My pal, Roger - a friend from church - had some good commentary at the end of our last long dicussion about how we read the Bible and, since it was there at the tail end, I thought I'd stoke the fire and post it here for consideration.
The gist of the point for the faithful folk from my church and in our tradition is that we take the Bible literally enough that we don't accept the additional teachings some are attempting to tie to Christianity. They may sometimes be reasonable additions, but our point here has just been that some are asking us to believe things that the Bible doesn't ask us to believe, and we are hesitant to do so. We're literalists, in that regard.
And, I suppose an additional point for us is that, just because we don't interpret the Bible the same way as others do sometimes, does NOT mean that we reject the Bible, reject God's authority or anything like that. There's a difference between having a difference of opinion on interpretation and rejection of God's Word.
It would seem to be rejecting God's Word only if you conflate your take on the Bible with God's Word. Poor idea, that.
Roger's comments:
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....
=====
And that commentary was followed by my equally beloved church brother, Michael's comments, who said:
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.
=====
By the way, be sure to go to Michael's blog and scroll down to some of his series on The Creation - which touches very much on some of these same interpretive issues.
129 comments:
There is no point trying to argue anything with a man who will write that whole passages of the Bible should be ignored, and who then denounces the contrary position -- the position that the entire Bible is authoritative -- by saying, bizarrely, that that position "is NOT biblical".
There is no point arguing with a man who speculates that the Bible has been corrupted by wicked men who tried to justify atrocities by attributing them to God, and who then proclaims himself to be "the person who holds the Bible in the highest esteem".
There is no point arguing with a man who repeatedly undermines the authority of the Bible and then tries to position himself as the one who takes the Bible more seriously and more literally.
I'd love to say that this has been fun, Dan, but it hasn't. It is, in fact, deeply disturbing to see you lie so frequently without any apparent shame, and without a word from members of your own congregation.
Your lying appears to be pathalogical, and I'm not doing either of us any good by treating you as someone I can reason with.
Take care, Dan. Sincerely, I wish you the best, but I have serious concerns about the spiritual well-being of someone who can lie about matters of such eternal importance, and do so with such frequency.
Tis a shame you feel that way Bubba. I think there's plenty of reason to discuss these important biblical issues with those we disagree with.
The point would be that we both love the Bible. I've never said anything to the contrary because it would not be true. The point would be that we both think the Bible is a critical tool for learning of God. I've never said anything to the contrary.
I've not said that whole sections of the Bible should be ignored. That would be your interpretation of what I've said, but not what I've said. You are free to believe that if you wish. But to say that I have written this is just not matching evidence in the real world.
It is your interpretation. And that, to me, seems to be a problem for any of us as we read the Bible or reason with others - we tend to think that what we think, IS. You THINK I reject the Bible (despite my never having said that), therefore, that is reality for you.
The problem with this, of course, is we are fallible. Unfortunately, Bubba (Dan, et al) is entirely capable of being wrong. There is incontrovertible evidence right here in your statement that I have written something that I have never written.
Just because Bubba (or Dan, etc) thinks something, does not necessarily make it true. Whether in studying the bible (I think the World was created in six days and anyone who rejects that rejects all of God's Word!) or just in having conversations ("I think you're lying, therefore you ARE lying!")
Unfortunately, we can't THINK things into reality. Or perhaps that's fortunate.
But peace to you, brother Bubba.
Bubba writes, "a man who will write that whole passages of the Bible should be ignored..."
Dan writes, "I've not said that whole sections of the Bible should be ignored. "
Well clearly someone's lying, eh? I've been reading here for a while, yet I haven't seen Dan write anything remotely like that, and it actually seems quite contrary to what I've seen him write, so either I've missed something, or someone is lying.
Fortunately this is simple enough to figure out. I'm wondering, can you Bubba (or anyone else) please provide a *direct quote* in which Dan has written that "whole passages of the Bible should be ignored?" Period. Just a quote. Very simple, eh?
Just to be abundantly clear since some folks do so love to twist things: I want to see a *direct quote* from Dan using the words "whole passages" (or a list of specific passages of Scripture would be fine) and the word "ignored" or any common synonyms (take no notice of, close your eyes to, pay no heed to, disregard, not take into account, overlook, discount, dispense with, turn your back on, flout, snub, pass over, look through.) A citation (ie. place where we can actually go read this ourselves) would also be appreciated.
RTQ,
In your response to my last post on the "Thy Word" stream suggested that being obedient to the teachings of Jesus and living out our salvation by what we do is 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.”
I tend to agree with this. I hope I didn't suggest otherwise. Being obedient to Jesus' teachings about peace and justice are incredibly difficult. Without the help of the Spirit of God I doubt I could do what I do.
When I wrote that I just want to know Jesus better, you asked “How do you do that?” I believe that the metaphor of a conversation is helpful to describe this. Jesus, through the witness of the Gospels, says, “Roger, you need to work for peace and justice. Check out my teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.”
I can say, “Nope. I'm not interested in what you have to say,” and do whatever I want with my time, my job, my Sunday mornings, my money, my efforts, etc. If I respond to Jesus this way I believe I will not have the opportunity to know him better.
I can say, “Okay, I'll try. Please help me make the best choices I can as I try to be obedient,” and then prayerfully try to do what's clear and prayerfully try to figure out what's not. If I respond to Jesus this way I believe I will participate in the kind of abundant life Jesus wants me to experience. I will know Jesus better.
Easy? No. Requiring the grace of God and strength of the Spirit? Absolutely!
In order to follow Jesus and participate in the “divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires” described in 2 Peter 1:3-4, I believe I need to do what Jesus asks me to do. If I do otherwise, I am living in my own strength, and we know how futile that is.
You wrote, “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.”
I am a little puzzled. I believe I can only participate in what Jesus offers by choosing to participate. Once I do, the “Spirit within” directs me to live according to the teachings of Jesus. I can choose to do so or not. If I do follow what Jesus says, I believe I will have a qualitatively better life than if I don't.
I still feel puzzled as though what I'm saying doesn't address a concern you feel passionately about here. Can you clarify it a bit more for me?
Alan,
Dan doesn't believe that he does this (to be more specific, to deny the authority of scripture:Here, here, or here), we are trying to point out to him that this is what he is 'in effect' doing. It'll take his friends and those on the outside of his Bible study group to share with him the errors that he has concluded are correct. Our intentions are pure. We are not the enemy here. Take what we're saying and test it against scripture. No one is above error, and to point out error isn't condemning someone to hell. Faithful are the wounds of a friend. This issue is of critical importance.
For example, read this:
Jesus or an Idol
As Michael pointed out earlier, the word became flesh. If we alter the word, we end up with a different Jesus - an idol, that we (ourselves) have made, and not the True God as He really is.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. God's word tells us about ourselves, and who God is. If we aren't yielded to the truths therein (including the troublesome and messy truths!) - we'll have an incorrect view of ourselves, our spiritual state, and the nature of God. In a nutshell, this way that we conclude 'that seems' right to us is in reality a way to death and hell ... unless we repent and say, "God, Your will be done, not mine. This is Your word, not mine. I am not the final authority, You and Your word are."
Roger TQ:
I wasn't asking whether or not Dan believes he has or has not written "that whole passages of the Bible should be ignored". I was asking if he had actually written that, as a few people continually charge. Did he write that or did he not? These are not difficult questions.
So your answer, Roger TQ, is no, you cannot provide such a quote. Thanks for the clarification. I'll be interested to see if anyone else can.
“Beyond the cross is a tomb that is empty, you won’t find Him there anymore. And beyond the tomb is life everlasting, and Hope forever more.”
--Mosie Lister
It is my experience and observation that if we tarry too long at the cross, we become myopic and obsessed with judgement. Judgment of ourselves and judgement of others.
"You won't find Him there anymore."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger,
I am puzzled by your comments. So we're even! ;)
Do you know Jesus? Are you in Christ? Today, do you have assurance of your salvation? - for God's word says we can know.
I want to do a post and then remove it, too.
But I won't.
RTQ, take that sort of proselytizing away, thank you. We practice a different sort of evangelism here in Payne Hollow.
The topic is the Bible, how we read it, how we interpret it. Along those lines. Satisfy yourself to talk about the Bible, what it says and what WE say (what we actually say - don't grace us with your interpretations of what you think we mean, thank you... and if you DO, be sure to state that "This is my hunch, my best guess, as to what X means." Be clear about it. Wouldn't want you to break any commandments whilst visiting these fair shores.)
And thanks, Alan, Marty and Roger, for your very astute biblical and reality analysis. Yes, Alan, you would think if they claim "Dan said X, Y and Z" that it'd be a simple matter to support that.
IF Dan said that.
And thank YOU Roger TQ, for being open enough to let us know that you mean, "we are trying to point out to him that this is what he is 'in effect' doing."
IN EFFECT, and not only that, but it is YOUR interpretation that I am IN EFFECT saying that. NOT that I am actually saying that.
It's at least a step towards reality-based conversations.
Dan,
Roger asked me what was puzzling me. My honest reply is what you read above. Let Roger answer if he wants to.
There is nothing wrong with my question.
Roger WILL answer it if he wants to. And he will say, "Yes, I have been saved by God's Grace through faith in Christ. So, yes, I DO have assurance of God's willingness and desire to work out my salvation." or something pretty similar.
As we ALL answer, for the most part.
And there ARE at least a couple of problems with that line of questioning.
1. I've asked you not to practice that brand of evangelism here.
2. That sort of evangelism - with which I'm VERY familiar (graduated with honors from the Evangelism Explosion, CCC, Romans Road and several other "witnessing" programs) - cheapens Christ's grace and teachings, reducing it to 4-100 simple hoops to jump through in order to be saved.
At least that's my well-informed take on it and, that being the case, I've asked you not to do so here. You may have forgotten and that's okay. I'm reminding you now.
Hey Dan,
I tend to be more of a metaphor kind of guy. After all, all language is metaphor to some extent, right?
Can you give a quick synopsis of the "we take the Bible literally" argument? Perhaps the "expiated version?"
Thanks!
Roger TQ
I've tried to be clear. I'm sorry you find my comments puzzling.
You ask, “Do you know Jesus? Are you in Christ? Today, do you have assurance of your salvation? - for God's word says we can know.”
I reply, “Yes, I know Jesus. I'm not sure I know what you mean by “in Christ,” but if it's along the lines of am I trying to submit every aspect of who I am to what Jesus teaches me to do, then, yes. And yes, today and for the past 35 years and two months (to the day) I've been assured of God's saving grace.”
Why do you ask?
Please clarify for me the connection between your questions above and our conversation about following Jesus' clear teachings to work for peace and justice. I thought I said I am not saved by my obedience, but by God's grace. I thought I said I work for peace and justice so as to fully participate in the abundant life Jesus offers.
What am I not saying that will alleviate the confusion?
