I Can Do No Other...

I was recently asked to explain my objections to the theological theory of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the Protestant theory that the Bible is the sole or primary source of authority on matters of faith and morality - with some general debate about what specifically that means, but that's the gist of it.

It originated with the Protestant revolution and with some (in my opinion) good reason. The Catholic Church believed/believes that "Scripture AND human Tradition (specifically, the teachings/traditions of "the church," which can then be debated futher) are equally important. With the Protestant Reformation, the protestors were saying that some popes and church leaders were making up tradition out of whole cloth, contrary and apart from what the Bible had to say. Thus, in protest to these abuses of the church leaders, they cried "Sola Scriptura!" meaning that the popes couldn't just make up doctrine willy nilly. As an attempt to get away from abuses, it isn't wholly irrational.

Consider: At one point, the Catholic Church demanded that Martin Luther recant from some of his positions. His response...

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony from scripture or by evident reason - for I confide neither in the Pope nor in a Council alone, since it is certain they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am held fast by the scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience is held captive by God’s Word, and I neither can nor will revoke anything, seeing it is not safe or right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.“

Thus, sola scriptura was a noble attempt to defend religious liberty (or at least could be seen that way) from those who presumed to speak for God. But, I would argue that sola scriptura ended up being a way of just establishing a NEW and different tradition that wasn't the Catholic Church making the call, but that, in practice, still demanded that people heed what others thought the Bible was saying.

Because I object to sola scriptura theories, I was asked to espouse my alternative theory, and so...

An Alternative to the Human Theory/Tradition of Sola Scriptura, a Theory Never Espoused in the Bible or by Jesus or in any way called "essential" in the Bible, because it is not espoused in the Bible:

My Theory is what I will call the Rational Theory of Godly Inspiration

I. Regarding "sola scriptura..." theories

1. In the Bible (for those of us who take the Bible seriously as a book of wisdom), we find that God reveals God's Self and Ideas in many ways...

a. through Creation,
b. through God's Spirit,
c. through Jesus' direct teaching,
d. through "scripture" (almost always speaking specifically of OT teachings)
e. through "God's Word" or revelation (here, not speaking specifically of Bible books, but the over-arching notion of "every word out of God's mouth..." or the idea of God's Ways)
f. through God's Self revealed in our hearts, minds and/or being,
g. through our God-given reasoning,
h. through "special" or direct revelation (God speaking to someone, directly, audibly - and sometimes inaudibly)
i. through tradition,
j. ...and possibly others I'm not thinking of at the moment

2. At NO time in the Bible, do biblical authors, God or the text give one of these methods of revelation a priority over the others. It never happens.

3. At NO time in the Bible - and for followers of Jesus, more specifically, in Jesus' teachings - do we read about any direct notion of "sola scriptura," or the human theory that the 66 books of the Bible have a special, primary place of authority, in matters of theology or practice. It never happens, not for the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, nor for "Scripture," in general.

4. At NO time in the Bible is the notion of "sola scriptura" - never being directly taught by anyone in general or Jesus, specifically, not literally - called "essential" to Christian teaching. It never happens.

5. Given all this, at a minimum, we need to start with the recognition that, as a point of fact:
a. sola scriptura is a human theory/tradition,
b. it is not an essential teaching of Jesus (or of the essence of Jesus' teachings)
c. that believers of good faith can disagree on this and that's okay

II. If not "sola scriptura," then what?

1. First of all, if we have no rational or biblical reason for Theory A, we are under no obligation to espouse an Alternative to Theory A. It is sufficient to say, Theory A is not sound or can not be supported by data in the real world. For instance, if someone says that we can "know" all Biblical inspiration comes from God via an alien race named Thetans and we can know this because of Ezekiel's story of the spinning wheel and a few other verses, it is sufficient to say "that is not a rational conclusion..." and if they respond, "then via what source do we receive God's inspiration?" we do not need to come up with an alternative theory to Thetan revelation. It is sufficient to say, "that is not a sound theory."

2. But, to answer the question, If not the theory of sola scriptura, then what? I respond: No theory at all, just Reason. Period.

But human reason is not perfect, is it? Hardly. The suggestion is laughable.

Understand, I'm not making the suggestion we should choose to embrace reason in questions of morality, faith, theology and religion. I'm saying that it's what we have. Plain and simple. It's not like we have a line of choices (Do we want to use the Bible, the Koran, Sagan's "Cosmos" or human reason to settle these matters? Let's use... hmmm, option A!") and must choose one and, if not one, then the other.

No, it's not like we have a choice and one answer is the best answer. Rather, we have our reason to sort through ALL the available data out there and do the best we can on matters that are not provable. If we like all or part of what the Bible has to say, we use and have used our reason to understand it. Without reason, it's just a bunch of text that is undecipherable gibberish. Whether we're speaking of the Bible, the Koran, Cosmos or Playboy.

