning mine - there's nothing wrong with that. I don't ask you to blindly accept what I have to say. Don't ask me to blindly accept what you have to say.
And I haven't said that the Bible isn't Truth. I just have said that we need to interpret the individual through the whole. If there is a verse that seems to say that God might tell us to kill children and other verses saying we ought NOT kill children, we need to weigh those against the whole.
Basic biblical study guidelines, right?
Currently, I'm studying the Tabernacle... Manners and Customs comes next. With that as a preface, I don't have a solid grasp on the culture and customs of the day to speak on your specific objection with confidence. But I do know enough about God to state WITH confidence that God does not condone Rape... That one really sticks in my craw. I think I'm more offended by that statement than anything else.
Now, I've admitted I don't understand the culture enough to give a solid answer, but this I do know... that Abraham was married to his half sister... that it was custom to offer ones handmaid as a surrogate womb if the wife turned out to be infertile, that when a brother died it was incumbent upon a surviving brother to impregnate his brothers widow and so "raise up seed" to his brother. I also know that incest at one time was NOT unlawful in God's eyes.
I think the greatest mistake you can make, Dan, is to base your judgment of the customs of the peoples of the Old Testament upon our MODERN conventions.
"If there is a verse that seems to say that God might tell us to kill children and other verses saying we ought NOT kill children, we need to weigh those against the whole."
Might I suggest we weigh them against THIS standard?
..::Axiom of Translation::..
1-- God cannot lie. (Num 23:19. Tit 1:2, Heb 6:18)
2-- The truth of one verse cannot negate the truth of another.
3-- If the truths of two or more verses appear to be contradictory, the verses must be viewed as possessing dissimilar contexts and/or dispensations.
Not bad. Those rules, though, I might point out, are extrabiblical measures of interpretation.
But taking them for what they're worth -
Verse 1 has God commanding Israel to kill children,
Verse 2 says not to shed innocent blood (plus our very own consciences tell us not to kill children).
IF we assume that God cannot lie, why can't we assume that verse 1 does not speak God's Truth? Who says that Verse 1 must be taken as a literally correct speaking of God's Truth?
As I've noted, the Bible itself does not demand that we do so anywhere. So, why make that assumption?
I think the greatest mistake you can make, Dan, is to base your judgment of the customs of the peoples of the Old Testament upon our MODERN conventions.
I'm basing my judgement of the verse that shows God commanding Israel to kill children upon what I think is the eternal notion that it is wrong to kill children. Do you think that is a modern convention?
Dan, I invite you to look at what you're doing:
You're denying the authority of Scripture by an argument from outrage, glibly asserting that the Old Testament records that God commanded atrocities, and doing so with no concern about historical context or your theological opponent's counter-arguments.
This isn't the approach of a Christian theologian: it's an atheist's tactic. What you're doing now to dismiss the Old Testament is the very same thing atheists do to dismiss the New Testament: the way you argue that the Mosaic Law contains atrocities is the very way that atheists look at the Cross and proclaim that the God of the Bible is a sadist.
And in denying God's sovereignty, you invoke an argument that the materialists use to deny the miraculous:
"That made some sense in the pre-scientific world to view these as such, but we know better now, don't we."
You've been using these tactics against facets of historical Christianity that you don't like. If you ever take these tactics to their logical conclusion and turn them against the fundamental tenets of Christianity, what will you do? See the error of using these tools, or use these very tools to dismantle the very pillars of faith?
And, that you do all this for the sake of normalizing sodomy is somewhat sad. Most of the times I've seen you invoke this argument from outrage about the Bible's supposed atrocities, it's to argue (illogically) that we should normalize homosexual behavior: You argue that the Bible contains atrocities and that we should ignore those atrocities, just so you can argue that we should also ignore what the Bible has to say about human sexuality.
For you to go to such lengths to justify your theologically radical position on sexuality reassures me that the Bible actually is quite clear on that topic, but it's still lamentable. I'm not sure any cause is worth the dishonor of picking up the tools of those who despise your faith in order to pick away at those teachings that you want to reject, much less the risk of destroying the foundations of that faith.
But that's the measure of your commitment to your radical causes.
My point is that, if you were going to be consistent about "an atrocity is an atrocity," you would ...also rail against the fact that God permits tsunamis and cancers that kill children by the tens of thousands, a deity who Christianity affirms is more than capable of intervening.
Because I don't believe as you do, that God "permits tsunamis and cancers," I'm being inconsistent? I don't believe that makes any sense.
I'm consistently saying that God is a good God, that God does not command us to do evil deeds. Where's the inconsistency?
For the record, I don't think illness and death are evil in and of themselves. Deliberately causing death and illness, that is evil.
As John Muir said:
Let children walk with nature, let them see the beautiful blendings and communions of death and life, their joyous inseparable unity, as taught in woods and meadows, plains and mountains and streams of our blessed star, and they will learn that death is stingless indeed, and as beautiful as life, and that the grave has no victory, for it never fights. All is divine harmony.
Yes, this world operates in cycles of life and death - and we rightly mourn and grieve the deaths of our comrades - especially when they are cut short. But it is the nature of the world and not an evil in itself.
I don't think God deliberately causes death and illness, and I don't think God commands us to do so. Even 4,000 years ago.
I don't believe I have a problem at all with the notion of progressive revelation (although I suspect many traditional religionists would), that God clearly did not condemn polygamy back in the day, but by NT times, Jesus is recommending monogamy, for instance.
But I still agree with the more traditional religious folk that some things are just wrong and have always been wrong and always will be wrong. Rape, as Eric noted, and the killing of children being two of those.
And still I wonder, Bubba, do you think that killing children is an everlasting moral wrong (not a modern convention) or do you think that God might sometimes ask us to kill children?
I'm sorry if I've missed that answer in all your responses, but I don't believe that in spite of all your writings, you have ever given an answer to what seems like an easy question.
The closest I can get from what you've written is that it might depend upon the times - that maybe 4,000 years ago in certain circumstances, it was a right thing to do.
Is that your answer? That is, is your answer, "YES, sometimes God might have commanded people to kill children - But God wouldn't do so any more."?
I think that's your answer but it's difficult to tell and I don't want to misrepresent your position.
You've been using these tactics against facets of historical Christianity that you don't like.
No, bubba. I've been weighing the whole of the Bible (because I think the Bible is God's Word to us useful for teaching, but that we need to interpret it aright to get a right message) against individual passages to try to determine the best I can what God might teach us. Just as you do, I believe.
It has nothing to do with whether I like or don't like an idea, but conforming to God's Word. After all, I embraced gay marriage to try to conform to God's Word, even though I had to change my position on that issue.
As far as that goes, it would certainly be much easier to embrace the notion of Might makes Right, or My country, right or wrong. I wouldn't have to think about whether or not I'd be wrong or not conforming to God's will. I could just point my gun at anything that might be a threat and not have to sweat the consequences. After all, God is on our side, right?
Do you think the notion of trusting in God for defense, of turning the other cheek, of loving our enemies - that these are choices people make because it feels good and we LIKE having to turn the other cheek and loving the unlovable?
Do you think Jesus was weak and going the path of least resistance for advocating such?
I'm sure you don't, but that's what it sounds like you're implying.
As far as "what" goes, Dan? I'm not sure who you're addressing or what you're referencing in that last comment.
Sorry, I was still referencing that same last comment I had quoted from you:
You've been using these tactics against facets of historical Christianity that you don't like.
Dan, even in the context of that quote, I don't understand your tirade and the implication that my position must mean I think Christ is weak.
I don't follow you at all.
Oh, wait, I get it. You're arguing that because you think your position on strict pacifism is based in the Bible (it isn't) and courageous in the face of opposition, that other positions you hold regarding other issues are, therefore, also based in the Bible and courageous.
You miss my point, that you're attacking the edges of orthodoxy with the same tools that those who Christianity use to attack its very foundations.
I actually didn't suggest that it was cowardice driving you to your positions: it's interesting that you think that I did, and it's incredibly arrogant of you to think that if I were challenging your courage, it implies that I'm also challenging the courage of Jesus Christ.
