Monday, September 28, 2009

A Problem with Biblical Inerrancy


Dan and Sarah closeup
Originally uploaded by paynehollow
I think one of the problems with biblical inerrancy is the degree to which it has tended to build black and white thinking in some people and, along with that, the almost god-like nature some assign to the Bible.

A recent series of conversations with one of my more conservative brothers resulted in someone making this conclusion, and I quote...

"Without reliable words from God, we are free to make what we want of our religion. I have come to the conclusion that I believe so much in authority and reliability of Scripture, that if I were to learn that it was false, I would cease to be a Christian, and even further, cease to be a moral person because there would be no reason for morality except to get what I would want from others and not have others treat me the way I don't want to be treated."

IF they learned that there were lines in the Bible that they thought were true and factual and it turned out to be false, not only would they lose their faith in God, but they would cease to be a moral person!

Is that not a horribly incredible statement to make? Does that not suggest a deification of the Bible? Oh, to be certain, I don't think this person at all intends to make a god of the Bible, but if he "were to learn that it were false, [he] would cease to be a Christian...," that rather sounds like his faith is in the Bible and not God.

I would suggest that perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably means that if he were to learn that ALL of it were false (God created the world = not true, Jesus was NOT a real person, we are NOT to love our enemies, we are NOT to love our families and communities, etc, etc), surely this must be what he means.

And I hope so, for that might be a reasonable position.

But I fear that it may not be so. I fear this because I've met others who've said similar things. I have a dear friend from my childhood who is a devoted and wonderful conservative Christian, and he once told me that if he learned that the Creation story is not fairly literal, he would probably lose his faith. "How could I believe ANY of it is true if the creation story is not literally and factually true?" is a common sentiment I have heard.

I fear that this concrete, black/white, absolutist sort of thinking probably DOES lead people to lose their faith, when it becomes clear at some point for some of them that some of the stories and facts in the Bible probably aren't intended to be literally true.

This would be a shame, I think. We have no real biblical, moral or logical reason to presume inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible does not TELL us to take each story as literally factually true and we can learn from metaphorical stories just as well as we can from factual stories about the nature of God.

You think?

67 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

It would be nice to be able to ask this fella (who is not the actual blog owner, but a comrade of his) what he meant by that statement but, per way too normal, this is one of those blogs where they decided they no longer wished for me to comment there and I'm abiding by that wish.

rockync said...

It has been some time now that I have identified myself as a deist. I believe in God or a Creator. I even believe in Jesus and His message. That is my choice, not all deists agree with me.
What I reject is any form of organized religion. I also reject the notion that the Bible is the handbook of God.
The first four gospels of the New Testament may be the closest thing to spiritually inspired works and I think by the language and the message of these writings it is clear these men wrote as factual an accounting as they could. I think they felt pressure to get it all down before it was forgotten. And I think these four books make a good case for the deity of Jesus.
So I enjoy reading those four pieces of literature and I take much of it to heart and that is where the connection to natural religion comes - in the heart.
If you open your heart to God and the universe, you make a connection that spans the globe and beyond. You become one with all that is around you and within you and you begin to understand that you don't need dogma and rules to tell you what is right and good because it is already written on your heart where God dwells. He is in each of us and in the world around us.
Spirituality becomes a constant awareness. I once heard a doctor being interviewed and he said,"I ask God for nothing, but thank Him for everything."
I thought that rather profound. If we truly believe that we are "right" with God and at one with the universe, then there is no need to keep asking for what we need - it will be given to us as we need it.
I think the more ancient peoples such as Native Americans have a better grasp of true religion.

Dan Trabue said...

"True religion is this," James tells us, "To care for the widows and orphans..."

or words to that effect.

I find all the Bible to be inspirational and informative, albeit not always in the way that other Christians find it thus. I dig them prophets and the continued message found throughout the Bible, as echoed by James, about tending to and siding with the least of these.

So, would you consider yourself a deist who is a Christian, or a deist who is a "Jesusian," or just a deist that likes Jesus?

Good to hear from you, Rocky.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I feel sorry for someone who's faith is so shallow it rests on so slim a foundation. Faith is a gracious gift from a loving God, not something within us naturally. Someone so caught up in propositional acceptance is lost, it seems to me. Real faith comes in surrendering even our moral selves to the grace of God; let us be whom God would make us, and trust that a good God would do well with the material at hand.

John said...

"Without reliable words from God, we are free to make what we want of our religion. I have come to the conclusion that I believe so much in authority and reliability of Scripture, that if I were to learn that it was false, I would cease to be a Christian, and even further, cease to be a moral person because there would be no reason for morality except to get what I would want from others and not have others treat me the way I don't want to be treated."


Provided that your conservative brother visits us, I would pose questions to him: if this is true, shouldn't all atheists be demented sociopaths? Shouldn't an atheist be incapable of demonstrating moral reasoning?

John said...

Dan wrote:

"True religion is this," James tells us, "To care for the widows and orphans..."


Yeah, but that would be really hard. Therefore we must construct an elaborate theology that allows us to escape from the explicit moral teachings of Jesus.

John said...

BTW -- great photo.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks, that's one of my faves, too.

Good questions and comments, John.

Therefore we must construct an elaborate theology that allows us to escape from the explicit moral teachings of Jesus.

Which is especially tricky for the more literalist inerrantist-types, or at least that's how it often seems.

In their defense, most if not all inerrantists would not suggest that we ought to escape from Jesus' explicit moral teachings. At least not directly.

Alan said...

God is not a chicken, even though the Psalms clearly state that God shelters us under his wing.

There. The Bible has an "error". You all may now begin your pagan dances.

Sorry, I was baptized into Jesus Christ, not into the KJV, or the RSV, or the NIV, etc., so I find that sort of idolatry more than a little silly and find it difficult to take it seriously at all, much like anything coming from the flat-earthers.

But hey, if that's what some people want to "think" why should I care? (Notice I did not say if that's what some people want to believe, nor did I refer to their faith, because I think a system so constructed cannot be called a "faith" any more than one has a "faith" that gravity works. Their system of theology turns biblical interpretation into the literature equivalent of laying pipe.)

rockync said...

To answer you Dan, I guess I just consider myself a child of God and an integral piece of the universe. Given the loose and sometimes negative identification of "Christian" I tend to stay away from that designation. Too many people are using it, without any real understanding of what that means.
To others let me say, my faith is far from shallow but grows deeper with each day that I strive to find God in the world around me.
And I'm afraid that the Good Book hardly guarantees any sense of morality as evidenced by the countless examples of so called "Christians" who are caught in various acts of immorality.
In fact, the written words of the New Testament did not come into being until long after Jesus had died and were not put into book form until centuries later.
Early followers of Jesus passed on His teachings by word of mouth. Jesus Himself was most critical of the holy men of his day, calling their dogmatic worship "dead". Why? Because men moved their lips but their words did not reach into their hearts.
I feel sorry for those that need a set of rules to tell them to care for the sick, show compassion for the imprisoned or do something nice to make someone smile.
And thank you, Dan for noticing my absence. I have been scarce due to family obligations which included caring for someone very sick. They died but not alone. And now that I have set them in their final resting place, my life goes on - and it is a wonderful life; to get up every morning and take that first breath!
I hope all is well with you and yours.
Peace & Love, Rocky

Dan Trabue said...

God's not the great Chicken in the sky?? But Jesus even said as much ("How often I desired to take you under My wings...")

Do you suspect some sort of waterfowl, then? Surely you're not suggesting God is an insect?? Now, THAT would truly be blasphemous.

I could live with a Duck, though.

Dan Trabue said...

Rocky, I'm sorry for the passing of your loved one. How wonderful that you could be there for them.

I tend to stay away from that designation. Too many people are using it, without any real understanding of what that means.

I'd say it's hard to fault you there.

Take care of yourself.

Alan said...

"I could live with a Duck, though."

