1. I believe most scholars consider "recorded history" as beginning sometime around the 7th century, BCE, not quite 3,000 years ago. Thus, the period prior to the 7th century, BCE, most scholars (again, I believe) refer as "prehistory," or before recorded history.
2. The OT stories occur generally between 6,000 BCE to about 500-ish BCE [source]. The stories of the Return from Exile as told in some of the latter [chronological] stories of the OT would be amongst the last stories told.
3. Thus, MOST of OT history falls into the "prehistory" category - these are stories told before recorded history.
4. The Epic of Gilgamesh would be another example of early "history," as told in the norms of the day...
"Gilgamesh is one of the oldest recorded stories in the world. It tells the story of an ancient King of Uruk, Gilgamesh, who may have actually existed, and whose name is on the Sumerian King List. The story of Gilgamesh, in various Sumerian versions, was originally widely known in the third millennium B.C. After a long history of retellings, this story was recorded, in a standardized Akkadian version, in the seventh century B.C., and stored in the famous library of King Assurbanipal. "
source
5. These stories were recorded faithfully and carefully.
"There were schools for scribes that taught a set curriculum of texts to copy precisely and in a fixed order. This resulted in lots of copies being made of many stories, with few variations, because accuracy of transcription was highly desired."
[same source]
6. Nonetheless, the stories do not always remain unchanged...
"Without a fixed written text, stories can be told for thousands of years, varying from teller to teller, adapted to this folk and that folk, with the names of kings, places, people added and subtracted to meet the needs and interests of a current audience. The story of Gilgamesh was originally part of such an oral tradition. "It is virtually impossible to determine when the material was first written down, let alone when it originated orally or how long it existed in an oral tradition. Rather it can be assumed, from the materials handed down from succeeding ancient peoples and languages, that it was not composed all of a piece and at one time but was added to gradually and varied by many tellers.""
[same source]
7. From that same source, we see that Gilgamesh was likely a real king and so in some sense, this was a "history." And yet, the story has Gilgamesh seeking immortality, was the son of a goddess and contains a description of a "netherworld" and other conventions of Epic Storytelling (which does not stick strictly to literal facts).
8. In other words, in Gilgamesh, real history and fictional embellishments occur side-by-side, back and forth with no warning as to what was literal and what was fiction. That was not the point of the storytelling. It was a different culture with different norms for passing on history. They weren't WRONG for telling historical tales that weren't wholly factual, it was just the way they did it. For us to suggest ancient cultures which mixed fact and fiction interchangeably were wrong or duplicitous for doing so is cultural elitism.
9. Gilgamesh is not alone in using Epic Storytelling norms for telling history. We have Homer's Iliad, describing the Trojan War, for instance, as well as the Odyssey and Virgil's Aeneid. Ancient histories often included gods and goddesses, real people and fantasy events. Do you have any examples of what we might call "actual" histories (ie, histories told without obvious fictional devices)? I can't think of any, especially anything from the time period 6000 BCE to 1000 BCE - the very period we are talking about.
So, if you can't provide any instances of history being told in wholly factual ways from that time period, if all our earliest examples are more of the Epic Storytelling vein, then that suggests to me that such a storytelling style was the norm of the day. ON WHAT BASIS would we conclude that these OT stories were passed on differently?
If you can provide no examples offering a different , then on what possible basis would we presume that the OT histories are told in a wholly factual manner, contrary to the norms of I believe most ancient storytelling?
It would seem to be cultural hubris to assume that THEY MUST tell history in the same manner that we do. Says who? ON. WHAT. BASIS?
If it's merely your hunch, once again, why should someone believe you? "On What Basis?" is a meaningful question to answer IF one is taking Bible study seriously.
Seems to me.
125 comments:
Dan,
I have already pointed to to the work that Dr. Greg Boyd has done on this topic, and his contention (backed up by secular research) is that verbal history is at least as accurate and written. I'm not going to rehash it all here, but I will be happy to point you toward his research. I would also recommend NT Wright (whom you have previously dismissed), Francis Scheaffer, and Nancy Pearcy for some good takes on this.
I also think your question at the end can be turned around. On what basis do you suggest that the stories in the OT have not been passed down accurately. I'm not sure that any or your examples in the post actually purport to be history.
Dr. Greg Boyd has done on this topic, and his contention (backed up by secular research) is that verbal history is at least as accurate and written.
And I remember that. What of it? I quite duly noted that the source noted that they were very exacting in accurately writing and re-writing down the text.
That has nothing to do with the style of the writing. If something is written in an Epic style, that means that the story written in such a style would be expected to be based loosely on historic people and events, but not every event would have literally happened.
Do you have any reason at all to suspect that this was not recorded in the style of the time period? Do you have any reason at all to suspect that it was written as a modern history would be written?
On what basis would you jump to that conclusion?
If you have a reason, by all means share it. But if you don't have anything to back up your belief that a text in which God commands the killing of babies, perhaps you will understand that I am not willing to take your hunch as a reliable biblical source.
And I mean no offense by that, I don't expect you to take my hunch as a reliable source, either. You have to research it yourself, strive to understand THE CONTEXT in which the story was written, do the research yourself. Don't take me at my word.
But, lacking even the first bit of evidence that these stories were NOT written in the styles of that time period and that they WERE supposed to be taken literally, I'm not seeing any reason to go along with your hunch.
On what basis do you suggest that the stories in the OT have not been passed down accurately.
I have no reason at all to believe that they weren't written down accurately in the style of the day. The point of epic stories, legends and mythologies was not that THESE are the literal facts, but rather, THESE TRUTHS in this story are reliable.
And I DO believe the Truths are reliable.
And I have nothing on which to make the wild leap that these stories were written as modern histories.
Do you?
Dan,
No one here (least of all me) has: written, said, hinted, implied, or intuited that the OT stories were written in the same way as "modern" history. I have provide you with some suggestions (as you asked) that might provide you with some insight. I would be interested in you providing something besides your hunch that the OT was written in an "epic" style. This seems like you placing the OT in a stylistic box.
1. Well, all the stories that I can find that come even close to that time period were written in that style.
2. I don't really have much reason to presume it would be written as a modern history (and you agree).
3. Some of the stories are rather hard to believe (morally, that is) if taken literally, plus, they would conflict with other more solid biblical Truths.
Given all of this, I have not a single reason that I can think of to presume that they're written as literal history, with each fact being literally true. And I have a good many reasons to presume it was written in a more legendary/epic style.
Do you have ANY reasons (beyond it was the way you were taught and it's what you're comfortable with) to presume that it was written as literal history?
I would suggest that the vast majority of Biblical scholarship would contend that the OT accurately records literal events.
Is it your contention that if one holds to the view that the OT actually contains accurate records of literal events they are wrong?
Obviously I am only referring to the portions of the OT that most would refer to as historical. As opposed to those referred to as, wisodm, prophecy, or poetry etc.
Is is your position that you draw no distinctions between the OT and other "stories of the day"?
Can you point to any other "stories of the day" that have anywhere near the amount of documentation as to what the original text said?
More later
I would suggest that the vast majority of Biblical scholarship would contend that the OT accurately records literal events.
Then I would ask the majority (if that is the case), on what basis have they reached that conclusion?
Do you know any substantive, logically- and biblically-sound reason why they would reach such a conclusion?
Craig...
Is it your contention that if one holds to the view that the OT actually contains accurate records of literal events they are wrong?
I don't know if they are wrong in general. In some quite specific cases, I would expect they are. Further, I would ask them on what basis do they hold such an opinion? And, if they don't have any substantive reason beyond "cuz I THINK it's literal," well, I am not impressed with that conclusion. Surely you could agree with me on that point?
That is, surely you agree that someone who holds an opinion on a biblical passage simply as a hunch with no solid biblical or logical reason to do so, that such a person doesn't present much in support of their position?
Craig...
Is is your position that you draw no distinctions between the OT and other "stories of the day"?
I am saying on what basis would we suspect that they wrote in a style different than how people wrote back then?
Loose up your mind a second and think about it: IF the storytelling convention of Moses' day had an emphasis on getting a TRUTH imparted and IF they were less concerned about literal facts in their stories, as long as the Truth was imparted, THEN would it not make sense that THIS is the storytelling technique Moses (or whoever) would have used in passing on their stories?
And so, for example, IF they wanted to pass on the Truth that God created the world and so, told this story about how it was created in six days, and on one day, the light and dark was created, on another day, animals were created, etc, then they might tell it in the very simple, poetic, mythic style as we find the creation story told in Genesis, mightn't they?
What reason would we have for presuming they would not tell their creation story as a creation myth, just as other peoples told their creation myths? AND IF THEY DID SO, does that make the Truth less True?
I think some people hear "myth" or "Epic," and conclude, "Well, that story's not worth much, since it's not factual!" but that is revealing a cultural bias against the type of storytelling of ancient cultures. Why would we presume that a story must be told in a fairly modern manner, with strictly factual facts, when that was not apparently stories were told back then?
On what basis would we make such a leap in logic?
This is what I'm trying to get across, Craig: I see no sound reason at all to presume a literal history in the OT history stories. Why do you?
Is it possible that you have a cultural bias against the way stories were told long ago and in favor of the way factual stories are told today, so that you denigrate ancient ways of storytelling? Isn't that possible at all?
Craig...
Can you point to any other "stories of the day" that have anywhere near the amount of documentation as to what the original text said?
What original text? What documentation?
I presume we all realize that, since most of the OT falls in the prehistoric era of human history, that these stories were passed on word of mouth for some 4,000 years, right?
And eventually, these stories that were passed on orally from generation to generation got written down, probably sometime in the tenth - seventh century BCE, right?
And we have no first hand documentation of these stories from when they originally happened (since it was before written history), right?
Dan,
If you want to argue against the vast majority of Biblical scholarship, you should probably do some research. I've given you suggestions, you choose not to check them out. I'd give you more, but see no reason to think you will actually check things out. So, unless you have actual evidence to suggest otherwise, I'll go with the scholars.
I'm not sure how this really answers my question. What you seem to be saying is that the issue really is what parts of the OT are "real" (we can, I hope, exclude those types of literature that do not purport to be history). Where I struggle with your contention is that you have nothing other than some version of "because I think so" to determine what passages you think are accurate. Once again, I am not aware of any biblical scholar who is actually putting forth the view you attribute. So, unless you want to actually deal in specifics it becomes difficult to respond much further.
As to your response about comparisons between the OT and other stories of the day, you have completely missed the point. You are simply treating the OT as a collection of stories authored by a bunch of guys. Most orthodox scholars would suggest that the OT was authored by God working through the individual writers. Now, if you do not agree with this basic premise then we might as well stop now. If you do agree then there is a point to continuing.
My mind is loose enough to understand that your whole premise hinges on one word "IF". The problem is my if is just as plausible as your if if you approach things with a minimum of presuppositions. The problem I have is that you haven't laid the groundwork to make a case that your "IF" is anything beyond your own speculation. If you want to look at something non subjective that would be great, but if all you have is "IF" Moses used the same literary style as XYZ culture (you can't even demonstrate that Moses would have been exposed to the style of any other culture, let alone be influenced by it), then I would hope for something more substantive.
As to my "biases" you presume too much. Is it possible that I have a cultural bias...blah, blah, blah. It's just as likely that your biases (and presuppositions) are influencing your position. For the record however, I have no biases against how any culture passes down history, none, zero, zip, Nada. I have given you a number of sources that have shaped my views on this topic (three in this thread alone), if you are interested in expanding your horizons you can check them out. If you are not, I'm not going to regurgitate them for you.
I can only assume that you are unaware of the vast amount of textural evidence in existence for the OT and the NT. Beyond that I'm not sure what your point is. You are attesting (presumably) to the accuracy of these other texts. If that is the case, is there as much evidence that these texts has been preserved accurately as there is for the OT? Yes, the OT was passed down orally for some period of time. If we are to believe the research, oral transmission is a very accurate way to pass down information, then it is reasonable to presume that the OT was passed down orally in substantially the same form we have it now. So. For your point to have much merit, you would need to demonstrate that other texts of antiquity were more accurately passed down than the OT.
I will (however) be posting some excerpts of a current hermeneutics text that addresses some of your points.
"I presume we all realize that, since most of the OT falls in the prehistoric era of human history, that these stories were passed on word of mouth for some 4,000 years, right?
And eventually, these stories that were passed on orally from generation to generation got written down, probably sometime in the tenth - seventh century BCE, right?"
I can only assume that you intend this comment to be a statement of fact. If that is the case would it be too much to ask for some sourcing that backs up your claim?
Craig...
Yes, the OT was passed down orally for some period of time. If we are to believe the research, oral transmission is a very accurate way to pass down information, then it is reasonable to presume that the OT was passed down orally in substantially the same form we have it now.
I don't think you're getting my point. I AM saying that the passing of stories down orally CAN BE a valid way of accurately passing on stories. We're not disagreeing on that accuracy of how it was passed down.
I'm saying is that these stories were probably told in a mythic, epic, legendary manner to begin with and ACCURATELY passed down as such.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of your sources have stated anything contrary to that. Since you posted no direct links to your names, I have not taken the time to look them up, yet.
Again, I'm asking on what basis you would make this (what seems to me to be an) incredible leap. If you want me to believe the rather unbelievable claim that God ACTUALLY literally commanded people to kill babies, you'll have to do something other than just list some names and reference a "vast majority of scholars."
As for support about when the OT was written down, some sources...
Here
Here
Craig, I don't know if you saw this info at Marshall's, but I've posted an example of my prayerful biblical study process in my latest post here. Perhaps that might help illuminate this discussion.
I am not saying that the stories were not passed down accurately, I'm saying it appears that they were passed down not written in a modern history style of writing. You agree to this point, but still cling to the notion that the history texts must be taken literally.
I am just not seeing any credible evidence to support that conclusion. It seems quite clear to me that we CAN'T take a God commanded the killing of babies passage literally, as it would conflict with Biblical teaching, as well as just be contrary to self-evidence. And, given the time period in which it was passed down, I don't see any reason to think it was originally intended to say "This literally happened," but rather that it intended to pass on certain Truths, "God literally made the world," "God quite literally, is with the oppressed..." that kind of thing.
I'd say in that sense, these stories are "inerrant," as the Truths ARE inerrant. I just see no reason to presume that they are also literal and I see plenty of reason to presume that they're not.
Look at it this way: IF we insist that these stories are literally inerrant then we have to conclude that the Biblical TRUTHS are errant. And I think the Bible truths are MUCH more important than the specific factual points of any story.
Craig said earlier:
I'm not sure that any or your examples in the post actually purport to be history.
So when the Epic of Gilgamesh describes a great flood that destroyed the earth, you think the author(s) were just making stuff up? That it was NOT based on history?
source
Dan,
This is starting to just each of us repeating ourselves which seems like a not very profitable use of time so I'll just make a few observations for now and try to throw out some other stuff later if I have time.
