Stan, at the Winging It blog, offered some thoughts on the problem with humans having a "deceitful heart." This line of thinking often posted at blogs like Stan's always raises questions for me. Questions that I've never had well-answered (and mostly have been ignored.)
Usually, these commentaries are of the sort that say (this is my summation, to be clear, not a direct quote from anyone...)
Even if someone SAYS they're saved, they can be mistaken, for Scripture says that some will be surprised in the "final days" to learn that they're not saved. Yes, the human heart is deceitful above all things!
Which always raises the question, for me, well, how do you know you're not the one who is deceived and deceitful, confused and mistaken?
In a (very) slight attempt to deal with the problem, Stan said...
"While admitting up front that God's word is truth (and when they do not, you can immediately dismiss them, having only their own deceitful hearts as their standard), we are still left to our own wits, so to speak, to interpret God's word."
Stan then asks, are we considering the text and the context of the text? The language and culture and the writing style (and Stan cites "historical, doctrinal, hyperbole, poetry, etc..." Noting that he doesn't offer mythic or epic as potential writing styles...), etc. All of which are fine, as far as they go.
But what of two groups of people reading the same collection of texts in good faith efforts to understand and yet who come to disagreement on interpretation and understanding?
Stan deals with this towards the end by saying...
"...how does your understanding of the text, the context, and the Scriptures line up with the history of Christendom?
Is your understanding novel?
Does it contradict all prior understanding?
Have you come up with a new and creative way to understand God's Word?
Then you can be pretty sure your deceitful heart is doing its devilish work."
So, this is a LOVELY rationale for sticking to human religious traditions. But, some questions arise...
1. It's not strictly biblical, you know that, right? Appealing to human traditions as a test has mixed responses in the Bible's pages. Some places, it affirms human traditions, others, it decries them.
2. Indeed, Jesus disrupted a HUGE number of human religious teachings and understandings, traditions that the religious fathers had handed down for thousands of years that Jesus up-ended.
3. It STILL has the problem of relying upon human teachings, which teachings and interpretations being HUMAN in nature, are fallible.
4. It has the problem of needing to affirm things like slavery and forced marriages (because God in the Bible appears to condone such things) and the problem of condemning loving marriage relationships between gay and lesbian folks. For instance.
5. So, to address Stan's last line:
Does your human understanding of your human traditions have you affirming slavery and forced marriages (ie, rape) in some circumstances and yet denying committed loving marriage options to gay and lesbian folk, you can be sure your deceitful heart is doing its devilish work.
8 comments:
Stan will be dismayed to find out that there is no bible in heaven. Scriptue is witness to the truth, not the truth. Stan et al are plugged into dead letters.
from Luke 7,8
"'Do not judge, and you will not be judged; 2.because the judgements you give are the judgements you will get, and the standard you use will be the standard used for you. 3.Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the great log in your own? 4.And how dare you say to your brother, "Let me take that splinter out of your eye," when, look, there is a great log in your own? 5.Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye."
"'Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. 8.Everyone who asks receives; everyone who searches finds; everyone who knocks will have the door opened. 9.Is there anyone among you who would hand his son a stone when he asked for bread? 10.Or would hand him a snake when he asked for a fish? 11.If you, then, evil as you are, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him! 12.'So always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the Law and the Prophets. 13.'Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to destruction is wide and spacious, and many take it; 14.but it is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15.'Beware of false prophets who come to you disguised as sheep but underneath are ravenous wolves. 16.You will be able to tell them by their fruits. Can people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17.In the same way, a sound tree produces good fruit but a rotten tree bad fruit. 18.A sound tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a rotten tree bear good fruit. 19.Any tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown on the fire. 20.I repeat, you will be able to tell them by their fruits. 21.'It is not anyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22.When the day comes many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?" 23.Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, all evil doers!"
"When he went into Capernaum a centurion came up and pleaded with him. 6.'Sir,' he said, 'my servant is lying at home paralysed and in great pain.' 7.Jesus said to him, 'I will come myself and cure him.' 8.The centurion replied, 'Sir, I am not worthy to have you under my roof; just give the word and my servant will be cured. 9.For I am under authority myself and have soldiers under me; and I say to one man, "Go," and he goes; to another, "Come here," and he comes; to my servant, "Do this," and he does it.' 10.When Jesus heard this he was astonished and said to those following him, 'In truth I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found faith as great as this. 11.And I tell you that many will come from east and west and sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob at the feast in the kingdom of Heaven; 12.but the children of the kingdom will be thrown out into the darkness outside, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.'"