I think Roger TQ's worry is that all talk of following Jesus sounds to him like what Paul calls "works righteousness." That's a very evangelical (or Lutheran) concern. I have known Lutheran's who were so worried about this that they refused any talk of sanctification except as "getting used to one's justification!" A bit extreme and one can point to other passages in Luther--just as one can point to places, like Rom. 12, where Paul quotes or paraphrases Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount.
By contrast, Roger Thomas and Dan Trabue (good friends), seem to worry that any talk of justification, salvation, being "in Christ," etc., which does not immediately move to discussion of how to follow Jesus concretely (translating His teachings, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, for our lives today) falls into the danger Jesus warned about of saying "Lord, Lord" but refusing to obey--of being like the foolish sand-building folk who hear Jesus' words but "do them not." Or, like the Apostle James, worry about "hearers of the Word" who are not also doers. These are very Anabaptist concerns--and of Franciscans and one strand of Wesleyan Methodists and of one strand of classic Liberal Protestantism. Dan even seems to think, sometimes, that doctrinal concerns--even when found in the NT--are secondary and optional.
My own view is that these are false dichotomies, false choices that distort. Jesus, and the NT writers, did not separate doctrine and ethics, faith and following. Jesus taught us the Way to participate in the Rule (or Kingdom--my pastor, whatever her other good qualities, annoyingly insists on translating this as Realm, even though it is not a place!) of God--but connects that participation to Himself. The NT writers give increasingly exalted titles to Jesus, devote over half of the Gospels to the Passion Story (the Cross and Resurrection), and describe the salvation that Jesus brings in cosmic terms--but always return to what it means concretely to follow Jesus AS Lord.
No, RTQ, it is not done under our own power--but nor is it an optional add on, nor restricted to prayer and Bible study and praise songs, nor to evangelism.
Unlike Dan, I have no objections to witnessing--I only kicked you off my site because you refused to believe me when I said I already WAS "saved by grace." But I believe that bearing witness to Christ is done as much by the behavior of Christians as by our words.
Roger asked:
"Can you give a quick synopsis of the "we take the Bible literally" argument?"
From whose perspective? I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but I'll take a stab at it...
Anyone feel free to correct me:
1. No one takes the Bible literally literally, and no one claims to. Even the strictest inerrantists gladly acknowledge the reality of parables, hyperbole, historical stories that aren't intended to be taken as literally applicable to us today (or ever, in some cases).
2. Inerrantists, like pacifists, might include a wide swath of beliefs, but in my experience, they typically believe the Bible is without error. Any directly stated points indicating "God said" or "God did" MUST perforce be a perfect reflection of God.
3. That means that, with passages like the one where God commands Israel to kill this one from 1 Samuel 15:
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel... 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."
Or this one:
They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man........Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Must be taken to mean that God did, indeed, command Israel to kill children and take virgin girls they found pleasing to be their wives. Just as it literally says.
4. Now, most inerrantists, I believe, would affirm that God would not likely do that anymore - some would go so far as to say that God would absolutely not - but that God certainly did do just as it says there.
For starters. What Michael referred to as a Flat Bible hermeneutic.
Is that what you were asking about?
Another point that I believe most of the inerrantists that I run in to here would affirm:
5. Because the whole Bible is God's Word, then Jesus endorses every teaching in the whole Bible. So, Jesus' teachings aren't limited to just what he said, but also what the OT says.
6. What that seems to mean, is that, for instance
a. OT teaches "man shall not lay with man" which means
b. That gay marriage is wrong, which means
c. That Jesus thinks gay marriage is wrong, therefore,
d. Those that say gay marriage is okay are rejecting Jesus' teachings
The problem with this, from my point of view, is that I reject NOT A SINGLE TEACHING from Jesus. What I reject is someone's guess as to what Jesus would teach.
As Alan has thoughtfully pointed out already, all someone has to do is point out where I have rejected Jesus' teachings and they can help me straighten out. But no one will do that because there is no direct teaching of Jesus that I reject.
From where I am sitting, many of the inerrantists who visit these parts think that because I disagree with their interpretation on a scripture (that God DID command people to kill babies or that gay marriage is wrong), that means that I reject the authority of the Bible or doubt God's Word.
Of course, neither is true, but they seem pretty convinced of it. And so, as a result of that, since I insist that I love the Bible and absolutely accept the authority of God's Word, that means to many of them that I am either deluded or lying. And most seem to vote for the lying angle.
Roger asks:>Why do you ask?
One of the apparent schemes of the Devil these days is to get the church to not fully appreciate God's word. The Devil knows where the power resides. A church in form but not in power is no threat to him at all (and of no use to God!). There is an unseen spiritual war going on all around us. The weapons of our warfare are not in the flesh, but spiritual. Religion and externals are useless. Only believers empowered by the Holy Spirit, wielding the sword of God's word can turn the tide. God's word is alive and active. It is powerful. It sets people free.
I'm tired of seeing the Devil's lies take root in people's hearts and in congregations and in pulpits across this land. Churches are teaching the powerless externals of man pleasing religion instead of the transforming truths of the whole counsel of God's word. The results are lost people filling the pews. Churches are filling up with people who are lacking the only thing they really need - faith in God's word. The result is unregenerate church congregations, a Spirit-less body of people; people who believe they are saved but in reality are deceived. I want to help people not only know what they believe, but also WHO they believe! (see 1 John 5) I also want us to stop apologizing for God's word and instead stand on it in faith and see what God will do. I don't want us to be ashamed of God and His word.
ps - Roger: Lookup 'in Christ' on www.biblegateway.com - see how often it is used in scripture. It refers to the born-again, regenerate believer (made alive by the indwelling Holy Spirit). Why is that important? All sin will be judged, either in our body or in Christ on the cross. Rom 6:23 says the wages of sin is death. We'll either die in our sin or be alive 'in Christ' who has already paid for sin and died on the cross for us and rose again - offering His life to us as a gift! That's awesome!
Dan,
I didn't mean to irritate you or come across wrong. My motive for coming on here is sincere and pure. I just want to share God's liberating truths that He has given us in His word. There is nothing as disheartening to men as religion - an impossible, never-ending list of things to do to please God. It leaves us unsatisfied, unsure, and in the same position as when we started. I wanted to share the truth that there is freedom, joy, and abundant life 'in Jesus Christ!'
All things are possible with God. There is no sin too great. He can heal our life and take our mess and turn it into His message for His glory. No matter who you are or where you've been. God can transform you and give you your heart's desires - those things that you dreamed of as a child that now you feel have no chance of becoming a reality. God can do it! He loves us all a lot.
I want to smash the lies that would keep a precious soul from coming to and experiencing the God that loves them that much. Religion keeps us from that too often. Only a personal relationship with our Heavenly Father will do. We can get so discouraged by the lies - we need to be reminded of who God is and what a loving, powerful, and kind God we serve.
I want to smash the lies that would keep a precious soul from coming to and experiencing the God that loves them that much.
Uh-huh. Well, do it in the context of our discussion, please.
Dan, I will pray for you. Your "love" of the Word seems to want to be hiding under the bushel this morning. It should always be in season with His children.
Dan wrote, "Yes, Alan, you would think if they claim "Dan said X, Y and Z" that it'd be a simple matter to support that."
Yeah, you'd think, eh? I mean, if they're clever enough to be able to use their computers to leave a comment on a blog, you'd think they'd have figured out how to cut and paste by now.
mom2 wrote, "Dan, I will pray for you. Your "love" of the Word seems to want to be hiding under the bushel this morning. It should always be in season with His children."
Hmm... Apparently a whole blog post and 6 lengthy comments from Dan specifically about Scripture is considered "hiding" one's love of the Word.
Sheesh. Tough crowd. Glad mom2 is here to share "her" "concern" and "her" "prayers"!
I'll take all the prayers I can get. If that's the worst she does to me, then she's a good friend.
RTQ said:
There is nothing as disheartening to men as religion - an impossible, never-ending list of things to do to please God.
A hearty Amen! to that.
One of the reasons that Bubba failed to mention for not continuing a debate with you is the frustration in dealing with someone like yourself who is so intellectually inconsistent.
For example, you base your beliefs concerning homosexual marriage on the gospel writers and their inerrancy; if they didn't write it, Jesus didn't teach it. Yet you reject the teachings of other NT authors concerning homosexuality being a sin because, well, they aren't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You pick and chose which writers you believe according to that which fits your ideological template, not from some objective standard. You'll say 'if Jesus didn't teach it then I don't believe it' and yet the only record we have of what he taught are from men who are just like the one's who's teachings you reject.
So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
twelvetonted, could you provide a direct quote in which Dan states, "if Jesus didn't teach it then I don't believe it"? I must have missed it somewhere.
Just a quote ... simple enough to do, just cut and paste it in a comment, preferably with a link so we can go read it ourselves as well.
Thanks!
Thanks again, Alan. You're on the ball.
Welcome by anytime to Payne Hollow, TwelveTon. Thankfully, I'm not especially worried about being spat out of your mouth. My faith is in my savior Jesus.
If you'd like to discuss what I've actually said, feel free to chat. We may still disagree, but we'll be disagreeing on real positions, at least.
As to this:
You pick and chose which writers you believe according to that which fits your ideological template...
You may have missed this, but I was fully opposed to gay marriage and any "normalization" of homosexuality. Being raised a traditional Southern Baptist, it was deeply engrained in my being that homosexuality is wrong. Period.
Fortunately, bless those Southern Baptists, they taught me to take the Bible quite seriously and, when I seriously and prayerfully began studying the Bible on the topic (and I was sure homosexuality was condemned in the bible front to back and had zero intention or desire to change my opinion), I was quite astounded at the lack of biblical support for this belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality.
So, no. It is demonstrably not the case that I've "picked and chosen which writers to believe according to my ideological template," but rather, have had to adopt my ideology to conform with God's Word. I know it's safer to assume that those who disagree with you are doing so because they have an agenda, but, again, this is demonstrably not always the case.
You need to look no further than my position on gay marriage.
Now, I don't want the topic to wander off to gay marriage, I was just correcting your misperception, thank you. The topic is: How do we interpret/read the Bible.
And on that front, I agree with you in theory, TwelveTon, we certainly ought not merely find biblical support for that which we already believe, but instead, we ought to be transformed by God ("do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." -Paul, whose writings I dig).
So, I agree with your point, it's just that you're off when you assume I am doing that which you say. Thanks for the concern, though.
You have proven my point. You disregard the authors that decry homosexuality as a sin simply because, well, you want to. Same for many of the other topics in the Bible. You give credence to some and not to others according to whether they fit your ideological template, not from some objective standard. This is intellectual inconsistency, and until you realize it you can't be taken seriously.
I don't want to misunderstand you, twelvetonted, but does your lack of response to my question mean you cannot, in fact, provide such a direct quote in which Dan states, "if Jesus didn't teach it then I don't believe it"? I don't want to make an assumption, perhaps you just haven't had time to post the quote yet.