1. Whether passed down orally or in writing, you continue to make unfounded assumptions regarding the literary style used. Without some foundation this is simply you imagining something.
2. You continue to seem like you believe that a literal interpretation of the OT is some sort of strange, out of the mainstream view. When in fact, this has been/is the overwhelmingly prevalent view of Christian/Biblical scholars. Where I have a problem here is not with your opinion, it is with the fact that you are placing your opinion over the vast majority of people who have spent their lives studying this topic. (Please note, this is not me suggesting that a minority cannot or is never correct) It seems as though there are 2 possible solutions to this.
A) Acknowledge that you are swimming upstream and that you are content to go this along with negligible support from scholarship
B) Provide some scholarly support (be warned I would be hard pressed to take anyone associated with the Jesus Seminar as horribly credible) that buttresses your contention.
I've seen your process post, and I'm sure that you will agree that no matter what the process one goes through it is not guaranteed to produce the correct outcome at all times. You may also remember that I have previously questioned the fact that you seem to accord Reason the position as the final arbiter. I find this problematic for three reasons.
A) Reason is ultimately subjective, while Truth is objective.
B) Why would your argue that your Reasoning ability is superior to the reasoning ability of say Scheaffer?
C) Ultimately so much of the story told in the Bible is antithetical to Human reason. (this is potentially an entire discussion in itself. Suffice it to say that God's ways are not our ways, and I can live with that tension)
In short, I am happy to continue to point you in the direction of folks who have used their education, experience, and reason to reach a conclusion that is completely opposite of the one you have reached. But, I am unsure of the value of continuing to argue against "because I say so", "if", or "I can't believe God would do that".
It's your call.
Dan,
As I'm sure you can see, this argument is ridiculous. While I'm sure there are dilettantes and other poseurs who believe in the notion of the objective historical account, but they are certainly not by any means a "majority" of scholars.
As anyone who has read any history knows, there is simply no way to write an "objective" historical account of anything. And even if there were, there would be no way to objectively recognize it as such.
In addition, for one to argue that the OT was written in one style is also ridiculous on its face. The style of historical writing in the OT runs the gamut, as would be expected from dozens of stories told orally by generations of people until written down by dozens of authors over a period of many, many years.
Dan,
I'm out, you know why.
For the record, no one has argued that the OT is objective, obviously the authors were invested in it, what has been argued is that it is accurate.
Also for the record Dan is the only one pressing and argument that style matters. Any style of writing can convey information accurately.
Now I'm done.
Craig...
1. Whether passed down orally or in writing, you continue to make unfounded assumptions regarding the literary style used. Without some foundation this is simply you imagining something.
And you are making founded assumptions regarding the literary style? I have not seen any foundation yet for your hunch that the OT history was written in a fairly literal style.
Unless and until you provide SOME reason to accept that as reasonable, I have no choice but not accept it, as it is unreasonable and unbiblical as far as I can see. You'd have to provide some actual support for your argument as a starting point if you'd want to win me over.
Craig...
2. You continue to seem like you believe that a literal interpretation of the OT is some sort of strange, out of the mainstream view. When in fact, this has been/is the overwhelmingly prevalent view of Christian/Biblical scholars.
I don't know that this is the case at all and, if it IS the case, I don't know at this point on what they would base such a conclusion. I have yet to see any evidence to support that hunch.
By all means, provide some evidence to show, 1. The "majority of biblical scholars" believe OT history was written in a literal fashion and 2. Whether or not these scholars (majority or minority) have any reason to hold to such a conclusion.
Craig...
B) Why would your argue that your Reasoning ability is superior to the reasoning ability of say Scheaffer?
I don't know the first thing about Scheaffer. Why in the world would I place more trust in him/her than I would my own reasoning? Or more than the scholars that I have read who may (or may not) dispute Scheaffer's position?
At this point, I don't believe I have ever read anything by Scheaffer. I would suggest that the onus is on those who want me to believe that God sometimes commands killing babies to support that rather radical and unbiblical position.
Craig...
Ultimately so much of the story told in the Bible is antithetical to Human reason.
Sooo, what? We ought to think of what is reasonable to us and do the opposite? Since it makes no sense at all to me that God would command us to kill babies sometimes, are you suggesting that my reason is probably wrong and I should act in an opposite way, gladly killing babies left and right on the assumption that my reason is likely wrong?
I know, of course, you don't believe that I should do anything like that. I'm just not sure of what to make of those who claim that we can't trust our reason.
If you don't use your reason to read through the bible, then HOW will you ever conclude ANYTHING?
OF COURSE our reason is fallible. But EVEN WORSE than relying upon our reason to sort out the rights and wrongs of the world would be to act CONTRARY to our reason, don't you think? Or to act randomly?
Today, I will kill babies because that is the OPPOSITE of what my reason tells me is right, but tomorrow I will only maim them, since THAT might be wrong, and then the next day, I'll cuddle them and care for them but then start taunting them...
What is the conclusion of those who say we can't trust our reason?
That seems to be a highly dangerous and irrational road to start down.
Craig said...
I'm out, you know why.
Actually, no. I have no idea why.
Because I have not run out and bought a (all?) books by Scheaffer or Pearcy to wade through their research to see what they have concluded on writing styles of the ancient world?
I read your link earlier to Boyd and I don't believe he tackled writing styles at all. As to Boyd's contention about oral traditions, I have no problem with the suggestion. That has nothing to do with whether or not God LITERALLY commands people to kill babies of their enemies, along with the whole town, men, women and children.
Again, if you want to get someone to consider such a wild possibility, I'd suggest by offering up SOME reason as to WHY we ought to think that these stories were written as literally accurate history. Anything?
I invite you to stay. You seem amongst the more reasonable of your friends and I am always glad to entertain reasonable conversation.
But I agree. If you're merely going to say, "well, THIS is my hunch..." we've already done that and there's not much point in rehashing our hunches.
Dan,
I'll respond to this but then I;m done. With this thread.
"And you are making founded assumptions regarding the literary style? I have not seen any foundation yet for your hunch that the OT history was written in a fairly literal style."
I am making no assumptions about style at all. I could care less about style. I am concerned about substance. Either the information contained in the OT is accurate or not, beyond that it could be written in any style chosen. (again I feel compelled to note that I realize that the OT is not monolithic stylistically, and that each style used has different interpretive challenges)
"Unless and until you provide SOME reason to accept that as reasonable, I have no choice but not accept it, as it is unreasonable and unbiblical as far as I can see. You'd have to provide some actual support for your argument as a starting point if you'd want to win me over."
Right back atcha, if you have seen no evidence for this position it's because you haven't looked. I have provided numerous suggestions over the past year of so if resources for you to check out. I ask again, please show that there is someone besides you (scholars, not other bloggers) who takes this notion seriously. I've given you plenty to consider/research if you choose not to there's not much I can do.
"I don't know the first thing about Scheaffer. Why in the world would I place more trust in him/her than I would my own reasoning? Or more than the scholars that I have read who may (or may not) dispute Scheaffer's position?
At this point, I don't believe I have ever read anything by Scheaffer. I would suggest that the onus is on those who want me to believe that God sometimes commands killing babies to support that rather radical and unbiblical position."
Dan, this was a semi rhetorical question. You refer to those who support your position, yet don't name them. My question is why should I trust YOUR Reasoning. You have given no reason why YOUR Reason is superior to the bulk of Christian history. I'm willing to listen, but need some substance.
The fact that you continue to trot out this straw man that anyone is suggesting that you or anyone else should begin killing babies is reason enough for me to question your Reason. No one is doing so, so please stop.
Again you have completely missed my point regarding the reasonableness of the Bible. Suffice it to say that I am not willing to say that I can begin to completely comprehend Gods reason. I know that I personally have been led to do some things that seemed incredibly unreasonable to me that have demonstrated that God knows way more than I. The fact that you submit Gods commands to some test of your Reason seems to me the height of hubris.
As to why I'm out, it has nothing to do with you petulant comments. I'll remind you in some other context.
If (as you say), you consider me more reasonable than my friends, than maybe you would give me more credit assuming I'd leave for those reasons.
Finally, (the crux of the matter)
"Again, if you want to get someone to consider such a wild possibility,..."
The fact that you consider (presuppose, I'd guess) that a literal interpretation of the historical sections of the OT is a "wild possibility", seems to be quite the gap to bridge. Especially since you won't acknowledge that there is anyone out there of any merit who might disagree with you.
I know that you understand the concept of burden of proof (you have invoked it when it suits you) but traditionally the burden of proof is on the one who challenges the status quo. In this case that is you, I'm waiting.
I know that you understand the concept of burden of proof (you have invoked it when it suits you) but traditionally the burden of proof is on the one who challenges the status quo. In this case that is you, I'm waiting.
Yes, and the status quo tells us that it is always wrong to kill children. You are bucking that with your suggested way of reading the OT.
For my part, I'm just saying that this is what makes sense to me. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just saying: "Here is how I study the Bible and the conclusions I have reached. I think this process is logical and biblical."
If you don't want to agree with me, fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than this is my opinion, which I find to be extremely logical, biblical and moral. You wish to hold another opinion? Go ahead.
Craig said...
Right back atcha, if you have seen no evidence for this position it's because you haven't looked. I have provided numerous suggestions over the past year of so if resources for you to check out.
You have provided some names but no links to specific sources, I don't believe (other than the Boyd fella) - not on the topic of the style that OT histories were written in. I googled "Schaeffer Old Testament" and have been wading through some of his stuff, but I have not found a source yet for what we're talking about here.
I'm not going to buy all of Schaeffer's books (who appears to be too much on the Calvinist side of things to have much credibility to me, theologically speaking), just to try to find a source for YOUR argument.
I think my position is reasonable and biblical. If you wish to try to convince me otherwise, you can provide a source that deals with the topic. Otherwise, I shall keep with what seems obvious to me.
Craig...
I am making no assumptions about style at all. I could care less about style. I am concerned about substance. Either the information contained in the OT is accurate or not, beyond that it could be written in any style chosen.
You don't CARE about style? So, if Eccliastes is written in a poetry style, you want to read it as if it were a weather report? You want to read the Psalms as if they were a science journal??
Style matters! Context matters! You can't read the Bible seriously without striving to understand the styles in which the various books are written.
I'm not sure of your point, here. I thought you agreed it was important to understand the context of the Bible. You can't just read Exodus as if it were a modern history book.
"I know it's not written in a modern style," you say. And rightly so. And you note that because the style matters.
If it is written in an epic style which records history but not literally, then you need to know that. If it is written in mythic style that records history, but not literally, you need to know that.
IF you want to understand the Bible aright.
I think you agree with this point, so I'm unsure of why you say you could care less about style, if you truly want to try to understand the Word of God.
Dan,
Two things.
"You don't CARE about style?" If you're not going to read what I write please don't make comments like this. It's a waste of time to continue to repeat what I have already said.
"(again I feel compelled to note that I realize that the OT is not monolithic stylistically, and that each style used has different interpretive challenges)"
A cut and paste freebie.
Two, I'm not going to do your research for you. I have given you some sources to check out. You don't want to buy books, fine, they have this place called the library try that. You want to dismiss someone as "too Calvinist for you" based on a cursory web search, fine. If you want another more substantive list, fine, I'll do it again.
Whether you want to challenge your preconceptions and broaden your knowledge is totally up to you. I don't have the time to do it for you, only to have you dismiss someone without reading what they have to say. You can continue to ignore what's out there if you want. The fact remains that you have provided NOTHING besides DAN to substantiate your position. You continue to misstate my position (subtly, but misstate none the less), so why should I continue this.
One more time, I am arguing that the OT accurately communicates events that actually happened. That communication can happen despite the style of writing used. I'm getting tired of repeating this.
I am arguing that the Bible is authored by God through individual human writers, and as such is unique, and should be judged differently.
You are free to believe otherwise, you are free to contend that you are not trying to convince anyone, and yet you are so pre committed to this position one must wonder why.
If you feel confident in judging God by your standards of Reason feel free, I'm not and never will be.
Craig...
"You don't CARE about style?" If you're not going to read what I write please don't make comments like this. It's a waste of time to continue to repeat what I have already said.
What you said that made me ask:
I could care less about style.
Silly me. When you said, "I could care less about style," I took that to mean you don't care about style.
What DID you mean, then?
Craig...
One more time, I am arguing that the OT accurately communicates events that actually happened.
Which takes me back to my question:
BASED. ON. WHAT?
It is a fine hunch if you want to have a hunch, but it appears to be built entirely upon your hunch that God would inspire history in a fairly literal manner. I see no basis for that conclusion and you have offered nothing beyond your hunch.
You're welcome to it. I'll pass.
Craig...
You are free to believe otherwise, you are free to contend that you are not trying to convince anyone, and yet you are so pre committed to this position one must wonder why.
This question was asked of me and I've explained why I hold my position. I'm not trying to win you over to my position. I'm just asking that you and your comrades accept that it is my position, gained fairly through prayerful Bible study.
The reason it comes up is because some of your crowd (not you, yourself, so much) have been insisting that people such as myself DON'T love the bible or take it seriously. I'm just pointing out the reality that those who suggest so are wrong.
It's a bit crazy (or so it seems to some of us) this whole position that some take to presume to know better what I think than I do.
You (generic "you") can always disagree with my position and do so legitimately. What you can't do is tell me I don't have it.
Craig...
If you feel confident in judging God by your standards of Reason feel free, I'm not and never will be.
Craig, let's be reasonable and accurate. I'm not judging God. I'm reading and studying the Bible and seeking God's will through it and I do so - as we ALL do - using my reason.
What else CAN we use but our reason?
Dan,
Firefox killed my earlier reply so I'm going to try again.
Re: writing styles. Please look at my entire response in context before you start to take parts of it out of context to try to make a point that I am not making. I cut and pasted it once, now you're on you're own.
Re: Your other comment.
"BASED. ON. WHAT?
It is a fine hunch if you want to have a hunch, but it appears to be built entirely upon your hunch that God would inspire history in a fairly literal manner. I see no basis for that conclusion and you have offered nothing beyond your hunch."
First, the fact that you use the term "hunch" to make it seem as though a "literal" interpretation of the OT is just something I pulled of my ass one day makes it hard to take this conversation seriously. The fact that you refuse to admit that you are in the minority on this insistence on a randomly figurative interpretation of the OT puts you in the enviable position of being able to dismiss a priori any person, reference, etc. that doesn't square with Dan's Reason. That's great if you insist can manage it. But you really should try to broaden your horizons, I gave you 2 links over at MA's, I challenge you to read either of those books with an open mind, and if you can refute their scholarship on interpretation I will eagerly await what you have to say (BTW, they deal with the whole epic thing pretty thoroughly). The fact that you deny (and marginalize) those who hold the majority view in christian scholarship does not speak well of your Reasoning ability. The fact that you apparently haven't even done the research really raises questions. Please don't mistake me, you are free to hold whatever minority hunch you choose and are welcome to it. Where it becomes a problem is when you hold that hunch without any reference to/knowledge of the opposing majority view. So again, I repeat, I am not denying your hunch or opinion, again you are welcome to it. But when you assert that you hunch is correct (I believe you used the term "rightly dividing scripture), then you put yourself in a position where you either defend your position with something more substantial than "because that's the hunch my Reason led me to", or acknowledge that (at best) your hunch is only right for you.