If we highly value the Bible as a source of wisdom on matters of faith, then we hopefully used our reason to reach that conclusion and didn't just start off with "I highly value the Bible because someone else told me to do so..." That wouldn't be a very solid rational starting point for faith.

If we highly value the Bible as a source of wisdom, then we use our reason to sort it out. THIS passage is literal history, it seems to me based upon my best reasoning and the data I have available... THAT passage is likely more mythic in nature, based upon my best reasoning... This OTHER passage seems solidly poetic (as opposed to being a list of literal rules, for instance, or a model for perfect living, for instance). We all do this, beginning with our reasoning, because it's what we have. Those who embrace sola scriptura begin not from the Bible, but from reason, as do the rest of us.

Thus, the answer is, as a point of fact and not preference, that we all begin from a place of reason. It's not a question to be answered, but an observation that we can establish.

Now, all of our reasoning may not be as solid and well-thought-out as others and none of our reason is anything like perfect, but it IS our starting point, just as a point of fact. For all of us. Thus, sola scriptura is not the starting point, as a simple point of fact, our reason is.

And, using our reason, we see that the Bible's authors nowhere specifically push sola scriptura. Just as a point of fact. Further, while some people have, using their reason, taken some passages and reasoned out sola scriptura as a theory, it is a human theory derived using human reason. So, for those people, too, reason was the starting point, the "primary source," literally speaking.

I point back to Luther's quote which I cited early on...

"my conscience is held captive by God’s Word, and I neither can nor will revoke anything, seeing it is not safe or right to act against conscience."

What is Luther citing there? Nominally, "God's Word," presumably he meant the Bible. But, what is he actually citing? He's citing HIS UNDERSTANDING of what God wants. His primary appeal, then, is to his conscience, his reason, not primarily the Bible. Which is right, it's just the fact of the matter.

There's no harm in citing the reality that we are all beginning with our reason. I know there's more comfort and "certainty" if we can conflate our understanding of the Bible with fact or God's Word, but that's just not factual. Thus, let us cling to our fallible human reasoning and acknowledge it as such.

It's what we have.

And if someone were to demand that I recant from this "heretical" position, what would I do?
I would answer, with Luther, that this is right and good and factual, as best I understand it, and I must follow the good and right and factual (ie, God, to me) and can do no other. The difference between Luther and me, is I am making it clear that this is the good and right, as best I understand it, and I do not conflate my opinions and interpretations with God's Word.

It is a critical - the critical - difference.

It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year!

I love autumn in nature, and few people express a love and reverence for nature like John Muir. So, in honor of this beautiful time of the year, some Muir...

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves...

Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul alike...

Keep close to Nature's heart... and break clear away, once in a while, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean...

As long as I live, I'll hear waterfalls and birds and winds sing. I'll interpret the rocks, learn the language of flood, storm, and the avalanche. I'll acquaint myself with the glaciers and wild gardens, and get as near the heart of the world as I can.

For I was a Stranger...

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."
~God

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me"
~Jesus

In my small circle of friends, I am dear friends with five people - from two households - who are in here in the US because their lives were threatened in the places from which they come. I, myself, am descended from Huguenots, who came to America to escape being killed in Europe.

In my church today, we heard prayer concerns about a family friend who had escaped from Latin America to the US - again, to save his own life - only to be promptly arrested and placed in a for-profit detainee center. We also heard about a recent trip to Hungary that just happened to occur at the same time that thousands of people fled from the Middle East to escape life-threatening danger there.

In all these cases, I have heard how family members and friends of all these people had already been killed. They risked boats over-turning and death and they left all they had behind, they left friends and family behind... all to escape persecution, death... real, imminent dangers. They didn't do it as a fluke. They didn't do it to get "free stuff" from other nations. They did it - are doing it - to save their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

This is not a conservative/liberal issue. It's not a democrat/republican issue. It's not a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or non-theist issue. This is a human issue, because it's a human problem. We MUST change our policies.

When someone crosses our borders and says they were escaping from wherever to save their lives, our first response as human beings concerned with human rights and justice, MUST be to say, "Welcome" and let them in. Now, if we have reason to suspect foul play, by all means, we can investigate. But part of our great tradition in the free world is the notion that we are innocent until proven guilty. If someone is running for their lives, we are obliged by simple human decency and a thirst for justice and righteousness to help them.

We are our neighbor's keeper. For, as God reminds us in the Bible, we - all of us - were and are and have been and will be an immigrant at some point in time. I'm not talking about being "aw, isn't that nice" or simple charity, I'm talking about justice and basic decency. It is past time that we, the people, demand policies that work for justice for the immigrant, because this is justice for ourselves.