Hate to sound like a broken record here, but I'm just curious.
Amazing that, given how often people accuse Dan of saying this or that, no one seems to be able and/or willing to provide actual evidence to back up their claims. I suppose they could argue they don't have time, but frankly, if they've got the time to type out a comment, then surely they have time to hit [ctrl]-C and [ctrl]-V and paste an actual quote from Dan, right?
If I were to say, for example, "Dan says that he has have had to adopted his ideology to conform with God's Word", I could provide a direct quote in which he says just that, i.e.: Dan wrote, "It is demonstrably not the case that I've 'picked and chosen which writers to believe according to my ideological template,' but rather, have had to adopt my ideology to conform with God's Word." All I did was cut-n-paste, and it took me less than 2 seconds.
These really aren't difficult questions that I'm asking. In my opinion, it seems like asking for a actual evidence is a completely reasonable request, and it seems to me that providing such evidence in the form of a quote in order to support one's claims is a pretty reasonable and easy thing to do.
You disregard the authors that decry homosexuality as a sin simply because, well, you want to.
hmmm... I don't think this to be the case. Feel free to show me where I've "disregarded the authors that decry homosexuality" - but I don't think I've disregarded ANY biblical authors. Feel free to show me where I have.
Now, it is true that I don't think that any biblical authors have called homosexuality a sin, but that came out of HIGH regard for the authors.
For one thing, "homosexuality" is not present in the Bible. Although there is a word translated "soft," "effeminate" or "homosexual offenders" that appears one or twice in all 66 books, but I question the translation. I do so, though, exactly because I have high regard for God's Word and would not want to make up stuff that isn't there.
So, to the topic at hand, how do we handle words that are translated from an ancient language when learned translators are not sure of the meaning? It would be my suggestion that one can have an honest disagreement about this question without any parts involved being dismissive of biblical authors.
So, I would have to say that I don't quite get how what I said "proved your point." Your original point was that I reject some biblical authors. Where did I say that?
Alan, "has have had..."?
Of course, I can't mock, I said "adopt" instead of "adapt..."
Well, I cut-n-pasted, and didn't properly modify the verbs -- which just goes to show how easy it is to cut-n-paste a direct quote from Dan! :)
Of course you question the translation, it doesn't fit your template and you've proven my point once again. If something doesn't fit your template you'll question it and grab onto any evidence, no matter how slight, that will allow you fit it into your system.
On the other hand, if something does fit into your template and you're presented with evidence, no matter how slight, to the contrary you'll ignore it out of hand. I hate to repeat myself but it's intellectual inconsistency.
This comment has been removed by the author.
But the only example I offered here was where my "template" was opposition to gay marriage/homosexuality and that template changed totally around only AFTER I read the Bible. So, how is that intellectual inconsistency?
And at this point, since you're not responding to Alan, I think we can only assume that the answer is, No, you can't provide a single quote or instance to support your accusation - is that correct?
And if so (that is, if you have made an accusation against a brother in Christ that you can't support), does that mean an apology is in the offing? Or, at least a backing away from your position?
(Sorry for all the deleted comment chum ... one of those days, apparently.)
So does that mean the answer is no, twelvetonted, you cannot, in fact, provide such a direct quote in which Dan states, "if Jesus didn't teach it then I don't believe it"?
I mean, really, if you can type all those words, a simple "No" would suffice. Seems only polite not to ignore people. :)
twelvetonted wrote, "If something doesn't fit your template you'll question it and grab onto any evidence, no matter how slight, that will allow you fit it into your system."
That's a very odd argument to make, given how easily it can cut both ways. That is, one could propose that you've done precisely the same thing: latched onto a particular interpretation of the Bible regarding homosexuality, for example, simply because that particular interpretation already coincides with your preexisting beliefs, stereotypes, prejudices, "template" or whatever word you'd like to use. I'm not saying that's the case, just politely asking if you can provide evidence that it isn't the case.
Now Dan has stated that just the opposite was the case for him. That is, he's provided an example of embracing an interpretation that went against his prior beliefs, and then changing his beliefs because of that interpretation.
So can you provide clear evidence that you're not simply embracing your interpretation because it coincides with your preexisting beliefs, stereotypes or prejudices? In other words, are you reading what you want to read in the Bible because you already believe you're correct, and can you provide evidence of that?
(BTW, you'll notice that I provided a quote of your words by cutting and pasting your real words. See the model, people? Took me less than a second to do it too.) :)
Perhaps you're being intentionally obtuse or attempting to change the subject, but my point obviously had nothing to do with your changing templates but rather with the standard of proof you require in order for a teaching to fit into whichever template you happen to espouse. You're inconsistent in the standards you apply to that which you agree with and that which you don't, it's quite obvious.
I read a post by Alan where he spoke of his "husband". I read about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 and all it speaks of is a wife and her husband or vise versa. It would be helpful for us who have trouble with the homosexual lifestyle and marriage if Alan will give us the Bible reference that he bases his thoughts upon.
???
On topic, Roger, here is a bit of criteria on how at least some inerrantists read the Bible...
Axioms of Translation:
1-- God cannot lie
2-- The truth of one statement cannot negate the truth of another statement
3-- If the truths of two or more verses appear to be contradictory, the verses must be viewed as possessing dissimilar contexts
Perhaps twelvetonted is not able to see my comments? Perhaps it's a browser issue, they look just fine on my Mac, running the Safari. Am I invisible? :) Dan and Roger TQ, and mom2 seem to be able to read my comments.
mom2: You're welcome to comment on any of my posts over at my blog...that's simple netiquette. I welcome any commenter as long as they're not anonymous, they remain on topic, are polite, and they have a thick skin. But I'm not going to hijack Dan's comment thread, particularly for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, simply to respond to one of your patented drive-bys. And, quite frankly, since y'all seem incapable of answering even the simplest questions from me (ie. to simply cut and paste some quotes to justify your points) it isn't clear to me why I'd bother answering your "questions". :)
I don't think Alan needs to answer any questions until others here answer some questions, or own up to misrepresenting others' position. The topic, need I remind you, is how do we read/interpret the Bible?
To address the topic, as it's apparent my simple questions are going to go unanswered....
I'd say that my views on interpreting the Bible are pretty orthodox (it's not for nothing that I graduated from *Calvin* College, after all.)
As an orthodox, Reformed Protestant, I interpret the Bible using the traditional Reformed Protestant views of Scripture:
1) The whole Bible is authoritative and infallible owing to the nature of the God who inspired it, not to some magical nature of the Bible. [Infallible, but not inerrant. Historically, inerrancy has never been a doctrine of Reformed Protestants.]
2) It is important to understand the languages in which the Scriptures were originally written, and
3) It is important to understand the genre in which the Scriptures were originally written, and
4) It is important to understand the context in which the Scriptures were originally written, because
5) The Bible cannot mean something to us that it could not mean to the original hearers. [Thus, we're not dispensationalists.]
6) Use Scripture to interpret Scripture.
7) Apparent inconsistencies are likely the result of not following Steps 1-5 somewhere along the line
8) The authority of Scripture comes from God, not the Church, doctrines, traditions, or the private interpretations of human beings [Because we take the doctrine of Total Depravity seriously.]
9) Only Scripture contains the knowledge of God sufficient to salvation [Special Revelation vs. general revelation]
10) From the Westminster Confession: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
11) And finally, a lesson I've learned from teaching: It's OK to say, "I don't know." Sometimes I just have no idea what the Bible is talking about. [2 Kings 2:23-24, in which Elisha has 42 children mauled by bears because they make fun of his baldness would be an excellent example of a story I. Just. Don't. Get.]
I guess all that would fall into the realm of a "flat hermeneutic." However, having said that, Jesus clearly knew what he was talking about. ;) So, I'd certainly take his interpretation of the OT over what I think it appears to say. In places where they seem to contradict, I suspect its because I don't understand the either the context or language or intent of the OT verse, or all 3. However, I also understand that one needs to take that approach very carefully because it assumes that one can understand Jesus's words better than the words of the OT. I can't think of any reason why that would necessarily be true. (It could also be the case that I'm misunderstanding BOTH Jesus and the OT verses to which he's referring!)
Wow! I've been injected into this by proxy!
Being a Dispensationalist as well, I hereby amend #3 as follows...
3--If the truths of two or more verses appear to be contradictory, the verses must be viewed as possessing dissimilar contexts and/or dissimilar dispensations
Roger TQ,
When I asked, “Why do you ask?” I meant what was it about our conversation about Jesus' central teachings about peace and justice that would make you think I haven't been set free by God's word?
What did I say that suggested I lack faith in God's word?
Or that I am apologizing for God's word?
Or that I'm ashamed of Jesus or his teachings?
Or that the Holy Spirit doesn't dwell within me?
What did I say that suggested I am not aware of the wages of sin?
I thought we were talking about something else, so it concerns me if I said or implied that any of these things were true about me. Please be assured they are not.
I'm really curious about how you made the jump from Jesus' teachings about peace and justice to this topic. What happened?
I've a few questions for you TwelveTonTed. And I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, so please bear with me.
What if Dan isn't lying?
What if he really, truly, deeply believed homosexuality was condemned by the Bible?
What if he diligently studied the Bible and found no Biblical basis for that belief?
What if Dan loves the Bible so much that he changed his position on whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality.
What difference does that make for you in your “Christian walk” (I have to admit I'm a bit intimidated and want to be careful not describe it in a way that might evoke a meaning for others that is different than what I mean – hopefully, I'll get over that soon).
It seems Dan's interpretation of the Bible's teachings is very upsetting. If this is true, why is it upsetting to you?
TwelveTonTed, said about Dan, "You give credence to some and not to others according to whether they fit your ideological template, not from some objective standard," referring to Biblical authors.
Dan, don't let me put words in you mouth, but would you say you have an objective standard in the teachings of Jesus?
Do you agree with Michael's assessment that you (and I) use Jesus as the key for interpreting scripture?
I think that's a fair description of how I interpret scripture. If there's a conflict, I trust the teachings of Jesus as my first objective standard of Biblical interpretation.
Why would this approach not work? For me "the proof is in the pudding" as they say, but I'd like to hear what others think.
Whew! You guys are way over my head. All this heumenutics (sp?) or homelitics (sp?)historical-critical...literal or pitiful... full-figured, flat, round, or sideways..it's all giving me a headache.
I just open the Bible and read it. Period. I don't labor over it and worry whether my "interpretation" is in line with this or that. The Bible says to me what it says to me. I figure it does the same to other folks. They get what they get out of it and I get what I get out of it. Maybe in all of that we learn a bit here and there from each other.
If someone tells me they love Jesus, I don't dissect, analyze, or proselytize.
How do you guys even enjoy reading it?