You continually misrepresent and attempt to emotionalize the discussion by your constant reference to killing and/or raping babies. NO ONE is saying that such behavior is in any way shape or form normative in either the OT era or the Church era. The fact that you continue to intimate that someone is making this claim again, makes one question your Reason and interpretive ability. So, please stop. Since you probably won't stop, at least represent my (our) position accurately.
Finally, you have referenced the fact that the theology of Anabaptism has shaped your views on these matters, yet a little bit of research shows that you certainly differ with Anabaptist theology on a number of issues, including the OT. So again the question must be raised, who or what is influencing Dan in his theology/interpretation? I for one would love to hear some support for your hunch beyond your reason.
contd.
http://www.anabaptists.org/history/cof-1963.html
http://www.anabaptists.org/bh/289.html
http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html#TheAuthority
http://www.anabaptists.org/history/cof-1963.html
http://www.anabaptists.org/bh/index.html#beliefs
http://www.anabaptists.org/history/schleith.html
http://www.anabaptists.org/writings/marriage2.html
http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/DifferencesEvangeliicalsAnabaptists.ht
As I look at these I see a number of areas where you deviate from what would appear to be Anabaptist theology. You do seem to have latched onto the Anabaptist hermeneutic. Which you are actually expressing pretty accurately. So while it would be correct for you to say that (on this one matter) you are accurately representing the views of a majority of Anabaptists. It would also be correct to say that Anabaptists represent a small subset of a subset of Christianity and that the views of Anabaptists on this matter (interpretation of the OT) do not represent more than a small fraction of what could be considered orthodox. This begs the question, why (other than your pre commitment to pacifism) have you determined that the minority Anabaptist view is more correct than any of the other more widely held views? Or are you trying to say that those who are not Anabaptists are not Christians or not orthodox?
A quick digression (sort of)
The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
1.
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
2.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
3.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
4.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
5.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
6.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.
I could be wrong but here we have an example of historical information being communicated accurately (although not in exhaustive detail) through a style of writing other that historical narrative.
Craig...
The fact that you refuse to admit that you are in the minority on this insistence on a randomly figurative interpretation of the OT puts you in the enviable position of being able to dismiss a priori any person, reference, etc. that doesn't square with Dan's Reason.
Based on what? That is, how am I supposed to KNOW that I am in the minority position on this topic? For my part, I DON'T know that.
I would guess (I don't know this, it's just a guess) that of lay people in the evangelical world, you may be correct - there may be more (I don't know how many more, obviously, just a guess) who think each line of history in the OT is to be taken fairly literally.
However, I have no idea what the majority of scholars think on the topic. Do you? What source do you have for that?
Craig asked...
This begs the question, why (other than your pre commitment to pacifism) have you determined that the minority Anabaptist view is more correct than any of the other more widely held views?
"Pre-commitment to pacifism"? I'm not sure what you mean by that.
In reviewing, studying about, attending many different types of churches and reading their history, I have reached the conclusion that anabaptism most closely matches what I think is biblical Christianity.
I grew up Southern Baptist and have much respect for many Baptists and think they get much right.
I am pretty familiar with Methodist teaching and was a big fan of the Wesleys when I was a younger man. I think Methodists get a good deal right and I dig them.
I attended a Nazarene church for a while and am pretty familiar with their teachings and have been a fan of many Nazarene types - again, especially when I was younger. The commitment all three of these traditions to taking the Bible seriously and earnestly seeking God's Will is a great thing and I appreciate that about them.
Here lately, I have become a little more familiar with actual progressive Christianity and think they're doing pretty well, also.
I've also learned to appreciate a good bit about the Catholic church and other churches. I'm not dissing anyone much.
It's just that I have come down to the conclusion that, per MY understanding of God's will and the Bible through lo, these 40-ish years of study and prayer, the anabaptists are the group that I think most closely grasp God in the same way that I do.
Or are you trying to say that those who are not Anabaptists are not Christians or not orthodox?
Absolutely not. I've never said that non-anabaptists are not Christians or orthodox and certainly don't believe it.
I think we're all fallible humans and no faith tradition is perfectly right. I find fault in the anabaptist tradition (some of them are pretty sexist, it seems to me - for instance) and I find much right in other traditions.
I simply think the anabaptist tradition seems closest to my own imperfect understanding of God and God's will.
If you are a follow of Jesus and don't speak out against his actual teachings, then I count you as family.
Based on what? That is, how am I supposed to KNOW that I am in the minority position on this topic? For my part, I DON'T know that.
I would guess (I don't know this, it's just a guess) that of lay people in the evangelical world, you may be correct - there may be more (I don't know how many more, obviously, just a guess) who think each line of history in the OT is to be taken fairly literally.
However, I have no idea what the majority of scholars think on the topic. Do you? What source do you have for that?
You really have no sense of what Christian Scholarship has been for the past 2k years. I don't know that I need a specific source. I would suggest that you spend a little time to broaden your horizons. Take a look at the big wide world out there and engage with it. Don't ignore it. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that you can ignore it. I've given you a ton of places/people/links over the last year or so that should be enough.
I realize that you will continue to have and probably play the "I'm not convinced" card, but I think if you can set aside your preconceptions and open yourself up to what is out there you might be surprised.
"Pre-commitment to pacifism"? I'm not sure what you mean by that."
What I mean is that you seem to have picked a doctrine or two (pacifism is one) and looked for a tradition that you agreed with. Despite what that tradition might say about other issues (marriage perhaps) I could be wrong on this, but that's what it looks like. Since you seem to disagree with much of the Anabaptist statement of faith stuff that I have found so far.
"Here lately, I have become a little more familiar with actual progressive Christianity and think they're doing pretty well, also."
Bingo, except nowhere in their 8 points is anything said about taking the Bible seriously (or really any mention of the Bible). Not to mention the whole "everyone gets to heaven" thing in point #2, and the opposition to Jesus on the issue of communion/passover. But, yeah you seem to fit much better there than with the Anabaptists. (again marriage, and how they take the OT. {at lest from the SOF documents I found})
Once again, I encourage you, open your mind, broaden your horizons, it's hard but worth it.
You really have no sense of what Christian Scholarship has been for the past 2k years. I don't know that I need a specific source.
Soooo, is that a "NO, I DON'T have any source to support this opinion"?
Craig said...
What I mean is that you seem to have picked a doctrine or two (pacifism is one) and looked for a tradition that you agreed with.
I have not done this. I have studied the Bible and reached some conclusions about what I believe (this is, of course, an on-going process and has been on-going all my life).
I was raised Baptist and satisfied with that mostly, until I began reading about anabaptism and found that they tended to believe even more of what I believe to be the Gospel as found in the Bible.
Despite what that tradition might say about other issues (marriage perhaps) I could be wrong on this, but that's what it looks like. Since you seem to disagree with much of the Anabaptist statement of faith stuff that I have found so far.
I don't believe that I DO disagree with the anabaptist statement of faith that you linked to.
Keeping in mind that anabaptists, like Baptists, are a wide and varied body, believing in the priesthood of the believer where each person is responsible for seeking God's will as best they can.
Some anabaptists refer to an "inerrant Bible," but in my experience, they don't mean it quite the same way as you tend to mean it and even when they do, it's not nearly as emphasized as you (generic "you") tend to emphasize it. Other anabaptists don't believe "inerrancy" is a proper word to apply to the Bible at all, unless you're speaking of Truths.
Beyond that, probably most anabaptists would disagree with me and my church on gay marriage.
Beyond that, some anabaptists might place more weight on the penal substitution theory of atonement, but in my experience, and from what I've read, we are not that narrow on the concept. We tend to believe that there's some truth to the penal substitution theory, but more to the Christus Victor and even more to the Moral Example theories of atonement.
Beyond that, I'm not sure where I would have disagreements with anabaptists in general. As noted earlier, some tend to be a bit (or a lot) sexist and I'm sure that there are other ways I might disagree.
The main three things I dig about anabaptists are
1. their emphasis upon Jesus' teachings and especially the SOTM, and
2. their emphasis on returning to the roots of Christianity as seen in Jesus and his disciples and the early church.
3. their emphasis upon a simple faith and a simple lifestyle.
For what it's worth. Where is it you are thinking I'm in a major disagreement with anabaptists?
No it's more like a do some research yourself so you don't dismiss any source I might provide.
How about telling me what you agree with in this list.
he List of Anabaptist Beliefs
1.
Infant baptism is a false baptism. Moreover, baptism does not save. One has to be saved in order to be baptised, i.e. the condition for baptism is to be a follower of Christ by having a living belief in Christ (cf. Acts 8:36-38).
2.
Church and the State should be separated. Church is a Body of followers of Christ who respect the Laws of the State as long as it doesn't contradict with the Law of Christ. Church is not a political institution having any political power in the State. Church should not have any support from the State.
3.
The Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ.
4.
Calvinist theology of God's election is wrong. God does not unconditionally reprobate people to Hell. Rather, God's Manifested Wrath is conditional, and the condition is of not being in Christ. God will show His wrath only to people who are not in Christ. Likewise, God's election is conditional, and the condition is being in Christ. God elects only people who are in Christ.
5.
Lutheran theology of salvation is wrong. Faith in Christ should be a living faith, faith which is confirmed in the fruits of Spirit. People who are living sinful life, without true repentance, will end in Hell. Living in sin and occasionally falling in sin are not the same thing. All children of God can fall in sin because of our weaknesses, but they do not live in sin.
6.
Worshiping God is a very serious thing, and we ought not to introduce new things in our Worship, of which the Bible doesn't say anything about.
7.
The Bible is a closed canon of holy books, i.e no more additions to the Bible are allowed because there are no more Apostles and Prophets in the Church. Only Apostles and Prophets have the authority to add new books to the Canon of the Bible. There are no new revelations or prophecies, and all supernatural Charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit are no more present in the children of God. The Charismatic gifts were only present during the Apostolic period of Church (the 1st. century). The Bible is our necessary and sufficient supreme authority in our
Sounds like your Anabaptist buddies want to declare Lutherans and Calvinists heretics
Here's the thing, Craig: I've read the Bible, I've done some good bit of study over my lifetime. I'm satisfied with my conclusions. They seem reasonable, biblical and moral to me, whereas the position you have offered thus far seems to be none of that, to me. Far from it.
Why would I go out of my way to seek out a possible explanation of something that seems neither logical, nor biblical in my opinion?
Here is what I think would be a very comparable analogy...
If a Scientologist were trying to convince you of how reasonable it was to believe in Xenu and the disembodied alien Thetans (or whatever it is they believe in) and IF you found such a starting point to be a bit on the absurd side, and IF he responded, "well, do the research, you'll see! It's all there, man, it's all there!"... how likely are you to go out of your way to try to find support for his position?
Before you get offended, I just am trying to tell you that I can't tell you how absurd I find the position that God sometimes commands people to kill babies is. I could come closer to believing in Thetans than I could such a murderous and unjust god. It is on the extreme side, seems to me.
And so, no, I'm not too likely to go out to a library and research some calvinists' (another group I find to be hard to believe from a Biblical and logical point of view) point of view.
If you are comfortable with that position as a biblical and godly one, hold to it, I guess. I'm not trying to convince you to change. I'm just telling you MY understanding of the Bible.
"A high view of the Bible.
While not worshipping the Bible itself, for that would be bibliolatry, Anabaptists accept "the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, and through the Holy Spirit…the infallible guide to lead men to faith in Christ and to guide them in the life of Christian discipleship." Anabaptists insist that Christians must always be guided by the Word, which is to be collectively discerned, and by the Spirit."
Seems like AB's do think Scripture is authoritative do you? Or does it depend on how you define authoritative?
"What was the purpose of the Incarnation? The primary purpose (and we do not have space to deal adequately with it) was that the Son of God might justly offer Himself as our substitute and pay the penalty for our sins so that we might be free from the penalty of eternal death."
"We may begin this discussion by reminding ourselves that it is true, both that the Bible contains God's Word, and also, because of its Holy Spirit inspiration, that it is God's Word. And since the entire corpus of Scripture may be recognized as God's Word, there is an ultimate unity to the Book which is dependent upon God Himself. In other words, the canons of the Old and New Testament Scriptures are a divine intention. It is agreed on all hands--by both Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars--that when Christ and the apostles refer to the Scriptures they mean the twenty-four books of the Jewish canon, our thirty-nine books."
"Jesus never disagreed with any part of the Holy Scripture, although He did take issue with some men's incorrect interpretations of it and additions to it. He always treated the Scripture word for word, never doubting, for example, that there was truly an Adam and an Eve or that God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone.
The first Christians followed Christ's example and used the Old Testament with reverence. The multiplying Christian churches continued to read and study the Scriptures just as the Jews in the synagogues did. The earliest Christians, of course, were Jews who had accepted Jesus' claim to be the Savior of whom the Old Testament spoke."
"The Bible Is Incorruptible
Some people assert that the Bible no longer has the original wording. They claim the Bible has been tampered with through rewriting. Others contend that the Bible is too spiritual and difficult to decipher.
Let us examine the alleged tampering first. Read the Old Testament quotations of Jesus, His apostles, and Jewish rabbis before and after Christ. One would be hard pressed to find any corruption that would alter the original intent of the text. Moreover, the Christian leaders of the first three centuries, known as the church fathers, quoted so many Scripture verses that the Bible can almost be reconstructed from their quotes alone!
The Dead Sea Scrolls, found in 1947, likewise testify to the accuracy of the Bible we enjoy today. God truly has been faithful in preserving His Word as it was written. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6, 7).
As to the Bible being too spiritual to understand, it is true there are places where God gave His message in a parable or with spiritual significance. But except where the context makes this intention clear, God intended His words to be understood literally as given. The Bible confirms this numerous times.
The prophets, for example, foretold that a child would be born who would be God: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given ... and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).
This prophecy was fulfilled literally, for the Apostle John, writing about Jesus, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension demonstrate repeatedly the exact language of the Bible, and show us how to interpret God's Word. God foretold details and events, and they came to pass exactly. When God speaks, He means what He says. "I have not spoken in secret ... I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right" (Isaiah 45:19).
God's Word Is Sure
In looking at the clear, exact language of the Bible, we have already referred to its certainty. But let's look at yet another example: the nation of Israel.