Well, Jesus did float like a duck, what with the whole walking on water thing.

Dan Trabue said...

"May the LORD repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge." ~Ruth 2

Keep me as the apple of your eye;
hide me in the shadow of your wings
~Psalm 17

Because you are my help, I sing in the shadow of your wings. ~Psalm 63

But in the NT, Jesus gets more specific...

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

AS A HEN.

God's not ONLY a chicken, God is a FEMALE chicken!

Clearly, you must be wrong, Alan. The OT speaks it and Jesus confirms and clarifies.

And here's a clue...

God parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under God's feet.

God mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind.
~Psalm 18

God clearly has wings and feet according to scripture AND YET, God has to catch a ride on a cherubim - SO HER WINGS MUST NOT WORK! And what bird has wings but can't fly?

A HEN!

Unless God's an ostrich...

John said...

Alan wrote:

Well, Jesus did float like a duck, what with the whole walking on water thing.


So, logically, if he weighs as much as a duck, then he's made of wood....

Dan Trabue said...

And therefore...?

Bubba said...

Dan, I'm not making a habit of commenting here again, but I do want to mention that, if you do have any last thoughts at our lengthy dialogue at Craig's -- particularly any thoughts that you would like me to be sure to see -- I'd suggest posting that last round of comments sometime this week. I'm in the process of drafting my closing remarks, and I'm not planning on checking that discussion regularly after posting those remarks.


While I'm here...

I don't think your summary of the theological conservative's comment is accurate, at least not without knowing its full context.

"IF they learned that there were lines in the Bible that they thought were true and factual and it turned out to be false...

"I would suggest that perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably means that if he were to learn that ALL of it were false...
"

I don't think that's giving him the benefit of the doubt: it's taking the plain meaning of what he wrote.

"I have come to the conclusion that I believe so much in authority and reliability of Scripture, that if I were to learn that it was false, I would cease to be a Christian," etc.

The hypothetical is, if he were to learn that Scripture was false, not simply that it contains falsehoods. He might still draw conclusions beyond what you would draw, if it were shown that Scripture contains even a single error, but that doesn't appear to be the scenario he was discussing.


I also think that, not for the first time, you confuse inerrancy and literalism.

"We have no real biblical, moral or logical reason to presume inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible does not TELL us to take each story as literally factually true and we can learn from metaphorical stories just as well as we can from factual stories about the nature of God."

Inerrancy means that the text does not contain and is incapable of error: it is not -- and has never been -- a claim that the text does not contain figurative language.

Inerrancy is a denial of error, not metaphor, and you're creating a strawman when you confuse the two.

And when you base your ridicule on this basic confusion, you make yourself look at least as foolish as the inerrantists you're mocking.


You also invoke a strawman when you raise the spectre of idolatry.

"Is that not a horribly incredible statement to make? Does that not suggest a deification of the Bible? Oh, to be certain, I don't think this person at all intends to make a god of the Bible, but if he 'were to learn that it were false, [he] would cease to be a Christian...,' that rather sounds like his faith is in the Bible and not God."

That's true only to those who would deny the very obvious possibility that a man's trust in the Bible can be an extension of his trust in God.

Theological conservatives trust in the Bible, not because we believe it is God, but because we believe it is from God.

It is not because we believe God is a written text, but because we believe God authored that written text.

As I have said before, I have known literally no one who could be plausibly charged with idolizing the Bible, and I think you're far too concerned with esteeming the Bible too highly, and not concerned enough with the risks of esteeming too little.

Bubba said...

And, Dan, you say, "We have no real biblical, moral or logical reason to presume inerrancy of the Bible."

Yes, we do. First, in the absence of the bodily presence of Christ Himself or one of His prophets or Apostles, we have NO better authority for divine revelation, and we have no clear and external standard against which the Bible can be judged, to sift out the truth from errors.

Second, and more importantly, we have the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, who affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke and frequently appealed to it as the final authority on doctrine. He did this all while castigating mere human tradition, and He even attributed to God passages that did not claim to quote God directly -- both of which imply its divine authorship. And His trust in Scripture was so total that He taught the reality of our resurrection from a single verb tense. And, as in Luke 24:27 and 44, He pointed to Scripture to show how He fulfilled its promises.

The Living Word affirmed the authority of the written word, and He even made His authority dependent on its testimony of Him.

Though Christ is God Incarnate and the Bible is merely(!) God's written revelation, I do not believe that any obedient Christian can separate His authority from its authority.

The attempt to do so because of unreal concerns about idolatry is like saying that, for the sake of maintaining the king's unique sovereignty, one must deny the authority of his decrees.

And every mature and obedient Christian simply would not deviate so significantly from Christ in His approach to Scripture. Whatever risks inerrancy entails, the inerrantist is far closer to following Christ's teachings and example than is the man who concludes that the Bible contains "less than perfect" revelation, including atrocity, bigotry, and other errors.

Alan said...

Dan wrote, "Clearly, you must be wrong, Alan. The OT speaks it and Jesus confirms and clarifies."

Well, let Scripture interpret Scripture is the basis for Reformed Scriptural interpretation.

I stand corrected.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said...

And, Dan, you say, "We have no real biblical, moral or logical reason to presume inerrancy of the Bible."

Yes, we do. First, in the absence of the bodily presence of Christ Himself or one of His prophets or Apostles, we have NO better authority for divine revelation, and we have no clear and external standard against which the Bible can be judged, to sift out the truth from errors.


I understand fully that YOU take what the scriptures have to say and derive an argument in support of what you refer to as inerrancy. You are welcome to that view.

Allow me to clarify:

We have no real biblical, moral or logical mandate to presume inerrancy of the Bible. That is, the Bible does not say, "These 66 books shall be taken as inerrant (meaning that stories like the Creation or the tower of Babel must be taken fairly literally, as well as stories wherein God commands the killing of children)." That does not exist.

SOME people have taken a handful of passages (a fingerful of passages?) and woven an argument in support of this sort of inerrancy, but I do not find such a position biblically, morally or logically tenable.

A further clarification: I do fully understand the difference between what you call inerrancy and literalism. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but by "Inerrant," you mean (as I suggest above) that stories such as the Creation, Babel and the command to kill children and a whole city of people must need be taken fairly literally. That God actually DID command those deaths, that the way languages ACTUALLY evolved was that people tried building a tower and that God "confused" their languages. These stories need to mean what they literally say and that is the only proper way to interpret them. To take them as allegories to derive important and inerrant TRUTHS is not acceptable UNLESS you also take them literally.

Is that a fair summation of what you mean by inerrant?

Dan Trabue said...

I'm not making a habit of commenting here again, but I do want to mention that, if you do have any last thoughts at our lengthy dialogue at Craig's

No, I think we've peated and repeated our positions sufficiently and you all still seem to not be able to correctly sum up my position and I don't see much point in continuing correcting the misunderstandings.

What I've said about my positions ARE my positions. What you have said my positions are are too often parodies of my positions.

Dan Trabue said...

About the comment I quoted in my post, Bubba said...

I don't think that's giving him the benefit of the doubt: it's taking the plain meaning of what he wrote.

You are welcome to that opinion. Without the fella answering some questions, I can't really know for sure what HIS position is. I just know what I've heard others say (as my post clearly indicated): That if ONE thing in the Bible isn't factually true, then how can we know ANYTHING in the Bible is true?

Bubba said...

You also invoke a strawman when you raise the spectre of idolatry.

You are free to think so. I think there is sufficient reason to raise that concern when someone says, "If I were to find out the Bible wasn't true (in some way), then I would lose faith in God..."

Where is that person's trust? In God or the Bible?

It seems an entirely reasonable question to raise. Wouldn't you agree in at least THOSE circumstances, that person is trusting in the Bible stories reliability, not God?