No, Thank You Very Much

Latest idea that is not very well thought through... a conservative blogger is making the case that the answer to the question of "Do you REALLY want to have civic rules based on what a particular religion thinks should be rules?" should be Yes. Stan at Winging It (and as always, I'm not picking on Stan, I'm talking about the idea he is expressing) said...

And, frankly. I'd much rather have a religion instituted and documented by God with values instituted and documented by God to serve as the basis for laws in this (or any) country than the completely arbitrary, unsubstantiated, baseless values of the alternative of non-religious systems. 

The problem with this thinking, of course, is the completely self-unaware hubris, arrogance, self-righteousness and lack of grace in it. He appears to THINK that, "IF we institute a nation based on rules that I AND PEOPLE LIKE ME believe to be what God wants, then that's better than relying upon other people's opinions about gods..." But then, if that is the rational rule, then the extremist Mormon, extremist Muslim, the extremist religion-based racist and the extremist fundamentalist Christians are all on equally valid footing for making the case that THEIR HUNCHES about what God wants is what ought to be Law, not because of them, but because of "god," which god they fail to see is NOT a god, but only a not very clever version of themselves.

So, the answer to his question is, "NO, I do not want a state to implement the rules YOU THINK God wants where people should just go along with you because you say you speak for God." And just as true is that I don't want a state to implement rules just because I might think God wants it.

We make our case based on reason and logic and what makes sense, what promotes good and diminishes harm, oppression or what strikes against human liberty. If you happen to ALSO think that God wants this rule or that, that's fine with me, but don't try to make that the standard by which people should bow to your will, because YOU speak for God.

It's not that I don't trust God or want what God wants. It's that I/we don't trust YOU (or me) telling us that you speak for God and therefore, we must listen to you. That is one of the geniuses on the part of many Baptists, anabaptists and many others who fought for human liberty and human rights all those years ago and, apparently, still today.

Blessed

Love is always blessed
and in all ways
a blessing

May we support love
not criticize it
May we encourage love
not tear it down.

It's Just Not That Hard, Friends...

Regarding Kentucky's own Kim Davis and her many zany religious right defenders:

Friends, it's just not that hard.

I
We have religious liberties in this nation. And that is a very good thing. No one can take away our right to worship or follow God as we see fit, the government can not come in and force you to have an abortion against your will, or force you guys to marry a guy if you don't want, or force you to abandon your religious beliefs in any way. That is not happening in this country.

II
To those who whine and worry about "losses" of religious liberties because of cases like Davis, stop it. It makes you appear whiny, impotent and irrational. We're all embarrassed for you. Just stop it, for your own sake. If you truly believe what you believe, then learn to say it in a different way, you're undermining your own case by presenting yourself as whiny, irrational and immoral. Make your case on a respectful adult level, not appealing to false demons and socialist tyrant boogety-men.

III
We have religious liberties in this nation. Those who are saying that Davis needs to do her job are defending religious liberties. Do you understand this? Because it appears you don't (see point II).

IV
Your religious freedom is something you rightly enjoy. You ARE FREE to make your own decisions for yourself based upon your personal values and beliefs. Congratulations. We live in a free nation.

BUT (and this is the vital point), your religious freedoms end at you getting to make your own decisions for yourself. You do NOT have the religious "liberty" to tell other people how they must act and what they can and cannot do. IF your religious views insist that you get to tell other people how to live, well, in that case, you do not have that specific religious liberty. Sorry, but you don't (as long as the others' behavior is not causing harm, anyway).

V
Illustrations

So, if you are in a job whose responsibilities involving providing alcohol licenses and you don't believe in alcohol being available: YOU DO NOT GET TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE ALCOHOL LICENSES. If you don't believe in selling alcohol, you do have the religious liberty to step down from that job (or not take it in the first place), but you do not have the religious liberty to make that call for others. You just don't.

If you enroll in the army and you are a Quaker or Amish or other Peace Religion, you do NOT GET TO SAY, "I WON'T DO THIS JOB." You are free to resign from the army as an CO, but you don't get to keep the job and simultaneously refuse to do the job. You just don't have that religious liberty.

IF you are in a job that, initially, you could perform the duties within your religious belief system, but the job changes (or your views change), you have the religious liberty to resign from the job so you don't have to do what is against your beliefs, but you don't have the religious liberty to keep the job and refuse to perform the duties of that job. You just don't have that religious liberty.