Scattered in two great dispersions, first by the Roman General Titus in 70 A.D. and then by Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D., the Jews' national identity lay shattered for centuries, and by all appearances, for good. But defying the laws of probability, the Jews formed again as a nation in 1948. Listen to what God had said more than 500 years before the time of Christ.
"Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land" (Ezekiel 36:22, 24)."
"All those who wish to break one bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ, and all who wish to drink of one drink as a remembrance of the shed blood of Christ,..."
"# We believe that God has established unique roles for man and woman, symbolized by man's bared head in praying and prophesying, and by woman's veiled head.
# We believe that Christian marriage is intended by God to be the union of one man and one woman for life, and that Christians shall marry only in the Lord. "
"We believe that at death the unsaved enter into everlasting punishment and the saved into conscious bliss with Christ, who is coming again, and will raise the dead, sit in judgment, and bring in God's everlasting kingdom. "
"That man fell into sin, bringing depravity and death upon the race;"
"That Christian marriage is intended by God to be the union of one man and one woman for life, and that Christians should marry only in the Lord (Mark 10:2-12; 1 Corinthians 7:39)."
"That after death the unsaved enter into everlasting punishment and the saved into conscious bliss with Christ, Who is coming again and will raise the dead, sit in judgment, and bring in God's everlasting kingdom (Matthew 25:3-46; 2 Corinthians 10:1-10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; 5:4; 2 Peter 3:3-13). "
"Firmly accepts and teaches the fundamental evangelical doctrines of . . .
[*] the inspiration of the Bible (2 Timoty 3:16);
[*] the personality of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-13);
[*] the virgin birth of Christ (Matthew 1:18);
[*] the deity of Christ (Colossians 2:8-9);
[*] the sin-pardoning value of His atonement (Ephesians 1:7);
[*] His resurrection, ascension, and personal and visible return (1 Cor. 15:1-25; Acts 1:9-11);
[*] and the resurrection both of the just and the unjust (John 5:28-29)."
Craig...
Sounds like your Anabaptist buddies want to declare Lutherans and Calvinists heretics
No, modern Anabaptists (in general) do not want to condemn Catholics and Lutherans as heretics. We disagree with them.
We have been branded as heretics and put to death by the sword and at the stake, we don't want to go anywhere NEAR going down that road.
We simply disagree with them on some things. And that's okay.
As to the list, I generally agree with all those points, without, perhaps, some of the stridency in their language. I don't believe infant baptism is biblical, but I would not call it a "false baptism." I'd just disagree with it as not fitting the norm found in the Bible.
I don't really agree with that particular take on worship (point 6) and I (or we at my church) don't really take worship as serious, but joyful, glorious, mysterious, challenging, comforting and powerful. We are not very anabaptist in that regard, nor are we very Quaker-ish. But we dig them anyway.
And, for the record, my church is a Baptist church, not anabaptist. We're just baptist with some anabaptist leanings and some who self-identify as baptist. fyi.
" "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
That verse very briefly but conclusively states God's law of marriage.
Key to our understanding of its applicability is the realization that God stated this law on the very first day of human history. Obviously what God had to say when He established marriage long predates Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, we have no option but to conclude that marriage is a universal law, applicable to all humans.
This truth is key to my position on the difficult issues related to divorce as well as remarriage.
# I believe that a legitimate marriage between two unbelievers is every bit as binding and lasting as is a legitimate marriage between two Christians.
# Therefore, I also believe that divorce for unbelievers is as wrong as it is for Christians.
# So of course I would believe divorce-and-remarriage is sin for any couple without regard to their spiritual standing before God.
When Jesus was asked about divorce, He went way back to Genesis 2:24 and then reemphasized the thorough union of the marriage relationship, saying, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6). He concludes (in that verse) by making clear God's wishes, intents and purposes: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
This would naturally lead us to ask at what point God joins together a man and a woman.
I believe marriage is a duly-recognized covenant relationship entered into by a single man and a single woman. "
There are a few statements (identified as doctrines in most cases) of Anabaptist theology that previous conversation indicates you might find problematic.
Dan your response is all seemingly very generous (hold whatever view you want) and as far as it goes that's fine. Your analogy is silly though, because Scientology is not considered orthodox Christianity by anyone. So you are correct that there is a range of doctrines that fall into the pale of orthodoxy, there are some that are a carry more weight. For example.
I agree with the AB's on infant baptism as they define it. However reformed churches that practice IB don't ascribe to it what the AB's say. But this is not an issue related to salvation, so it's all ok with how you baptize. Now, IF you baptize is a little more concrete, I think we all agree that it is the norm. However it is not required.
So, while I would agree that as a group (or a theology) AB is within the realm of orthodoxy. However, many of the positions you take are much more aligned with the Liberals 8 points (did you know they had 8 points?) than with AB doctrine.
While all this is fascinating, your continued harping on a position no one is taking makes it hard to take this seriously. Please show me where God commanded anyone to specifically kill babies? No one is suggesting that God ever told anyone to go out and kill random babies. Get over it.
OK Here's a shot at who's down with inerrancy. (caveat, when I referr to denominations or movements I realize that not everyone buys everything)
Here is a partial list of groups/denominations/etc that subscribe to the doctrine of inerrancy.
Roman Catholic church
Orthodox churches
Most Reformed denominations
Lutheran
The Various Ecumenical Councils
Fundamentalist/Charismatic (ie AG)
Some of the Evangelical traditions which adhere to the doctrine are reflected by the signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy . Nearly 300 noted scholars put their names to the document, including James Boice , Norman Geisler , John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry (founder of Christianity Today ), Kenneth Kantzer , Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery , Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer , Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer , R. C. Sproul , and John Wenham. Signers are from conservative Reformed and Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Baptist denominations, as well as representing conservative movements within denominations that do not generally affirm inerrancy.
Take a look at the signers of the Chicago declaration and who they represent.
I think it is safe to claim that this partial picture of Churches/groups/individuals represent a larger slice of the Christian pie than that of the Anabaptists. Sorry to break it to you but yours is a minority position. Maybe, it would be of value to do some study to find out why so few folks believe as you do. Probably won't change your mind, but still could be interesting.
Again, so as not to overly burden you check the links I left at MA's study either of those with an open mind and come up with some kind of response.
Craig: "What I mean is that you seem to have picked a doctrine or two (pacifism is one) and looked for a tradition that you agreed with."
War and the Christian Conscience: Where Do You Stand by Joseph J. Fahey is a really good book with regard to this subject. Fahey documents how pacifism was practiced in the early church. He also discusses how that changed through the years. It's an excellent read on church history and doesn't do your thinking for you.
Thanks for the link, Marty. I'm not familiar with that one.
Thanks for the info, Craig. I would have guessed that most evangelical traditions held to inerrancy. I thought you were speaking specifically of biblical scholars, though.
I guess you're making the assumption that biblical scholars are proportionately represented between all these faith traditions and that they tend to agree with their faith traditions' positions?
Marty,
I've spent some time with some different takes on pacifism in the church. I personally don't see it as a given. I don't have a problem with those who do. In this case I'm not so much criticizing pacifism as using it as an example. I can respect for someone who has determined that pacifism is the right choice for them to make, however I am skeptical with how pacifism works in other contexts (between nations). I also see it as an area where some Christians are willing to impose their beliefs on others in a way that troubles me.
Dan,
I would think that most faith traditions come with/generate their own collections of scholars and that those numbers are proportionate. But it seems safe to say that your particular trad is certainly in the minority however you choose to measure it.
But to simplify, there were 300 scholars/church leaders that signed the Chicago statement. Can you come up with anywhere near 300 folks of considerable stature who support your position.
"I would have guessed that most evangelical traditions held to inerrancy"
I'm not so sure about that. I was a Southern Baptist (over 50 years) long before I became a Methodist. And I don't remember the word "inerrancy" being used at all up until the early 80s. I always understood the Bible to "contain" God's word without any mixture of error. And I can't think of a preacher or a teacher of mine up until the 90s being literalists either. Those stories in the old testament were just that... stories to impart a truth. Whether you believed in a literal 6 days or a big fish didn't really matter if you understood the truth behind the story. I've heard that all my life. So Dan, really you are very orthodox. It's the same kind of upbringing in the SBC that I had. When I was a kid my mom would say things like "those hardshell Baptists". Maybe they were inerrantists. I don't know. She didn't have much use for them. They "tore up churches" were her words. "Caused divisions".
I've never heard the word "inerrancy" used in the Methodist Church. I went to an Episcopal church for a while and never heard it there either.
I am trying to think back. It was in the late 70s/80s when I became one of those hardshell Baptists. Too much Dobson and Maddoux. I remember my Dad thinking I had become brainwashed. My mom..well she didn't say much...she was just happy I was going to church again. My Dad would leave the room if I started talking religion.
Craig...
But to simplify, there were 300 scholars/church leaders that signed the Chicago statement. Can you come up with anywhere near 300 folks of considerable stature who support your position.
Nope. But neither do I know anything about the "Chicago statement."
I didn't think you could or would come up with a list of scholars who support your position. I'll give it one more try though how about 30 (10%) of those who supported the Chicago statement. That should be easy. Or you could just agree that your hunch is a minority view within Christian scholarship/practice/whatever and we can move on. Your call, but I'm done trying to "prove" something that is pretty self evident.
FYI the Chicago statement is here for your perusal.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
They have this really cool newfangled gadget called the google that makes it real easy to fine stuff you don't know about. ;)
Marty,
I just did a cursory search to try to come up with some sort of general list of who could reasonably said to hold to the concept of inerrancy. As I said, those are some big general groups whose "official" position would be consistent with most definitions of inerrancy. I made it clear that even though a denomination or church may hold that position, there could be groups within that larger position that disagree. But as a general statement, in the context of Dan's request for proof, I think it is accurate enough for our purposes. Further, I would suggest that (and this could be the case with your experience) that a group (the SBC) may hold to a view that the Bible is inerrant without using the word inerrancy. I will try to do some checking later, but find it hard to believe that the SBC doesn't have that view.
Craig said earlier (and this has been an ongoing contention in his crowd of friends)...
While all this is fascinating, your continued harping on a position no one is taking makes it hard to take this seriously. Please show me where God commanded anyone to specifically kill babies?
As we all know, God (appears to have) commanded Israel more than once to go in and wipe out everyone in a city/nation - men, women and children. "Everyone" includes the babies.
1. I believe we all agree that this is what it literally says.
2. I believe we all agree that when it says, "men, women and children," it is including the babies.
3. I don't believe you all disagree that babies were likely included in the "everyone."
4. Therefore, I don't put much stock in your protestations that you don't think God specifically commanded the killing of babies.
Consider it this way: If a bank manager told his employee to steal ALL the money in the bank - including the money that belongs to men, women and even the children - IF someone then accused that crooked bank manager of stealing from children! (in order to emphasize how wrong the action was) I don't think it would be reasonable for a supporter of the bank manager to say, "well, he never specifically targeted children..."
Of course he did.
And for those who claim that "God commanded them to kill everyone, men, women and children," to say, "Hey, God never specifically commanded the killing of babies!!," well, it sounds disingenuous. You DO think that babies were killed on God's command, don't you?
The reason for referencing babies is to emphasize just how wrongheaded the literalist line is on this point. Clearly, the same God who said that the innocent would not be punished for the crimes of the guilty would not turn around and command the innocent to be killed because of the sins of the guilty.
To do so is to reject the clear and obvious in favor of the obscure and unclear. You can't have literal interpretations of BOTH "God does not punish the children for the sins of the father," AND "God order the children killed for the sins of the father."
It is a contradiction and a glaring problem with the literalist position.
As to your request for numbers of biblical scholars who disagree with literalism of the sort you're talking about, I have told you I don't know the answer to that. As apparently, neither do you.
You suspect that the majority of biblical scholars agree with your position. You may be right. Certainly, it is bound to be true that the majority of fundamentalist biblical scholars (or is that a contradiction in terms?? ha!) agree with you. Probably the majority of evangelical biblical scholars agree with you.
And perhaps the majority of biblical scholars in general do, too. I don't know and as far as I can tell, you don't know either.
How long would you like for us to repeat that?
AND, as you have noted, EVEN IF the majority of biblical scholars agree with your sort of literalism, that in and of itself is not evidence.
Do you agree with the majority of scientists about global climate change? Do you agree with the majority of psychologists about homosexuality?
Appealing to the majority of experts is no fool proof way to determine morality.
The point remains that I find no sense in your position. It seems patently UN-biblical, not to mention immoral and illogical.
Until such time as you can come up with some plausible reason as to why you reject "God won't punish the children for the sins of the father," then it remains difficult to believe that even YOU believe in biblical inerrancy. You sure seem to be saying that that Ezekiel passage is flatly wrong.
Marty,
From the SBC website:
The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine
Craig,
The Baptist Faith and Message language changed considerably in 2000. So taking it from the SBC website in 2009 isn't much help to you I'm afraid.
Craig here
is a comparison of the 1963 BFM and the 2000BFM with commentary. I hope this helps.
Marty,
I can't see that they made any significant change in their stance on the bible, even their earlier stance puts them squarely in the mainstream of Christian thought not on the fringes with dan's hunch.
“As to your request for numbers of biblical scholars who disagree with literalism of the sort you're talking about, I have told you I don't know the answer to that. As apparently, neither do you.”
Dan, you can either support your position or not, but don’t ask me to do it for you. You asked for something and I gave it to you (with qualifications). It is reasonable to assume that there are more people who follow the faith traditions I named than Anabaptists.
“You suspect that the majority of biblical scholars agree with your position. You may be right. Certainly, it is bound to be true that the majority of fundamentalist biblical scholars (or is that a contradiction in terms?? ha!) agree with you. Probably the majority of evangelical biblical scholars agree with you.”
Dan, from what I have found you can include: RC, Orthodox, Episcopal/Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, SBC, AG, Pentecostal, (although many of those would fall under the evangelical label) in your list. All of which represent a significantly larger slice of the Christian pie than the AB’s.
“And perhaps the majority of biblical scholars in general do, too. I don't know and as far as I can tell, you don't know either.”
Dan, I have given you numerous scholars who hold that position, you have given me none. Unless you have more than a hunch, maybe you could try being open to other views.
“How long would you like for us to repeat that?”
Dan, I tried to get past this a while ago, but as long as you keep contending that your view is anything other than a minority view, I guess I can waste time trying to demonstrate otherwise. I’m not sure why it is so difficult for you to admit that you hunch represents a minority position and move on. I have been clear; I do not believe that the AB position (which is not totally yours, but close enough) falls out side the bounds of orthodoxy. I also am not arguing that being a minority position makes it automatically wrong, I am simply suggesting that the majority position is worthy of something beyond simply dismissing it. So if we can agree on that we’re fine.
Contd.
“Do you agree with the majority of scientists about global climate change?”