This analysis is more than curious given that it's been presented before, both by Stan and also by you. The difference, however, is that Stan actually follows the methods of properly interpreting Scripture, and you just say shit and pretend no one can see it. (I would add that others like myself, Craig, Glenn, Bubba, Neil for example, also follow this method, but this is about Stan and your response to his post).
"Which always raises the question, for me, well, how do you know you're not the one who is deceived and deceitful, confused and mistaken?"
Seems clear to me Stand has referred to this as our default position, as it were. It's where we begin and what follows is the method for proper interpretation.
"(and Stan cites "historical, doctrinal, hyperbole, poetry, etc..." Noting that he doesn't offer mythic or epic as potential writing styles...)"
Hmm. Seems to me "etc" would allow for other possibilities. But specifically referencing your favored adjectives for that which you've determined allows you greater license to dismiss that which you find troubling speaks volumes.
"But what of two groups of people reading the same collection of texts in good faith efforts to understand and yet who come to disagreement on interpretation and understanding?"
Oh, despite those differences, Stan and I get along pretty good.
"So, this is a LOVELY rationale for sticking to human religious traditions."
Actually, it's lovely because it's a solid means for determining Truth as it stands apart from human traditions. What's more, as I stated at the outset, you've expressed a similar means for doing so yourself. What I find most interesting is how that list preceding your smarmy response is a statement on and defense of consensus, with which, when in defense of that which rejects Scripture, you're totally on board. Here, consensus opinion stretching back thousands of years means nothing to your extremely recent "alternative" views that are blatant attempts to rewrite more than to better interpret.
"1. It's not strictly biblical, you know that, right?"
I don't believe Stan's so much as hinted at making that case. But one thing is certain: if Stand's methodology for arriving at his conclusions aren't, yours most definitely is not.
Indeed, Stan presents a means that requires adherence, devotion and reverence for Scripture to arrive at those conclusions, forsaking all personal preferences in order to divine the Truth, then letting the Truth dictate his personal preferences. You clearly begin with your personal preferences and force meaning into Scripture in order to cling to them.
"2. Indeed, Jesus disrupted a HUGE number of human religious teachings and understandings..."
...because they weren't supportable by a proper interpretation. They weren't Scriptural teachings and understandings, and He used Scripture to make the case.
"3. It STILL has the problem of relying upon human teachings, which teachings and interpretations being HUMAN in nature, are fallible."
This is your most common dodge, and it always stands alone without any actual coherent, reasoned defense of your preferred interpretations...no Scripture that can stand as evidence without you first injecting meaning into whatever it is you seek to use for the purpose.
"4. It has the problem of needing to affirm things like slavery and forced marriages (because God in the Bible appears to condone such things) and the problem of condemning loving marriage relationships between gay and lesbian folks."
Each of these "examples" have been explained many times and they do stand as examples of what I referenced with regard to point #3, which proves the point I make there. In basic terms, they are examples wherein it is asked of you, "if it doesn't mean this, and instead you say it means that, when will you provide actual chapter, passage or verse that stands as evidence for your interpretation?" Just the term "marriage", for example provides us illustration: Where in Scripture is there any hint that "marriage" refers to 1) the union of one man and one woman, or 2) the union of two different "things", i.e. Christ and His Church? The answer, of course, is nowhere. Without any Scriptural basis, you presume to say that because Scripture seems to regard "marriage" as a good, then it is good for a union defined by a behavior God has condemned as an abomination without any hint of a context or scenario in which it isn't.
So again, you've made similar arguments for how Scripture is properly interpreted, just as Stan has done in this post you reference. But you have more than demonstrated what a "deceitful heart" looks like.
Marshal does not believe in the trinity therefore Marshal cannot stand a reading of scripture that gets outside of a printed book... even though scripture tells us we must.
For those of us who believe in a triune god, we follow where the third person of the Trinity leads: just as scripture tells us to: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit." "But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit... But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills."
Notice how reading scripture - even interpreting it - is not necessary for the Christian life: "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."
Marshal and Stan and Craig and Glenn and Bubba and Neil and all the other yahoos believe with a sectarian, murderous 17th century belief. Hence their propensity for brutality. And their denial of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is freedom and goes where it wants to go. Believers must follow. Marshal and Stan and Craig and Glenn and Bubba and Neil and their fellow yahoos are not believers in the Holy Spirit. They believe in a book.