For myself, if I were to find out that Mary was not actually a virgin or that Jonah was not actually swallowed by a great fish or that the tower of Babel story is just a mythological explanation of how people learned different languages, not a factual explanation, if I learned any of that to be factual, my faith in God would be intact because, well, my faith is in God, not these details.

Now, if this fella ACTUALLY meant that he'd lose his faith if he discovered the Bible was wrong and that God is actually a God of evil and hatred and that all those TRUTHS were wrong, how I would respond, I believe, is I would lose faith in that hateful, evil god, but not in the good and blessed Truths I learned from the Bible and Jesus' teachings.

Dan Trabue said...

Another posting from the site in question, this time about the atonement...

If God is just, He must carry out the just sentence of death [for sin].

If God does not receive payment for our debt and simply forgives the debt, we would certainly say He is merciful, but He is not just. A "saved by grace" of this sort violates the nature of God and, thus, produces no salvation at all. It simply produces a lesser god who is warm and merciful but not just.

It isn't the God of the Bible. And Christianity collapses on the injustice of mercy.


Christianity would "collapse on the injustice of mercy..."

Mercy and grace, I suppose, ARE a scandal. God's grace and forgiveness CAN be beyond our ability to reason.

I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the workers who were hired at the beginning of the day and the master agreed to pay them x amount. As the day went on, more workers were hired (although, obviously, they were hired later in the day).

At the end of the day, the workers who were hired first saw that the master was giving out X amount to the workers hired later in the day. They figured, "We were worked longer, so we must be getting even MORE than the agreed upon X...!" But when they got paid, they were only paid the agreed upon X.

"What gives?" They demanded of the master. "We worked all day and those bums only worked part of the day, and yet, they got the same amount as we did! That's not fair!"

The master said, "Didn't you get what we agreed upon? What does it matter to you if I decided to be gracious and generous to those hired later in the day?"

Indeed, grace and mercy CAN be scandalous and offensive. But I don't think they undo God's justice at all. After all, if not for God's grace and mercy, what would any of us do?

Bubba said...

I have a LOT more to reply to, but no time right now.

For the moment, Dan, I would ask that, if you're going to continue to quote this other conversation, you provide a link to the conversation.

Let us see the context.

Dan Trabue said...

I hesitate, since he asked me not to comment there, but I guess there's no harm in citing his blog...

birdsoftheair.blogspot - goes by "Winging It"

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

In response to Bubba, Dan wrote: "Indeed, grace and mercy CAN be scandalous and offensive. But I don't think they undo God's justice at all. After all, if not for God's grace and mercy, what would any of us do?"

I would go further. Grace and mercy are EXACTLY what constitute Divine Justice. That is precisely why they are so scandalous, as both Dan and, before him, St. Paul said so. The cross is a scandal because it is an offense against human morality, the human sense of dessert, against our limited notions of justice.

I fail to see anything in either testament that contradicts the idea that, in the end, God seeks, as the first epistle of St. Peter puts it, to bring all to salvation. We have to do, not with our own extremely limited sense of time, justice, right and wrong, but with the God who made us, sustains us, and saves us just because.

Making a new set of rules to live by out of this takes away from the simple fact that "just because" is good enough for God, and should be good enough for those who exist precisely "just because".

Alan said...

"I'm not making a habit of commenting here again,"
vs.
"I have a LOT more to reply to, but no time right now."

Alas, I guess I got my hopes up for nothing. Bummer.

I do find it hilarious that Bubba And Friends (Heh. Sounds like a kids show. Actually it IS a kids show!) have decided to put God's justice on trial, and have found Him guilty of injustice.

Having seen that they long ago declared themselves gods on earth, I don't find it surprising, just hilarious.

Bubba said...

Dan, first a correction: earlier I meant to write, when you base your ridicule on this basic confusion between literalism and inerrancy, you make yourself look at least as foolish as you believe the inerrantists are, who you're mocking.


Over at Craig's and elsewhere, you've had ample opportunity to correct my misconceptions of the positions you hold. I don't believe you've availed yourself of that opportunity much at all, and your stand on some of the simple questions remains clear as mud: you still have never explicitly said, for instance, whether or not you actually do believe our forgiveness is caused by Christ's death.


You write, "I just know what I've heard others say (as my post clearly indicated): That if ONE thing in the Bible isn't factually true, then how can we know ANYTHING in the Bible is true?"

A quote like that would be closer to what you're criticizing, but I know someone who seemed to teach a principle that, if a source of authority is to be trusted on heavenly things, it must be trusted on earthly things.

And the question is, is one conforming to Christ more if he denies the Bible has errors, or if he concludes otherwise? Christ taught about Scripture (and from Scripture) frequently enough that I do think one approach is more literally Christlike than the other.


"I think there is sufficient reason to raise that concern when someone says, 'If I were to find out the Bible wasn't true (in some way), then I would lose faith in God...'

"Where is that person's trust? In God or the Bible?

"It seems an entirely reasonable question to raise. Wouldn't you agree in at least THOSE circumstances, that person is trusting in the Bible stories reliability, not God?
"

If the Bible isn't trustworthy as His written revelation, what does trust in God still mean? It's certainly not trust in the God of the Bible -- i.e., God as Author of Scripture, and God as He is described by Scripture.

I would certainly think God's existence, sovereignty, and power would still be knowable to us through the general revelation of creation.

But certain very crucial doctrines are possible only through specific revelation -- specifically, God's mercy and grace, His offer of forgiveness, the revelation of the means of forgiveness (Christ's death), and God's triune nature.

In situations like the one above, I would ask for clarification.

I do believe that, if the Bible's authority were ever undermined, one could still have ground to believe in the Creator God, but I'm not sure the same can be said about faith in a redeeming God. It might become a shot-in-the-dark sort of faith rather than the assurance that comes from trusting the authority of the Bible.

And I do believe that the authority of Christ and the authority of Scripture are inseparable: He affirmed its authority, and He proved his own authority by appealing to it.


And, thanks for the link to that blog. Direct links would have been a little better -- here and here are what you quote -- but thanks. In general, I find it to be a common courtesy to link whenever possible: and when someone is quoting verbatim, linking to what he's copying and pasting should almost always be possible.

More in a mo', in response to a couple other things.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said...

when you base your ridicule on this basic confusion between literalism and inerrancy, you make yourself look at least as foolish as you believe the inerrantists are, who you're mocking.

And, as I have corrected you somewhere up above (you can look for it), there is no confusion on my part between understanding literalism and inerrancy.

I am sure this is a mere oversight on your part - you must have missed this. But now you know (unless you miss this one, too) that there is no misunderstanding on my part, so no great need to worry about me looking foolish.

Thanks for the concern, though.

Dan Trabue said...

Over at Craig's and elsewhere, you've had ample opportunity to correct my misconceptions of the positions you hold.

And, as everyone who's been around knows, I've been taking that ample opportunity for years now to correct those misconceptions. You still have them and I have tried my darnedest. I guess there's some combination of a failure to communicate on my part and a failure to comprehend on your part.

Sorry.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba asked...

If the Bible isn't trustworthy as His written revelation, what does trust in God still mean? It's certainly not trust in the God of the Bible

No, in the God of the Universe. The one True God, the only God. If the Bible is not trustworthy (a point which I'm not exactly making), then trust in God is still trust in God. What else would it be?

As to the suggestion that the Bible is not trustworthy, I don't believe I've said that. I've said that our ability to rightly understand God's will and the Bible is not wholly trustworthy.

I think God's WORD (and all that implies, which is more than just the Bible) is wholly trustworthy, rightly divided/understood. But, being flawed human beings, our ability to perfectly understand things is, well, not perfect.

So, I'm not saying that a passage that teaches that God commands Israel to kill babies is not trustworthy. I'm saying that those who'd claim that this means that God literally wanted Israel to kill babies, that THEIR interpretation is not trustworthy.

Understand the difference?

Dan Trabue said...

I do believe that, if the Bible's authority were ever undermined, one could still have grounds to believe in the Creator God...