VI
In conclusion:
It's just not that difficult.
You DO have religious liberty.
You are NOT being oppressed.
Don't claim that you are being oppressed, it makes you look wimpy and irrational.
You have religious liberty to make decisions for yourself, but not for others.
If your job has duties that conflict with  your religious values, you have the freedom to NOT perform those duties. You do this by finding other work, not by insisting the world should bend to your religious idiosyncrasies.

It's just not that difficult. Now that it's been explained, I hope you understand and we can just move on in peace and neighborly community.

God bless you.

Orange Sky

I saw an orange sky
broken by strange blue lightning
and then the deep weirdness began...

Glory Bound

Special music from church Sunday. We've been considering stages of our lives, with the latest theme being grieving and loss. This song is a beautiful song by a group called the Wailin' Jennies (clever, eh?) that sounds very much like a traditional old hymn... It's called "Glory Bound."

Different Gospels?

So, some more from the file of "I want to ask these conservative friends questions about their claims/opinions/hunches but they are having none of it..." so, I'm posting here. In this case, the people over at Winging It is speaking of the various "gospels" found in the Bible, noting that Jesus seemed to preach about the "gospel of the kingdom" and John, in Revelation, preached about an "eternal gospel," and that these are different than the gospel evangelicals mean by THE Gospel. Here, he's speaking of the Revelation "eternal gospel" and then concludes...

This good news [in Revelation] was that God's judgment was arriving and He would be glorified.

Not the same gospel we think of when we think of the word.

No, the gospel you and I think about is what is termed "the gospel of the grace of God." That gospel, in fact, wasn't known clearly until Paul brought it up (Gal 2:2). Now, it wasn't new to Paul -- Paul didn't originate it (Gal 3:8) -- but it wasn't known in that form. Paul calls it "my gospel..."

Why is this a critical and strange teaching to me? What questions do I have?

The problem that people like this have, it seems to me, is that we have four wonderful books full of the Teachings of Jesus, the four books of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And in those four books, we have many teachings and sermons from Jesus. In fact, Jesus clearly states that he is preaching the "good news of the Kingdom of God..." Repeatedly, Jesus and his disciples preach this Gospel story.

The problem for evangelicals? Not a single time does Jesus present "the Gospel" as evangelicals understand it. For evangelicals, "the gospel" is the news that

Humans are sinners, doomed to hell because of our sin
God is a loving God, but a Just God, who can't/won't abide our sin... in the famous words of Jonathan Edwards, we are sinners in the hands of an angry God
BUT, God's anger can be appeased by a perfect blood sacrifice
AND the "Good News" (or Gospel) is that Jesus died to shed his blood to sort of literally pay for our sins and save us from an eternity of torture.

Or as the people at Ligonier Ministries put it...

...that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another.

The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

This is what has been called the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement, and ONLY by affirming this specific Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement (or something pretty close to it) can we actually be saved. Believing in Jesus and his teachings? Insufficient. Being a follower of Jesus' teachings? Insufficient. Accepting God's grace? Insufficient. Repenting of our sins and accepting God's grace? Insufficient. IF you do not affirm the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement, which many derive indirectly from Paul's teachings (and specifically not from Jesus' teachings), then you can not be saved, at least according to many modern conservative evangelicals.

So, while Paul or no one else in the Bible, specifically speak of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement, it is something that many find in Paul's teaching of the Gospel. For instance, this passage in Romans 5...

But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

So, the problem for these more fundamentalist types is that Jesus and the disciples are recorded repeatedly as preaching the gospel, but not one time does the notion of blood sacrifice to appease an angry God come up in the four Gospel books. How do these more fundamentalist/conservative evangelicals deal with it? Well, I've tried asking that question many times and never have received an answer. But the people at Winging It have resolved it by DISMISSING the Gospel Jesus taught as not the "real" Gospel that Christians mean by "Gospel..."!

I have often suspected that many more conservative evangelical types prefer Paul to Jesus and will make Jesus' teachings subservient to both Pauline and OT teachings, but I've rarely seen any so openly admit it. What are we to make of that?

The problem I have with this is that, as a follower of Jesus, I am a follower of Jesus' words, his teachings. Thus, when I read the Bible, I (and traditional Baptists, Anabaptists and many others) interpret all of biblical teaching through the lens of Jesus' specific teachings. We believe that Jesus is the ultimate and best representation of God to humanity and so, when I want to best understand a teaching or text in the Bible, I take what Jesus had to say as first priority and then interpret the other, through Jesus' teachings, and the obscure through the clear. It's basic biblical exegesis and has been for many years.

Am I hearing this person incorrectly? Is he not dismissing Jesus' gospel as not THE gospel, but only Paul's is the "actual" Gospel and Jesus' teachings are some lesser, small "g" gospel? Help me understand this.

Help Me Understand. Help Harder.