Picking up the atheists' tools and using them in an attempt to conduct a surgical strike against those aspects of Christianity you reject. I believe that approach is dishonorable and dangerous, but I didn't call it cowardly.
The bravery of the stand is a factor of the environment in which it is made. Generally, it's very easy to attack the Bible in the post-modern West, but who knows? Maybe you're the only man in your church to deny biblical inerrancy, which would prove your courage but not diminish the problems with the tactics you employ.
Wow! I go offline for a little while, Dan, and you REALLY stir up a hornet's nest. :-) I mostly agree with your theses, but I will save substantive interaction for later. Right now, I am just going to stand in awe of the way you have once more become a lightning rod! :-)
What you call an "easy question" is actually a false dilemma, as it excludes other possiblities, such as this, that God did command Abraham to kill Isaac while we are forbidden from following suit with our children.
My posit was that (as I understand you) you are saying that sometimes God might command us to kill children. As with Abraham, but even moreso as with God's apparent commands in more than one place to Israel.
How is this a false dilemma?
You appear to be saying "God sometimes might tell us to kill children."
I'm saying that I don't think God ever commands us to kill children, that other biblical teachings would preclude that possibility.
What is the alternative? Again, if you have expressed it, I've missed it.
DO YOU THINK that God might command us to kill children?
Or, if you prefer:
DO YOU THINK that God in the past has commanded people to kill children?
That still seems like an easily answered question, to me.
I think your answer is:
"Yes, sometimes in the past, God commanded people at a specific time and place and set of circumstances to kill children. Certainly, it is normally wrong, but for those people in those instances, it was good and right to kill those specific children."
Yes? No?
Any time, Michael. I'd love to hear what a more learned (than myself) person has to say, what you could tell me as far as what the church has historically had to say about all this.
Glad to see you're up and running again.
Actually, Dan, I was outraged that you would actually suggest that God commands rape. He doesn't. It was your suggestion that stuck in my craw... not that I was joining you in mutual outrage of a god who would condone such.
Sorry, yet glad, too, oddly, that I missed this. I agree with Dan's post.
I understood that, Eric. But you are right, nonetheless: God does not command rape. Nor does God command us to, once we wipe out a people (genocide in today's terms) to take their virgin daughter as their wife.
Or, if you prefer to answer a direct question:
DO you think that God might sometimes (now or in the past) command a people to spare the virgin daughters of an enemy they've just otherwise decimated so that some of the people can take them as their wives?
That would be a "Yes," "No," or "That's not a valid question because..." and offer some reasonable explanation.
Dan:
I believe the Bible is clear that God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. The author of Genesis (who I believe to be Moses) is clear on that matter; Jesus is clear in affirming the authority of all of Jewish Scripture, to even the smallest pen-stroke; Paul is clear that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable; James is clear that Abraham did the moral thing in obeying, as is the author of Hebrews.
And I believe Genesis and Hebrews. I believe Jesus and Paul and James.
I believe in the authority of the Bible. And if the Bible says that God command Abraham to kill Isaac, I believe that, too.
Does that answer your question?
I have a question or two for you.
Do you believe that God made a covenant with Abraham? If you do, on what basis, since you deny the authority of the very text that documents that covenant? If you don't, what makes you so sure that Christ initiated a new covenant?
And an earlier exchange still nags at the back of my mind.
"...we should argue strongly against the ridiculous notion that weather and health issues are 'acts of God.'
"That made some sense in the pre-scientific world to view these as such, but we know better now, don't we."
I for one don't know better now, and I can't think of a single scientific discovery or set of discoveries that has proven that God is not sovereign over His universe.
I wonder, just what are you talking about?
Do you pray for the health of friends and family members? If you do, why would you pray if you dismiss the idea that God has a role in health issues and even go so far as to dismiss it as "ridiculous"?
Seriously, a comment like this doesn't sound like the belief of a Christian adult: it sounds like something I'd hear from a petulant atheist who thinks he knows far more than he does about both Christian theology and science. But if you have a good reason for denying God's sovereignty in this particular way, I'd love to hear it.
Does that answer your question?
No. My question, again:
DO YOU THINK that God might command us to kill children?
Or, if you prefer:
DO YOU THINK that God in the past has commanded people to kill children?
Not just Moses, but other people - Israel, for instance. And, if your answer is Yes for that, too, I wonder where you draw the line? Who else might God tell to kill children?
But if you have a good reason for denying God's sovereignty in this particular way, I'd love to hear it.
Bubba, if you keep this up, you can have this conversation with yourself.
I have not said this. That would be yet another bearing of false witness.
Seriously, stick to what people say and don't make the assumption that you somehow have the god-like ability to tell what they think even when they haven't said it. You still simply ain't omniscient enough, little brother.
What I said is that God is not in the business of micromanaging storm fronts nor cancer cells. That is not a denial of God's sovereignty, but rather an affirmation of who God is.
If you think otherwise, fine. I disagree. I don't think the Bible teaches this.
And no, I don't pray that my ill loved ones "Get healed!" and say those magic words, "In Jesus' Name-cadabra!" and poof! they get healed.
My faith is not magic-based.
Dan:
What I said is that God is not in the business of micromanaging storm fronts nor cancer cells. That is not a denial of God's sovereignty, but rather an affirmation of who God is.
This is the first time in this thread you've mentioned "micromanaging". Use Ctrl-F to find a previous mention of "micro" and you won't find, so for you to say that this is what you said in light of your near-simultaneous accuation of my bearing false witness is striking.
So too is this:
And no, I don't pray that my ill loved ones "Get healed!" and say those magic words, "In Jesus' Name-cadabra!" and poof! they get healed.
I didn't ask about the results of your prayer and I certainly didn't include any "magic words", but you imply that I did.
Your accusation that I repeatedly bear false witness against you would be a bit more plausible if you didn't take liberties like these, answering questions I didn't ask and pretending you've already said things you haven't.
At any rate, you didn't really explain what your position has to do with modern science, but you do explain your position:
What I said is that God is not in the business of micromanaging storm fronts nor cancer cells. That is not a denial of God's sovereignty, but rather an affirmation of who God is.
Which is... what, exactly? A hands-off kinda deity?
The idea of "micromanaging" doesn't even make sense when confronted with omniscience, omnipotence, and an eternal existence outside of time, so you seem to be denying something about the traditional Christian view of God. Pardon me for presuming that it is His sovereignty that you deny, but I find your ostensibly Christian beliefs increasingly difficult to fathom.
Jesus Christ taught us not to worry because even the hairs on our head aren't counted; He taught us to pray for our daily needs; and He healed the blind and the lame and even raised the dead.
But you don't pray for other people's health because God "is not in the business of micromanaging storm fronts nor cancer cells"?
You ridicule such prayer as evidence of "magic-based" faith?
The revulsion at the admittedly difficult passages of the Bible, I understand. I think the spiritually safer response is to humbly accept the Bible as it is and try to see how the entire book can be reconciled, so I think you're approach is misguided and spiritually dangerous, but I understand the desire to take that approach.
But the Bible encourages us to pray for those who are sick, in James 5 and elsewhere. The utter disdain you have for that idea -- a disdain that is shared by the most bitter atheists -- is truly remarkable.
And no, I don't pray that my ill loved ones "Get healed!" and say those magic words, "In Jesus' Name-cadabra!" and poof! they get healed.> Dan's words.
Dan, that is a frightening statement to me. Evidently you have been a very blessed person if you have not felt the need to pray for a loved one to be healed. I pray for you to see things in the light of God's Word and that He will continue to have mercy on you and your loved ones, but that is not something we take lightly or irreverently.
ok.
And I'll note that the questions go unanswered.
Peace, y'all.
Sorry about that, Dan. I was too busy marveling at your calling me a liar while being less than honest about the questions I've asked, and about what you've already written. And I've been kinda awe-struck that you continue to distance yourself from orthodox Christianity, now about prayers for the sick.
Dan, there are questions you haven't answered yet, either, the most recent being these:
Do you believe that God made a covenant with Abraham? If you do, on what basis, since you deny the authority of the very text that documents that covenant? If you don't, what makes you so sure that Christ initiated a new covenant?