I agree completely.

...but I'm not sure the same can be said about faith in a redeeming God.

I disagree. But you're welcome to your opinion.

I think we can see the redeeming love of God modeled in the redeeming love of parents, or better yet, the redeeming love of an person towards one who claims to be (and acts as) an enemy.

I think we can see echoes of God's redeeming nature all around us, if we have eyes to see and ears to hear.

So, as to the topic of the post, Bubba, I guess you're saying you don't see this to be a problem with biblical inerrancy? The possibility of finding out one day, "Hey, the world WASN'T created in six days. Well, then, I'm chucking this religion, it's based on a load of crock!" - you don't think that's a possible problem?

Okay, well, I do. I've seen it and heard of it. How large a problem is it? I dunno. How many Christian kids go off to college and learn a bit about science and then turn their backs on their faith?

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said...

Anyway, I didn't answer this earlier, but your summary IS NOT what I mean -- or what is meant generally -- by inerrancy.

Okay, let's see, I said (paraphrasing) that by inerrancy, you mean that where a passage says that God commanded Israel to kill children, that it means just what it literally says and to suggest that it didn't mean LITERALLY that God wanted Israel to kill children - to suggest that it was a metaphor or a parable or an incomplete way of understanding how God works - is NOT inerrancy.

Are you now saying that I CAN say that it didn't literally happen that way and still be an inerrantist? That what I think is without error is perhaps the truth that God is with us, that God takes sin seriously, that sin has consequences - these are the Truths of the passage and not what it literally says - I can say that and be an inerrantist?

Bubba said...

Dan, if you think that the difficult OT passages are allegorical, then your problem -- your problem at least with this passage, and your problem with others who believe differently than you -- really is with literalism rather than inerrancy.

It is when you suggest the passage contains error -- as you did in the passages I cited above -- is when you're objecting to inerrancy.


It honestly isn't clear that you do believe the passage is without error.

"That what I think is without error is perhaps the truth that God is with us, that God takes sin seriously, that sin has consequences - these are the Truths of the passage and not what it literally says - I can say that and be an inerrantist?"

If you think these truths are only the parts that are without error -- implying that other parts of the same passage are erroneous -- then I don't think you can accurately describe yourself as an inerrantist.

An inerrantist doesn't just say about the Bible, there are parts without error. He says, all parts are without error.


But supposing your take on the passage doesn't actually challenge the idea that the passage contains truth without any mixture of error doesn't mean that your take is just fine.

It's completely implausible to conclude that the passage was ever intended to be taken figuratively, and no other part of Scripture treats the passage figuratively: on the contrary, the Bible is consistent in treating OT history as, well, historical.

And you've not only never provided any biblical reason to believe that the passage can or must be interpreted figuratively -- except the sheer question-begging of citing passages that condemn the shedding of innocent blood -- you've also never provided an alternative figurative interpretation in any sort of detail, much less a plausible one.

"God is with us and takes sin seriously" simply isn't a specific enough conclusion to draw from any one passage: if these passages are allegories or metaphors, fables or parables, then one would expect that much more could be drawn from all of them.


One other concern I have, beyond the sheer implausibility that we're supposed to take THE PASSOVER as mere allegory, is that your apparent skepticism at the morality and possibility of Old Testament history ought to apply at least as much to the Gospels.

You've written before how science has -- somehow -- disproven Genesis' account of creation.

(Again, science assumes that miracles don't occur in order to draw conclusions; the Bible is clear that assumption is not secure.)

But even the creation of a large but finite universe in 144 hours is next to nothing -- quite literally almost nothing -- compared to the claim of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of God. The central belief of Christianity, a belief which you seem to affirm, is that the literally infinite became finite, then even died, then came back; even creation is tinker-toys compared to that.

And the admittedly difficult passages where God ends human lives through catastrophe or even human agency is nothing compared to Christ's "hard sayings" about literally ETERNAL judgment.

If ever they were applied consistently, your objections to these ultimately less miraculous and less troubling Old Testament accounts would undermine your confidence in the central beliefs about Christ and the central teachings of Christ.

Bubba said...

The only other thing I would add tonight is to say that I actually don't believe a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is strictly necessary. I understand the concern to the contrary -- where would one draw the line between figurative accounts and history? -- but it's easy to draw that line at creation because those accounts cannot possibly be the result of a human eyewitness to these earliest events. They had to be relayed by God, which certainly allows for the possibility that He did so use language that's more poetic than scientifically precise.

But, on the other hand, I don't have a problem with a literal interpretation because I don't believe science could disprove that interpretation.

Indeed, some Christians believe that one MUST hold to a literal interpretation of the account of creation, and I don't.

Their position is overly restrictive, I think, but it's still less troubling -- BY WIDE MARGINS -- than the notion that one COULD reject a belief in the literal Resurrection, and though you say that a historical Resurrection is (somehow) "essential," it's never been clear that you think such a denial is actually outside the bounds of Christianity.


Unless there's anything else that pretty much demands a response, thanks for the time.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said...

It is when you suggest the passage contains error -- as you did in the passages I cited above -- is when you're objecting to inerrancy.

As I have noted with you elsewhere, I have fairly consistently said that I don't think the problem is inerrancy, as I think "inerrant" is not a valid term to use when talking about literature such as the Bible. To talk about whether or not Jonah was ACTUALLY swallowed by a great fish misses the point altogether.

When you're talking about wisdom books, such as the Bible, the only way that inerrancy makes sense is if we're talking about whether or not the Truths are inerrant, it seems to me. I affirm the inerrancy of the Truths taught in the Bible, rightly understood.

Even there, though, if you assume that it is a Truth that God sometimes wants us to kill children, then I think you've grabbed on to the wrong truth and your understanding of the Bible is askew. But that has more to do with one's understanding be errant than the Bible itself.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said...

"God is with us and takes sin seriously" simply isn't a specific enough conclusion to draw from any one passage

Okay, so I read the story of God commanding Israel to wipe out a village, down to the last baby and dog.

You find the Truth in that story to reasonably be that God sometimes commands people to kill babies, because God takes sin seriously.

I find the truth in that story to be that sin has consequences and that God is with us in the midst of oppression and troubles, but very specifically NOT that God wishes us sometimes to kill babies.

If you find that reasonable and the best explanation of that passage, I guess hang on to it. I find it wholly implausible and inconsistent with biblical teaching.

And I think that example is another problem with biblical inerrancy (as you define it): It causes people to affirm that God might sometimes command the killing of babies rather than the commonsense, logical and moral rejection of such a heinous portrayal of God.

An extension of that problem with that sort of inerrancy is that people hear Bubba say, "Yes, sometimes God might command the slaughter of babies..." and they say, "If that's what your god is like, no thank you!" and run as far from at least that church as possible.

So not only can biblical inerrancy (of the sort that Bubba is talking about) cause people to abandon their faith, it can also drive people from the faith before they've ever tasted it.

Or so it seems to me (and so I have heard in the real world).

Bubba said...

Why, Dan, I was under the impression that you didn't mind the possibility that doctrine can offend people.

After all, "grace and mercy CAN be scandalous and offensive."


About inerrancy, you write:

"When you're talking about wisdom books, such as the Bible, the only way that inerrancy makes sense is if we're talking about whether or not the Truths are inerrant, it seems to me. I affirm the inerrancy of the Truths taught in the Bible, rightly understood."

If you affirm only that the "Truths" of the Bible are inerrant, you're not affirming the inerrancy of the Bible, but only parts of the Bible -- the "Truths," whatever that happens to mean.

In other conversations you've contrasted "Truths" and facts -- as if facts aren't truths -- to focus on universal theological claims and downplay specific historical claims.

The problem is, the Bible is quite clear in its proclamation of a deity who is both universal and particular.

God created the entire universe, and He offers grace and salvation to all of us.