Lord have mercy, I think I'll go take an Advil.
I just wanted you to know that I found your blog today, and I am thrilled that you started it! I am also a liberal Christian, and it is often difficult to find like-minded people online. Incidentally, I am a PhD student in Rural Sociology, and I am studying agrarianism and homesteading (in its various forms). I am not sure that you are a homesteader, but a lot of what you talk about on this blog is definitely communitarian and agrarian in orientation. I will keep on reading.....
Welcome to Payne Hollow, Shauna.
And yes, I tend to lean communitarian, I reckon. I have lived in a community-situation before. Several of my church pals just purchased a farm a few minutes away and the idea is very much a part of regular discussions in my faith community.
Come by anytime.
And a very eloquent rebuke, Miss Marty. Hope your headache's better.
I'd like to clarify my position in response to something Michael said earlier.
Dan even seems to think, sometimes, that doctrinal concerns--even when found in the NT--are secondary and optional.
And I think that's in the ballpark of what I believe, although I rather agree with Michael's false dichotomy point, too.
I think, for instance, that Mary being a virgin or the Triune nature of God are legitimate, reasonable points to glean from the Bible (although, the Trinity is an extrabiblical explanation of God as we find God in the Bible). I have no problems with these beliefs and believe they're legitimate responses to the teachings of the Bible.
I've just run across those who increase the importance of these beliefs to the level of being an "essential" to the Christian faith. In other words, to be saved, you need faith in Christ, who saves us by God's grace, to repent of our sins and submit to the lordship of Jesus (basic Christian teachings) AND you need to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, that gay marriage is wrong, etc, etc, etc.
In other words, some increase the number of hoops they'd have you jump through in order to be saved. That is what I disagree with. They'd ADD TO God's grace a checklist of points you need to agree with and I reject that.
And honestly, these others don't really believe it if you press them enough on the point. They'll agree that it is God's grace that saves us.
BUT, they say... and it always comes back to "If you don't agree with these list of items, then you're probably not saved."
That's what I've been reacting to. I'm actually a pretty orthodox guy.
Roger:
You asked why I answered the way I did in my last post to you. I was addressing the bigger picture. I felt compelled to share with you what God has put on my heart over the last couple of years of meditation on this topic.
To further clarify:
Many churches are apparently not worshiping God in Spirit and Truth.
God is healing people and some churches are rejoicing and praising God over it.
Other churches are reacting with displeasure, discomfort, or silence.
So, I now ask: What happened?
What has come between some churches and God so that they are not with Him but against Him in something so fundamental as Spiritual healing?
This demonstrates the danger of incorrect Biblical interpretation as the result might not just be 2 different interpretations but 2 different Gods! The Devil certainly knows this and is trying to deceive as many people as he can. Scripture says God's nature is not divided. (Mark 3:20-30; Matt 12:22-32; Luke 11:14-23)
Now to answer your other questions.
I'll use the context of my example to hopefully clarify.
A person is healed.
1) That person has been set free. If you can't rejoice in their healing, you have not been set free by the truth. You are believing a lie.
2) The healing harmonizes with God's word. If you refuse to acknowledge that, you don't have faith in God's word. You have faith in something else MORE than God's word.
3) I am not ashamed of God's healing. Are you?
4) Jesus said in Luke 11:14-23, Mark 3:20-30, and Matt 12:22-32 that if we weren't with Him, we were against Him. "Anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" - ie that means they are not saved (have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them). The Holy Spirit does not WORK against Himself.
5) God heals for a reason. It's to heal us from the effects of sin. If you deny the healing, you are denying the sin, and the effects thereof.
Please prayerfully consider what I'm saying here. I want what I'm saying to open eyes to the truth. Hear my heart - I do not want to anger or make anyone feel uncomfortable. That's not God's heart either. He wants to heal, not destroy. I believe God has me here saying this for a reason.
My headache is all better Dan. Thanks. It's amazing what a good night's sleep will do.
You know, I've jumped through so many hoops in my christian walk, but all it does is get my sciatic nerve fired up. I totally understand what you are talking about. I prefer to rest in God's grace, certain that he knows my heart and is able to keep me in his care.
Dan,
I don't see Mary's virginity when Jesus was conceived to be in the same ballpark as the Trinity when it comes to essential doctrines. The Trinity isn't directly taught in the NT--it's a later conclusion based on the NT--and based on the encounter of Christians with the Risen Christ and the Holy Spirit while trying to retain monotheism.
But the Triune nature of God is the foundation for "God is love." God knows the giving and receiving of love in God's Self--before Creation. God did not Create to fulfill a lack, nor to learn to love. A monadic view of God (as with Unitarianism) is severely deficient at this point.
Now, I will distinguish 2 views of "essential doctrine." By calling the Trinity "essential," I am NOT saying that one must be a Trinitarian before one can have saving faith and become a disciple. But it is essential for the health of the church universal that the Trinity be carefully taught and defended. I would not, for instance, vote to ordain anyone who denied the Trinity--they would not be ready to guide Christians as a pastor should.
Roger TQ said earlier:
Churches are filling up with people who are lacking the only thing they really need - faith in God's word. The result is unregenerate church congregations, a Spirit-less body of people; people who believe they are saved but in reality are deceived.
This may be the case, RTQ, I couldn't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that this is not the case at Jeff Street. We have faith in the one thing we need - God (from whom God's Word springs). I'm sure that is what you meant, but, given what you said, perhaps we should be concerned that you're placing your faith in a bible instead of God?
I'm sure you didn't mean that, though. So, let me reassure you, our faith is in God, not in works. We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, who came showing us the Way. We are committed to walking in that Way - following in Jesus' steps, as Peter suggests we should do - by God's grace.
Thanks for your concern.
Mom2, as to your concern that I'm not showing proper love of God's Word, I'll note that 5 of the last 10 posts have been about or at least quoted the Bible. An additional two of those seven dealt with faith-issues (my son's baptism and a posting of us singing a hymn). So, seven out of ten of my last posts were faith-based and biblical.
Not a bad record for a blog that isn't especially focusing on Bible study. How do you reckon Elashley's, Mark's or name-your-favorite conservative blog compare?
Do you reckon I should post biblical thoughts more often than 7/10 of the time?
Roger TQ, you said
"God is healing people and some churches are rejoicing and praising God over it. Other churches are reacting with displeasure, discomfort, or silence."
There are many kinds of healing. Physical healing from cancer, for example. Emotional healing from the traumas of one's past. Spiritual healing from not being willing to accept that Jesus wants us to live an abundant life by following him. What did I say to make you think I (or my church) wouldn't rejoice at any one of these or other kinds of healing done by God?
I am confused why what I said about Jesus' teachings about peace and justice suggested to you that I would not rejoice when God heals someone? Close friends and family have experienced God's healing (spiritual and other wise), as have I, and I've always been grateful to God for that healing grace.
You seem genuinely concerned that I am indifferent to God healing others and I just don't get why you would feel that way from what I said. Is it because you disagree with what I said? Do you think we have to be in agreement on every aspect of Biblical interpretation and if we don't we are in danger of the 2 different interpretations = 2 different Gods scenario?
Anyway, one of the points I was making originally was that I believe the teachings of Jesus (a great healer, by the way) and especially those found in the Sermon on the Mount are my primary guide for interpreting the rest of the Bible. I think churches do when they consider what Jesus said as well. Is this different from how you interpret the Bible? What is your primary guide?
Have our commenters lost interest or are they just busy (understandable, that)?
Roger:
I am genuinely concerned.
Not only is God doing amazing things by healing people of depression, drug addictions, porn and sex addictions, and cutting (just to name a few) - but He is also healing people of homosexuality and bisexuality.
God is transforming people and they are discovering a kind of love that is stronger than any physical love they had ever known.
That's the love of God.
He loves to heal our lives.
Can you and your church rejoice and praise God over His healing of people from homosexuality and bisexuality?
If not, then what has come between you and your church and God so that they are not with Him but against Him in something so fundamental as Spiritual healing?
The spiritual ramifications are catastrophic and deadly.
A person is healed.
1) That person has been set free. If you can't rejoice in their healing, you have not been set free by the truth. You are believing a lie.
2) The healing harmonizes with God's word. If you refuse to acknowledge that, you don't have faith in God's word. You have faith in something else MORE than God's word.
3) I am not ashamed of God's healing. Are you?
4) Jesus said in Luke 11:14-23, Mark 3:20-30, and Matt 12:22-32 that if we weren't with Him, we were against Him. "Anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" - ie that means they are not saved (have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them). The Holy Spirit does not WORK against Himself.
5) God heals for a reason. It's to heal us from the effects of sin. If you deny the healing, you are denying the sin, and the effects thereof.
You asked about my primary guide. God's word is my primary guide. It holds the key. The deadly spiritual fallout enumerated above can ONLY be discovered by humbly accepting God's word. Then the Truth sets us free from the deception and lies.
Can you and your church rejoice and praise God over His healing of people from homosexuality and bisexuality?
But RogerTQ, as you know, we disagree with you on this particular issue. We don't think the Bible teaches homosexuality as sin.
So, we don't think there is anything from which to be healed.
We do rejoice in God's making folk more whole whenever that happens, and our church is VERY MUCH about being God's hands in that regards - we offer a healing place for women escaping from abuse, a safe place for our homeless and mentally ill friends.
But we disagree with you that people need "healing" from being a homosexual. Anymore than you need "healing" for being heterosexual (making that assumption). But you know that.
RTQ, Roger asked,
I believe the teachings of Jesus (a great healer, by the way) and especially those found in the Sermon on the Mount are my primary guide for interpreting the rest of the Bible. I think churches do when they consider what Jesus said as well. Is this different from how you interpret the Bible?
You answered:
You asked about my primary guide. God's word is my primary guide. It holds the key.
And we all agree, God's word is our guide. But Roger's specific comment and question to you was:
We interpret the whole of the Bible through Jesus' teachings. Is this different than how you interpret the Bible?
I was wondering the same thing.
I'm wondering how RTQ deals with these passages regarding Jonathan and David:
1 Samuel 18:1,3
"And it came to pass, when he (David) had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul... And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."
And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David.
Then there's:
1 Samuel 20:30
"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"
In the same conversation Saul says:
1 Samuel 20:31
"Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!"
Didn't kings need to have heirs??
2 Samuel 1:26
Then after Jonathan's death David said:
"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
And then there's Ruth and Naomi, but I think I've stirred the pot enough.
So how might these passages be interpreted? They seem pretty clear to me without any interpretation at all.
Yeah, let's stick to just how we interpret the Bible, as opposed to specifics of this or that issue.
Roger TQ
Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. I thought we were talking about Jesus' teachings of peace and justice in the Sermon on the Mount and how I believe Jesus to be the primary key for interpreting the rest of the Bible. I wasn't on the homosexuality wave-length.