But I'll clarify my previous answer to your question by more clearly answering your follow-ups.
DO YOU THINK that God might command us to kill children?
Might? Probably not, but I'm not God. I also don't think He's going to repeat Himself on choosing a second Abraham with whom He would make a similar covenant.
DO YOU THINK that God in the past has commanded people to kill children?
The Bible says He did, and I believe the Bible. That isn't apparently clear enough for you, but my answer is yes.
Not just Moses, but other people - Israel, for instance.
I think you mean Abraham, and this isn't a question, but, yes, I believe God commanded ancient Israel to destroy utterly the Amalekites, just as He told Abraham to kill Isaac.
I don't think He's going to repeat Himself so explicitly, as His relationship with Abraham and with Abraham's people appears to have been utterly unique in history.
And, if your answer is Yes for that, too, I wonder where you draw the line? Who else might God tell to kill children?
I don't know, I'm not God. The fact that I don't have an answer to this question doesn't invalidate my previous answers.
After all, you have already affirmed the doctrine of Hell, but I doubt any of us can say with absolute precision who is damned: it's not our job to do so.
Briefly, for now:
1. Jonathan is right, as Dan has acknowledged, that his first point conflates several different things. Most historical critical scholars would claim that they take most biblical texts far more literally than do most inerrantists. Plus, a huge number of different positions goes under such terms as "inerrancy" and "infallibility." No one can really say whether they agree or disagree with them unless they see them defined. I think those terms are misleading ways to describe biblical authority, but I have seen some definitions of "inerrancy" that I could sign--if I were into signing such things.
2. Dan's basic point, that such approaches to Scripture are extrabiblical traditions is true. ALL approaches to Scripture are extrabiblical because there was no canon, no collected Bible, at the time when any part of it was written. So, even something like 1 Tim. 2 refers only to what Christians call the Old Testament--the only "Scripture" that Paul (or whatever disciple of Paul's may have written the Pastoral Epistles) knew.
3. All reading of ANYTHING involves interpretation. Genre is important. In reading the local paper, one does not read the news the same way one reads the advice columns, the recipes, the opinions, or comics. One does not read poetry the same way one reads a novel, etc. We make such adjustments automatically when we are dealing with familiar genres in our language, our culture, etc. When we are dealing with a translation from another culture, a different era, different types of prose and poetry, etc., we have to work harder to be good readers, good interpreters.
Must go. More later.
I could agree with Michael that all approaches to Scripture are extra-biblical, with a couple provisions. First, while all of them may ultimately be extra-biblical, some have a better grounding in Scripture than others. It seems to me that the New Testament writers may have recast OT passages in the light of Christ -- such as Hebrews' take on Melchizedek -- but they never explicitly dismissed any passage as being no longer authoritative. Instead, Christ affirmed Jewish Scripture to the smallest pen-stroke and Paul wrote that all Scripture is both inspired and useful. Some approaches, therefore, are probably closer to being at harmony with the approach of the Bible's writers.
(It's like the doctrine of the Trinity. The word may not be present in the Bible, but I believe the gist of the Bible points much more emphatically to trinitarianism than it does to unitarianism, polytheism, or any other alternative.)
(And, it seems that Dan wants to disparage the theologically conservative approach of trying to reconcile all Scripture by noting that it's extra-Biblical, when his approach is likewise extra-Biblical and when I believe his approach is in opposition to the way the Bible's writers approached Scripture.)
Second, even though the NT canon had not yet been compiled, I'm not sure it's true to say of the NT writers that the OT is the only Scripture that they knew.
For instance, in II Peter 3:15-16, Peter writes that Paul's letters contain some difficult passages which some people pervert, "as they do the other (loipoy) scriptures." The clear implication is that Peter already accepted that Paul's letters were as canonical as the Old Testament.
And Michael alludes to I Timothy 2, but in I Timothy 5:17-18, Paul appeals to Scripture:
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves to be paid."
It's at very least possible that Paul means that both quotes are from Scripture, but while the first passage can be found in Deuteronomy 25:4, I believe the second is found only the Gospels, specifically Luke 10:7.
The NT itself suggests that at least some of its writers recognized at least some of the earlier NT books as Scripture.
Now, the 66 books of the canon are only in the PROTESTANT canon. Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept various "Deutero-canonical" OT books that Protestants consider "Apocryphal." These books came from the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, the Roman numeral for 70 because of a legend I won't go into here), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was widely used by Jews in the Diaspora. It is worth mentioning that the LXX was the first Bible of the early Christians and that quotes from the OT in the NT are usually from the LXX (a few seem to come from other manuscripts).
Those books came to be rejected by Jews at the Council of Jabneh and the Jewish canon was then "set" (as it was not in Jesus' day) as the Masoretic Text (MT) of the Hebrew Scriptures. When the Protestant Reformation broke out in the 16th C., some of the debates between Catholics and Protestants were over what books counted as Scripture.
Protestants decided that the Jewish canon should be the Christian Old Testament and so adopted the MT--but arranged the books differently than in the Jewish canon and broke Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into 2 books each.
So, which books we even COUNT as Scripture differs according to extra-biblical church tradition.
More later.
I love this discussion. I tend to agree with Dan, although I'm in a unique position in that I DO have scriptural dictate for what books qualify as scripture. I'm a Swedenborgian, meaning that I believe that God reavealed himself to scientist/philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg in the middle of the 18th century and inspired him to write his voluminous theological works. In several of these works, he lists the books that qualify as "the Word". They include most of the Protestant OT with the exception of Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon; and in the NT, only the 4 gospels and Revelation. Interestingly, Swedenborg does not claim that the excluded books are false or worthless; but the criteria for inclusion is that they have a "continuous internal sense", that is, that every word has a deeper meaning that reflects God and His Kingdom. All of this makes for a very interesting view of the literal-ness of Scripture: Swedenborgians view every single word as coming directly from God, but they do not take it all literally. On the other hand, they DO realize the importance of the literal sense of the Word; the principle Swedenborg lays out is that the literal sense contains all the basic truths that build up doctrine, but the internal sense gives these life and meaning. Thus, when the Word says, "God is love," this is literally true; but when it says, "God is angry," this is an appearance that hides a deeper truth, namely, that God seems angry when we reject Him. Anyhow, it's much more involved than all that, but I thought I'd bring it up as a unique perspective. If you want an example of Swedenborg's view of the Bible, go to www.biblemeanings.info and start with chapter one of Genesis.
Thanks for the thoughts, Coleman. Not sure what to make of them but thanks just the same.
Bubba raised an interesting point, in looking at 2 Peter 3, which says:
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
Including Paul's letters in with "the other scriptures" - makes me wonder what Peter considered the other scriptures to be. Is he referring to OT scriptures? Other writings?
Does anyone know what the word "scripture" would have connotated in the 1st century?
Would there have been outrage at Peter's associating a mere letter from Paul to the status of scripture? Does he mean simply any writing that he and/or the early church revered as Godly?
This would be beyond my knowledge. Anyone read more about this?
The term used in 2 Pe. "he graphe" means "the writings." But it is clear that Peter meant the "sacred writings" or Scriptures. And it seems that he did include Paul's letters (or as many of them as he knew about--they hadn't been collected together yet!) as part of that. What else was included is hard to say: The OT for sure, but were the Gospels written yet? Like Jude, 2 Peter quotes Apocryphal writings (e.g., The Assumption of Moses) AS Scripture, too. This illustrates nicely that the canon had not taken final shape--for Jews or Christians.
Oh, yeah, good call Michael. I failed to remember those places where other "scriptures" are included as scripture, even though WE don't consider them scripture.
Interesting.
While it is likely that II Peter alluded to an apocryphal book, that doesn't imply that Peter thought was canonical, or shall we conclude that, since Paul quoted Greek authors those works were also canonical?
I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe the word graphe was applied to any non-canonical reference in II Peter or elsewhere; so I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say that those other works were included as Scripture.