But God also chose the nation of Israel, through very specific people who -- the Bible clearly claims -- actually lived in history: Abraham and his son Isaac (not Ishmael) and Isaac's son Jacob (not Esau).

And God offers salvation through very particular historical events: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who died under Pilate and who died "for our sins according to the Scriptures" and who was raised three days later.

Because many of the Bible's books claim to be historical, and because some of its essential doctrines are historical claims, it is an affront to its teachings (to say nothing of Christianity, much less the Lordship of Jesus Christ) to treat the Bible as a book of "Truths" whose historical facts can be ignored.

Maybe there are "wisdom books" that don't make historical claims central to the wisdom they wish to impart. Perhaps you should consider devoting yourself to one of these other books, one that doesn't make claims that you find so very offensive.

You could then tell us that you love that book and deeply respect its teachings, and you'd sound credible doing so.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said...

If you affirm only that the "Truths" of the Bible are inerrant, you're not affirming the inerrancy of the Bible, but only parts of the Bible -- the "Truths," whatever that happens to mean.

Okay. That's part of why I don't think "inerrant" is a biblical or logical way to talk about the Bible's teachings. Feel free to disagree.

Bubba said...

God created the entire universe, and He offers grace and salvation to all of us...

And God offers salvation through very particular historical events: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who died under Pilate and who died "for our sins according to the Scriptures" and who was raised three days later.


Okay.

I think the better, more biblically correct and logically sound way of saying that God offers salvation is that God offers salvation through grace. That God forgives us when we repent and seek salvation because it is God's deepest desire that none perish and so, God forgives us when we repent because it pleases God to do so, and thus, we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus by God's sweet forgiveness.

Feel free to disagree.

Dan Trabue said...

Because many of the Bible's books claim to be historical, and because some of its essential doctrines are historical claims, it is an affront to its teachings (to say nothing of Christianity, much less the Lordship of Jesus Christ) to treat the Bible as a book of "Truths" whose historical facts can be ignored.

Many of the Bible's books claim to be historical: What do you mean by that? That they purport to report on historical events? Sure, I agree with that. Obviously, there was a Jewish people and they did obviously have a real presence in that region of the Middle East. No one is objecting to that notion.

In that sense, absolutely, they are historical books. But do they claim to be historically written, in the sense that history books are written today? With a fine eye to specific dates and avoiding mythic story-telling devices? I don't believe the Bible ever makes that claim and don't think you could support that, if that's what you're trying to suggest.

So when you say, they claim to be historical, do you also think they claim to be historical AND perfectly factually correct (or even relatively perfectly factually correct)?

I don't think you can support this biblically.

Dan Trabue said...

Perhaps you should consider devoting yourself to one of these other books, one that doesn't make claims that you find so very offensive.

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that belief in a God that commands the killing of babies is offensive. This is, after all, exactly what God condemns OTHER, pagan religions for. You know, in the Bible, which I love and honor.

I think the vast majority of the world agrees that ordering people to kill babies is not something of God.

Now, of course, the vast majority of the world could be wrong. It is possible that we're wrong that thinking that God ordering people to kill babies is a bad image of God. We could also be wrong that murder is a bad thing or that rape is a bad thing.

But you know, sometimes when nearly everyone agrees on something, it's because they're all correct.

Dan Trabue said...

Dan had written...

So not only can biblical inerrancy (of the sort that Bubba is talking about) cause people to abandon their faith, it can also drive people from the faith before they've ever tasted it.

To which Bubba responded...

Why, Dan, I was under the impression that you didn't mind the possibility that doctrine can offend people.

Absolutely. But then, there's offending people with truth and then there's offending them with hogwash. Offending people because you're telling the truth is one thing and probably a good thing.

Offending them because you're trying to sell them a jug of hogwash and claiming it's mouthwash is something else altogether and not a good thing.

I'd assume you would agree.

Bubba said...

Dan, I think you're overstating the unanimity of the belief that God would never and has never commanded wars of annihilation or even annihilated groups of people Himself through catastrophe.

But even if the rest of the world disagreed with Moses, Samuel, and the psalmists that God did give such commands, someone who truly loves the Bible and deeply respects its teachings would defer to the book rather than the masses.

Heck, someone who was sure that the Bible doesn't teach what it clearly teaches, wouldn't appeal to opinion polls: he would argue from Scripture.


About the specific details of Old Testament history, I absolutely can and do support my position biblically.

Once again, Jesus Christ Himself taught the reality of the resurrection of the dead by pointing to a single verb tense in Exodus 3:6, where God told Moses, "I am (present tense) the God of Abraham."

And, once again, Paul taught some very significant theological truths -- our salvation by faith, and the unity in Christ -- from the specific detail that Abraham's justification long preceded his circumcision.

If you believe that the Bible allows us to ignore the details of OT history, you certainly haven't made a credible case from the teachings of Christ, His Apostles, or any of the New Testament writers -- or any other part of Scripture, for that matter.


Finally, about our salvation, you write:

"I think the better, more biblically correct and logically sound way of saying that God offers salvation is that God offers salvation through grace. That God forgives us when we repent and seek salvation because it is God's deepest desire that none perish and so, God forgives us when we repent because it pleases God to do so, and thus, we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus by God's sweet forgiveness."

You apparently believe it's "better, more biblically correct and logically sound" to omit the claim that Christ died for our sins.

The funny thing is, I didn't get that idea from out of nowhere: I got it from I Corinthians 15.

Christ Himself taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.

And Paul is quite clear in Romans 3 that our salvation is due, not only (but certainly) to God's grace and our faith, BUT ALSO to Christ's death.

"But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith." - Rom 3:21-25

You say this is mere imagery, yet somehow still valid, but you never explain how. And the only way you justify your conclusion is to point to other passages that (you say) teach salvation by other means, but you consistently rip passages out of even their immediate context in order to do so.

The Bible is quite clear that Christ died for our sins.

Dan Trabue said...

And I affirm that this is one way of looking at our salvation by grace.

Dan Trabue said...

someone who was sure that the Bible doesn't teach what it clearly teaches, wouldn't appeal to opinion polls: he would argue from Scripture.

Done that. Ad nauseum. We disagreed on what scripture taught.

You think it teaches that GOD SOMETIMES MIGHT COMMAND PEOPLE TO KILL BABIES.

I disagree. As long as you don't hear that sort of message from God yourself, you are free to believe that is biblical and good teaching if you wish. I shall disagree, if you don't mind terribly.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said...

If you believe that the Bible allows us to ignore the details of OT history, you certainly haven't made a credible case from the teachings of Christ, His Apostles, or any of the New Testament writers -- or any other part of Scripture, for that matter.

I haven't said we ought to ignore the details of biblical history. I have said that I don't think the Bible supports taking all of them as literal history.

Glad to correct that misunderstanding.

Craig said...

Dan,

Sorry to be late to the party, but I have to take issue with the following statement of yours. "this is one of those blogs where they decided they no longer wished for me to comment there and I'm abiding by that wish.".

If you are talking about any of the recent threads at my blog, I must say that is emphatically not true that I no longer wish you to comment there. I know that you claim to value truth highly and speak out strongly against untruth. In this case, while specific threads may have reached a point of diminished returns, nowhere did I ( if it is my blog, I'm really the only one whose opinion on these things matters) say that I wished that you would refrain from commenting.

To clarify, you are always welcome to comment at my blog. I may shut down a thread, I will NEVER ban someone or even ask them to stop commenting.

I trust that you will set the record straight.

Craig said...

If this happened elsewhere then I apologize for assuming that it came from the discussion at my place. Feel free to delete my comment if this is the case. Although you're still always welcome to comment.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, it happened elsewhere, Craig. So far as I know, you have not asked me to stop commenting, this person has (and, by Bubba's requested, I had "outed" the blog in question somewhere above - it's Winging It.