NOTE: This is a repost of a blog entry from a few years ago. It is a fairly long and, in my mind, bizarre conversation between me and a more conservative fella. I do not post it again to embarrass the individual, but just to set it out there as just how weird conversations can be. For your consideration...

I have a question about HOW to conduct conversation and I'd like to post an example of how a real conversation proceeded, to serve as a reference point. My question in THIS post is not about the topic being discussed, but about how to get a straight answer to a reasonable question.

So, recently one of our conservative friends had a post all about Israel's attack of the Amalekites found in the OT. This is one of those stories where it appears God is commanding Israel to wipe out everyone in the city - including the children and infants. In striving to justify a literal interpretation of this passage, this writer stated a point which I tried to ask about.

Below, I have copied and pasted the pertinent parts of our conversation. I'm just wondering what I could have done to successfully communicated with this person, to successfully get an answer to a reasonable question. This is how our conversation went (with him in italics and me in bold)...

He said on his blog entry:

Everyone deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy. Even me. Even you. That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice.

I emailed, asking:

So WHERE, in the Amalekite story, do you see the justice of killing infants? What did they do to "deserve to die..." "Horribly"?

I'd be interested in your answer.

Note: I have made no accusation. I have not called him wrong or mistaken. I have not called him names or doubted his Christian faith. He simply stated that everyone deserves to die. Horribly. HIS words.

To which I responded with the I-think reasonable question to such a position: Where in the story cited was the justice in killing infants? I was wanting his answer to THAT question. The conversation continued via email...

In answer, then, to your question, I obviously believe that all human beings are sinners, justly condemned, because they do not seek first the kingdom of God, do not seek first the glory of God, do not operate first from faith. That's my answer. I don't think it's vague or evasive.

???

My question was...

So WHERE, in the Amalekite story, do you see the justice of killing infants? What did they do to "deserve to die..." "Horribly"?

And you are saying that because a ONE DAY OLD INFANT has not chosen to seek first God's kingdom, they deserve to die a horrible death? Is that your actual position?

Note: I THINK I see his answer to my question, but since it seems rather hard to believe, I repeat what I think his answer is and ask him if, indeed that is his answer...

Since you and I DISAGREE that "sin" is defined as a willful rebellion, a knowing act against a known right/wrong, then, of course, we don't agree from the start. You see "choose" as one key component of "sin" and I do not. Frankly, neither does the Bible, but that's neither here nor there. In order for me to agree with you, I would have to redefine sin to coincide with your definition. Do you not see that, as I have repeatedly stated, we do not agree AT THE BASE? Our disagreement starts long before the Amalekite question.

Okay, what if we look at this apparent disagreement for a minute, if you'd like...

From the Bible answer website, "Got Questions?" we get this information about sin...

"Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18)."

Do you agree that these are good, solid biblical understandings of "sin"? That sin is transgressing God's law?

That sin is rebellion against God?

If so, how do you think a newborn babe rebels against God? How do you think a babe transgresses God's law?

Let's see ... you complain that I don't answer your questions directly. Going to your questions directly ...

"Do you agree that these are good, solid biblical understandings of 'sin'?" No.

"That sin is transgressing God's law?" No.

"That sin is rebellion against God?" No.

I think that "Got Questions" got it wrong. 1 John 3:4 does not say that sin is the transgression of the law of God. It says, "Sin is lawlessness".

...John wrote "Sin is lawlessness." (See ESV, NASB, NIV, Green's Literal Translation, Young's Literal Translation, oh, just about any translation at all including the New King James, with the apparent sole exception of the King James.) Sin is the absence of God's Law. Therefore, I disagree with you and with "Got Questions" and I agree with Paul, the psalmist, Isaiah, John, and others...

I am agreeing that newborns or even infants have not murdered or committed adultery or the like, but it is inconceivable that you would argue that they actively and fully operate to the glory of God, work from faith, or love God with their entire being. The biblical definition of sin is lawlessness. That is the absence of God's Law. I don't see how an infant can be defined as operating on anything but that absence. Or, to put it in the terms you've been suggesting, sin is not the choice to violate God's Law and, as long as that Law is not violated, has not occurred. Sin is the the absence of perfect submission to God's Law. Righteousness is active, not merely the absence of sin.

I apologize for my lack of understanding here, So if I may clarify... When I ask:

In what way do you think these infants are lawless and thus, deserving of a horrible death?

Your answer is that because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not "actively and fully operate to the glory of God," that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death?

I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of your position.