And if you're back to commenting in this thread, Dan, I would like to remind you that there remain questions I've asked that you haven't answered.
Do you believe that God made a covenant with Abraham? If you do, on what basis, since you deny the authority of the very text that documents that covenant? If you don't, what makes you so sure that Christ initiated a new covenant?
I don't think these questions really have that much to do with my post, which has to do with how we interpret/read the Bible. But briefly, yes, I believe the notion of God having a covenant relationship with Israel - and with any who'd want to enter a covenant relationship.
On what basis? The Bible makes multiple references to the covenant and it does not conflict with any of the rest of the Bible to believe in said covenant. That is different than saying I accept parts of the Bible representing Truths about God that conflict with other parts of the Bible.
Either genocide is wrong or it's okay in at least some circumstances (or maybe ANY circumstances, if we're going to be moral relativists).
I think it's alway wrong.
The covenant language is one way that our relationship with God is described in the Bible. It is also talked of in terms of a family. It is also talked of in terms of a body. These are metaphors, seems to me.
We don't have an actual legally binding covenant with God. We aren't physically God's family (although I suppose the argument could be made), nor are we physically one body.
I have no problem with the use of metaphors to explain something as vast and beyond explanation as God. I have no problem with the story of Abraham as an illustration. I do have a problem with actually killing children.
Mine is a fairly straightforward and uncomplicated way of thinking of things, it's the best I can do with this flawed mind of mine.
Dan, I believe my questions have everything to do with how we interpret the Bible, because your answer seems to imply that you don't affirm the historicity of one of the central events of Judaism and, by extension, Christianity: God's covenant with Abraham.
As an aside, I disagree with the idea that a covenant with God is a mere metaphor: God can make promises to people, promises that He will keep, and promises that may be contingent on their fulfilling certain obligations He will keep. That set of promises and obligations is quite literally a covenant. And, for a covenant to be real, it need not be legally binding as enforceable in an earthly court of law: a couple could make a true and literal covenant even if they were stranded on a desert island.
And, further, I disagree with the implication that the covenant is initiated by our actions, that God will form a covenant "with any who'd want to enter a covenant relationship." Abraham didn't choose God: God chose Abraham. And while we were yet sinners, Jesus initiated the new covenant with His own blood by dying for us.
But, more to the point, you write:
I have no problem with the use of metaphors to explain something as vast and beyond explanation as God. I have no problem with the story of Abraham as an illustration.
I didn't ask whether you accept the story of Abraham as an illustration: I asked whether you accept it as literal, historical fact.
If you were to affirm that you accept that God literally and historically made a covenant with Abraham, then it would be hard for me to see how you trust Genesis as the record of that covenant. Genesis relays several events in Abraham's unique relationship with God, from the covenant itself to the miraculous birth of Isaac to the command to sacrifice Isaac. Even accounting for the differences of genre between modern historical literature and ancient works, it's hard for me to see how a person could believe that Genesis is reliable in its account of the covenant being made but not in its account of that covenant being tested.
But if you see the covenant with Abraham as a useful illustration and not a historical event, it makes me wonder how you can have any faith in the historicity and efficacy of the covenant that Christ initiated, since it doesn't seem to me that the latter can stand without the former.
This business about your not having a problem with the covenant with Abraham "as an illustration" leads me to believe that you just see the Bible as a collection of stories rather than as a reliable historical document of God's dealings with man, first with Abraham, then with His descendents, and finally through the promised Messiah, Abraham's seed through whom the whole world would be blessed.
As a result, there doesn't seem to be any point in highlighting the fact that you appeal, for instance to Joshua 24's account of God protecting Israel while dismissing as atrocities the many accounts in the very same book of God commanding Israel to commit what you presume to call atrocities: it's not as if you think Joshua 24 is a reliable account of actual history.
The thing is, Bubba, I wasn't there. I don't know how it went down exactly. I have no problem accepting it as a historical fact, but I have no way of proving it and it doesn't especially concern me that I can or can't prove it.
We mostly agree that parts of the Bible are written as metaphor or illustration or parable. I think that most Christians realize that the Creation story is written as if it happened just like this, in six days, but most modern Christians also recognize that the facts don't support that - the world is much older than 6000 years.
The Creation story is a mythological expression of the Truth that God created the world.
Parts of the bible are like that, written to express Truths which I believe literally, even if the facts weren't intended to be taken literally as written.
Jonah and the whale is a cool story and I have no problem with accepting it as a historical fact, but I have no way of proving it and its literal reality is rather beside the point. The Truths of that story is that God loves us all and that one can't run away from God.
That's the gist of the story.
Same for Abraham's story. I have no problem accepting it as historical reality - except for the parts that might part ways from the greater revelation of God that we have through Jesus the Christ.
Jesus did a similar thing - while he affirmed the law vigorously and said it would never go away nor change, he reinterpreted it for us. He said, for instance, "Yes, I know that the OT demands that we stay away from shrimp, which is described as an abomination!! in God's eyes in the OT. And yet, the larger Truth is not the literal one. The larger Truth is that it is what comes out of us that makes us sinful - our behavior and words and such - not what goes in to us."
Jesus completely affirmed "the Scriptures" AND YET completely reinterpreted them looking for the larger truths, not the literal meanings.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus didn't dismiss any of the Old Testament as containing atrocities, did He?
I have no problem accepting it as historical reality - except for the parts that might part ways from the greater revelation of God that we have through Jesus the Christ.
Did Jesus suggest that ANY part of the Bible parted ways from what He revealed, or did He not affirm Jewish Scripture to the smallest pen-stroke?
What Jesus taught is, in truth, at least fierce as anything God commanded in the Old Testament. The so-called atrocities are nothing compared to the doctrine of Hell, so I think it's very risky to dismiss so glibly the parts of the OT you don't like.
And who Jesus is and what He did -- God Incarnate who died and rose again -- are literally infinitely more astounding than a man surviving in a large fish for a couple days, so I think it's risky for a Christian to dismiss the historicity of Jonah while affirming the historicity of Christianity's central but more astounding claims.
I think it's healthy and humble to acknowledge that we may not know how all the Bible fits together, but it's arrogant and dangerous to presume that parts don't fit and start pruning what you think doesn't belong.
But I must acknowledge your humility in the face of creation:
The thing is, Bubba, I wasn't there. I don't know how it went down exactly.
Well said, and I'm glad you keep yourself to "facts" that we "know":
I think that most Christians realize that the Creation story is written as if it happened just like this, in six days, but most modern Christians also recognize that the facts don't support that - the world is much older than 6000 years.
You weren't there when the universe was created, you don't know "how it went down," but you know for a fact that it's much older than 6,000 years.
You're a man of humble faith, Dan: faith in science rather than the authority of Scripture, but faith nevertheless.
Did Jesus suggest that ANY part of the Bible parted ways from what He revealed, or did He not affirm Jewish Scripture to the smallest pen-stroke?
Well, I offered an obvious one - what was once an abomination and forbidden is no longer.
"You have heard it said," Jesus stated, "an eye for an eye, but I tell you turn the other cheek."
Clarifying misunderstood and misused OT rules and teachings. So, yes, I can demonstrate where Jesus parted ways from the OT and have done so.
Did Jesus clarify teachings of the Old Testament? Certainly. Did He give new commands that superceded the commands of the old covenant? Indeed, but I would note that this act was predicted by the OT itself, most emphatically in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
But while Jesus taught that old commands were superceded and now obsolete, He NEVER implied that they were atrocities to be discarded.
Just as you can learn alot about somebody from old promises he made to other people, we can still learn from the entire covenant God made with ancient Israel.
Jesus never gave us the permission to do what you're doing, discarding as atrocities OT commands you don't understand.
Fine, Bubba. Then let me say it this way...
I think deliberately targeting children or an entire people for destruction is wrong. An atrocity. I will always stand opposed to such behavior.
I don't know why those verses appear in the Bible that seem to suggest God commanding that very thing. I'm not omniscient and all-knowing.
But, to the extent that I can know anything, I will always stand opposed to deliberately targeting children for destruction. I will always consider genocide wrong and both to be atrocities.