He has an interesting, if flawed (in my opinion) review of what makes Christianity currently underway. As I told Bubba, I am generally reluctant to point to blogs where they have asked me to stay away (or banned me from commenting), just to respect their desire to distance themselves from me. But since Bubba seemed so intent on knowing the source, I gave it.

No, Craig, for all our disagreements, you have not banned me or asked me to stop commenting. That's one thing I can respect about you and Marshall, you seem as interested as I am in the conversations, disagreement or not.

But it IS rather astounding how often I and others (ER, Alan, Geoffrey, for instance) have been banned from conservative sites. We are generally as polite or more polite than the people at the sites in question (although all of us sometimes lower ourselves to the level of their comments to us, responding in kind - which may or may not be appropriate, but is sort of human nature), and yet, the pattern is very often the same...

They'll greet us warmly enough and we'll engage in conversations as Christian brothers/sisters. And yet, as soon as they see that we insist that we are Christians AND YET disagree with them on gay marriage, or war, or abortion, or biblical inerrancy, and that we do not intend to repent for disagreeing with them, it becomes increasingly more heated until finally they ban us or ask us to stay away.

In at least my case, I almost always early on will point out that if they don't wish for me to comment there, all they have to do is ask (and quit commenting about me, I would add - I don't find it appropriate to talk about someone without letting them defend themselves) and I will go away. And yet, quite often, they will ban me and not allow my comments to appear. I find that very interesting. Why not just ask me to stay away, rather than ban me?

I suspect (I don't know, just suspect) it's a power issue. To go so far as to ASK someone to stay away implies that you respect them enough to be considerate enough to ask. If, on the other hand, you BAN someone, well the power is in YOUR hands as to whether or not to allow a comment. Just a guess.

But whatever the reason, it has happened over and over. Easily at least a dozen or maybe two dozen times. Neil, Stan, Dan, Kmaru, Von, Mike... on and on it goes. The same pattern: Friendly, questioning, increasingly bitter then banned (often with misrepresentations about my behavior, which is generally fairly polite, comparatively).

Strange.

Craig said...

Dan,

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.

Dan Trabue said...

If you were to find out that God really did, literally and historically, issue the occasional command to wage wars of annihilation, would that shake your faith in God?

As I have said before: God is God and as God, above and beyond my understanding. If I were to find out that the actual God actually sometimes commands people to kill babies, I'd be shaken, to say the least.

My faith in the Bible would be shaken, to be sure, since I believe the Bible is quite clear that we are not to kill babies. But then, my faith is not in the Bible, but in God, who is beyond my understanding.

Now, if you were to ask something like, "If you found out that Jesus really wanted us to hate our neighbors and kill babies for sport and get rich by selling the poor into slavery," THEN my faith in THAT god would be shaken. As I would hope that all of our faith would be shaken.

If God is about hating enemies and killing babies and oppressing the poor, that is not the God that I know from the Bible and from my own heart and witness of all of creation.

But if I merely found out that some facts I thought I had correct about the Bible were mistaken (that it actually IS important to believe in a virgin birth or a triune God), that would not shake my faith.

How about you? If you found out that God commands us to kill babies and oppress the poor, would your faith in that god be shaken?

What if you merely found out that God did not actually confuse speech at the tower of Babel or that Jonah was not actually swallowed by a whale?

Do you see the order in magnitude of difference between the two outlooks? Mere historical facts are not anything to shake our faith, if we have something mistaken, or shouldn't be (which was the point of my post, in case you missed that).

But IF God were NOT the God described in the Bible - if God's attributes and nature were wrong in the Bible, then THAT is something to concern us.

Thank God, we can be sure that this is not the case.

Dan Trabue said...

Well, I'm frankly skeptical about your ability to represent their behavior accurately and fairly.

Then tell me, you have been to the site in question, have I not quoted the persons in question accurately? I quoted ALL he said about the matter, so I don't hardly see how I could be accused of misrepresenting him.

I then made it clear that I did not know to what degree this person meant what he said and I had no way to find out. But, I continued to go on to point out that in actual conversations with other people, I HAVE had someone say, "If I found out that the creation story wasn't true, I don't know if I would remain a Christian." I HAVE heard people say, "If one fact isn't true, then how do we know ANY of it is true?"

So, in this case, I said I could give him the benefit of the doubt, and "that he probably means that if he were to learn that ALL of it were false, surely this must be what he means."

But I carried on to say, I feared that he might mean it on the more superficial level, as it is not an unheard of position.

How about you, Bubba? If you discovered that the Creation was NOT a six day process, that Adam and Eve are figurative representations of the beginning of humanity, not two actual people, that the tower of Babel is just a mythological explanation of how different languages came, that Jonah was NOT swallowed by an actual fish and that Mary was NOT actually a virgin, would you lose faith?

And, since you are able to ask, feel free to go to that other blog and ask that fella what exactly he meant. Ask him the question I just asked you.

I'd be interested in hearing the answer from both of you.

Bubba said...

Since what we're discussing is the Bible's claims about how God acted and revealed Himself within history, any mistaken understanding about these "Mere historical facts" WOULD potentially alter our understanding of God's attributes and nature.

After all, these claims aren't only about Abraham, Moses, or Samuel: they're also about God, what He commanded these men to do, and what He revealed about how He acts in history.


I frankly don't understand your answer. In one paragraph you say that finding out God really did command wars of annihilation WOULD shake your faith in the Bible, but then you say that you have no faith in the Bible.

"My faith in the Bible would be shaken, to be sure, since I believe the Bible is quite clear that we are not to kill babies. But then, my faith is not in the Bible, but in God, who is beyond my understanding."

So something that doesn't even exist, could be shaken? I would think existence is a precondition for everything else.


Myself, I have no problem admitting that, depending on the content of that belief, discovering that some deeply held belief is wrong WOULD shake my faith in God -- again, not necessarily in the existence of a Creator, but in His being our Redeemer, holy, just, and faithful.

This includes certain "mere" historical claims, most prominently the physical and bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, without which (the Bible teaches) our faith is in vain, we have a false hope, and we are dead in our sins.


Not just because of the confused paragraph above, your answer isn't clear.

"As I have said before: God is God and as God, above and beyond my understanding. If I were to find out that the actual God actually sometimes commands people to kill babies, I'd be shaken, to say the least."

You'd be shaken? Does that mean your faith in God would be shaken?

If so, just why wouldn't that imply that you might be worshiping your God-given reason rather than God Himself?

Again, what you wrote was this:

"I rightly pointed out, I'd say, that anyone who would lose their faith in God merely because they learned that their interpretation of a story in the Bible [is wrong] are POSSIBLY worshiping the wrong god."

The same logically applies to anyone who would lose their faith in God merely because who He is and what He does (not unrelated things) contradict that person's understanding of God through his supposedly God-given reason.

I'm sure you can see that a shaken or lost faith in God doesn't imply idolatry of one's ability to reason, if his prior understanding was informed by reason.

Well, it also doesn't imply idolatry of the Bible, if his prior understanding was informed by the Bible.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said...

Skimming Stan's site, I came across an exchange that ended a brief reprieve on his decision to show you the door. Stan didn't think your comment about his being in a "snit" was friendly (you would put it, "polite") and I'm inclined to agree.

I must say I find this amazing. I went back to the site in question and re-read the whole conversation. I was EXCEEDINGLY polite throughout the conversation, at least in my intent, and as far as I can tell, in my words.

HE brought up a topic, I tried discussing it, I said I agreed with him on multiple points at multiple times and I asked clarifying questions. At which point he eventually just said, "The end." As in, "I'm done talking about this now. That seems a little snitty, especially given how polite I was in that conversation.

If you see any impoliteness, you'll do me a favor by pointing it out, because honest to goodness, it was just a conversation to me where I was politely asking questions to clarify what his position was. There was not an ounce of mean-spiritedness in my intent and I am hard pressed to find anything that can be taken that way.