No, because in science majority does not rule. As we keep being told science is empirical and follows the evidence (as long as the evidence and data is accurate and all given equal weight). In the case of global warming there appear to be a number of legitimate questions unanswered with empirical data, and so I will await science based on empirical data, not on models based on unknown assumptions.
“ Do you agree with the majority of psychologists about homosexuality?”
I was unaware that the majority of psychologists agreed on anything. Surely you can’t be saying that the Freudian school is in complete agreement with the Jungian school on this issue. Has there been a genetic breakthrough that has identified a cause for Homosexuality? Don’t know, quite frankly don’t care. I’m not going any further down this rat hole (nice job of changing direction and not addressing where you disagree with AB theology)
“Appealing to the majority of experts is no fool proof way to determine morality.”
Dan, I have not suggested that it was. I have also not suggested that your position is immoral. Nor has anything I have said here been about morality at all.
“The point remains that I find no sense in your position. It seems patently UN-biblical, not to mention immoral and illogical.”
Dan, and now we have it. This is what it all comes down to. One word “I”. As I suggested earlier, any attempt on anyone part to convince you that there is even any remote validity in any position beyond your hunch is a waste of time. You won’t look at the contrary position, because it doesn’t matter to you. Thanks for finally making that clear; this is all you had to say. Again I would encourage you to open your mind, beyond your hunches. Now that you have been clear about this I’ll not bother any further. I will restate my challenge, choose one of the two books I linked to at Marshalls, read it with an open mind and do a critique. It could be a really healthy thing to do. Surely a couple of seminary professors can’t have anything to shake your faith, surely your Reason is superior. What could you possibly be afraid of?
“Until such time as you can come up with some plausible reason as to why you reject "God won't punish the children for the sins of the father," then it remains difficult to believe that even YOU believe in biblical inerrancy. You sure seem to be saying that that Ezekiel passage is flatly wrong.”
Dan,
Even if I come up with a reason, no matter how logical, plausible, and well supported to “reject” your pet verse, (interesting that in your question you assume that I believe that God will punish the children for the sins of the father. Why would you assume that? Have you learned to read minds? Are you showing a little prejudice?) you will promptly dismiss it as a hunch or opinion, or implausible. So why should I bother, you have made it very clear what your standard is “I” or more accurately “Dan”. So if you want to make this challenge in such a way as to make me believe that you will not reject my response a priori, I might consider taking a look at the verse and some commentaries to see what it looks like. Quite frankly, without even spending some time I have at least one plausible reason for this verse. (although it’s a little figurative).
Actually they changed it significantly.
"Deleting this phrase is unfortunate because “the record of” has the effect of centering the revelation of God in God’s mighty acts, i.e., in the events of salvation history, rather than in the words which describe these events. The words of scripture record the faith community’s witness to these events, but the selfrevelation of God is manifest in the events themselves. Here the foundational difference referred to above is clearly apparent. Affirming that the Bible is the record of the revelation points us to the living Christ, i.e., the central event of God’s redemptive work, as the revelation of God. Deleting this phrase affirms that the Bible itself is the revelation of God. The words of scripture are absolutely crucial to God’s self-revelation as they bear witness to God’s work among us. The biblical writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit in composing their written witness to God’s revelation. Readers of every age are illumined by the Spirit to discern the revelation of God through the words of scripture. Yet even as the Bible participates in the revelatory process, the phrase “record of’reminds us that scripture directs us beyond its words to God’s creative and redemptive work which culminates in the Christ event. Deleting this phrase has the unfortunate effect of elevating the Bible above Christ. The deleted sentence, “The
criterion by which the Bible is
to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” further reinforces the focus on words of scripture rather than the living Christ. For traditional Baptists who find our roots in the Anabaptist and Baptist movements of sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe, the denial of Jesus as the interpretive
criterion of scripture is devastating. The distinctive core of historic Baptist faith and practice is following Jesus. To be faithfully Baptist is to center our lives in the living Christ, to embody Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Because the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ, to be led by the Spirit is to be centered in Christ. Guided by the biblical witness and illumined by the Spirit, Jesus becomes our center, defining our ways of knowing and doing. For traditional Baptists there is no alternate vantage point for interpreting scripture than Jesus. Just as Paul interpreted Old Testament law in light of Jesus, we interpret the entire canon in light of Jesus.
Wherever scripture seems unclear, we rely on Jesus to provide clarity. Wherever scripture seems to be in tension with itself, we affirm that Jesus is the interpretive key to resolving these tensions. Wherever scripture is subject to contradictory and incongruent interpretations, we look to Jesus for guidance. Jesus is not only the One to whom scripture bears witness (the added
sentence), he is Lord of scripture, the criterion for biblical interpretation (the deleted sentence)."
And Dan IS within the mainstream of historic Baptist thought.
Ugh.
People, people, people....
Scholarship is a meritocracy, not a democracy.
Those who believe in relative truth like Craig, apparently believe that the number of scholars who believe something is true = the truth of the claim. In fact, history has shown us that the number of people who believe a particular claim, be it scientific or otherwise, bears no relationship to the truth of the claim. Sometimes lots of people get it right, sometimes nearly everyone gets it wrong. But Craig's naive insistence that there is some correlation between the "number of scholars" argument he's beating like a dead horse and the actual truth or rightness of a claim is just plain silly. Now to his credit, he seems to realize this is the case when it suits him to do so, and when it doesn't, he keeps beating the "number of scholars" horse. So while I do not expect real consistency, it might be nice to at least try to fake it once in a while.
(BTW, being able to cite some people with whom you disagree, but whom you believe do quality research at least shows that perhaps you actually start out by looking at the scholarship before making a claim, instead of starting out with a conclusion and cherry-picking someone's work as an attempt to score cheap points in a blog comment. This isn't high school research paper time, and if you're going to try to use scholarship to back up your opinions, you should at least try to do so reliably.)
Scholarship is not actually something you whip out in order to prove a point. That's called name dropping and it's as useless in a debate as it is annoying at a cocktail party.
If you can't do a thorough analysis of a scholar's work including the evidence they cite and ignore, the ways in which they use that evidence as warrants to support claims, and the conclusions they draw, then simply naming some names is pretty useless. And if you can't see the weaknesses of the scholarship you generally support, then don't even bother mentioning it in the first place, because you obviously are just parroting back the abstract.
Here's an honest suggestion: If you want to appear to actually respect the work of people you claim to respect, try not to demean it by turning it into a blog comment game of dodge ball? Otherwise you just run the risk of looking like a dilettante.
BTW, before Craig tries the, "Oh, I don't believe that" card with regards to the "number of scholars" argument he keeps making, here are his own words...
"But to simplify, there were 300 scholars/church leaders that signed the Chicago statement. Can you come up with anywhere near 300 folks of considerable stature who support your position."
300? Wow. Out of 7 billion in the world. I'm .. uh.. impressed? ;) 300? Not sure that's the nugget o' support I'd be flogging.
Marty,
Can we agree to disagree on the extent of the change. It still seems as though the statement is not denying the accuracy of the OT record. Beyond that, I'm sorry I barely have time to keep up with this as it is, I'm not sure i want to keep researching this right now. I will when I have more time.
However, I don't think Dan would agree with this section.
"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy." This whole discussion is about whether scripture is "totally true and trustworthy" I am fairly confident that Dan has expressed his hunch that parts of the scriptures are not "true and trustworthy". I welcome proof that i am mistaken.
It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy." This whole discussion is about whether scripture is "totally true and trustworthy" I am fairly confident that Dan has expressed his hunch that parts of the scriptures are not "true and trustworthy". I welcome proof that i am mistaken.
As I have said repeatedly, my problem is with those who consider the FACTS of the Bible to be without error. I have repeatedly said that if we're talking about the TRUTHS of the Bible, that I believe the TRUTHS to be without error.
So, that means that it IS TRUE without error that God is Love, that God is a God of perfect justice, that God loves the poor and watches out especially for them, that we are to walk in Jesus' steps, that we are sinners in need of grace, etc, etc. These TRUTHS are without error.
But the notion that the FACTS of the Jonah story, being swallowed by a great fish, is irrelevant to the story. That the FACTS of stories that suggest that God sometimes commands people to take actions that conflict with the TRUTHS taught in the Bible, that these FACTS are probably not intended to be considered literally, because the TRUTHS are without error.
I will always side with the TRUTHS in the Bible when they conflict with the facts of stories.
So, no, I DO NOT disagree with the Baptist line that "Truth, without any mixture of error," is found in the Bible.
So you believe the truth is true when the facts are in error? Whatever floats your boat. And as long as you get to define what the truths are.
Dan, unless you want to seriously engage some of the stuff prior to this, or take me up on my challenge, how about we call this quits. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that I'll have a ton of time or energy to go much further. If you want to pick back up later, that's cool too.
Yes, Craig. Truths are True, whether or not the facts are correct. This is what makes Jesus' parables so profound.
Someone can tell a made up story and the Truths behind the story remain true (if it's a good story, of course).
I don't think you really disagree.
You don't think Jesus' parables point to Truth less simply because they're fictional, do you?
That is the whole point of this conversation. I see no reason whatsoever to take the little facts of the "God commands killing innocent children" stories to be literal exactly because they conflict with BIG Biblical Truths.
Until you have something approaching a rational explanation as to why I should take such little facts literally, I can't for the life of me fathom why I should.
As to "seriously engaging" and meeting your challenge, I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean you want me to find a list of theologians who disagree with literal interpretations? I see no great value than that. I have already allowed that amongst the more conservative/fundamentalist biblical scholars out there, you are probably right. Amongst the more progressive biblical scholars you are probably wrong. Are there more progressive scholars than conservative ones? I don't know.
Do you?
Regardless, Truth is not measured by the size of your theologians.
Craig said...
I am fairly confident that Dan has expressed his hunch that parts of the scriptures are not "true and trustworthy". I welcome proof that i am mistaken.
Is my own testimony acceptable proof that you are mistaken? Then, yes, you are mistaken. I have said that parts of the Bible - taken literally - are not factual. That is a different claim than saying parts of the Bible are not true.
After all, YOU AGREE that parts of the Bible, taken literally, are not factual. You agree that "four corners," if taken literally, is not a factual statement. I don't know about you, but some of your friends don't even think a straight quote from Jesus ("blessed are the poor") taken literally is factually true (a point on which I disagree).
We are on the same page in that regards. And so, yes, you are mistaken on that point.
Glad to clarify.
"Regardless, Truth is not measured by the size of your theologians."
What is it with you people, how many times do I have to repeat that this is not the point I was making before you stop saying that it was.
To clarify, I have given you two distinct suggestions or challenges. One was to come up with a list of theologians who support your position, you (so far have not/will not/ can not). The second you might actually have to read what I wrote, your comment above suggests that you haven't been.
Again to clarify, I'm having a hard time with false=true. Jesus parables are not True, (hence the term parables), they teach lessons which contain truths, they instruct, but they are not true. Jesus is Truth not stories.
So, here's the 64k question (which you haven't answered so far), what is the truth behind Ezekiel 34, or the passover? How can you provide a figurative interpretation of those passages? Or do you just throw them out?
So, when you said that Paul's writings about women were mistaken are you saying;
a. this is not true?
b. this is not factual?
c. this is Paul making stuff up?
d. this shouldn't be in the Bible?
e. this is true?
f. this is not true but expresses some other truth? (if so what?)
So, to clarify again, you are saying that the Bible has errors, yet despite the errors, the Bible is true. Are you also saying (in agreement with the Baptist SOF) that the Bible (which contains errors as you seem to be saying) was "authored by God"? If so, are you saying that God made the errors or that God was not the author?
Just for grins the English definition of truth or fact, for the life of me I can't see how (if you accept the English definition) you can have something that is true if the facts are false?
(Hint) parables are NOT true, if they were they would not be parables.
Again, if you are want to keep digressing, then I will respond as I have opportunity. If you want to dig into what I have already said and unpack some of that I'll try to make some more time.
I am really interested to see if you can find my other challenge, and if you can, take it. Even Alan thinks you should.
"After all, YOU AGREE that parts of the Bible, taken literally, are not factual. You agree that "four corners," if taken literally, is not a factual statement."
This is a great example of an area where you either don't understand (despite explanations) what taking the Bible literally means.
I do not agree with the words you try to put in my mouth.
I do agree that the "4 corners" statement is literally, factually a metaphor. Therefore it is to be interpreted as such. The fcatuality or literality of the statement is that it was literally said.
The fact that you continue to misunderstand this basic point makes me wonder. How can you insist that I am wrong when you don't even understand what I am saying. This is pretty basic stuff.
Some excepts that will help you understand, I hope.
Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one’s belief in full inspiration was the statement, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.” Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.” But then “infallible” and “inerrant” began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of “unlimited inerrancy.” Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching.52
Clarifying the definition of inerrancy has become necessary because many have, in very subtle ways, retained words like inspiration, infallible, and even inerrant in speaking about the Bible while denying its freedom from error.
E. J. Young, in his classic work on the inspiration of the Bible, gives us good definition of inerrancy: “By this word we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.”53
Concerning the definition of inerrancy, Ryrie explains:
Definitions of inerrancy are not plentiful! Errantists equate inerrancy with infallibility and then limit its scope to matters of faith and practice or to revelational matters or to the message of salvation. An example of this: “The Bible is infallible, as I define that term, but not inerrant. That is, there are historical and scientific errors in the Bible, but I have found none on matters of faith and practice” (Stephen T. Davis, The Debate about the Bible [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977], p. 115). At least this is an honest distinction between infallibility and inerrancy.54
In view of this, when defining inerrancy, it is always important to state clearly what it means and what it does not mean.
It does not demand rigidity of style and verbatim quotations from the Old Testament. ‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16). At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: ‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)”55
A number of different issues invariably come up when considering the doctrine of inerrancy. What about the variety of styles, or the varying ways certain events are described, or the different reports of events? How does this mesh with the concept of inerrancy? Paul Enns has done an excellent job in summarizing these fundamental issues.
Inerrancy allows for variety in style. The gospel of John was written in the simple style one might expect of an unlearned fisherman; Luke was written with a more sophisticated vocabulary of an educated person; Paul’s epistles reflect the logic of a philosopher. All of these variations are entirely compatible with inerrancy.
Inerrancy allows for variety in details in explaining the same event. This phenomenon is particularly observed in the synoptic gospels. It is important to remember that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the writers of Scripture wrote their accounts in Greek, meaning they had to translate the original words into Greek. One writer would use slightly different words to describe the same incident, yet both would give the same meaning, albeit with different words. There is an additional reason for variety in details. One writer might have viewed the event from one standpoint while the other gospel writer viewed it from another standpoint. This would make the details appear different, yet both would be accurate.