How's that grab you?
If your position causes you to discard passages of the Bible, I don't see why you insist that the Bible is "a special and unique revelation of God".
This decision to discard part of the Old Testament is like throwing a rock into a calm pond: it creates ripples, causing you to undermine other passages of Scripture. Paul writes that all Scripture is God-breathed, but you insist that tells us nothing about its perfect authority; Jesus Himself affirms Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and you act as if the new light He casts on Scripture justifies your discarding passages altogether.
What's more, this idea that killing children is always wrong -- an atrocity is an atrocity is an atrocity -- causes you to deny God's agency in the universe He created. Jesus taught that God makes the sun and rain to fall on both the good and the wicked, but you deny that weather is an act of God, ridiculing the idea as something that only made sense in the "pre-scientific world". Jesus taught that every hair on our head is numbered, but you say that God doesn't micro-manage. Jesus taught us to pray for our daily needs, and James taught specifically to pray for the sick, and you go so far as to mock those who pray for the health of their loved ones.
Since you do all this, I don't see why you assert the importance of what Jesus taught and otherwise denigrate extra-biblical doctrines and traditions.
And, most recently, you humbly admit your ignorance of the creation of the universe in the face of what the Bible teaches, but then you accept as gospel "fact" (your word, not mine) the assertion of science that the universe is much older than a few thousand years.
I just don't see why you keep trying to ram the square peg of Trabuism into the round hole of Christianity.
I don't see why you don't just say that you're an unaffiliated spiritualist who happened to grow up in a Christian environment. You appreciate the parts of the Bible that you think harmonizes with your ideas about pacifism and "living aright", but you deny the authority of the Bible, dismiss some of its claims as atrocities, and part ways with some of its other claims about God, such as the idea that He intervenes personally in our lives.
Believe what you want, Dan, but let us no longer pretend that those beliefs reflect a genuine attempt to conform to Christianity.
Believe what you want, Dan, but let us no longer pretend that those beliefs reflect a genuine attempt to conform to Christianity.
You may believe as YOU wish, Bubba, but I am striving to conform my life to the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. I am saved by God's grace through faith in that same Jesus. I am a Christian.
I will not jump through Bubba's hoops to gratify Bubba, for Bubba is not my god.
Bubba may self-gratify himself...
I didn't say you weren't a Christian, Dan, only that it doesn't appear your beliefs reflect an attempt to conform to Christianity.
You may believe as YOU wish, Bubba, but I am striving to conform my life to the teachings of Jesus, the Christ.
Jesus affirmed Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke, but you dismiss as atrocities entire passages you don't like, including key passages involving Abraham's relationship with God, the divine laws of ancient Israel under the old covenant, and the conquest of the Promised Land.
Jesus taught that God makes the sun and the rain to fall on all of us, good and wicked, but you dismiss as archaic the notion that the weather is an act of God.
Jesus taught us that God numbers the hairs on our head, and taught us to trust His providential care on the basis of how God provides for flowers and birds, but you insist that God doesn't micromanage.
And Jesus taught us to pray for our daily needs, but you quite viciously mock praying for the health of loved ones.
On what basis am I to believe that you're actively shaping your belief system to what Jesus taught? Your position on pacifism and feeding the poor? Even if I were to grant that Jesus taught strict pacifism (which I don't), He taught things about God, and about Scripture, and about sexuality that at best you ignore and at worst you positively repudiate.
I have it on good authority that we're supposed to judge trees by their fruit, and the details of your personal belief system do not inspire in me any confidence that you try to conform your beliefs to Christ's teachings. Rather, it seems to me that you appropriate only what you like and minimize or even ignore what you don't.
And let me add one more thing about Jesus, the Christ.
"Christ" is Greek for "Messiah," the annointed savior promised by Jewish Scripture. Every time you undermine the authority of that Scripture, you undermine the credibility that Jesus is the Christ.
Okay, here's the thing, Bubba. Read and learn:
You said:
Jesus taught that God makes the sun and the rain to fall on all of us, good and wicked, but you dismiss as archaic the notion that the weather is an act of God.
I agree that Jesus absolutely taught us that God makes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. That is what the Bible plainly says.
I disagree that that passage intends for us to take it literally to mean that God is out there looking for just and unjust people to rain upon. It's a poetic phrasing to make a point.
Because I reject your literalist interpretation of that particular passage says nothing about my Christianity, just that I don't take each and every phrase literally.
Show me in the Bible where it says that Christians must need take each phrase (such as the ones you've offered here) literally and you'll have a point (and you are correct that at least this much is on topic). But we both know that no such injunction exists biblically.
You are asking me to accept your extrabiblical hoop as an essential to being a Christian and I politely decline.
On what basis am I to believe that you're actively shaping your belief system to what Jesus taught?
On the basis of Jesus' actual teachings and not human traditions seems like a reasonable measure to me.
And Jesus taught us to pray for our daily needs, but you quite viciously mock praying for the health of loved ones.
No, I did not viciously mock those who pray for their loved ones. I DO pray for my loved ones. I just don't pray for magical healings.
I viciously mocked the idea that God is a puppet master who goes around granting wishes when we pray just the right way.
Again, it seems you're suggesting that because I don't take Jesus' teaching to pray to mean that we need to pray for magical healing means that I reject prayer. This is simply not the case.
And I will suggest that my doubting that God sometimes commands atrocities undermines the Bible a lot less than your suggestion that God sometimes DOES command atrocities.
There's a difference between not agreeing with the way Bubba interprets the Bible and rejecting the Bible's teachings.
I do not suggest that God commands atrocities; you used that word, not me.
And I emphatically did not mention "magical healing" or a deity who is "a puppet master who goes around granting wishes when we pray just the right way." You keep distorting my position in order to mock it, which comes dangerously close to bearing false witness.
I disagree that that passage intends for us to take it literally to mean that God is out there looking for just and unjust people to rain upon. It's a poetic phrasing to make a point.
And what point was that? Do you have a remotely plausible interpretation that repudiates God's agency in the natural universe, as you seem inclined to do? Did Jesus dishonestly (or "poetically") attribute to God events that weren't really under His control?
There's a difference between not agreeing with the way Bubba interprets the Bible and rejecting the Bible's teachings.
Indeed, but it's not as if you have ever offered an alternative interpretation to the passages in which you believe God commanded atrocities.
You discard those passages as inauthentic. You may say you deny that they should be taken literally, but you have never offered a figurative alternative interpretation. Instead, you question the authority of the passage, not our literal interpretation of it.
The last time pressed this point, you theorized that the passage could be a "mystery" (you punted) or that it was inserted by wicked men trying to justify an atrocity by deceitfully attributing it to God.
That qualifies as a rejection of that particular passage, Dan.
And since the teachings of the Bible aren't infinitely malleable -- and your own behavior is excellent evidence of that -- I don't think I'm too presumptuous to conclude that that rejection entails a rejection of other passages, too.
And on the matter of "magical" healings, Dan, I wonder:
Do you believe that Jesus Christ literally, historically, and miraculously cured the blind, the lame, and lepers, and that He raised Lazarus from the dead?
Or are the Gospel accounts of those events things that only made some sense in the pre-scientific world?
I do not suggest that God commands atrocities; you used that word, not me.
And I emphatically did not mention "magical healing" or a deity who is "a puppet master who goes around granting wishes when we pray just the right way." You keep distorting my position in order to mock it, which comes dangerously close to bearing false witness.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. I did misrepresent your position. I apologize.
Similarly, your use of the phrase "If your position causes you to discard passages of the Bible" is nothing I've ever said. But you've used it and other similar phrases to misrepresent my position.
I don't discard the passages where God commands genocide or the killing of children. I, not unlike Jesus, reinterpret them.
You have heard it said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I tell you turn the other cheek.
You have heard it said that God sometimes commands the killing of children. But I tell you, you shall shed no innocent blood. Woe to those who'd harm one of these little ones.
Those are not, of course, Jesus' literal words. But I think it is the spirit of Jesus' teachings. I'm relatively sure you agree - we ought not kill children.