In fact, you have to go more than half way down through the conversation where I even mildly say I disagree with him. I asked if I was correct in understanding his position on "Christian positions" and then said...

If so, I'd disagree, but not so much as long as we were consistent about it. That is, perhaps we would all be better off if we didn't presume to say that WE hold the "christian position" on non-biblical issues?

That is about as mild a disagreement as I can imagine. Surely that's not what you find rude?

From there I had one more comment before he said, "the end," and the harshest thing I can find in that comment is this:

"It appears that YOU think the gov't is the appropriate agency to implement rules about who can and can't be married, even though the bible does not tell you so. Is that the case? Does that mean that you are getting the gov't to do (what is, in your mind) Christianity's work?

So, if you could provide for me your reasoning why the gov't ought to be in the business of telling people how to live within (some) Christian's view of what is right and wrong, that would be enlightening, as well."


But these are merely clarifying questions to try to get to the meat of his objection, there was nothing rude in tone or intent that I can see. Perhaps you could illuminate me and help me see where you all are seeing impoliteness, because I just don't see it (and this from the person who continually gets called socialist, liar, hater, Obama worshiper, etc, etc - are those comments okay but this mild conversation with Stan is impolite?? I find that an astounding position to hold.)

And just so you know - there was not an ounce of animosity in any of the above, just clarifying questions and a bit of amazement.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba asked:

You'd be shaken? Does that mean your faith in God would be shaken?

No, my faith in my understanding of the Bible. I'm sorry, I tried to be clear there. That's why I followed that up with the clarifying comment:

"My faith in the Bible would be shaken, to be sure, since I believe the Bible is quite clear that we are not to kill babies. But then, my faith is not in the Bible, but in God, who is beyond my understanding."

My faith in my understanding of the Bible would be shaken if I found out that God sometimes commands the killing of babies.

Now, if I were to find that out, but I was assured that God was still a God opposed to the shedding of innocent blood, that was opposed to the oppression of the marginalized, that God was still a God of love and justice and the killing babies order was just something beyond my understanding, I guess it would just be beyond my understanding.

But if I found out that God's NATURE was fundamentally different than what the Bible says - a god of hate and war and killing enemies and overcoming evil with more evil - I would not have faith in that god. I'm guessing you would not, either?

So, I get that you'd have a problem if you discovered that the facts were wrong on the resurrection. That, for instance, if you learned that by Resurrection, it was not meaning a bodily resurrection of Jesus' actual body, but that his soul was resurrected and that Jesus lives on in the Kingdom of God and in the lives of the Believers, that might shake your faith and I can understand that somewhat.

But what of all the other examples I gave. Would learning your understanding was wrong on any one of them (or all of them?), would that shake your faith?

Bubba said...

Dan, my point earlier this evening was not that you misrepresented those guys regarding the quotes at the beginning of this discussion.

It was this: I believe you're probably misrepresenting them in your claim that they banned you on the simple FACT of your disagreement, with no consideration for the MANNER IN WHICH YOU DISAGREE.

If you did accurately represent them re: inerrancy, it doesn't follow that you MUST have been accurate about why Stan and the many others banned you.

Just because you're honest about one point doesn't mean you're never dishonest: a man can honestly recite his name and Social Security number while lying about not being an adulterer.


About that other thread, Stan wrote some 1300 words (including quoting what you wrote) in direct response to your comments.

Other than ending the exchange with an unceremonious "the end," NONE OF IT justifies your immediate summary of his behavior, across two different posts.

"I ask, then how can you have a 'Christian position' on any topic that's not in the Bible?

"You respond by saying, 'just because...' or 'Cause I think so,' and 'the end.'? Your blog, brother, but these seem like reasonable questions to me."

--

"From where I sit, it sounds like you have no sound, logical or biblical answers and, therefore, you quit in a snit, but maybe that's just me.
"

The summary of "just because" and "because I think so" is a fabrication out of whole cloth; he never wrote either phrase or anything that could be summarized as such.

Your presumptuous theory about why he ended the conversation didn't give him the benefit of the doubt.

You may think you were justified in drawing these conclusions, but you're not justified in describing your behavior as wholly polite.

Dan Trabue said...

Sooo, WHAT did I say that was impolite? My summation of his answers as "just because.."? Well, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it's a little impolite-sounding, but it was just an attempt to paraphrase his position with no hostile intent on my part.

Again, I have to wonder about what you consider polite and impolite, given that you have multiple times said that I was lying (am I remembering that incorrectly? I don't think so, but then I get called a liar so frequently that some of you fellas blend together...) and just recently said I was full of shit after suggesting that I worship Obama, and yet these mild, polite questions and disagreements at Stan's rises to the level of impolite?

Bubba said...

Dan, I do think you're often hypocritical and dishonest. You don't see me claiming to be nothing but polite to you, do you?

Your comments at Stan's may have been comparatively mild, but that doesn't mean that they actually were polite: presumption, question-begging, and even passive-aggressive behavior can seem so very mild, too, but they're not polite.

And hostile intent is irrelevant to the question of politeness, because the two aren't always related.

A friendly drunk can be very rude, and Shakespeare's Iago could be quite polite.


About those other examples -- a literal six-day creation, Jonah, the Virgin Birth, etc. -- the answer varies, and in one case at least you presume what you shouldn't, that I believe that creation must have taken literally six twenty-four hour days.

I actually don't believe a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is strictly necessary.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, "The only other thing I would add tonight is to say that I actually don't believe a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is strictly necessary."


I think I understand the claim that you're making -- though certainly not why you're drawing the distinction you do -- so I think these examples are a digression.


You write:

"But if I found out that God's NATURE was fundamentally different than what the Bible says - a god of hate and war and killing enemies and overcoming evil with more evil - I would not have faith in that god. I'm guessing you would not, either?"

Actually, I believe God does hate sin (hence, His holy wrath), I believe that He is a God of war in addition to being a God of peace, and I do believe God can and does strike down His enemies. But one out of four ain't bad: I agree He is not a God who overcomes evil with more evil or commands others to do so.

But if I ignore the examples, I think I understand and even agree with what your position is:

"But if I found out that God's NATURE was fundamentally different than what the Bible says... I would not have faith in that god."

Okay, I understand that, and I think that's actually a reasonable position WHICH I SHARE.

But what I don't grasp is why you treat "what the Bible says" about God's ACTIONS differently than what it says about His NATURE.


Why is it fine to trust the Bible so completely about its teachings regarding God's NATURE, but not its teachings regarding His ACTIONS?

If the Bible is wrong about who God is, you would no longer have faith in God as the Bible describes Him.

Okay, but if the Bible is wrong about WHAT GOD DOES, then one should still have faith in God as the Bible describes Him -- and such a thing is possible, apparently, because the only claims that count are eternal claims about His nature, not historical claims about His actions -- and no longer having faith suggests a literal idolatry of the Bible?!

This seems like more of the truth-but-not-fact distinction you keep making, a distinction which I have never understood.

Even deists hold to one historical claim about God -- namely, that He doesn't act in history -- so I don't understand why you think historical claims about God don't matter.

Dan Trabue said...

I find a HUGE and significant difference between saying that I have wrongly understood this historical passage (thinking it was to be taken literally rather than allegorically, or vice versa) in the Bible and discovering that God's nature, as described in the Bible is not God's nature at all.

Bubba said...

I wasn't talking about whether there is merely a misunderstanding on the part of the person studying the Bible, but whether the Bible ITSELF teaches something false about how God has acted in history.

As I put it in my last comment, your position seems to be, "if the Bible is wrong about WHAT GOD DOES, then one should still have faith in God as the Bible describes Him... and no longer having faith suggests a literal idolatry of the Bible."


Now, you write about "discovering that God's nature, as described in the Bible is not God's nature at all."

Well, what if you discover that God's BEHAVIOR, as described in the Bible, is not God's BEHAVIOR at all?