Inerrancy does not demand verbatim reporting of events. “In times of antiquity it was not the practice to give a verbatim repetition every time something was written out” (E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, p. 119). A verbatim quote could not be demanded for several reasons. First, as already mentioned, the writer had to translate from Aramaic to Greek in recording Jesus’ words. Second, in making reference to Old Testament texts it would have been impossible to unroll the lengthy scrolls each time to produce a verbatim quote; furthermore, the scrolls were not readily available, hence, the freedom in Old Testament quotes (William R. Eichhorst, The Issue of Biblical Inerrancy: In Definition and Defence, Winnipeg, Man.: Winnipeg Bible College, n.d., p. 9).
Inerrancy allows for departure from standard forms of grammar. Obviously it is wrong to force English rules of grammar upon the Scriptures. For example, in John 10:9 Jesus declares, “I am the door,” whereas in verse 11 He states, “I am the Good Shepherd.” In English this is considered mixing metaphors, but this is not a problem to Greek grammar or Hebrew language. In John 14:26 Jesus refers to the Spirit (pneuma = neuter) and then refers to the Spirit as “He” (ekeinos = masculine). This may raise an English grammarian’s eyebrows, but it is not a problem of Greek grammar.
Inerrancy allows for problem passages. Even with so vast a work as the Holy Scriptures it is impossible to provide solutions to all the problems. In some cases the solution awaits the findings of the archaeologist’s spade; in another case it awaits the linguist’s research; in other cases the solution may never be discovered for other reasons. The solution to some problems must be held in abeyance. The answer, however, is never to suggest there are contradictions or errors in Scripture. If the Scriptures are God-breathed they are entirely without error.
Inerrancy demands the account does not teach error or contradiction. In the statements of Scripture, whatever is written is in accord with things as they are. Details may vary but it may still reflect things as they are. For example, in Matthew 8:5-13 it is noted that the centurion came to Jesus and said, “I am not qualified.” In the parallel passage in Luke 7:1-10 it is noted that the elders came and said concerning the centurion, “He is worthy.” It appears the elders first came and spoke to Jesus, and later the centurion himself came. Both accounts are in accord with things as they are.57
How important is inerrancy? What happens when this doctrine is denied? There are those (and some are even evangelicals) who believe that inerrancy is not important. We do not need to defend the Bible, particularly as it relates to the details of chronology, geography, history, or cosmology or the so-called alleged discrepancies. But how sound is this kind of thinking and how does it stack up with the teaching of the Bible and particularly with what Christ taught?
If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to deny that which the Scripture claims is true. Further, if the Bible contains some errors, how can we be sure that its claims concerning Christ, salvation, man, etc., are true? Also, the chronology, geography, and history of the Bible are often woven together like strands of a basket with vital spiritual truths. As you cannot start pulling strands out of a woven basket without doing damage to the whole, so it is with the Bible.
For instance, is the history of Adam and Eve important? Absolutely, for Paul developed a theological analogy between Adam and Christ which essentially breaks down if it is historically not true. The Old Testament has dozens of prophecies of the coming Messiah that detail his lineage. If the genealogy of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are historically inaccurate, then this raises questions about whether Jesus is the one anticipated as well as about the rest of His life.
As Ryrie points out, “Even if the errors are supposedly in ‘minor’ matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so ‘minor.’ If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too.”58 If we can’t trust Scripture in things like geography, chronology, and history, then how can we be sure we can trust it in its message of salvation and sanctification?
I recently received an email question regarding the story recorded in the gospels where Jesus delivered two demon possessed men and sent the demons into a herd of swine. Assuming that the owners of the pigs were Jews (which they were not), the person sending the email doubted the historicity of the account because they could not imagine Jews raising pigs since it was contrary to the law for them to eat pork. A person believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, would know that the account was historical and accurate. Therefore, the apparent problem was not in the accuracy of the Scripture, but in their understanding of the event, which was precisely the case.
A denial of inerrancy is a serious matter and will lead to the following kinds of problems doctrinally and practically:
When inerrancy is denied one may expect some serious fallout in both doctrinal and practical areas.
Some doctrinal matters which may be affected by denying inerrancy include the following.
(1) A denial of the historical fall of Adam.
(2) A denial of the facts of the experiences of the Prophet Jonah.
(3) An explaining away of some of the miracles of both the Old and New Testaments.
(4) A denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
(5) A belief in two or more authors of the Book of Isaiah.
(6) A flirting with or embracing of liberation theology with its redefining of sin (as societal rather than individual) and salvation (as political and temporal rather than spiritual and eternal).
Some lifestyle errors that may follow a denial of inerrancy include the following.
(1) A loose view of the seriousness of adultery.
(2) A loose view of the seriousness of homosexuality.
(3) A loose view of divorce and remarriage.
(4) “Cultural” reinterpretation of some of the teachings of the Bible (e.g., teaching on women, teaching on civil obedience).
(5) A tendency to view the Bible through a modern psychological grid.
Inerrancy is an important doctrine, the denial or even diluting of which may result in serious doctrinal and life errors.59
study of what Jesus said about the Bible reveals not only His belief in its verbal, plenary inspiration, but that He also believed it was inerrant. In fact, the greatest testimony to the authenticity of the Bible as God’s inspired and inerrant Word is the Lord Jesus. Why is His testimony so important? Because God authenticated and proved Him to be His own divine Son by the resurrection (cf. Acts 2:22-36; 4:8-12; 17:30-31; Rom. 1:4). Christ not only clearly confirmed the authority of the Old Testament, but He specifically promised the New Testament.
Note what Christ taught about the inspiration of the Old Testament:
(1) Its entirety; the whole of the Bible is inspired (Matt. 4:4; 5:17-18). In Matthew 4:4, Jesus responded to Satan’s temptation by affirming verbal plenary inspiration when He said, man is to live by every word (plenary) that proceeds out of the mouth of God (inspiration). In Matthew 5:17-18, Christ promised that the entire Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, would be fulfilled, not abolished. In fact, He declared that not even the smallest Hebrew letter, the yodh, which looks like an apostrophe (‘), or stroke of a letter, a small distinguishing extension or protrusion of several Hebrews letters (cf. the extension on the letter R with it absence on the letter P), would pass away until all is fulfilled. Christ’s point is that it is all inspired and true and will be fulfilled.
(2) Its historicity; He spoke of the Old Testament in terms of actual history. Adam and Eve were two human beings, created by God in the beginning, who lived and acted in certain ways (Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8). He spoke of Jonah and his experience in the belly of the great fish as an historical event (Matt. 12:40). He also verified the events of the flood in Noah’s day along with the ark (Matt. 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27). He verified God’s destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29). These are only a few illustrations; many others exist.
(3) Its reliability; because it is God’s word, the Scripture must be fulfilled (Matt. 26:54).
(4) Its sufficiency; it is sufficient to witness to the truth of God and His salvation (Luke 16:31).
(5) Its indestructibility; heaven and earth will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. Nothing can stop its fulfillment (Matt. 5:17-18).
(6) Its unity; the whole of the Bible speaks and witnesses to the person and work of Christ (Luke 24:27, 44).
(7) Its inerrancy; men are often in error, but the Bible is not; it is truth (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17).
(8) Its infallibility; the Bible cannot be broken, it always stands the test (John 10:35).
That's plenty. Again, if you want to deal with some previous stuff great, I'll try to make time. If not then lets call it good and pick up somewhere else later.
Sorry, this just jumped out at me.
"but some of your friends don't even think a straight quote from Jesus ("blessed are the poor") taken literally is factually true (a point on which I disagree)."
The problem with this statement is that it is factually untrue. There is a disagreement (which you have acknowledged) between the "poor" and "poor in spirit", with you landing on the side of physically poor, others on spiritually poor. This is a legitimate disagreement "which one is correct, or are they both correct". No one (that I have seen) is saying that the statement is not true. It is sometimes helpful when discussing truth, to use examples that are factually true. Unless you can provide a link to someone saying that Jesus did not actually say "blessed are the poor (or poor in spirit). If I missed something then I will stand corrected.
Sorry, I just went against my own request and opened another can of worms
Craig said...
I do agree that the "4 corners" statement is literally, factually a metaphor. Therefore it is to be interpreted as such. The factuality or literality of the statement is that it was literally said.
The fact that you continue to misunderstand this basic point makes me wonder.
What have I misunderstood? In fact, nothing. I fully understand that you all (and I) think this line is a metaphor.
What I'm saying is that WE ALL recognize that some parts of the Bible are to be taken as imagery.
Am I correctly understanding this point? I think yes, but you tell me.
I am further saying is that where we disagree is WHEN to consider something imagery as opposed to more literal. I think that Jesus was being fairly literal when he said in Luke, "Blessed are the poor," that he meant literally, the actual poor in dollars. Others in your camp think this is referring to the "poor in spirit," even though it does not say that here. It talks about "the poor," and "those who hunger now," and "you who are rich," etc. From a straightforward reading of the passage, it seems to be talking in financial/socio-economic terms. Some of your pals think it is referring to "poor in spirit" type of imagery, not literally what it says.
Am I understanding THIS correctly? I think yes, but you tell me.
Again, I don't think I am misunderstanding a single thing on this point, but perhaps you can tell me what you THINK I'm misunderstanding.
Craig, thanks for all the great thoughts on the topic. I'm still wading through it all, but a couple of quickies...
You said...
If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to deny that which the Scripture claims is true.
"IF," being the key word there. I think fairly clearly the Bible does not come anywhere close to teaching inerrancy.
You also said...
Further, if the Bible contains some errors, how can we be sure that its claims concerning Christ, salvation, man, etc., are true?
And this gets back to what I've been saying about style. IF the OT histories were written in a combination of styles (epic, mythic, etc), then for these stories to contain lines that aren't factually correct does not mean that they have errors. It means it was written in a style in which literal factual correct-ness was not necessarily the point of the story.
I am not so much saying that the Bible contains errors, I'm saying that the Bible - rightly understood - is a book of Truths and those truths are without error.
The key comes in Rightly Understanding it.
I would expect we agree upon that, at least at some level. IF someone reads the line that says God commands killing children and takes that to indicate that this is the literal Word of God and it is telling him to go out and kill all of his enemies, including their children, then that person is NOT rightly understanding the Word of God, even if he is taking it fairly literally. Right?
Craig asked...
So, here's the 64k question (which you haven't answered so far), what is the truth behind Ezekiel 34, or the passover? How can you provide a figurative interpretation of those passages? Or do you just throw them out?
What Ezekiel 34 passage are you speaking of? That God will rescue his "sheep"? That God will make a convenant of peace? I'm unsure of the reference here.
On the passover, I have, in fact, given an explanation of what its figurative meaning might be. Repeatedly.
I have said that it COULD just be a reminder that God is with God's people, that God works to rescue the oppressed, that God is on the side of the oppressed against the oppressor, etc, etc. I've given multiple thoughts about what it might mean figuratively.
Keeping in mind what I've said about hermeneutics: We need to interpret the unclear through the clear. Since it is abundantly clear that God does not punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, one conclusion I think we CAN safely reach is that it seems unlikely that God literally chose to kill the innocent for the sins of the guilty.
That would contradict what God has said and I don't think God contradicts God's Self. My question to you remains: On what possible basis would I conclude that it must be literal, IF a literal interpretation contradicts clear biblical teaching?
And keeping in mind that I have also said that, at least for THIS imperfect, fallible person, I feel no compunction to need to be able to explain EVERY literal line in the Bible. I am fine with saying, "Well, I'm not sure what it means, but I don't see how it could possibly mean that God would do what God has said God wouldn't do."
Still reviewing, but there seems to be a good bit of question-begging going on. Like here...
If the Scriptures are God-breathed they are entirely without error.
Well, says who? Who says that "God-breathed" equals "historic events are recorded without factual error, taken literally?" That is what is the question. To answer with, "Well, it can't be without error because it is without error," is begging the question.
But let me keep reading. That's more of a note for myself as to a problem with what I've seen and considered thus far.
(I will note the reminder that I have come from this tradition - I WAS an inerrantist for the first half of my life. I'm not a trained theologian by any means, but I have been through these sorts of discussions long, long ago. Just for what it's worth.)
"So I would ask that you actually read my comments and respond to what I actually wrote. "
I did. I quoted your own words in which you played the "I've got a list of scholars" card. It is hardly unreasonable to conclude from such a statement that you apparently believe that scholarship is a democracy. The fact that you later seem to contradict yourself simply means you're inconsistent.
For example, in this exchange, on the one hand:
"'Regardless, Truth is not measured by the size of your theologians.'
What is it with you people, how many times do I have to repeat that this is not the point I was making before you stop saying that it was."
And then on the other hand you write:
One was to come up with a list of theologians who support your position, you (so far have not/will not/ can not).
Again, inconsistency. Naming a few names is not actually using scholarship for its intended purpose. It's name dropping.
So stop with the phony indignation about me supposedly saying something you haven't said. First of all, I have directly quoted you. You'll also notice that I regularly use words like "apparently believes" etc., to demonstrate that I am simply presenting my interpretation of the clear words you use, rather than stating those are definitely your beliefs.
What I can say is that apparently your beliefs about the proper use of scholarship change from paragraph to paragraph. Trust me, what your actual beliefs are, I couldn't pretend to know, since they seem to change two or three times within the same comment, depending on what seems expedient for your "argument."
Dan,
"Am I correctly understanding this point? I think yes, but you tell me."
Honestly, I'm not sure what you are understanding. If you understand the 4 corners to be a literal metaphor then we are on the same page.
"Am I understanding THIS correctly? I think yes, but you tell me."
Again not totally sure. I would suggest, that if one looks at both of the sermons that seem to communicate the same basic message it is reasonable to conclude one of the following.
1. Jesus is only talking about the monetarily poor.
2. Jesus is only talking about the spiritually poor.
3. Jesus is talking about both at the same time.
4. Jesus talked about one type one time and the other another time.
You seem to have a hunch that #1 is the only possible answer, where I would suggest that in looking at the entire context that #3 or #4 is probably more correct. I don't necessarily have a problem with #1, I do have a problem with assuming that #1 is the only possible interpretation. It seems as though you put a disproportionate emphasis on the physical/monetary and less on the spiritual. I can see where this would cause confusion.
Sorry, I meant Exodus 34, my typo.
Yes, you have provided several hunches/thoughts about the possible meaning of the passover. I guess I was hoping for a little more detail in terms of support for your hunches.
"Well, I'm not sure what it means, but I don't see how it could possibly mean that God would do what God has said God wouldn't do."
So, I know you got asked this elsewhere, but what if God told you that you were wrong about some of this stuff? How would you respond?
"IF," being the key word there. I think fairly clearly the Bible does not come anywhere close to teaching inerrancy."
I think that the content that I posted seals with this. But as it is, you kind of dodged the question.
"If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to deny that which the Scripture claims is true. "
So, could you answer the question as asked, not as you changed it?
That's all for now. Thanks.
Alan,
My request for names of scholars from Dan is twofold.