Yeah, I get that you don't get it ... because your idea is that they are innocent and my idea is that God in all His glory deserves to be glorified and honored and loved from the birth of one of His creations. You are unable to understand this idea because you cannot define "sin" as anything but "violating God's law". As long as "sin" is "something I choose to do to violate God's law" as your premise, then none of this will make any sense to you. Oddly enough, despite my constant attempts to explain that disparity between how I see the biblical definition of sin and how you are defining it, you can't seem to see it. Either that or (as I highly suspect not because of simply Dan Trabue, but because of human nature) your view of God is fairly tame ... kind of like I indicated in the post.

NOTE: At this point, I have not offered any opinions about infants or their innocence in this conversation. I have not offered my opinions about sin. I've just asked a question in various ways trying to get a clear answer. I THOUGHT when I quoted him, I'd be able to get a "Yes, that IS my position," but no.

I continued...

I'm just trying to get a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

When I ask:
in what way do you think these infants are lawless and thus, deserving of a horrible death?

Your answer is...

because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not actively and fully operate to the glory of God, that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death...

IS THAT YOUR POSITION? If not, could you please re-state your answer to THAT ^ question for me?

Because infants are lawless.

Again, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not asking the question right. I'm wondering IN WHAT WAY do you think infants are lawless?

What does a "lawless" infant look like?

What are they doing that indicates they are lawless and, thus deserving of a horrible death?

Thanks...

Apparently I lack the words in the English language to express a thought that you can comprehend. I've explained it as a lack of law. I've explained it as the absence of God's law. I've explained that righteousness is active, not merely passive. I've explained that sin is not active violation, but the absence of God's Law.

And so, I summed up your position thusly...

because infants do not - at the age of, say, one day old - do not actively and fully operate to the glory of God, that this is lawlessness and deserving of a horrible death...

Is my summation incorrect? It refers to what is absent (ie, "they DO NOT actively and fully operate to the glory of God"), not what they do.

So, is my summation (which, after all, comes from your direct words) correct? Because infants do not actively operate to the glory of God, they are deserving of a horrible death?

They do not love God. They do not glorify God. They ... according to the Bible ... tell lies. But, of course, you're still operating on the do concept. What do they do that is sin. I am speaking of the absence of the Law in them. They do not love God or glorify Him as a result of this absence. You're talking about what they do and I'm talking about what they lack. That's why your summation falls short. There is no positive righteousness in an infant.

And my question remains: How do you TELL there is an "absence of law in them..."? What does that look like? Or are you just saying, "I KNOW there's an absence of law in them, take my word for it..."?

As to "there is no positive righteousness in an infant," would it then be fair to sum up your position as:

Because there is NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS in a newborn infant (ie, they haven't done anything 'good,'), they deserve to die a horrible death?

I guess I might also ask, what do you mean by positive righteousness? Merely that they haven't done anything righteous at one day old?

...Also, "according to the bible," a one day old infant TELLS LIES? Do you really think this is true? (ie, both that the Bible teaches that and that a one day old infant is capable of telling lies?)

I get it. It won't be getting through. There is a language barrier or something, a fundamental disconnect. That the Bible says they lie from the womb and that there is not a single one righteous and that all have sinned all favor my view. That sin is defined as the absence of law favors my view. That the Church has historically declared this to be so favors my view... These facts, however, are irrelevant. I cannot get this across to you. You cannot think in terms of anything except "what they do". Even in the attempt to use "positive righteousness" you ask "that they haven't done anything...?"

You don't like that I threw in "that they haven't done anything..."? Then say so and throw it out and answer the question I asked with that revision.

Here, let me ask again without that line, using mostly your own words...

Because "there is NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS in a [newborn] infant", they "deserve to die" "horribly" - IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

You can see that those are mostly your own words, I'm just restating it to see if I'm understanding you correctly.

I've answered your question repeatedly. You just don't accept the answer. My answer is that all human beings are sinners, that this includes infants, that the Bible says this is the case. My answer is that infants are also sinners, that there is only one, singular-for-all-of-history exception to that fact, and that would be Jesus. My answer is that infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts. My answer is that infants and toddlers and children and teens and adults are sinners at their very core. And my answer is that God is so perfect, so high, so holy, so inviolable that any transgression or failure or omission or inaction on the part of His creation merits the penalty of eternal death.

Does my position (my position that is the historic position of the Church, the Bible, the Anabaptists, etc.) sound horrible? Undoubtedly. It probably sounds like foolishness on one hand and an offense on the other ... you know, like the Bible says it would. So I'm not equivocating and I'm not avoiding answering direct questions (a favorite mindless accusation of yours for which I would recommend you look to yourself) because of that. You're just not seeing the answers as clearly as they're given. And the Bible has an explanation for that, too.

"I've answered your question repeatedly. You just don't accept the answer."

But you haven't, not directly. Allow me to demonstrate and, if you can see that you are answering questions that I haven't asked, maybe you'll try to answer the question I DID ask.