It seems that you think biblical claims about God's nature are essential, but not about His behavior. Do I misunderstand you? If I don't, I still don't understand why you draw that particular distinction, especially because not a few essential claims of Judaism and Christianity ARE claims about how God has acted in history.

Dan Trabue said...

It seems that you think biblical claims about God's nature are essential, but not about His behavior. Do I misunderstand you?

1. If the text reads, "If your eye offends you, rip it out," and I understand that to be a literally accurate description of what Jesus meant and I later find out that I was mistaken - that passages was not intended to be taken literally at all, then that is a problem with my understanding of the scripture.

2. If the point of the scripture was that we are to be wary of the trappings of sinful behavior and I got that right, but took it to mean we ought to be SO wary of sin, that we literally ought to rip out offending eyes, then I correctly understood the Bigger Meaning of the passage, I just failed to understand the difference between metaphor and actual.

3. If the point of the scripture is that we ought to be wary of the trappings of sin, but actually, god thinks sinful behavior is a wonderful and blessed thing, then that's a difference between what the Bible indicates the nature of God is and what the actual nature of God is.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well, but there seems to be a significant difference between GETTING the point, but missing the difference between metaphor and factual and getting the point but the point is actually wrong.

Bubba said...

But, Dan, "the point" of what the Bible teaches includes at least some of its historical claims -- most especially, most emphatically, and indisputably the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I Corinthians 15 is explicit about this, that if Christ was not raised, then our faith is in vain, our hope is false, and we are dead in our sins.

"Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well, but there seems to be a significant difference between GETTING the point, but missing the difference between metaphor and factual and getting the point but the point is actually wrong."

If you don't see that at least one essential doctrine of our faith -- the Resurrection -- must be literal and not figurative, factual and not fictional, and historical and not mythical, then you've so thoroughly missed the point that what remains is so lacking that it probably cannot be accurately described as Christian.

But, then, maybe I simply don't understand your position.

Dan Trabue said...

I Corinthians 15 is explicit about this, that if Christ was not raised, then our faith is in vain, our hope is false, and we are dead in our sins.

So, what if you found out that God meant that Jesus was resurrected spiritually, not bodily, and that Jesus is alive in each of us, resurrected forever in his church? Would that not still get to the truth indicated in 1 Cor 15?

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.


IF Jesus rose from the dead spiritually speaking, is that not also resurrection? When we raise from the dead, is that not a spiritual resurrection? "To be absent in our bodies and present in the Lord," as Paul says, is that not also a resurrection?

So, what if you and I were wrong and Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead, would that take away from the Truth of 1 Cor 15?

I'm not sure that it does at all.

Bubba said...

That is why I am concerned, Dan: it's great that we agree Christ's Resurrection was physical, but it's deeply troubling that you don't find the doctrine of a physical and literal Resurrection to be essential.

If the Resurrection was not bodily, it was not a resurrection, and everything that Paul taught in I Corinthians 15 still holds: our faith is in vain.

I have long said that the methods you use to undermine the historicity, veracity, and authority of the (often relatively peripheral) teachings of the Bible could ALSO undermine the central teachings.

I wonder if that's what I'm seeing here: in order to argue against the historicity of the divine command to wage wars of annihilation, you emphasize non-historical "Truths" over the Bible's claims of historical fact, and now to be consistent you have to argue that even THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST need not be a physical, literal, and historical event.


Regardless, the Bible is clear without a shadow of a doubt that the Resurrection was bodily: the tomb was empty, Thomas examined His wounds, and He ate with His disciples.

The Bible is absolutely clear that without this kind resurrection, our faith is in vain.

It comes down to a very simple fact.

If Jesus is still a corpse, Jesus cannot be God.

You may think it sounds very enlightened to say that you don't think your faith would be shaken if Jesus was fodder for the worms, and that it doesn't take away from whatever "Truths" you find in the Bible.

It's certainly not biblical, and it's not Christian either.

Christians do not simply worship a God whose grace somehow vaguely saves us and whose Son is risen only in a spiritual (or even metaphorical) sense, in our hearts and in the church.

We worship the God whose grace prompted Him to send His Son to die for our sins, who raised His Son bodily from the grave.

We serve a risen Lord who left an empty tomb.

If you don't find these claims central, essential, and absolutely indispensable, the very best I can conclude is that you're very, very confused. And I must say that the problems you have with biblical inerrantists are minor in comparison to your significant deviation from Christianity.


I've said my peace, Dan. I'm wrapping up at Craig's as quickly as I can -- it's slow going -- but I've said all I needed to say here.

See you 'round.

Dan Trabue said...

If the Resurrection was not bodily, it was not a resurrection, and everything that Paul taught in I Corinthians 15 still holds: our faith is in vain.

Why?

As repeatedly noted, I think that Jesus raised from the dead. We have witnesses, we have reason, we have testimony.

Why? What biblical reason? What logical reason?

It sounds as if you're holding on to a teaching that you believe (as do I) merely because you've been taught that way.

You probably believe in a literal tower of Babel, you probably believe in a literal "big fish" for Jonah, and I'm fine with that. But if your faith is shaken because you were merely mistaking stories as literal that were intended to be metaphorical, where is your faith? In your understanding or in the actual Truths?

But what if you and I were wrong about our interpretation of what "resurrection" means?

Why can the resurrection spoken of in 1 Corinthians not be metaphorical?

But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised.

And if Christ has not been raised, then empty (too) is our preaching; empty, too, your faith.


But if he were raised spiritually, not bodily, is that not a resurrection, too?

Why can't we be wrong on details as long as we get the big Truths right?

Dan Trabue said...

The thing is, we can admit that the notion that Creation as Six Day phenomena need not be the One and Only way of taking the details of that story - the story whose Big Truth is that God is Creator. It's the Big Truth that is important, I think we can both agree on that in at least the Creation story.

The problem many of us have, it seems to me, is the too strong tendency to insist that OUR interpretation is the One and Only interpretation on various matters.

When that happens, it's no longer enough to say that "I believe in the atonement," it's "That's not good enough. You have to believe in Atonement as I see it." It's not enough to believe in the Creation, that's not good enough for some people. You have to believe in it just as I think the Bible teaches it.

This is why I think the Big Truths are the ones we ought to be mostly concerned with. The little details simply aren't as easy to determine and, ultimately, not as critical as the Big Truths, as long as the Big Truths are sound.

We have no way of demonstrating a six day creation, no way of demonstrating a literal tower of Babel, no way of proving a big fish swallowed Jonah or even if Jonah was an actual person. And ultimately, these are little details compared to the big truths of the Bible.

These big truths are what we need to hold fast to. Give grace and the acknowledgment that we are fallible humans with no way of determining the little facts.

Now, when it comes to the resurrection, I believe in that because I think - not unlike most conservatives - that there is more solid actual evidence for a bodily resurrection. And so I believe.

But if God were to appear to me and say, "No, it wasn't Jesus' literal body that was raised. The body is just a shell, my son. The spirit is what lives on. This is just as true with my Son, Jesus as it is with you..." well, no, my faith would not be shaken.

That does not seem un-Christian to me at all. It really does to you?

Dan Trabue said...

It comes down to a very simple fact.

If Jesus is still a corpse, Jesus cannot be God...


Says who? If God appeared to you and explained, as I just suggested as a possibility, that you got it wrong, you would say to God, "Well then get lost! I want nothing to do with you!" - you wouldn't really do that, would you?

Christians do not simply worship a God whose grace somehow vaguely saves us and whose Son is risen only in a spiritual

Nothing vague about it at all. God saves Bubba specifically by God's grace because of Bubba's faith in Jesus and acceptance of Jesus' Lordship. Unless, perhaps, Bubba's faith is not in Jesus, but in his idea of Jesus, a god of his own creation.

But I don't think that's the case. Bubba is just sure that he understands the right way to understand some passages and it's hard to imagine it any other way.

I'd just ask Bubba to remember that we're all fallible.