I do humbly accept God's word, most importantly the teachings of Jesus (God's Word become flesh), and do not find homosexual orientation something to be healed from in either the teachings of Jesus or the rest of the Bible.
That's not to say homosexuals (and heterosexuals) don't need spiritual healing. Every person does, but the healing is not from the orientation given them by their Creator. We need to be healed from the sickness of spirit that prevent us from participating fully in the abundant life Christ offers.
I would humbly suggest the possibility that those in your experience being healed "from homosexuality" are not being healed from their orientation but from certain choices and behaviors (perhaps promiscuity, for example) that indeed prevent one from participating fully in Christ's abundant life.
I don't want to assume this is true – you know your friends better than I – but please consider the possibility that part of the reason one wouldn't participate fully in Christ is because one isn't living true to the sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) God gifted them with at birth.
Let me say that I (and I'd bet my church, too) would indeed rejoice at any kind of spiritual healing that brings one closer to what God created us to be. I suspect, though, we probably interpret the Bible differently at this point as to what that is when it comes to homosexuality.
I would humbly suggest the possibility that those in your experience being healed "from homosexuality" are not being healed from their orientation but from certain choices and behaviors (perhaps promiscuity, for example) that indeed prevent one from participating fully in Christ's abundant life. (by Roger)
I happen to know Roger TQ and I would not want anyone to think from your statement that Roger TQ is talking about a personal healing from homosexuality. I remember reading a post that he had here concerning Dennis Journigen and his deliverance from the lifestyle and instead of rejoicing from Dan, it appeared that he was displeased with the post. I believe that Dennis is happily married and has 9 children. He is blessed with great musical talent and gives a glorious testimony to the power of God. That is something that we Christians should rejoice about.
Hi, mom2!
Thanks for your clarification. Allow me to make a clarification of my own.
I believe "deliverance from the lifestyle" choices one makes is not the same to me as the concept of "healing from homosexuality."
Biblical witness is full of folks who make sinful lifestyle choices and are confronted with the judgment/mercy of God.
I believe repenting from our sinful ways is not the same as rejecting the orientation with which our Creator blessed us.
I believe we should rejoice as do those in "heaven over one who repents." I happen to know Dan and I would not want anyone to think he was disappointed that someone repented from sin.
I rather think he was disappointed in the idea that some think of God's gift of sexual orientation as a sinful behavior from which one must repent. Dan, if I'm misrepresenting your feelings of disappointment, I apologize.
Roger, I appreciate your reply, but cannot agree with you. I have not seen anything in the scriptures indicating that God made homosexuals. He created male and female and blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Two males nor two females are able to fulfill that command. Man was not to lie with a man as with a woman and if you or Dan will supply the scripture to support the homosexual relationship, I would appreciate it.
You know, Mom2, the command to fulfill and replenish the earth was given to the animals (whom we are threatening with extinction at a greater rate than any time since the age of dinosaurs) and to humanity as a whole. Surely, you don't think it is the duty of EVERY human to reproduce, do you? That would mean that all celibates are sinning as well as those who simply never find a mate. Childless couples would be sinning, too. And gay and lesbian couples CAN adopt and therefore know the joys and traumas of childrearing--and with all the orphans we have we certainly need more adoption, no?
Also, in every species of animal that mates for life there is a small fraction that form same-sex matings. Obviously it would be counterproductive for a species if this was anywhere close to a majority, but as a tiny fraction, it is harmless. And the animals are not fallen as humans are so their sexual orientation (if we can use such a term for something as instinct driven as animal sexuality) must just be part of nature--and, thus, part of God's intention.
I bring in animal sexuality because the opposite argument is often made: that people are the only animals who have "homosexuality" and that it is a violation of natural law. The evidence of nature suggests the opposite.
And the animals are not fallen as humans are so their sexual orientation (if we can use such a term for something as instinct driven as animal sexuality) must just be part of nature--and, thus, part of God's intention.> (Michael's statement)
Are you blaming God for man's fallen nature? Maybe I am not understanding you there, but it sounds like an admission by you that some sexual orientations may be sinful. Jesus came to redeem us from our sins, but He also said things like "Go and sin no more". We will not reach sinless state in this world, but we are to strive to become more like Christ.
mom2 said:
...and if you or Dan will supply the scripture to support the homosexual relationship, I would appreciate it.
We believe the Bible teaches marriage as the healthy way of living in a committed relationships, as you do, too (and you're familiar with those verses). We just want the same blessing for our gay brothers and sisters.
Dan's intellectual inconsistency rears it's ugly head again.
There's much scriptual evidence that decry's the practice of homosexuality that Dan dismisses with a wave of his hand, or perhaps with some reference to a single word that he chooses to interpret differently.
On the other hand, there's not a grain of evidence condoning the practice yet he believes it to be an acceptable christian lifestyle. Huh?
Your beliefs are built upon a foundation of irrationality; if one looks for any consistency in them one only finds they are consistent with a political point of view, not a scriptual one.
TTT, the topic is how we interpret the scripture. You have yet to answer questions, exposing your claims to be mistruths.
And yet, here you are, irrationally making more claims that are unsupported by reality. If you can't talk and reason like a responsible and considerate adult, take your blasphemy elsewhere.
I'm not making 'more claims', you can plainly see that my claim has been the same in each post I've made, you're intellectually inconsistent.
I made three statements in my last post.
First, you don't believe that scripture supports homosexuality as being a sin.
Second, you believe homosexuality is compatible with a Christian lifestyle.
Third, that the standard of evidence you apply to each of those beliefs is inconsistent.
Now, please tell me which of those statements is detached from reality or irrational?
I'll answer any questions you may have once you own up to the fact that you measure your scriptural beliefs against your political philosophy to determine what you believe in or not.
We just want the same blessing for our gay brothers and sisters.
6:22 AM (statement by Dan)
That pretty well sums up the way that we can condone a lot of sin. We just want.
Okay, Ted, prayerfully and carefully consider the actual words that I am writing right now.
1. The topic of this post is on how we interpret the Bible.
2. You came on to this post NOT commenting on the actual post but instead, accusing me of "intellectual inconsistency."
3. You followed the accusation up with this comment:
You pick and chose which writers you believe according to that which fits your ideological template, not from some objective standard.
4. I responded by pointing out that you were mistaken. And since you brought up the gay issue, I used that as a reference. You accused me of picking and choosing according to my ideological template. In the case of gay marriage, you are absolutely and 100% incorrect on that accusation. In fact, I told you, my ideological template was the opposite of the conclusion I came to AFTER studying the Bible. My criteria for change was what the Bible had to say, not my "template." In short, you were flat wrong and made a baseless accusation, offering zero support.
5. Instead of saying, "okay, sorry. On THAT topic, you didn't do that, but on others you have..." or something to that effect, you wondered if I were "obtuse or attempting to change the subject."
cont'd:
6. What we have asked you repeatedly is for you to stick to the subject (interpreting the Bible). You have not done so. You have instead attacked and slandered your brothers in Christ. And why have you done so? Because you and I disagree on a particular biblical interpretation.
7. Since "gay marriage" is unaddressed in the Bible, we have to acknowledge that and recognize that we each have studied the Bible (I'm giving you the assumption that you have, I know I have), and come to different conclusions on a topic that is not directly addressed in the Bible.
8. However, "slander," "bearing false witness," and failing to correct a brother in love ARE directly addressed in the Bible.
9. What that means is that, because we disagree on a biblical interpretation that is not spelled out biblically, you are violating a clear and direct biblical injunction - one found throughout the Bible.
10. Aside from the poor witness that is, you have been a poor conversation partner. You have offered not a single comment about how we interpret the Bible, which is the topic at hand. Instead you have insisted on repeated assaults on others' character.
11. When I HAVE tried to grab on to a comment that you made that was at least a little about the topic ("on that front, I agree with you in theory, TwelveTon, we certainly ought not merely find biblical support for that which we already believe, but instead, we ought to be transformed by God"), agreeing with you, you did not stay on the topic, nor did you support your baseless claims with actual proof, nor apologize for your misrepresentation of my position. Instead, you have remained on the attack.
Given all that, Ted, how should I respond with a brother who insists on misrepresenting others' positions, slandering their name, and rudely not taking part in the conversation but instead, just offering attack after attack? What does the Bible say I should do?
and mom2, what I said for Ted goes for you. You have not addressed the topic - you rarely do - instead choosing to slander and misrepresent.
Perhaps Ted's a youngster who doesn't know better, but you, ma'am, are one who has been around for a while and should know better.
Shame on you.
Twelvetonted wrote: "I'll answer any questions you may have..."
Um ... no, you won't. Clearly, you won't. I've asked several questions of you and other commenters, all of which were on topic, and all of which have gone unanswered.
Dan, I wonder what I am supposed to be ashamed about. I agree with the Bible. I know that I do sin and I also try to examine my heart, my motives and my actions and I do say I'm sorry to God and my fellow man. Is my problem that I don't agree with you? I'm sorry if you expect me to, because it will not happen on the subject of homosexuality.
Being intellectually consistent is essential in interpreting the Bible and getting out of it what God intended. I just assumed you understood that, my mistake. So my comments have always been on topic.
I make the claim that you use a political template upon which you base your biblical interpretations and as a counter arguement you tell me that in the past you changed templates. That's not proof that you don't use a template, that's just proof that you can change templates when you want to. My claim still stands as unrefuted and therefore no apology is required.
All that is necessary to prove me wrong is a simple statement explaining the objective standard against which you interpret all scripture. Of course, you may not have one, and that's kind of my point.
I hope Alan doesn't feel too neglected, carrying on a conversation with one person in a blog is difficult enough, trying to do it with two is neigh impossible while still maintaining conciseness and not getting off topic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"I hope Alan doesn't feel too neglected, carrying on a conversation with one person in a blog is difficult enough, trying to do it with two is neigh impossible while still maintaining conciseness and not getting off topic."
Strange, no one else here seems to have a problem keeping up with multiple comments from multiple commenters. In fact, I can't think of ever reading any blog anywhere on which multiple commenters have such a difficulty. Perhaps you really are that incapable of answering simple questions. Frankly it sounds like just another lame excuse to me, but I'll take you at your word that you're not able to follow more than one comment at a time. Though I'm not sure why I would believe this excuse now, when you've provided no evidence to back up your other claims so far either. At this point, your credibility is thin, at best.
If you're capable of writing those 38 words I've copied above, one would think you'd have time to answer my question with just a simple cut-and-paste of a quote that would substantiate your claims.
"My claim still stands as unrefuted and therefore no apology is required."
No, your claims still stand as unsubstantiated, there's a difference. :)
"All that is necessary to prove me wrong is a simple statement explaining the objective standard against which you interpret all scripture."
Talk about intellectual inconsistency! You are either unwilling or, as you claim, unable to provide a simple direct quote in which Dan states, "if Jesus didn't teach it then I don't believe it" and yet you demand such evidence from others, in order to defend themselves from your baseless accusations? Wow.