Here is what YOU say your answers are...

"My answer is that all human beings are sinners, that this includes infants, that the Bible says this is the case."

And that WOULD be an answer to the question, "Are all human beings sinners?" But THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION...

"My answer is that infants are also sinners, that there is only one, singular-for-all-of-history exception to that fact, and that would be Jesus."

And that WOULD be an answer to the question, "Are infants sinners?" But THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION...

"My answer is that infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts."

This might be closer. My actual question was:

BECAUSE "THERE NO POSITIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS IN A [NEWBORN] INFANT", THEY "DESERVE TO DIE" "HORRIBLY" - IS THAT YOUR POSITION?

and so, are you saying your answer (YOUR WORDS) to THIS question is

No, it is NOT my position that because there is no positive righteousness in newborn infants, they deserve to die a horrible death. Rather my position is "[BECAUSE] infants violate the command of God to glorify Him, they lie from their mothers' wombs, they fail to love God with all their hearts..." they deserve to die horribly."

Is THAT the answer to the question asked?

the reason I do not take the bold-faced question you ask and repeat it back to you with a "yes" or a "no" is because you have made it into a simplistic, false statement (read "lie"). You did it (repeatedly) with the whole "So, you believe that God approves of killing your enemies' children?" A lie. It is a naked, out of context, unexplained and therefore misunderstood statement. You were so very quick to misquote me before ("I only took your words and put them out there"). It will not go well here, either.

Do I think that everyone ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Do I think that babies ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Certainly not what I meant. The context was the justice of God that is forgotten...

I believe that all human beings from age 0 up are sinners, guilty of not keeping God's law either consciously or not either positively or not. I believe that God, as just and holy, has the right (that is, it would be right) to put all human beings to death for this guilt. But, of course, that won't satisfy you. Therefore, since I won't play your game and you won't accept an answer, we're done.

IF it's a false statement, then why don't you answer, "No, that is not my position..."? and clarify with your actual position? It would seem like it would have to be pretty close to your actual position because THEY'RE YOUR ACTUAL WORDS.

" You did it (repeatedly) with the whole "So, you believe that God approves of killing your enemies' children?" A lie. It is a naked, out of context, unexplained and therefore misunderstood statement."

It is A QUESTION. IS THIS YOUR POSITION? Notice the question mark at the end. It is a question, seeking to clarify your position (and, hopefully, seeking to help you see how wrong-headed that position is).

"Do I think that everyone ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Do I think that babies ought to die horribly? Not what I said. Certainly not what I meant."

Here is what YOU said in the context of the paragraph...

"When asked about the Galileans killed by Pilate, He assured His listeners, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-3). The message? Everyone deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy. Even me. Even you. That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice."

You said, "EVERYONE deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy."

So, let's drop the baby part for a second and deal with your comment.

DID you say "everyone deserves to die. Horribly..."? Well, of course that is a silly question. It IS what you said, I just quoted you.

So, moving on, Did you MEAN to say that everyone deserves to die horribly?

Did you MEAN to say that infants deserve to die horribly?

If not, why did you say it?

"The context was the justice of God that is forgotten. I don't have the option of carrying out God's justice, so this isn't what I recommend. It is what I believe we cannot see. As a matter of fact, you can't, can you?"

And my question to you was and remains, do you think it is the "justice of God" that babies should die horribly?

Given YOUR WORDS, it is a fair and reasonable question.

If it's NOT your position, just say, No, I don't think so.

"To you, "sin" in EVERY APPLICATION is only when I choose to knowingly violate God's commands. Apparently, the only method of lying is when we speak as well. There are no other forms of lies. So we have radically different definitions of both sin and lies. (Like I said, a recent SECULAR study indicated that they detected lies in 6-month-old babies. You must figure they're pretty stupid, too, since children that age don't speak.)"

So, you think a one day old infant is LYING? Then my question is HOW? What does that look like? In WHAT WAY does a one day old infant lie?

Again, this is a reasonable question to the position, "babies are lying from the womb..." - a statement that sounds on the face of it like poetic hyperbole, why should we take it literally?

And that was the end of that ongoing conversation. No more answers.

My question is: What could I have done to have gotten a DIRECT answer to my actual question(s)? For a large part of that conversation, I was simply quoting him and asking, "Is this (ie, what you just said) your actual position?"

My second question is: Do those on the further Right side of things see how this seems to be avoiding a simple question and as if they are avoiding confirming their own actual words because those words sound so horrible? As if they WANT to say it, but they don't want to confirm that it's their actual position?

Gruff Fairy

Amen and amen.

The "Definition" of "Sin..."