And yet, I believe that you refuse to say that these verses that command killing children need to be re-interpreted - or rather, you reinterpret it to mean that God might have used to do that back in the days when things were more immoral, but we've progressively gotten better. We ought never kill children now.
Or something like that. You are reinterpreting it. I am reinterpreting it. Seems to me.
Here again, you have misrepresented my position. You said:
And what point was that? Do you have a remotely plausible interpretation that repudiates God's agency in the natural universe, as you seem inclined to do? Did Jesus dishonestly (or "poetically") attribute to God events that weren't really under His control?
First, what the passage says:
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
The point of this passage is that we are to love our enemies. We are all here together on this earth, the just and the unjust. God loves them as God loves us.
This is not a passage the point of which is to declare how God operates in the natural world, but rather it is a passage that is about loving our enemies. THAT is the point of the passage.
If you focus on the "God as rainmaker" you are missing the point. If you focus on "Six 24 hour day creation," you are missing the point. If you focus on "Wow. Jonah was swallowed by a whale," you are missing the point.
God is God and CAN do whatever God pleases in the physical world. God can make the rain go UP instead of down and in the form of gumdrops instead of water, but that is not the point. YES, Jesus poetically attributed rain to God, to make what seems like to me the point above. Or so it seems to me.
That is how I interpret that particular passage. You are free to interpret it as you wish.
I won't think less of you as a Christian for doing so - unless somehow you use that passage to somehow suggest something opposed to the more clear actual teaching.
If you were to say, "God rains on the just and the unjust - but especially the unjust because we all really hate the unjust - even God!", then I would disagree with you. But if you wish to want to believe that God causes each and every sprinkle, that's fine with me.
Just realize that there is no biblical injunction that would require me to accept your interpretation.
though you still insist that you merely reinterpret the passages in which you believe the Old Testament records that God commanded atrocities, you have yet to offer a specific reinterpretation.
Jesus said:
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
He reinterpreted that commandment. He gave a new take on it. He didn't offer any explanation WHY we should ignore the old Law from God and embrace the New Teaching of Jesus.
Do you demand that Jesus give a complete detailed reason why he reinterpreted the old in favor of the new?
If you demand that of Jesus, I may see what I can do. If you don't demand that of Jesus, why do you demand that I come up with some reason why I reject the thought of killing innocent people? It is just wrong.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. We don't kill children because it is wrong. I think the Bible it has always been wrong (noting that there are plenty of OT commandments against harming innocents). What reason do you want me to offer?
But I'd still like to know what you think about the health of those who lived in Jesus' day: do you believe that Jesus Christ literally, historically, and miraculously cured the sick and raised the dead?
"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
I have no problem with the notion that healings may sometimes happen. I don't think they represent the norm of how God operates nor the norm of how we should pray, nor the norm of what we should expect from God.
But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory.
"O Death, where is your victory? O Death, where is your sting?"
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Dan, about Jesus addressing lex talonis you write:
He reinterpreted that commandment. He gave a new take on it. He didn't offer any explanation WHY we should ignore the old Law from God and embrace the New Teaching of Jesus.
I fail to see the distinction between saying that Jesus commanded us to "ignore" (your word) this OT principle and saying that He commanded us to "discard" it (my word). Again what you write suggests that what you really believe is that the OT passages you don't like should be discarded. I don't see why you claim the contrary.
Again, I don't believe that Jesus taught here that we should ignore or discard lex talonis, for a variety of reasons. I'd be happy to go through those reasons, but the more pertinent point is that you do believe He teaches us to ignore or discard the principle.
That's not "reinterpreting". That's abolishing, what Jesus explicitly denied He came to do, and what you insist you're not doing with other OT passages.
I'm not asking you to explain what makes you think killing children is wrong. I'm asking you, simply, what are we supposed to do with those OT passages? If all you're doing is reinterpreting, offer your reinterpretation.
If you refuse to -- even by weakly appealing to the fact that Jesus didn't explain Himself (and you complained earlier that *I* was acting like I am God?!) -- that's your business, but don't be surprised that your claim of mere reinterpretation is not credible to careful readers.
I appreciate and accept your apology from earlier: I should have said so before.
But I don't understand what your quote about the sign of Jonah has to do with anything.
And, while I personally believe that God is more concerned with our eternal holiness than our present health, and while I strongly object to how the stereotypical televangelist presents God's providential care, I don't dare to presume anything about the frequency of divine intervention in our lives.
Christ taught us to pray for our daily needs, and in his letter James encourages us to pray for the sick. I think praying for one's physical needs is part of a healthy relationship with God, if it's tempered with the understanding that God will provide what He knows is best even if that doesn't meet our expectations of what we only think is best.
But this train of thought does lead me to wonder, why do you argue, as you do here, that we should have a smaller military and rely on God's strength if His intervention on our behalf is, at best, a rarity?
I believe that God's relationship with ancient Israel was unique, but let's skip that for now. If, as you believe, Christ was only or largely speaking "poetically" about God's providential care, how can rely on Him for military protection?
It seems to me that a pacifist who suggests we should rely on God and then argues against God's frequent providential care is undercutting his own argument for pacifism.
I have enjoyed reading this stream. Since you have invited comments on your posting, Dan, I thought I'd offer this as my first comment to a blog ever. Yep, I'm a newbie. Here goes.
I believe the Bible is at least a collection of human interpretation of what folks felt God was doing in their midst. Sometimes they reflect the nature of God, sometimes they don't – but the folks that collected and selected them felt they revealed something about how God interacts with humanity and creation.
I think “scripture” is the authoritative texts of a faith system. The Bible is the authoritative text of Christian faith. I don't think “authoritative” means inerrant, infallible, without flaw, etc. I think “authoritative” means more like something that is an “accepted, sound” way of understanding God's interactions with creation. More specifically I think the Bible tells how God wants us to relate to others, to creation and to God. I believe that the best way to understand these relationships is through the teachings of Jesus.
Why? Not because the Bible tells me to, but because the teachings of Jesus are true to evidence I value in my personal experience. I am convinced I am a qualitatively better person for having committed myself to the teachings of Jesus found in the Bible. Could I be wrong? I guess, so. But that's where my faith steps in, I think. Doctrines of heaven or hell no longer are persuasive motivators for my decision to follow the teachings of Jesus compared to the changes I have experienced in my life for having done so.
I agree, Dan, with your sentiments expressed in points 3, 4, & 5 in the original post. My experience of God, God's Word, Truth with a capital T, have mostly been found in the context of Christian expressions of faith and the Bible. But not exclusively. I agree that God is too big to be boxed in. The stories of faith found in the Bible were chosen for specific reasons by those who collected them. I have much to learn from those stories, but that doesn't mean God works only through the Bible. In some way the Bible, interpreted through the teachings of Jesus, for me, is a touchstone to help me understand how I am to relate to others, creation and God.
My use of Jesus' teachings as the primary key for figuring out how to live my life is helpful in dealing with “yuckiness” found elsewhere in Scripture. I believe Jesus does not want me to kill children, rape, commit genocide, etc. I believe Jesus wants me to do whatever I can to promote justice and peace. That seems to me to be the best practical non-literal reinterpretation of the Sermon on the Mount.
For what it's worth....
Hey, this is not just any Roger, but my very good friend and church brother Roger. Glad to have you speaking up - and for the first time.
Thanks for the thoughts. I suppose it's not surprising that we're in the same ballpark.
Comment anytime you want.
For what it's worth, I do agree that God reveals Himself in much more than the Bible. The Bible itself concedes as much, in both John and Romans, but the fact that God reveals Himself in the Bible and creation and the human conscience doesn't address whether the Bible's inerrant and uniquely authoritative. There is nothing inconsistent in believing that the Bible is God's inerrant and uniquely authoritative revelation while rejecting the notion that it is God's only revelation: in no uncertain terms do I affirm that God communicates in innumerable ways, but I simply believe that He intends us to test all possible messages from Him against the Bible.
What I do find inconsistent, however, is affirming the teachings of Jesus in the abstract while downplaying or denying the clear meaning of some of His teachings.