"All that is necessary to prove me wrong is a simple statement explaining the objective standard against which you interpret all scripture"
I am amazed really, I am. If Dan has said it once, he's said it seventy times seven that the standard he uses to interpret scripture is Jesus Christ.
Are we reading the same blog posts?
Thanks, Alan and Marty.
Ted said:
I make the claim that you use a political template upon which you base your biblical interpretations and as a counter arguement you tell me that in the past you changed templates.
No, you made the unsubstantiated claim that I use political templates. Then you offered as "proof" that I do this, my position on gay marriage. I disproved your example by the facts (ie, I didn't base my position on my "template" but upon the Bible).
Do you understand that thus far?
As to being intellectually dishonest, I'll have to claim that I don't know what you mean. Your one example has already been cast aside as a false example. You've offered nothing else except the claim.
All that is necessary to prove me wrong is a simple statement explaining the objective standard against which you interpret all scripture.
My simple statement has already been offered (by Roger, here, but by me elsewhere.) I'll repeat:
I interpret all scripture through the teachings of Jesus.
I interpret the individual passage through the whole of biblical testimony.
I interpret all scripture prayerfully seeking guidance.
I interpret all scripture, as we all do, using our God-given reasoning ability.
Am I wrong in my approach, in your mind?
And you? How do you interpret the Bible objectively?
I interpret all scripture through the teachings of Jesus.
Really? So when Jesus quotes the prophets and states that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it, and the law clearly states that homosexual behavior is a sin, you'll agree with that?
I interpret the individual passage through the whole of biblical testimony.
No you don't. You interpret gay marriage as being ok yet the whole of scripture is clearly against that behavior. You'll also dismiss passages that describe, in your view, atrocities, despite the fact that they are clearly in line with scripture as Bubba, and numerous other scholars, has pointed out over and over again.
I interpret all scripture prayerfully seeking guidance.
Good on ya.
I interpret all scripture, as we all do, using our God-given reasoning ability.
Fine, just as long as you don't reason away whole swaths of it to the dust bin.
mom2 said:
I wonder what I am supposed to be ashamed about. I agree with the Bible.
As do I and my pals here. Or rather, we all agree with the Bible as we best understand its teachings. The difference appears to be, if I or anyone else disagrees with YOUR interpretation/understanding, THEN YOU suggest that we don't agree with God.
We don't suggest that you are sinning, or lying, or anything like that when we disagree with you. Instead, we think you are wrong.
That's all I ask of others. By all means, disagree with me. Tell me you think I'm wrong and spend some time defending why you think that's the case.
BUT don't assume that because I disagree with you that I'm trying to justify sin or that I don't love the Bible or that I'm not a Christian or that I don't care what God says or because I'm trying to fit the Bible around my agenda. As you all have typically said.
I can easily be wrong (as is true for all of us) and often am. BUT I am not wrong out of anything but being mistaken. My goal is to walk in Jesus' steps and follow his teachings. Period. If I'm wrong, it is because I've honestly tried to read what the Bible says and have, in my human skin, failed to understand God completely.
Fortunately, God does not ask that we understand God completely or perfectly. Otherwise, we'd all be screwed, yes?
Do you understand that difference between how we treat you and how you and your friends treat us?
And once again, Ted would like more answers but is unwilling to provide any himself.
Is this a conversation for you, Ted, or just a rant? If you're just mindlessly ranting, that's fine. I'll know then that you're not interested in conversing and suggest you go somewhere else to rant.
If you'd like a conversation, that would be sweet, too.
To get back to the topic *sigh*, WAAAY back up there Roger wrote: "I think that's a fair description of how I interpret scripture. If there's a conflict, I trust the teachings of Jesus as my first objective standard of Biblical interpretation. Why would this approach not work?"
As I understand it, this is a classically Baptist way of interpreting the Bible. The question I've always had about that principle is this: Why do we think we can understand the teachings of Jesus any better than anything else in the Bible? (Certainly there are several of his parables that are quite difficult to understand.)
For example, let's say we're confused about OT Scripture A. And let's say that Jesus addresses that Scripture in, say, the Sermon on the Mount. If we use Jesus to interpret OT Scripture A for us, to clarify our confusion, aren't we assuming that we can understand His words better somehow than the words we read in the OT? On what basis is that assumption made?
I'm not attacking that formula; it isn't that different from the classical Reformed formula of "let Scripture interpret Scripture". It seems to be just a more specific application of that principle.
Surely Jesus knew what He was talking about, after all He was the Word made flesh. But that doesn't mean we're necessarily any closer to understanding His words than the words of any other Biblical author.
Roger:
Thanks for the reply.
It sounds like you have made up your mind. I sure hope not.
We are free to choose, but we're not free to choose the consequences of our choices. That's why I posted those ramifications of your choice so you could see how catastrophic and deadly it is. God revealed those to me as I was writing a reply the other night. (Trust me - I'm not smart enough on my own to come up with such profound stuff regarding scripture and the Spirit.) All that started coming to me as I looked at the questions you had asked - so I quickly wrote it down. After I read it, I was blown away.
I believe with all my heart that's why you're reading and why I'm on here writing this. I've been conversing with Dan and Michael off and on for over a year. I know where they stand on this issue and I know where your church stands. My heart is grieved over this deception that has taken hold. Even the testimonies of TRANSFORMED lives (by God!) are not fazing you.
Consider this a wake up call - a warning - an urgent message. God IS SPELLING IT OUT FOR YOU - that the difference between what you believe and what I believe is not just "a disagreement" on alternative lifestyles and Biblical interpretation. It's the difference between truth and a lie, blessings and curses, life and death. IT IS THAT SERIOUS!
Pray for God to open your eyes and then re-read those passages in the Gospels where Jesus specifically addresses the issue of healing:
Matt. 12:22-32
Mark 3:20-30
Luke 11:14-23
These points in there are closely knit:
1) God does not work against Himself. If He transforms one person, that is His will. Therefore, the behavior that He delivers one person from (for example, Dennis Jernigan) is His will to do for others as well.
2) God is working good against evil. He is not arbitrarily doing these things.
3) If we are not for Him, we're against Him.
4) The Holy Spirit testifies to the spirit of the born-again believer of the Truth of who He is.
That's why Jesus can say, "But Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven Him, either in this age or in the one to come."
If you want to know what I believe just read bubba, he's pretty much on the same page as I.
But, just as I thought, when confronted with the reality that you don't have a standard that you stick to, you demur.
????!!!
How many times must I show you a standard for you to understand that I have a standard, fella?
And, as of yet, we don't know that you have any standard at all.
I ask you again, what does the Bible say we should do with folk like you (slanderers, those who bear false witness, who seem to only want to stir up trouble as opposed to have conversations/disagreements in love)?
Help me out, Ted. What should I do with a fella like that?
Consider this a wake up call - a warning - an urgent message. God IS SPELLING IT OUT FOR YOU
Speaking for God, now, are we RTQ?
I know where your church stands. My heart is grieved over this deception that has taken hold. Even the testimonies of TRANSFORMED lives (by God!) are not fazing you.
RTQ, what if we are aware of TRANSFORMED lives (by God!) - gay brothers and sisters whose lives have been saved and transformed by God - observably so? What if they have the fruit of the Spirit, and we can tell they are Christians by their witness of love.
What does that mean to you?
You have some serious reading comprehension issues. I've given several examples showing that your so-called standards are in fact no standards at all and that you violate them when you want.
Your response isn't to disprove me, it's to keep shouting 'but I have standards!'.
what if we are aware of TRANSFORMED lives (by God!) - gay brothers and sisters whose lives have been saved and transformed by God - observably so? What if they have the fruit of the Spirit, and we can tell they are Christians by their witness of love.> from Dan's reply)
Dan if that transformation means they are not practicing the homosexual sex, they could be a witness of the fruit of the Spirit. It is not the temptation toward the same sex that is the problem, as sin and temptation are always around in all areas of life, but it is the acting out of allowing temptation to overcome us where we sin.
It would be quite an experience to meet you in person. I have seen your picture and I have trouble putting your words together with the way you look. I think you have such a negative picture in your mind of me that you might be surprised to meet me and find that I am not a wild eyed, mean person.
"As I understand it, this is a classically Baptist way of interpreting the Bible."
I agree.
"The question I've always had about that principle is this: Why do we think we can understand the teachings of Jesus any better than anything else in the Bible?"
Good Point!
I am a former Southern Baptist who is now a United Methodist. The UMC is built on a theology of grace. It doesn't endorse a literal interpretation of Scripture. I know the UMC uses the historical-critical method for interpreting scripture, but I have no idea what that means. In addition, John Wesley brought to us what is known as the Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason. It is a guide that works quite well, I think.
"You have some serious reading comprehension issues."
This from a guy who can't even keep up with two different commenters at the same time?!
Ted, I seriously suspect you're just a sockpuppet for one of the other folks around here. But, whether that's the case or not, it is clear that you don't actually take any of this seriously.
I've asked, several times, politely, for you to substantiate your claims. You refuse to do so, thereby bearing false witness against Dan, a clear violation of the 9th Commandment.
You've been rebuked for breaking the commandment, as Matthew 18:15-17 requires of us. Yet you do not repent of your sin. You don't even acknowledge it. In fact, you don't acknowledge anyone else's words in this "conversation."
Your excuse for not providing such evidence is that you can't handle a conversation with more than one person at a time. I'd suggest that if you're unable to do so, then perhaps you shouldn't make your claims to begin with. If this is all too complicated for you, then it doesn't seem reasonable for you to try to communicate in these venues in the first place.
Meanwhile, Dan, with the patience of Job (seriously Dan, I would have gone off on them a LONG time ago, kudos to you) has repeated his standards for interpretation so often I can recite them by heart, to wit:
"I interpret all scripture through the teachings of Jesus.
I interpret the individual passage through the whole of biblical testimony.
I interpret all scripture prayerfully seeking guidance.
I interpret all scripture, as we all do, using our God-given reasoning ability."
What do you think you're doing, other than looking like a fool and a liar? Do you think you're tactics aren't transparent? Do you think somehow we all can't see that you avoid any question put to you?
Oops... just asked 3 questions in a row, which clearly won't get answered.
I just don't get it.
"In addition, John Wesley brought to us what is known as the Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason. It is a guide that works quite well, I think."
I've studied very little Wesley, because he's a damnable heretic. (Just kidding...as a Calvinist, I'm required to use the words damnable heretic any time I mention Wesley.)
But, I should do more reading about the Quadrilateral. Though Calvin did talk about the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" enlightening Scripture, he clearly didn't mean that as either experience or reason, as he thought only Scripture was authoritative enough to interpret Scripture. I find that a little weak, frankly, and self-contradicting for a guy like Calvin with his prodigious theological output. :)
mom2, I have never pictured you as anything but a sweet lady. Just one who questions my Christianity and who is not very into conversations with those she doesn't trust.