1. I would be interested in who/what provides support for his beliefs.
2. I would be interested in investigating some of this background to evaluate it. It is possible that there is some really persuasive stuff out there, that Dan hasn't/won't share.
No where have I ever said (and in fact I have said consistently here and elsewhere) simple numbers are not determinative of truth. In this particular context Dan has indicated that the concept of inerrancy is some unfounded bizarre concept cooked up out of thin air. In that context one way to counter his claim is to demonstrate that significant numbers of people hold that position (again we're not even to the point of talking about the truth of falsehood of the premise, we're talking about whether there is even another side to the argument). If we could get past that to actually discussing the merits (which could profitably involve actually studying what scholars on both sides have come up with) that would be moving forward.
I have no "phony indignation", in fact I have no indignation at all about this. I would simply hope that if you are going to quote me that you would do so accurately and in context. If you would like clarification I would be happy to try to provide it. Beyond that I have absolutely no reason to trust you.
" ...apparently your beliefs about the proper use of scholarship change from paragraph to paragraph"
This is impressive since I have made no comments about the proper use of scholarship in this thread. I would say that it is entirely proper to use the scholarship of others to inform our own ideas and beliefs. I have asked Dan who informs his, so far he has not answered. I have further suggested that he might open his mind up to some scholarship that does not reinforce his preexisting beliefs. I find it hard to believe that anyone could find this objectionable.
It would appear that you can.
I plan to continue this with Dan, time permitting, but I see no real hope that this particular digressing will go anywhere worthwhile, so why don't we just leave it.
If the Scriptures are God-breathed they are entirely without error.
Well, says who? Who says that "God-breathed" equals "historic events are recorded without factual error, taken literally?" That is what is the question. To answer with, "Well, it can't be without error because it is without error," is begging the question.
In this case I think you are quoting from the Baptist statement of faith. That would be from the denomination that you are presumably a member of. It could be from one of the other sources though, but I don't think so.
Craig,
I'll leave the disagreement, since I have no reason to believe that you have any interest in real dialogue. But, just in case you, are....
I find it hard to believe that you're not aware of the continuing debate regarding inerrancy and infallibility. In fact, one need go no further than our own PCUSA website to see various views, including the doctrine of authority vs. inerrancy.
http://www.pcusa.org/today/believe/past/may03/dont-believe.htm
Plenty of people, including myself believe that the Bible is not inerrant, but it is infallible.
I believe our very own Jack Rogers (for Dan, he's an evangelical PCUSA professor of theology emeritus, and former moderator of our denomination) holds the same view I do. I don't have a particular citation, but I'm guessing he talks about that in his book on reading the Bible and the Confessions.
The fact is, inerrancy simply makes no sense in a world in which we can measure the decay rate of 14C. It makes no sense in a world in which we understand the gravitational effects of massive celestial bodies on matter and light. (Care to guess how long it takes a photon of light energy to escape the sun's gravity and make it's way to the exterior? I'll give you a hint, it's more than 6000 years.)
Inerrancy is a caricature of what we should be concerned with, which is the infallibility and authority of Scripture, and turns the Bible into a dead object which holds no more importance for the modern age than the tales of Gilgamesh or any other ancient text.
Even so, if someone wants to believe that the Bible is inerrant, what is it to me? And if I, or Dan for that matter, do not agree with the doctrine of inerrancy, who cares?
A former pastor of mine has written extensively
on what he calls "the heresy of inerrancy". He says inerrancy is a "dead metaphor" rather than a "living metaphor". He says that to say the Bible is inerrant is to "put an end to questioning... inquiry is ended
...it is an exhaustive summary of the Bibles's truth and meaning....
God’s Word is shuwb reyqam (Hebrew). Shuwb reyqam is a “living metaphor” and it is hard to translate. The KJV translates it “return void.” God’s word is never void of meaning. The NIV and NAS translators use the words “return empty.” God’s word can never be emptied of meaning.
The claim that any human logic can provide “exhaustive” answers is precisely what shuwb reyqam denies. God refuses to be confined to the limits of human reasoning:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. 55:8-9)"
From The Priority of Scripture
Alan,
If you have read this thread you would have noticed that Dan has been asserting that his (for lack of a better description) metaphorical view of scriptural interpretation is the only sensible view for anyone to take. I have been attempting to demonstrate that there is a significant portion of the Church (both historically and currently) that holds to some version of an inerrant view of scripture.
I have not argued necessarily that this is the only view that this is the only orthodox view, merely that it exists and a significant number of people hold it.
I am quite aware of the discussion within the PCUSA, but I am unaware of anyone in the PCUSA who is advocating the same sort of hunch that Dan is. It is one reason why my ex congregation is gone from the PCUSA and my current one is probably on the way out.
For the purposes of this discussion I am going to think that Dan would probably take issue with infallible or authoritative as well.
Again for the purposes of this discussion I am simply trying to demonstrate that there are alternative interpretations to Dan's metaphorical. Which is a lot of crap for what should have been a simple conversation. But hey Dan's stubborn and that's OK.
Quite frankly I don't care much where someone falls on the continuum of interpretation. I (and I think you might agree) do think that the authority of scripture trumps anything that we as humans bring to the table.
Now, if you are interested in what I personally believe (and if not I'll get it on the record so there is no confusion)
I find myself attracted to the view of authority expressed by N.T. Wright (I wish I had the book, I would quote extensively). I find myself moving toward a view emphasizing the authority and infallibility of scripture rather than a strict inerrantist view. Again, I strongly recommend Wright's book on the Authority of Scripture it was key in changing my view.
Again, if we could get Dan to acknowledge that a view of scripture other than his is within the scope of orthodox interpretation, we could move on.
Could this actually be agreement (just a little)?
Marty,
I am aware (in fact this is pretty much what I have been suggesting) that there is a spectrum of views on this topic. Within that spectrum there is room to disagree and still remain within the scope of orthodoxy. Without reading your pastors writings I hesitate to comment further. I think your comment is interesting and find myself in agreement with much of it.
"he claim that any human logic can provide “exhaustive” answers is precisely what shuwb reyqam denies. God refuses to be confined to the limits of human reasoning:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. 55:8-9)"
I have actually used this tack in earlier conversations with Dan about this topic as he seems to value the role of (his) human reason as the final arbiter in his quest to interpret scripture. I have again made the point that much of the teachings of scripture seem to go against what we think of as human logic or reason.
Again, if you read my response to Alan, it seems as though we might not be too far apart on this.
I'm not sure I'd use the word "heresy" but I think I see his point.
Marty,
After a quick scan (I'll probably bookmark this site because there is more here than can be digested in one sitting) it seems as though he is arguing against the official position of the BC. If this is the case it kind of supports my contention that (at least at this point) the official position of the BC (and the PCUSA) is some version of inerrancy, and there are groups within the denomination that are trying to change that. No argument from me on that. I never said there wasn't or shouldn't be dialogue about this issue.
I'm not sure yet what I think about your guy, but I'm looking forward to reading his stuff. Thanks.
This is a really good comment from your guy's blog.
My question is: How seriously can we take the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels if we deny the very presence of the Holy Spirit in inspiring the writers who recorded those words?
If we trust the Holy Spirit to inspire Luke to talk to the right people and gather the right sources needed to properly and accurately record the words of Jesus, then why can't we trust the Holy Spirit to do the same with the other writers, such as Paul, John, and James?
And why do people try to divorce Jesus from Judaism and from the Law? Jesus Himself said that He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it and that not one jot or tittle of the Law would ever pass away. Seems to me an affirmation of the OT, not a call to look at it in a revisionary sense.
Also, what evidence is there truly that proves that the Bible is replete with errors or is at least problematic enough that we would throw out whole sections like the OT or Paul, creating a false dichotomy that places the words of Jesus over and above the words of Paul in their authority? Didn't Jesus Himself say to the apostles that He had many more things to say, but that when the Holy Spirit came, He would bring them into all truth and that (supernaturally) would bring His own words to remembrance to them? Can we be sure that much of what Paul wrote wasn't the actual words of Jesus which he paraphrased (like what we see in James with his allusions to the Sermon on the Mount), since he likely was familiar with the ministry of Jesus and was himself taught by the Holy Spirit in his desert experience?
Finally, why do moderates and liberals try to stick the label of Bibolitor or idol worshipper to those who believe in inerrancy, especially if it is true that the Holy Spirit inspired every word of the text (though by using human personality and contextual experience)? If you were sure that God had spoken certain words (as moderates are that Jesus uttered the very words of the Gospels) wouldn't you hold them with high esteem and thus fight for the teaching of this? And that brings up a good point -- how can moderates do to the words of Jesus what conservatives do to the whole of the Bible and not be labeled idol worshippers? You would simply worship only part of what we worship -- thus would you not be discretionary idol worshippers or part-time idol worshippers or maybe even selective idol worshippers, but certainly you should be held to the same scrutiny for doing the same thing on a smaller scale.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"After a quick scan (I'll probably bookmark this site because there is more here than can be digested in one sitting) it seems as though he is arguing against the official position of the BC."
Craig, you need to be aware that there was a split in the SBC in 1990 or there about. The more conservative wing had taken complete control, purged seminaries, missionaries, boards, etc. It was very nasty and a lot of people were hurt badly.
Marty,
Thanks, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at Baptist theology so I'm not as tuned in to their distinctives. I have enough just following the impending whatever it is going to be in my own denomination (PCUSA). At this point, without really looking too hard, based on what is going on in the PCUSA it seems as though a split would be less painful than our current situation.
That aside, your guy does seem to be taking a position against the denomination's official position.
I did notice that he has removed many of the writings that he had as links. This doesn't seem like a good sign to me. It is hard to evaluate his positions from the comment thread without being able to refer to the papers he links to instead of answering some of the questions. But I'll go back at some point to read more.
Although this in interesting, it still doesn't demonstrate anything but the existence of a scope of interpretations, which has been my contention all along.
Thanks for the interesting conversation thus far, folks. A lot to catch on and more than I have time for.
If I may jump in the middle of things and ask Craig (or Alan), what do you mean by "infallible?"
Here's one source defining it...
More recently "infallible" has been championed by those who hold to what B B Warfield called limited inspiration but what today is better called limited inerrancy. They limit the Bible's inerrancy to matters of faith and practice, particularly soteriological issues.
Stephen T Davis reflects this tendency when he gives a stipulative definition for infallibility: the Bible makes no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice.
I can ascribe to that sort of inerrancy or infallibility. Indeed, that is what I have been speaking of.
From the Roman Catholic Church's definition (according to this dictionary:
"Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals."
So, to deal with a question you raise, Craig, I DO affirm the Bible's (and more importantly, God's Word's) authority as a source of information and revelation. And, depending upon how you define it, I agree with the Bible's infallibility, rightly understood.
Is that how you are defining it?
Also, I still have an unanswered question on comments like this...
Quite frankly I don't care much where someone falls on the continuum of interpretation. I (and I think you might agree) do think that the authority of scripture trumps anything that we as humans bring to the table.
I'm not sure what that means. We HAVE to bring to the table our reasoning ability to wade through what the Bible says. We can't just dumbly take each line as a literally authoritative comment. You agree with this.
So, I am unwilling/unable to not bring my reasoning to the table of Bible study, I don't see how that is humanly possible - without reason, we can't even interpret the figures on the page known as "letters" to form "words," right?
Don't we agree on this point?
"Again, if we could get Dan to acknowledge that a view of scripture other than his is within the scope of orthodox interpretation, we could move on."
That's not objectionable. However, the Chicago Statement is neither traditional nor orthodox and their particular view of inerrancy is neither traditional nor orthodox.
Yes, people can be all over the spectrum with how they treat scripture: authoritative, infallible, inerrant, etc. Some of those are traditional & orthodox views, and some are not.
Unfortunately there is a fairly large subset of the Christian population who wants to ignore everything that happened before the 1920s, and replace what has actually been *traditional* views on faith with the fundamentalism they invented in the first part of the 20th century.
That those views are about a century hold makes them neither traditional nor orthodox when we're talking about Protestant doctrines that have been around since the Reformation.
Thanks for the thoughts, Alan.
I was wondering if you have any sources for that fundamentalism/1920s reference? I have read/heard that before and it strikes me as being about right, but I haven't been able to verify that elsewhere.
It seems to me that what some people think of as "traditional" and "historic" in regards to church beliefs are actually only traditional and historic back less than 100 years. That this whole "inerrant" as the current Southern Baptists and their brethren take it is a relatively new concept, but I'd like to read more about it to be able to speak with more certainty on the notion.
References?
Dan,
As far as the authority goes I come down to this. If there is a disagreement between me and the Bible, I'm going to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. Obviously we bring our prejudices and predilections to the table, but you seem to assume that yours are always right.
"Again, if we could get Dan to acknowledge that a view of scripture other than his is within the scope of orthodox interpretation, we could move on."
"That's not objectionable. However, the Chicago Statement is neither traditional nor orthodox and their particular view of inerrancy is neither traditional nor orthodox."
It's nice to agree, but a couple of clarifications if I may.
I would suggest that the Chicago Statement is within the scope of what would be considered orthodox, although it may not be traditional in many traditions.
However, that small disagreement doesn't mitigate my point that there is a scope to orthodox views on this and Dan still can't get past that.
I've just begun reading all these comments. There were 100 as I begin to type these comments. I've probably only read around twenty or so and I've seen some of the same poor reasoning added to the same tired dishonesty. The poor reasoning was pointed out nicely when Craig suggested that Dan prove or support the notion that Moses was influenced by writing styles supposedly in vogue in ancient times, or that Moses did indeed write in such styles.
The dishonesty comes in when Dan repeatedly refers to "God's commands to kill babies". At the point I took a break from reading, he's used this crap at least twice. There are no verses that suggest such a command.
The main problem with Dan's "process" for Biblical study is that it must reject or diminish portions of text he finds troubling to his "progressive" mindset. He speaks of "truths" such as the moral of some fable without considering that a story of God commanding the annihilation of entire town and all who dwell therein is itself a truth to be taken literally. It's a truth about God's nature and the extent of His wrath and vengeance. But to accept this truth conflicts with Dan's notion of a hippie-flower child-type of god that aligns with DAN'S design of the perfect god. So he calls it "epic" or "legendary" styles of writing. He'll make the greatest stretch imaginable in comparing such descriptions of events to phrases like "four corners of the earth". And he'll compare the Bible he claims to revere as being on par with other mythical tales of other peoples, rather than the revelation to us of our God that it truly is.
But I'll keep reading the rest of this discussion because I see that Craig has presented quite a lot. It'll be fun to see how it is taken.
Craig: "That aside, your guy does seem to be taking a position against the denomination's official position."
The official position they now hold, yes. But he is standing up for the historic principles that Baptists have held throughout the years. I could only find one link that was bad on his list and you can find it here: The Gist of the Inerrancy Conflict.