Roger, I hope you don't find your first foray into blog commenting too combative, but I don't see how a person who submits to the teachings of Jesus would even consider seeing the Bible as "a collection of human interpretation of what folks felt God was doing" and reject inerrancy when Jesus Christ clearly affirmed the authority of Scripture to the smallest pen-stroke. When Jesus cited Scripture, He said, "It is written," as if it that is the final word on the subject, not as if it were some merely human work, but as if every passage was revealed by God Himself.
And, I hope I'm not to understand that you downplay the doctrine of Heaven and Hell, because that's one doctrine that Jesus taught repeatedly and emphatically.
Promoting justice and peace is noble, but I would argue that it isn't the core of Jesus' teachings, and it most certainly isn't the entirety of His teachings. Even the Sermon on the Mount has very strong implicit claims about who that Teacher is, affirming His authority as teacher, Christ, Lord, Savior, Judge, Son of God, and God Himself.
I believe that, important as peace and justice are, to reduce His teachings to the promotion of those goals, either exclusively or even primarily, is to miss entirely the reason why He came.
This brings me back to Dan and what I intend to be my last comment in this thread, leaving the final word to him.
Dan, a person can easily claim that he follows the teachings of Jesus, but if he downplays Jesus' clear teachings about things like Scripture and our eternal destiny, the claim loses its credibility.
Likewise, a person can easily claim that all he's doing is reinterpreting passages of the Bible, rather than undermining the authority of those passages. But what if he refuses to explain that reinterpretation? What if, all the while insisting he doesn't intend to discard those passages, he appeals to a passage where he claims Jesus taught us that we could "ignore" some other passage? What if the only interpretation he offers is that the passage was inserted by wicked men trying to justify an atrocity by deceitfully attributing it to God, and he never retracts that interpretation that quite clearly undermines the authority of that passage? And what if, when pressed for the details of his reinterpretation, he hides behind the lame excuse that, because Jesus didn't always explain Himself, he didn't need to, either?
After doing all that, the man's original claim loses all credibility.
Dan, almost everything else you've written on this subject belies your denial that you're discarding passages of Scripture. If after all our lengthy discussions, that still doesn't bother you, I can say nothing to stir your conscience, but I will reiterate one last time that this inconsistency is obvious.
And I will repeat one more time that, being the person who holds the Bible in the highest esteem and who takes its Truths quite literally, that no where in its pages does it ask me to do the things that YOU are asking me to do.
I submit myself to the Lordship of Christ. But no where does Jesus ask me to take the Bible's teachings as "inerrant" - that is a human tradition.
I'll hold God's Word as without error, but God's Word extends beyond the Bible. I'll affirm the scriptures are useful for teaching and correction - because that is biblical. I won't hold that I need to affirm that when the Bible records God commanding folk to kill children, that that means that God sometimes commands killing children.
That is NOT biblical. You are asking me to obey you and your view of the Bible over and against what the Bible says, and I won't do it.
I'm a literalist, that way.
I agree with you, Bubba, that we should test all possible messages from God against the Bible. I also believe we should, as Christians, test other parts of the Bible against the teachings of Jesus.
That is not to say that other parts of the Bible are not instructive about God or at least our human understanding of God. That is not to say the various presentations of Jesus in the Bible are totally cohesive. All of it is helpful to me in understanding of the historical context of the Bible and informs me of what it is God wants me or doesn't want me to do with my life.
I believe that the practical teachings of the Sermon on the Mount urge me to live my life working for peace and justice and humility in my relationships with God and others. I believe this is a clear and central teaching of Jesus found in the Sermon.
Yes, there are “implicit claims about who that Teacher is, affirming His authority as teacher, Christ, Lord, Savior, Judge, Son of God, and God Himself” in the Sermon. You are right. But I think if someone wants to believe a certain list of claims about Jesus, that's okay. If someone else doesn't quite have the same list, that's okay, too.
Is it more important for me to believe a particular list of claims about Jesus, or to do what Jesus said I should do?
In his conclusion of the Sermon Jesus says, “Anyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house upon a rock....” I know they are not (and should not be) mutually exclusive, but for me, doing the things Jesus taught is preferable to believing claims about him.
That would go for the heaven and hell parts of Jesus' teachings a well. If I'm being humbly obedient to what Jesus says, the heaven/hell question should sort itself out after I pass on. If not, my faith was in vain, but I will still have lived a qualitatively better life following the teachings of Jesus than if I'd chosen another path. I don't hear Jesus requiring me to promote a certain interpretation about heaven or hell. I hear Jesus requiring that I work for peace and justice.
Bubba you wrote, “When Jesus cited Scripture, He said, 'It is written,' as if it that is the final word on the subject, not as if it were some merely human work, but as if every passage was revealed by God Himself.”
If I'm not mistaken, earlier you suggested that this phrase was used to identify written scripture and the phrase, “You have heard that it was said,” was used to identify an oral tradition familiar to Jesus' hearers. You have made some very detailed arguments, so I offer my apologies if I've botched the details.
I'd like to suggest two possible different interpretations here.
One is that instead of differentiating between degrees of authority of the teaching that was to follow, these phrases were used to identify the sources of what he was going to use. If this is true, interpreting the passage to imply that it is the final word revealed by God Himself would be adding meaning that may not be there.
I don't have as much problem with the “revealed by God” part, though as I do with the “final word” part.
Which brings me to my second suggestion. Jesus seems to give a different "final word" in the in the Sermon on the Mount.
Just before he begins to use the “you have heard that it was said to the people long ago,” Jesus says, “Do not think I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20)
At this point in the Sermon Jesus begins to reinterpret parts of the law and the oral tradition to present his teachings on justice and peace. I don't think Jesus is suggesting that what is written is the final word.
I believe Jesus is saying that the reason the righteousness of the Pharisees needed to be surpassed was their neglect of peace and justice. I think that the focus of every teaching that follows in the Sermon either talks about peace and justice or what it is that keeps us from doing peace and justice.
That's not to say there aren't important elements of justice and peace in the law and the prophets. There are. I'm not throwing them out. But I believe humble obedience to Jesus' teachings about all of us living in peace and justice with each other is a more important component in entering the kingdom of heaven than affirming inerrancy or infallibility to any part of the Bible.
For what its' worth....
The big divide doesn't seem to be, as it often appears on the surface, between those who believe the Bible and those who don't, but between those who attempt to have a "flat Bible" hermeneutic in which everything is claimed to have equal and non-contradictory authority (and, thus, Jesus is allowed to say nothing new and must be squeezed into a mold made by a certain reading of the OT apart from Jesus) and those of us, including Dan, Roger, and myself, who believe that Jesus is the final authority and the hermeneutical key to Scripture (see Heb. 1:1). All else is to be interpreted or reinterpreted and given various levels of authority based on Jesus. And, as I have said in previous debates between Dan and Bubba, the attempt to separate the teachings of Jesus to those about him made by the NT writers is a failure--a non-starter. The higher one's Christology the more one should be careful to obey Jesus' teachings--since they are not the teaching of just any 1st C. Rabbi but of the WORD Made Flesh.
Roger,
From one Roger to another (this is confusing - so I'll post on here in the future as Roger_TQ)...
you said>I believe the Bible is at least a collection of human interpretation of what folks felt God was doing in their midst.
Who is teaching that given that we have 2 Peter 1:20?
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
you said:>I believe Jesus is saying that the reason the righteousness of the Pharisees needed to be surpassed
The context of the scripture is that we must surpass the pharisees righteousness "to be saved." So it follows that the pharisees were smart and religious - BUT LOST! Their righteousness was an external one (which is why Jesus could call them white-washed tombs!) - done in their own strength. We need God's righteousness to be saved - and that comes when the Holy Spirit inhabits the believer. Jesus said "without me, you can do nothing."
There is absolutely no way we can earn salvation. The only way we'll enter into the kingdom of Heaven is by God's righteousness - and not our own. There is nothing in the Bible about self righteousness or the works of men leading to salvation. Salvation is "in Christ" alone.