I suspect we'd get along famously in person, if we didn't talk about politics or faith.
If you came to one of our hootenannies where we have our guitars and mandolins and banjos and were playing "Sweet By and By," or "Amazing Grace," you may even be moved or overjoyed with our praise.
mom2, I have never pictured you as anything but a sweet lady. Just one who questions my Christianity and who is not very into conversations with those she doesn't trust. (by Dan)
Dan, I admit to discussions of differences with you but I do not remember ever saying you were not a Christian. I usually draw back when the angry words start flying because someone thinks my opinions are worthless. I don't use vulgar words or profanity, so I just back out and stay clear of those kind of discussions. I see no profit to anyone for vile language.
"I've studied very little Wesley, because he's a damnable heretic."
I've been a Baptist church secretary for well over 20 years and I once worked with a pastor who thought Methodists didn't believe the Bible. He considered himself a 3 point Calvinist. Ha!
I just heard about the Quadrilateral in Sunday School a few weeks back. It's new to me too. There is talk that my church will offer a Methodism 101 class. I hope they do. I joined the Methodist church 4 years ago.
Well, Marty, as a Baptist raised in a Methodist home, I can tell you that SOME Wesleyan scholars question whether or not the Quadrilateral (a phrase made famous by Wesley scholar Albert Outler) really goes back to Wesley or not. It seems to me that it does: Wesley was an Anglican. Anglicans had long talked about a web of authority that included Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. Wesley added "experience," and did not have in mind vague human experience, but the experience of the work of the Holy Spirit in Christian salvation and sanctification. I would also say that Wesley did not put all four sources on the same level of authority: Scripture was supreme while reason, tradition, and experience were keys to interpreting Scripture.
All Christians read Scripture from a particular "center." Luther and Lutherans tend to begin with Galatians and Romans and focus on justification by faith. Calvin had one foot on the Ten Commandments and one on Romans. Wesley had a very Johannine orientation. Pentecostals tend to focus on Acts and John. By contrast Anabaptists center first in the Synoptic Gospels, the Prophets, and the Book of James.
But all of us tend to get to the whole thing eventually.
This thread is makes a good illustration why I'm bowing out, but as I do, I would like to make two points that strike me as obvious but nevertheless worth stating explicitly.
First, Alan, you write to Ted:
I've asked, several times, politely, for you to substantiate your claims. You refuse to do so, thereby bearing false witness against Dan, a clear violation of the 9th Commandment.
It's simply not the case that refusing to substantiate one's claims is bearing false witness, much less a "clear" instance of bearing false witness.
It's bearing false witness, not if the claims aren't explicitly substantiated, but only if the claims aren't true.
This seems elementary, but to go by your logic, if you refuse substantiate this claim about the 9th commandment, are you bearing false witness as well?
Second, Dan wrote this:
"I interpret all scripture through the teachings of Jesus."
Fair enough, but he also wrote this:
"We believe the Bible teaches marriage as the healthy way of living in a committed relationships, as you do, too (and you're familiar with those verses). We just want the same blessing for our gay brothers and sisters."
Well, now.
"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
It seems to me that Jesus Himself made perfectly clear that God made us male and female for marriage: a man (male) and his wife (female) becoming one flesh. This precludes the idea that marriage is a blessing that can be extended to homosexual couples.
Is there a remotely plausible interpretation of Matthew 19 that allows marriage to be thus redefined? I've never seen one, and I've certainly never seen Dan present one, just as he's never explained that, when Jesus affirmed the Old Testament to the smallest penstroke, this affirmation nevertheless allow us to speculate -- as Dan has speculated -- that passages of the Bible were deceitful insertions by wicked men who were trying to justify atrocities by dishonestly attributing them to God.
Are these just matters of interpretation? I don't see how, as no written is infinitely malleable, and unless Dan can ever provide a plausible explanation for how his actual positions on gay marriage and the Old Testament can be reconciled with what Jesus actually taught, I simply do not see the point of discussing any of these issues with him.
While I largely appreciate much of what Roger_TQ, Mom2, TwelveTonTed have written, I think what they're doing is mostly a waste of time. Dan either does not perceive the incoherence of so many of his positions, or he has absolutely no interest in doing anything about that incoherence.
Bubba dropped by to say:
It seems to me that Jesus Himself made perfectly clear that God made us male and female for marriage: a man (male) and his wife (female) becoming one flesh. This precludes the idea that marriage is a blessing that can be extended to homosexual couples.
Says you. I find it entirely reasonable to think that, unless Jesus said, "This is the ONLY way marriage can be," that there are other possibilities.
So, yes, Bubba, I do, in fact interpret the Bible through Jesus' teachings.
Thanks for dropping by with your concerns, though.
Well, how about that, Roger? Your first-ever blog post received 100+ comments!
You're a natural.
So, yes, Bubba, I do, in fact interpret the Bible through Jesus' teachings.> from Dan's comment.
I'm still waiting for you or Roger to show me the scriptural teaching of Jesus. All I remember seeing was your interpretation of words that aren't there. I want to see Jesus's Words that say that the homosexual sex is even a good thing, let alone His "beautiful" thoughts on their marriage. Alan is free to comment on the scriptures about this also.
Last night my 86 year old mother and I discussed those Scriptures I cited above regarding Jonathan and David. We read the entire story of those two. In the end she had to admit (however reluctantly) there was a high possibility, even a probability, according to the Scriptures, that Jonathan and David were in a "marriage" covenant relationship and that the love they shared was more than just "good friends".
Scripture does have a way of changing our minds, or at least getting us to think beyond our boundaries on issues, as Dan has pointed out on numerous occasions.
I interpret those passages regarding the "sinfulness" of homosexuality as speaking of the practice of male prostitution and promiscuity rather than a loving committed monogomous relationship.
After diligent study of the Scriptures I came to that conclusion. I approached the Scriptures with a preconcieved belief that homosexuality was indeed an abomination. It was the Scriptures, the story of Jonathan and David in particular, that convinced me otherwise.
I left out female prostitution as well. Sorry.
mom2 asked politely:
I'm still waiting for you or Roger to show me the scriptural teaching of Jesus.
As I think I've mentioned before, there are exactly ZERO verses where Jesus endorses gay marriage and ZERO verses where Jesus condemns gay marriage.
(Despite some who'd protest that when Jesus said, "when a man shall leave his parents and take a wife," that this is an indicator of opposition to gay marriage.)
So, we do what all of us do when Jesus is silent on an issue: Look to the rest of the Bible.
And, when we do, we find maybe SIX entire passages that even SEEM to touch negatively on homosexuality (plus a few that SEEM like they could reflect positively on homosexuality, as Marty has noted) and, I for one, don't find conclusive evidence specifically in support or opposition of gay marriage.
And so, we do as we all do, and begin to reason our way to a conclusion when the Bible is silent on an issue (AS IT ABSOLUTELY IS on gay marriage - seeing how there is not one single verse in the Bible about gay marriage).
And, when we do this, we see that marriage and monogamy are praised (if not consistently - polygamy was widely accepted biblically in the OT), we see Paul encouraging folk to not pursue un-natural relations, and we see that for gay folk, UNnatural relations would be heterosexual.
So, we come to the conclusion that gay marriage and straight marriage are two good, wholesome and Godly options. (Especially as opposed to a loose and uncommitted lifestyle).
I've answered that on that topic (even though the subject is off-topic) to demonstrate how as Christian believers, many of us honestly read the Bible and may come to a conclusion different than you or even different than the one we firmly believed growing up.
I'm not saying both conclusions are equally valid - clearly, I think those who oppose gay marriage are wrong. But I don't condemn those who disagree with me as Bible-haters, liars or un-Godly.
I just think you're wrong on that issue and that's what I ask of other believers who disagree with my type.
Mom2, at the risk of inviting much scorn, I invite you (and all others genuinely interested and OPEN) to my blog, Levellers, where I have a series laying out a biblical case for the full inclusion ("welcoming and affirming") of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons in church. It's a long series because I try not to rush through the Bible and try to be careful in argument. I am just about to get to Jesus' word of grace on these matters. The series is drawing toward an end.
See it at http://levellers.wordpress.com/ but, please, read the posts in order since I am trying to build a careful case. Jumping to the latest post will not help with real discussion.
Roger TQ
Okay. I understand where you're coming from a little better.
It sounds like you have made up your mind as well. I disagree with your conclusions about sexual orientation (agreeing mostly with Marty and Dan here).
I believe Dan is right when he points out that Jesus says nothing about sexual orientation – either for or against gay marriage, etc. (I know Roger TQ, mom2, TTT, Bubba, and many sincere and faithful Christians disagree, so you don't have to tell me again).
So why to I believe what I do about this issue? It has to do with my Biblical interpretation.
I have given a lot of thought to what's been said in this stream. Even though I claim Jesus to be my key for understanding the rest of the Bible, I realize I have a bias in interpreting the what Jesus says as well.
I'm pretty sure my bias it's not my own political, social, economic (or whatever) agenda. (I don't think it's Satan's either, so please don't go there!) I believe my "agenda" comes from my Biblical interpretation - not the other way around.
I believe my bias is closer to the Biblical witness that God is love and that God offers abundant life. I believe Jesus' ministry, teachings, life, death and resurrection points to these truths about God and our personal relationship with God. Any interpretation absent a clear teaching by Jesus, for me must lean in favor of love and life, for that is a significant part of my understanding of God revealed in Jesus.
I've identified other extra-Biblical interpretation favorites of mine. One is the historical context of the communities receiving these Gospels, epistles, law & prophets, etc.
For example, knowing spittle was used by 1st century physicians helps me better understand why Jesus used spittle when he healed the blind man – it reassured the people of who he was as the Great Physician. (It also heaps condemnation on the rich man when the dogs licking Lazarus' open wounds can be interpreted as showing greater compassion!)
I also use literary interpretation. For example in the Sermon on the Mount much of the church has interpreted Jesus' teachings as something like this: “The law said this outer behavior (murder, adultery, oath-breaking, etc.) was wrong, but I say this inner behavior (anger, lust, swearing, etc.) is worse so don't do these things either.
But looking at the way the text is organized and what the Greek grammar is in these passages, Jesus is saying something different. Glen Stassen points out in his book, Just Peacemaking, and more recently in Living the Sermon on the Mount, that these teaching are organized with 3 parts not 2.
Take the first one.
1. The law say not to murder.
2. Jesus says you're already in trouble if you have the anger that leads to murder within you.
3. Jesus says be reconciled with someone who has something against you.
In the Greek the only imperative verb in this teaching is “be reconciled.” Jesus doesn't command us to “be not angry.” It's clear he was angry and frustrated at times in his ministry. Being fully human I believe Jesus knew anger and knew what it leads to in human relationships.