The ancient church read scripture with typological interpretations along with allegory and symbolic-mythical forms of interpretation. Paul does it par excellence with respect to the status of Israel in god's salvation plan. And it is Paul who must tell the Jerusalem elders, including James, the brother of Jesus, that god has now revealed to them truly something Israel never fully understood, Jesus withheld, and the first church needed convincing to believe: god loves everyone.
Notice that the Centurion, Cornelius, did not need a book. Peter did not rely on a book. Both were attentive to the life of the Holy Spirit, and thus change came to the church.
"Cornelius replied, 'At this time three days ago I was in my house saying the prayers for the ninth hour, when I suddenly saw a man in front of me in shining robes. He said, "Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your charitable gifts have not been forgotten by God; so now you must send to Jaffa and fetch Simon known as Peter who is lodging in the house of Simon the tanner, by the sea." So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come...: Then Peter addressed them, 'I now really understand', he said, 'that God has no favourites, but that anybody in any nation who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." ... when Peter came up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers protested to him... Peter in reply, said... "I looked carefully into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of heaven. Then I heard a voice that said to me, "Now, Peter, kill and eat!" But I answered, "Certainly not, Lord; nothing profane or unclean has ever crossed my lips." And a second time the voice spoke from heaven, "What God has made clean, you have no right to call profane." 'Just at that moment, three men stopped outside the house where we were staying; they had been sent from Caesarea to fetch me, and the Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going back with them." 'I had scarcely begun to speak when the Holy Spirit came down on them in the same way as it came on us at the beginning, and I remembered that the Lord had said, "John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit." I realised then that God was giving them the identical gift he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ; and who was I to stand in God's way?' This account satisfied them, and they gave glory to God, saying, 'God has clearly granted to the gentiles too the repentance that leads to life.'"
And notice how the body of believers came to consensus: ready to believe in the living god who loves all people and acts on it as the Holy Spirit.
Who are we to deny the Holy Spirit? Only book worshippers do. Even when they worship a book that is wise enough to say, "pay attention to the living god."
The interpretation of scripture has always been god's people realizing - making real - god's being in the world and discovering that truth of god's love: that god HAS acted through us for the sake of the world. It has always been right that scripture is read in this light, the light of god moving in the world, about which scripture continuously professes.
But scripture does not profess god's being in the world only once for all time. That would mean that god is interpreted by scripture. And that is horrid blasphemy. This is the sin that Calvin and all radically protestant thought wrought on Christianity. It is half the sin which Marshal and Stan and Craig and Glenn and Bubba and Neil and all such yahoos are steeped in.
Scripture continuously professes god's continuous being in the world as love AS the body of Christ interprets it in every present epoch. Scripture lives by the being of god through the body of Christ. Satan wants us believe in a god living only in red-inked print with leather covers.
Does life in the Holy Spirit sound too dangerous to be true? Of course. This is the same scandal it has always been. And Marshal and Stan and Craig and Glenn and Bubba and Neil and their yahoo people stumble on it and sink down. They are book loving Judaizers.
And when Marshal returns here to whine, or Stan and Craig or Glenn peek in hoping Marshal holds the line on brutalizing conservative mendacity, they reveal themselves - and torturously abhor their own reflections - as the self-aggrandizing watchmen of Israel who “are blind, they are all without knowledge... shepherds also have no understanding; they have all turned to their own way.”
They will be stunned by the love of god who honors the foreigner and the sexually different who honor god and do what is right.
“Thus says the Lord:
Maintain justice, and do what is right,
for soon my salvation will come,
and my deliverance be revealed.
Happy is the mortal who does this,
the one who holds it fast,
who keeps the sabbath, not profaning it,
and refrains from doing any evil.
Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
and do not let the eunuch say,
“I am just a dry tree.”
For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
and hold fast my covenant—
these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.
Thus says the Lord God,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather others to them
besides those already gathered.
All you wild animals,
all you wild animals in the forest, come to devour!
Israel’s watchmen are blind,
they are all without knowledge;
they are all silent dogs
that cannot bark;
dreaming, lying down,
loving to slumber.
The dogs have a mighty appetite;
they never have enough.
The shepherds also have no understanding;
they have all turned to their own way,
to their own gain, one and all.
“Come,” they say, “let us get wine;
let us fill ourselves with strong drink.
And tomorrow will be like today,
great beyond measure.”
I noticed a typo I must correct to clarify my point to prevent confusion:
"Where in Scripture is there any hint that "marriage" refers to anything other than 1) the union of one man and one woman, or 2) the union of two different "things", i.e. Christ and His Church? The answer, of course, is nowhere."
But even you knew that.
Post a Comment