So, continuing on with some attempt to at least partially explain himself (even if he won't fully attempt to do so), here's some more explanation from Stan at Winging It, who said said that there was no sense in explaining himself, that I "couldn't understand" because we are using words differently. I replied, well then, if you are using non-standard definitions of terms, you can explain yourself, just define the word as you are using it (and really, how is this difficult in an adult conversation?) Stan replied...

 I'm not using "justice" in a non-standard way. But "sin" appears to be a new concept to you. You're thinking "stealing cookies" or "not always completely honest" while I'm thinking "Cosmic Treason against the Most High". Nor is it a matter of "I'm too smart for you." As I said ... as I've always said ... we're defining terms differently. "Love", "sin", even "Christian" mean different things to me than to you. You "love the Word of God" and then explain it away based on your own experiences and perceptions and I "love the Word of God" and use it to figure out where my experiences and perceptions need to be corrected. Not the same concept.


Look, you ARE using "justice" in a non-standard way. You are saying that ONE "sin" (more on that later) is worthy of an eternity of torture. Your children DESERVE to be tortured for an eternity because of only one "sin" in their life. Whatever that sin is, that would be a disproportionate punishment for the crime.

Where specifically am I mistaken?

Now, you have attempted to define "sin" (which you are also using in a non-standard English way) to explain yourself. So see, you can explain yourself. You are able to define words you are using in a non-standard way and thus, make at least a little more sense.

So, as to this "sin," "cosmic treason..." hmm. That of course, is not the standard understanding/definition of the term. It is not how the word is used biblically (at all, not one time is anything of the sort mentioned ever) or defined in the Hebrew or Aramaic. I guess you just "feel" like that is not the definition, so you are asserting it is reality. Which is fine if that's how you feel, but do you have anything reality-based to support that feeling?

So, in your mind, your child, when they were of an age of accountability, decided to deliberately commit "cosmic treason" against God, is that what you're saying? When was that? Do you have any data to support that? I rather doubt you do. In fact, I would bet you absolutely do not have any data to support that claim. I, for my part, have never, not once decided, "I'm going to commit 'cosmic treason' against God." So, your claim, your feelings about that idea appear to be unsupportable by data in the real world, but you tell me.

But, let's suppose that some child somewhere actually DID decide to commit "cosmic treason..." What does that look like, exactly? I'll have to guess, unless you're speaking of R.C. Sproul's reference to the term that he apparently coined from thin air (certainly not from the Bible)...

Sin is cosmic treason. Sin is treason against a perfectly pure Sovereign. It is an act of supreme ingratitude toward the One to whom we owe everything, to the One who has given us life itself. Have you ever considered the deeper implications of the slightest sin, of the most minute peccadillo? What are we saying to our Creator when we disobey Him at the slightest point? We are saying no to the righteousness of God. We are saying, “God, Your law is not good. My judgement is better than Yours. Your authority does not apply to me. I am above and beyond Your jurisdiction. I have the right to do what I want to do, not what You command me to do.”

So, for someone to decide (if it actually happens in the real world, which I rather doubt) that "My judgment is better than God's," and decide to do something that, in THEIR mind, is the right thing to do, even if it is opposed by God... What are they doing in that case? They are trying to do the right thing, as best they understand it in their mind/psyche/soul. They are deciding that, even if they have to disagree with God, they will still strive to do this right thing.

And let's further assume that they were mistaken. In trying to what they thought was correct, they were wrong and "rebelled" against God. A sin, then, from error, it would appear. In their fallen human nature, they made a mistake and chose the wrong instead of the right.

And for that, you think that an appropriate and "just" punishment is an eternity of torture.

How so? Okay, so they "rebelled" against God, they chose incorrectly. They are HUMAN, of COURSE, we choose incorrectly sometimes. Is being imperfect (which is our very nature, unfortunately) justly punished by an eternity of torture? How so?

You are able to define your words when you use them in a non-standard way, Stan. You've demonstrated that with your "cosmic treason" definition of sin you and Sproul made up. You can explain yourself. Apparently, this is a very important issue, if people are possibly going to be tortured for an eternity for even one mistake/"cosmic treason..." Why would you not explain yourself?

(And, in a note to Stan, I wrote to him):
I'll take this comment to my blog, since I'm not very hopeful you will actually try to defend your feelings about this idea, fyi. Maybe someone there will try to defend your rather silly-sounding and wholly unsupported claims. 

And to be clear, "silly-sounding claims" is not an attack on YOU, Stan, it is a mocking of the idea that sounds silly or crazy and which you are not willing to even try to defend, nor is it contrary to me believing in you, which I do. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't believe in you or your ability to defend yourself/make your case, nor does it mean I don't love you as a brother in Christ, which I do. Just to be clear.