This "triad" model can be seen 14 times in the Sermon, says Stassen, and 14 is a significant number to the Jewish Christians in Matthew's audience - a double reinforcement of God's creative work and rest (or would that technically be a single reinforcement? Either way, significant to the reader who recognizes it).
By understanding the Greek verbs and recognizing the literary construction of the teaching, I believe I have a clearing interpretation of how Jesus wants me to be in relationship with others.
So I offer a clarification of how I interpret the Bible through Jesus using literary information, historical context, and my bias in favor of interpretation promoting love and life when I have to make a judgment call.
I said, "By understanding the Greek verbs and recognizing the literary construction of the teaching, I believe I have a clearing interpretation of how Jesus wants me to be in relationship with others."
I meant "clearer understanding." Sorry for not being clearer.
Roger, Although this comment was not directed to me, I just want to say that my thoughts on homosexuality have nothing to do with my relationship to them. I had lesbians for neighbors and I neighbored with them. My convictions about the wrongness of homosexuality are related to my relationship with Jesus. I believe that it is not condoned anywhere in the Bible and marriage between a man and a woman are commanded and blessed. When we do not warn someone about their error, then blame is on us as well as them. I just listened to a sermon about "Our sins will find us out" and it is serious business. I want all to know Christ and his righteousness now.
I think there is one obscure saying of Jesus' that might have to do with a positive word for gays and lesbians. I will be expositing that passage soon in my series on GLBT inclusion on my blog. However, since the passage is obscure and the conclusions not fully tested in scholarship, I do not hang my full weight for inclusion on that saying.
mom2,
You said, "When we do not warn someone about their error, then blame is on us as well as them."
I know we disagree about how we should interpret the Bible regarding homosexuality. Like Dan, I used to believe the Bible taught that all expressions of homosexuality were sinful, so I know where you're coming from.
I also felt it was important to correct folks of their errors. When I graduated from high school (an evangelical mission school in a neighboring African country of the one where my parents were missionaries), it was my intention to be a philosophy major in college so that I, like Paul on Mars Hill, would be able to understand the beliefs of others so I could more effectively win them to the Lord.
I still want folks to agree, understand, value my Biblical interpretations. Hopefully, I am no longer so dogmatic that I think I am righter than most folks when it comes to Biblical interpretation.
Please don't take any blame because we disagree.
Hopefully, I am no longer so dogmatic that I think I am righter than most folks when it comes to Biblical interpretation. > by roger
How am I to interpret that? If you did not think you were right, would you be here expressing yourself. By saying that your are no longer so dogmatic, does that not sound like I'm the dogmatic one?
What puzzles me is why you and Dan have changed your position on the issue. I am so much older than you both probably and I have noticed down through the years that it has been the tendency to think that cultural changes are all right. Sometimes they are not. As missionaries, have your parents views changed in the same way that your have? Just wondering.
Bubba writes, "It's simply not the case that refusing to substantiate one's claims is bearing false witness, much less a "clear" instance of bearing false witness."
Yeah, it is. If there was evidence to back up these claims someone would and should have provided it by now. It's pretty clear why those questions are being avoided -- no such evidence exists. If it did, they would provide it gleefully.
"if you refuse substantiate this claim about the 9th commandment, are you bearing false witness as well?"
I just did. Making such unsubstantiated claims is indeed bearing false witness.
I notice you apparently have the time to write extensively a second time about how you're not going to participate in this conversation, but don't have the time to actually have the time to answer my initial question from the third comment in this thread.
We do agree though, Bubba, when you write, "While I largely appreciate much of what Roger_TQ, Mom2, TwelveTonTed have written, I think what they're doing is mostly a waste of time." They either do not perceive the disingenuousness of so many of their unsubstantiated claims, or they has absolutely no interest in doing anything but making continued unsubstantiated claims.
Alan, I sense that you have no desire to change, so you will go to great lengths to defend that which you want to participate in. I agree with Bubba that it is no longer of any use to use scripture or anything else to try to persuade you. I will pray for your heart to be opened to the truth and for the Holy Spirit to deal with your heart if you are not willing to search for truth.
I would never mistreat you or anyone else, but you will not get my approval.
Mom2
When I said hopefully I am no longer so dogmatic that I think I am righter than most folks when it comes to Biblical interpretation, I mean that I hope I'm not as dogmatic as I once was. I apologize if I sounded accusatory. I guess I was projecting a bit. I find this conversation intriguing because I so seldom encounter folks willing to have it. I am grateful for your sincerity, but at the same time I interpreted your comment about correcting my error as coming from a similar feeling of self-righteousness and unwillingness to question what I thought that I had when I was younger. It was a knee jerk reaction. Sorry. That wasn't fair.
Do I think I am right? Yes. But hopefully, I am not dogmatic about it and am willing to learn from you and the experiences of others and their Biblical interpretations. My understanding of the truths of the Bible has changed throughout my life and I don't think I'm done learning all God has for me to learn.
I am sharing my experience. It is true to me and my walk with God. I did not come to this point in my journey with Christ with my first step. When I first thought about making a public commitment and accepting Jesus it was more as Savior and less as Lord. I knew my family and loved ones were going to heaven and if I wanted to be with them, too, I needed to accept Jesus.
As I've grown physically and spiritually, that relationship with Jesus has changed. My desire to be obedient to what Jesus was clearly telling me and experiencing the benefits of that obedience has matured my faith in many ways.
My change regarding homosexuality didn't happen overnight, either. Over several years, my position was challenged. Intellectually, I was challenged to prove it from the Bible. Spiritually, I was challenged to believe God didn't love folks the way he created them. Relationally, I was challenged to look into the eyes of sincere Christians and tell them they were lying when they said their homosexuality was an orientation and not a series of choices. I tried, but I couldn't.
I agree with you that cultural changes are not always right. Wholeheartedly. I just don't think welcoming and accepting Christians who are homosexual is one of those cultural changes.
I don't know how my father would respond to this issue. He died of cancer on the mission field when I was 18 and we were only just beginning to have these sorts of conversations. My mother and I have had many conversations through the years. I'm reluctant to answer for her, but when I press her I think she believes that homosexuality is wrong as a choice, that the issue of orientation is not dealt with in the Bible, and that given the ambiguity it's safer to err in favor of what she's always believed.
But I could be wrong. She frequently surprises me. I don't see her often enough – she lives in California and I in Kentucky. The last time we got together she informed me she was a Lakers fan! I didn't realize she even liked basketball, I'm ashamed to say. It was the blue and gold jersey she was wearing that really shocked me, though!
mom2 wrote, "Alan, I sense that you have no desire to change, so you will go to great lengths to defend that which you want to participate in. I agree with Bubba that it is no longer of any use to use scripture or anything else to try to persuade you."
Hmmm... hard to know how to respond to such a non-sequitur. Perhaps you were addressing someone else? I've not been debating anything here, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've simply asked people to substantiate some of their claims with actual quotes. I'm not sure what that has to do with what you're going on about. I have also provided a pretty detailed description of the principles I use to interpret scripture -- principles which are classically Reformed. Is there something in those principles with which you disagree? If so, could you be more specific? Otherwise, this is just another unsubstantiated claim that doesn't even reference anything I've written here. However, your words do clearly provide yet another example of the disconnect between reality and the statements you and others have made.
In other words, it's pretty clear you haven't even read anything I've written here, nor are you (like some others here) apparently interested in actually discussing words I've actually written.
Thanks for your opinion, though. I'll give it the same consideration you've given to what I've written. ;)
Briefly, Alan:
If there was evidence to back up these claims someone would and should have provided it by now. It's pretty clear why those questions are being avoided -- no such evidence exists. If it did, they would provide it gleefully.
This is pure speculation on your part. It's also possible that a person might not be answering every question because of time constraints or (as in my case) because I've written more than enough to convince anyone who's willing to listen.
You're treating your speculation as being definitive, and if it is inaccurate (and in my case it is), you prove yourself guilty of the very thing of which you accuse others: bearing false witness.
About providing quotes where Dan specifically used the phrase "whole passages" or the word "ignore", I am under no obligation to provide direct quotes because I did not use quotation marks around those words. I was summarizing -- and I would argue that I was doing so accurately -- so I can paraphrase.
I do think my paraphrase is accurate. After all, here Dan argued that "we should ignore the old Law from God." In that case, "ignore" was his word, not mine.
If there's nothing else, I take my leave.
Bubba wrote, "It's also possible that a person might not be answering every question because of time constraints... "
Sure that's possible. But I simply don't believe it. They seem to have plenty of time to post comment after comment after comment. So, it seems much more likely they're simply unable to provide such quotes. Even you, apparently, have the time to write comments telling us 3 times that you're not going to comment again. And yet no one seems to have time to simply hit [ctrl]-C, [ctrl]-V, and paste in actual quotes to substantiate their claims.
Bubba writes, "After all, here Dan argued that "we should ignore the old Law from God." In that case, "ignore" was his word, not mine."
ROFL. Actually what he wrote was, "He [Jesus] reinterpreted that commandment [an eye for an eye.] He [Jesus] gave a new take on it. He [Jesus] didn't offer any explanation WHY we should ignore the old Law from God and embrace the New Teaching of Jesus."
That's your best try? LOL Context is a killer, eh? ROFL. Well, in the first comment on this you wrote, "whole passages of the Bible should be ignored." So I guess you and Dan aren't too far apart after all. ;)
The context does not disprove my assertion, Alan. The context shows that Dan believes (wrongly in my opinion) that Jesus taught us to ignore the old Law from God.
Is it inaccurate to write that Dan himself believes that we should ignore the old Law from God? No, it is not.
You wanted me to answer your question, and I have. It was clearly a waste of time.
"The context shows that Dan believes (wrongly in my opinion) that Jesus taught us to ignore the old Law from God."
Rather obvious rhetorical trick there, don't you think? You change the charge from Dan "will write that whole passages of the Bible should be ignored" to "Dan believes Jesus taught us to ignore the old Law from God [regarding an eye for an eye.]"
By the way, when it comes to ignoring parts of the Law, Dan would be in good company with any Christian who eats cheeseburgers (cooking an animal with its mother's milk). Until Christians like yourself start arguing that we should keep kosher, your rhetoric about "ignoring the law" is clearly just talk. BTW, Bubba, I'm not suggesting you're wrong in believing "that whole passages of the Bible should be ignored", as you wrote. After all, the Westminster Confession Chapter XIX says the same thing about ignoring the ceremonial and juridical parts of the Law. So... enjoy the cheeseburger!
"You wanted me to answer your question, and I have. It was clearly a waste of time."
LOL. And thank you for taking the time to repeat that for the 4th time, now. We agree though, your answer was clearly a waste of time. ;)
Thanks, Alan. You do a fine job of speaking for me.
Post a Comment