"However, the Chicago Statement is neither traditional nor orthodox and their particular view of inerrancy is neither traditional nor orthodox."
I would agree. Inerrancy as these folks describe it, is a relatively new way of viewing Scripture. It has been in the SBC as a fringe group, but they began to gain control of the convention in 1979, really through quite secret and devious means, and it culminated in a split in 1990. I did not leave the denomination until 2003. The rift was nasty and many many Godly men and women were deeply hurt along the way.
All in all, I believe Dan to be well within widely held beliefs in the Baptist faith and practice.
"Thanks for the thoughts, Alan.
I was wondering if you have any sources for that fundamentalism/1920s reference? I have read/heard that before and it strikes me as being about right, but I haven't been able to verify that elsewhere."
I would start with "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" a sermon given by Rev. Harry Emerson Fosdick during the whole Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy in the Presbyterian Church in the early part of the 20th century.
In Baptist circles it was J. Frank Norris, pastor of FBC Ft. Worth. My uncle told the story of going to the Southern Baptist Convention in Ft. Worth, Tx. as a young man.. I think he said he was 16 years old...it was in the late 20s or early 30s. He watched as J. Frank Norris was bodily carried and thrown out of the convention. People who followed his peculiar theology were called Norrisites.
Marty,
I think that's what I said, he is arguing against the "official" position of the Baptist church. I never said that Dan's hunches weren't withing the scope of what Baptists may or may not believe.
I've tried a number of your guys links and he seems to have removed a number of his writings. I'll try this link and see.
Been busy with work and Christmas joy stuff, gang. I'll strive to get around when I get a chance.
Thanks for the reference to Fosdick, Alan.
Craig said...
As far as the authority goes I come down to this. If there is a disagreement between me and the Bible, I'm going to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. Obviously we bring our prejudices and predilections to the table, but you seem to assume that yours are always right.
Craig, if there is a disagreement between God and me, I give God the benefit of the doubt. If there is a disagreement between one part of the Bible and another part of the Bible, then I/we have to use our reason to sort it out. Doing so is not "doubting" the Bible, it's doing Bible study.
This is what we're talking about in this case - one place in the Bible that says "the innocent will be punished for the crimes of the guilty," and another part that contradicts that.
Why aren't you giving Ezekiel the benefit of the doubt instead of relying upon your reasoning, Craig? (To frame it the way you're framing it to me).
That's all I have time for now. Thanks everyone for the interesting comments.
Dan,
Since I haven't addressed the Ezekiel verse at all why would you make an unwarranted assumption regarding how I would interpret scripture.
One of the things reinforced by my wife's hermeneutics professor, is the concept of taking the Bible as a meta narrative (I know all the post moderns out there don't even like the concept, but...).
As I look at scripture that means two things.
1. When there appear to be contradictions I do not assume that there actually are contradictions.
2. In most cases what appear to be contradictions are not in fact contradictions. There are a number of good resources out there which you might look into that would provide you with some additional insight in this area.
I guess that where we deviate the most on this point is that 1. Assume that the Bible is "speaking" for God. 2. I will look past the surface and dig deeper, rather than assume one is wrong, and move on.
Here are some examples. (As with most examples I am offering these not because I agree with them 100%, but to demonstrate that there are ways to deal with the problem you propose)
SHOULD CHILDREN SUFFER FOR THE SINS OF THE FATHER?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their
fathers. Each is to die for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16
(NIV) Contradiction 2: "You shall not bow down to them or worship them for I, the Lord your God, am a
jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate
me." Exodus 20:5
To understand the above verses, we need to distinguish between mankind's sinful nature as compared to a
specific act of sin committed by an individual. If you have ever heard a friend say Alcoholism runs in my family,
this is an example of inherited iniquity whereas something like robbing a store would be an act of sin. The
meaning behind the first passage is a direct order not to punish an individual for someone else's crime whereas
the second verse is stating a spiritual principle which exists where sin begets sin, iniquity begets iniquity (one
bad apple spoils the bunch) from one generation to the next.
S THE EARTH ROUND OR FLAT?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth... Isaiah 40:22
(NIV) Contradiction 2: He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.
Isaiah 11:12
An incorrect translation of Isaiah 40:22 is sometimes rendered sphere. A few apologists, apparently not aware of
the original Hebrew, believe this reveals the Bible's foreknowledge of a spherical earth (though it is fair to point
out the original Hebrew does not distinguish between a one-dimensional circle and a three-dimensional sphere-
their word chuwg could refer to both).
Regardless, neither of the above verses in Isaiah refer to a literal description of the earth. The context of Isaiah
40 is obviously poetic as it refers to people as grasshoppers! The second verse (sometimes translated as corners
instead of quarters) is also not a literal reference to the shape of the earth. Even today we sometimes use the
expression the four corners of the earth (and we obviously know better!).
Dan,
I believe that you said you liked Wesleys theology. Here's John's take.
[6] And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
And the Lord passed by before him — Fixed views of God are reserved for the future state; the best we have in this world are transient.
And proclaimed the name of the Lord — By which he would make himself known. He had made himself known to Moses in the glory of his self-existence, and self-sufficiency, when he proclaimed that name, I am that I am; now he makes himself known in the glory of his grace and goodness, and all-sufficiency to us. The proclaiming of it notes the universal extent of God's mercy; he is not only good to Israel, but good to all. The God with whom we have to do is a great God. He is Jehovah, the Lord, that hath his being of himself, and is the fountain of all being; Jehovah-El, the Lord, the strong God, a God of almighty power himself, and the original of all power. This is prefixed before the display of his mercy, to teach us to think and to speak even of God's goodness with a holy awe, and to encourage us to depend upon these mercies. He is a good God. His greatness and goodness illustrate each other. That his greatness may not make us afraid, we are told how good he is; and that we may not presume upon his goodness, we are told how great he is. Many words are here heaped up to acquaint us with, and convince us of God's goodness. 1st, He is merciful, This speaks his pity, and tender companion, like that of a father to his children. This is put first, because it is the first wheel in all the instances of God's good-will to fallen man. 2ndly, He is gracious. This speaks both freeness, and kindness: it speaks him not only to have a compassion to his creatures, but a complacency in them, and in doing good to them; and this of his own good-will, not for the sake of any thing in them. 3dly, He is long-suffering. This is a branch of God's goodness which our wickedness gives occasion for. He is long-suffering, that is, he is slow to anger, and delays the executions of his justice, he waits to be gracious, and lengthens out the offers of his mercy. 4thly, He is abundant in goodness and truth. This speaks plentiful goodness; it abounds above our deserts, above our conception. The springs of mercy are always full, the streams of mercy always flowing; there is mercy enough in God, enough for all, enough for each, enough for ever. It speaks promised goodness, goodness and truth put together, goodness engaged by promise. 5thly, He keepeth mercy for thousands. This speaks, 1. Mercy extended to thousands of persons. When he gives to some, still he keeps for others, and is never exhausted: 2. Mercy entailed upon thousands of generations, even to those upon whom the ends of the world are come; nay, the line of it is drawn parallel with that of eternity itself. 6thly, He forgiveth iniquity, transgression and sin - Pardoning mercy is instanced in, because in that divine grace is most magnified, and because that it is that opens the door to all other gifts of grace. He forgives offences of all sorts, iniquity, transgression and sin, multiplies his pardons, and with him is plenteous redemption. He is a just and holy God. For, 1st, He will by no means clear the guilty. He will not clear the impenitently guilty, those that go on still in their trespasses; he will not clear the guilty without satisfaction to his justice. 2dly, He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children - Especially for the punishment of idolaters. Yet he keepeth not his anger for ever, but visits to the third and fourth generation only, while he keeps mercy for thousands - This is God's name for ever, and this is his memorial unto all generations.
Dan,
Can I get a reference for the following quote?
"the innocent will be punished for the crimes of the guilty,"
Thanks
Craig,
Since you brought up John Wesley,
perhaps his view of determining theological conclusions:
It's called the Weslayn Quadrilateral:
Scripture
Tradition
Reason
Experience
To determine an issue we should ask (1)What does the Bible say?; (2)What has the church through two thousand years said?; (3)Does this make reasonable sense?; and,(4) Is it proven out in human experience.
We did an extensive study on Wesley several years ago in my Sunday School Class. Amazing guy. He was quite the progressive and really really big on salvation by grace alone.
Marty,
I'm aware of the quad, and of Wesley in general. In this case his use of the quad comes up with a different conclusion than Dan's. Whose reason should be accorded more respect? I'd go with Wesley, but that's just me.
Spent some more time on your guy's site and have come to a few conclusions.
First, he's really not saying anything particularly unusual (at least for a liberal/progressive theology)(liberal/progressive is descriptive not pejorative).
Second, he seems very willing to label those he disagrees with as heretics or similar things. Especially those heathen Calvinists.
Third, he seems a little rude to those who disagree with him.
Fourth, seems a little full of himself.
Fifth, I'm guessing ecumenism isn't big on his priority list.
Over all (except for his theology) he pretty much fits the stereotype of a conservative fundamentalist. I've heard the same stuff from folks who have impressed me more. So thanks for the link, I'll probably keep checking him out, although if he doesn't post the comments I made I'll pass. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a while, but I don't think much of folks who don't post comments, especially if there is not history or violation of comment guidelines.
Craig,
Thanks for checking Bruce's writings out. Some of your observations are fair, but there is some history there with commentors that you are unaware of.
Anyway, if you posted a comment on an old thread such as the one I linked to (2005) he may not post it. Something more current would give you an idea how gracious he is or isn't.
Marty,
I posted on a couple of posts from the last month or so. I know that comment moderation sometimes takes a day or so depending so I'm willing to be patient. But if he doesn't let them post it will certainly affect my opinion of him.
I'll probably pop in and out on occaision, but I'm not sure I'd want to get into anything drawn out with him.
Bruce isn't interested in getting into any converstions on his blog with anyone whether he agrees with them or not. He might comment briefly from time to time, but that's about it.
That's fine, I just don't have much respect for bloggers who use moderation to keep off those who might not always agree. Again I will wait to see what he does.
"That's fine, I just don't have much respect for bloggers who use moderation to keep off those who might not always agree. "
Heh.
Hmmm... who does that remind anyone of? :)
I am unaware of anyone who simply moderates people who disagree. I've seen it after some lengthy exchanges, but never for a first comment.
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that Wesley had a notion of prominence in the quad, with Scripture being most important of the four. That is, one's experience, for example, isn't equal to Scripture and in fact is subordinate, particularly if it conflicts with Scripture.
MA,
That was my impression as well.
Yes that is true Marshall, but when Scripture seems to conflict with itself or is unclear we are to use tradition, reason, and experience to figure it out.
The quad is used to interpret Scripture.
The quad and our understanding of Scripture is explained in detail here.
That's all fine and good, Marty. But it doesn't explain how one could come up with interpretations so directly in conflict with Scripture, nor does it justify the weak reasoning of some areas of Scripture in order to justify conclusions apart from traditional Scriptural understanding. Of the four, reason and experience have the least weight as they are least rooted in spiritual truth, but are too tainted by man's imperfections to be reliable.
As illustration, Dan reasons away OT stories of God's wrath by comparing such stories to other stories demonstrating His love. Somehow he comes to the conclusion that they are in conflict and one must lose out to the other. But real reason and experience, as well as tradition should show him that loving parents are often quite strict, the argument being that a parent who doesn't guide his child doesn't really love the child very much. To punish a child does not mean a lack of love on the parent's part, but just the opposite. A totally unrepentant and evil child will soon find himself cut off from his parents, just as totally wicked peoples were completely cut off from God by His destruction of them. Love and justice is often seen as cruel by those who ignore authority.
Sorry I've been too busy to participate in any of this much. I have a lot to respond to and know time to respond to everything.
Quickly, then, I'll just take this latest statement by Marshall:
Dan reasons away OT stories of God's wrath by comparing such stories to other stories demonstrating His love. Somehow he comes to the conclusion that they are in conflict and one must lose out to the other.
Here, I don't know what Marshall means.
I don't "reason away" stories of God's wrath by comparing them to stories of God's love. Never have, that I can think of.
No, I explain, rather, how one passage is in conflict with another. A passage that explains that God will punish the children for the sins of the father or a passage where the Bible suggests that God sent a "death angel" to kill children for the sins of their parents (or maybe even just one man - the Pharoah) are in conflict with the passages like Ezekiel that says the innocent will NOT be held accountable for the sins of the guilty.
It's a conflict, not a reasoning away. What you all are doing, it seems to me Craig and Marshall, are reasoning away the Ezekiel passage by suggesting that the Bible must always have its historic-sounding passages taken literally, when we have no good reason to do so. You STILL have not offered any good reason to take these passages as representing literal history.
Your one and only strongest argument is that "we've always taken it literally" (meaning it is your opinion that the church has historically tended to take such passages as literal history), but that is hardly a strong enough reason to discount Ezekiel's literal interpretation.
Why should we reject Ezekiel's literal interpretation? Why is that not calling the Bible errant?
Just a review of the Ezekiel 18 passage...
But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live.
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.
From what I've heard, it seems your best argument (those who'd argue that Ezekiel 18 passage does not mean what it literally says - that sometimes, the children of sinners WILL share in the punishment of their fathers) is the whole "collateral damage" argument. The suggestion that the sins of the father have a consequence for those around them, but not that those around them are actually PAYING for the guilty person's sin, just that they are caught up in the punishment.
That suggestion, in fact, makes SOME sense (indeed, there is a great deal of truth to the suggestion that sin has consequences beyond on just the sinner). However, that is not what is happening in the Passover story or in the stories where Israel is commanded to wipe out a city, including its innocent children and babies.
IF you were suggesting that Israel was commanded to wipe out a city and, in the process, some children die, THAT might fit in with your explanation. But no. In the genocide stories taken as literal history, God commands Israel specifically not to spare the children. In the days of soldiers with swords and bows, that meant going house to house and specifically finding the babies and individually putting them to death (or, I suppose, burning down houses might work, too).
Regardless, in that case, you have children/babies being specifically targeted for capital punishment for the sins of the adults. They ARE being punished for the sins of the parents. It is not for their own sins that they are dying, but for someone else's.
This stands in stark contrast with Ezekiel. So, again, since I love the Bible and want to take its truths literally and seriously, I can't see changing my position unless you can offer some reasonable, biblical plausible reason why we ought not take Ezekiel 18 literally?
Or, to ask it as its been framed to me: Why do you hate the Bible so?
(That's mostly a joke, I don't believe Craig and Marshall have done this).
It's been long enough, Dr. Bruce apparently don't post comments that don't agree with him.
Perhaps not, especially if he doesn't know you. Sorry.
Marty,
It's his call, but IMO once you put yourself out there in this kind of forum you lose credibility if you aren't open to (at a minimum) allowing comments to post. It would be interesting to see how he handles those who agree with him.
Post a Comment