Don't strive to do in the flesh what can't be done. Yield your "self" to the Holy Spirit's leading - as He wants to do for us what we can't do on our own. His yoke is easy.
Pray for Him to take the lead in your life as you surrender "self" today. Any other road is a dead end.
At some point in our christian walk we need to move beyond the cross and into life. Seems to me that some would have us tarry at the cross far too long.
Thanks, Dan, for showing me, in your simple way, how to move forward and live as a follower of Jesus.
>At some point in our christian walk we need to move beyond the cross and into life.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
There is no life without the cross. When we realize we can't do anything on our own, we yield our self will and let the Holy Spirit come in and empower us and enable us to live the Christian life. When we are weak, then we are strong (in Christ).
>Seems to me that some would have us tarry at the cross far too long.
Jesus said:
Matthew 10:38
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mark 8:34
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mark 10:21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Luke 9:23
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Note - it's not about following Jesus - but following Him by taking up our cross. That is self sacrifice. That doesn't mean we sacrifice our time, money, etc. It means we sacrifice 'self' - we deny 'self'.
Roger TQ, your posts would have more validity if Marty or anyone had said anything about rejecting the cross. But what Marty said was move beyond the cross, not merely stop and ponder the cross but, as Jesus said, "Take up your cross AND FOLLOW ME."
I don't think anyone here is denigrating the cross. We Christians here are probably all in agreement that the cross is a starting point (and an ending point!) but that we are not merely to contemplate the cross but to follow in Jesus' steps, as Peter writes.
Peter goes on to say, "He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness." That is what (I'm sure) Marty and others here are talking about.
Greetings, fellow Roger!
You offered two interesting responses to my comment. One seemed to be about the nature of prophecy and the other about the nature of salvation. You seem very sincere in what you were proposing and I agree with much of it. I feel I need to offer my apologies. I'm new at this and perhaps confused you unintentionally.
When I said I believe the Bible is at least a collection of human interpretation of what folks felt God was doing in their midst, I was saying that though I believe the Bible to be more than this, it is at least this. I think you grabbed on to my use of “interpretation” since it's the same word used in the NIV rendering of 2 Peter 1:20.
I think we agree that the Bible is scripture. I think we agree the scriptures contain prophecy. I think we agree that true prophecy is the result of God addressing a situation using a man or woman to make clear either God's concerns or God's promises or God's judgement about the behavior being addressed. I believe true prophecy is the result of God working within the prophet to see the true nature of the situation and the prophet having the gumption to do something about it.
I do not think true prophecy occurs outside the prompting of God. My belief is more like what it says in the next verse, 2 Peter 1:21, For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Sorry for the confusion. And I guess I was unintentionally saying or implying something about the nature of salvation as well.
Let me try to be clear about that. For me salvation is only possible through God's mercy. But if I want to participate in it I've got to be obedient to the teachings of Jesus. I've got to be living out my salvation by what I do.
I found it interesting that the context for 2 Peter 1:20 seems to be a conversation assuring the readers that they should be confident in their efforts to live lives of goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love (verses 5-7) because by doing these things the believer will be kept from being “ineffective and unproductive” in truly knowing Jesus (verse 8). The believers are assured that the eyewitness accounts they'd been told about Jesus were credible (verses 16-18) and further that the prophets were worth their attention (verse 19). Then comes verse 20 which you quoted.
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
I believe that the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the prophets are concerned with how I humbly interact with God, others and creation in justice and peace.
That is why I believe Jesus is saying in the Sermon on the Mount that the reason the righteousness of the Pharisees needed to be surpassed is their inattention to these core expressions of faith. Justice and peace are the themes echoed from Isaiah in the Beatitudes in the beginning of the Sermon, they are the key ingredients in the rest of the Sermon, and their implementation determines whether one is a wise or foolish builder in the conclusion of the Sermon.
Again, let me be clear. I don't believe doing acts of justice or peace save me. I believe that if I want to participate fully in my salvation I need to be obedient to Jesus' clear teachings – not just say I believe them, but show I believe them by my relationships with God, others and creation. Otherwise, I feel I am “ineffective and unproductive” as it says in 2 Peter in my efforts to know Jesus.
God has already saved me. I just want to know Jesus better.
Dan,
Note - it's not about following Jesus - but following Him by taking up our cross. That is self sacrifice. That doesn't mean we sacrifice our time, money, etc. It means we sacrifice 'self' - we deny 'self'.
Following Jesus and dying to self are synonymous.
It's very possible to try to follow Jesus without ever dying to self. That road leads to Hell, and many are deceived. See why it's important to stress the internals over the externals?
We've talked about this many times before ...
It's impossible to be saved and not accept God's word.
It's impossible to love God and not love His word.
If we love 'our understanding of' God's word, then 'self' has not died at the cross of Christ.
This discussion has been moved to the top of the blog, if you'd like to continue it up there.
as to your comment Roger TQ ("it's not about following Jesus - but following Him by taking up our cross."), I'll repeat what I already said,
But what Marty said was move beyond the cross, not merely stop and ponder the cross but, as Jesus said, "Take up your cross AND FOLLOW ME."
We are saying the same thing, at least on that point. Don't create a disagreement where none exists, please.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger
>But if I want to participate in it I've got to be obedient to the teachings of Jesus. I've got to be living out my salvation by what I do.
That's impossible to do in our own strength. Obedience is only the result of God doing His will in you and through you, and you have nothing to do with it other than yielding to Him. Hence a big red flag flies up for everyone to see when the debate of scripture is about how there are certain things that cannot be true, and how we must determine how to interpret those 'troublesome' parts. Self is still ruling in that person's life.
Any lost person can try to be a follower of Jesus' teachings - and it amounts to nothing. Instead the goal is to be followers of Jesus - as He comes into the inhabit the believer and changes them from the inside out, prompting them, and teaching them the truth. Remember, they're called fruits of 'The Spirit' and NOT fruits of the believer.
>I just want to know Jesus better.
How do you do that? As the saying goes, holiness is not the path to Jesus. Jesus is the path to holiness. We don't follow Jesus' teachings, we follow Jesus! For when we lay down our self will, the Holy Spirit comes in to indwell the believer - empowering them and enabling them to live the Christian life. It's not us doing anything but yielding. It's the power of God working in and through the believer.
The life of the believer is 'In Christ' and not in His teachings. Please hear me, that's not a knock at the teachings one bit! It's just to clarify that in our own strength, we can do nothing.
It's all about in whose strength the works are being done.
As 2 Peter 1:3-4 says:
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
This is about HIS DIVINE POWER that he's GIVEN US. Yes we participate, but look what we participate in: HIS DIVINE NATURE. The HOLY SPIRIT inhabits the believer and empowers and enables.
This is not about us doing our 'part' - for if that were the case we could boast. All glory goes to God for the salvation and sanctification of the believer.
Christianity is about Christ and not us. It's not about what 'we' need to do to follow Him or what 'we' need to do to be more like him. That puts the focus on externals and keeps the focus on us - which leads to death. It's a matter of the heart, it's internal, and the focus is on the Spirit within - which leads to life.
Dan,
As I've said before, until you yield your heart to the word of God, you'll have no peace, no fruits of the Spirit, and most importantly: NO LIFE.
The door is still open, it's open until the day we die. Don't keep fighting this losing battle. Self = death. Let God take the lead.
Isn't this a fun little loopy world we got happening here?
RTQ, I think I have noted this before to you, but you DO know that sometimes our conversations feel a bit like folk yelling to be heard at a rock concert... I say something, and then you respond back with something that just doesn't really seem to match what I just said.
I (and others) said, "RTK, we agree that we are saved by grace, not by works. There is no disagreement on that point."
And you respond back by offering a preachy-bitchy-sounding comment like, "As I've said before, until you yield your heart to the word of God, you'll have no peace, no fruits of the Spirit..."
What does your comment have to do with me saying that I agree with you? What am I missing here? Do you understand how unusual that response sounds?
Or are you identifying yourself as one of Those who Know Others' Hearts better than they do?
RTQ,
I'm going to respond to your last comment on the stream at the top of the blog page. See you there!
Post a Comment