Friday, July 10, 2009
Bubba v. Dan
Over at Marshall's Dan and Bubba have been involved in a protracted dialogue. In it Bubba has asked Dan a series of questions, it seems as though Dan has not answered. It is my hope to provide a place for Bubba to restate his questions and hope that Dan will respond. I believe that one thing that caused some confusion was the number of different topics, it is my hope that this will avoid that. I would like to see some sort of agreement on some ground rules to keep things focused, and I would like (read will delete) comments from anyone other than Dan and Bubba.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
316 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 316 of 316You said...
but you never did clarify your beliefs about the three topics I mentioned in my last comment on August 13th: the Atonement and the claim that Christ died for our sins, the necessity of a historical and physical Resurrection, and the promise of Christ's return.
Again, I think I've been quite clear.
On the atonement: It is certainly one way to look at God's salvation that Christ died for our sins. Not the only way, but one way that the Bible talks about salvation. I'm fine with the Mennonite position on the topic: We can find three theories about the atonement based on the Bible, the Substitutionary theory, the Moral Example and the Christus Victor. All three have something to add to our understanding. Myself, I'm most comfortable with the Moral Example, but I'm not disagreeing with the notion that the Bible talks about salvation in terms of Substitionary sacrifice.
On the Resurrection: I believe in Jesus' physical resurrection. I believe it is essential to the Christian faith. I don't know that I would quit believing in Jesus IF it were proven that he had not risen.
On the promise of Christ's return: it's talked about in the bible. I believe that Jesus is here with us right now in a very real way. I believe that God is with us in God's Spirit and I believe that the church IS the body of Christ here and now and I believe that we find Christ in the least of these and when we have ministered with them, we have ministered to Christ. Further, the Bible talks about Jesus returning "one day" to take his children home. What that looks like, quite frankly, I don't know. What I do know is that we are to BE Christ to one another and that we are to MINISTER TO Christ in the least of these.
What else do you want to know about Jesus' return?
Dan, you continue to be clear as mud on all three issues.
About the Atonement, you write that it is "certainly one way to look at God's salvation that Christ died for our sins."
You write, "I'm not disagreeing with the notion that the Bible talks about salvation in terms of Substitionary sacrifice."
But you don't make clear whether you believe that the theory is true. What you do write suggests that you don't believe it's true, but you tend to gripe at anyone who draws conclusions beyond what you explicitly write.
You could say, "The bible talks about salvation in those terms, and I believe it's true."
Or you could say, "The bible talks about salvation in those terms, but I DON'T believe it's true."
Because you don't say either of these things, it's still not clear whether you actually believe that Christ died for our sins.
About the historical and physical Resurrection, you write, "I believe it is essential to the Christian faith. I don't know that I would quit believing in Jesus IF it were proven that he had not risen."
If you could deny the doctrine but still hypothetically "believe in Jesus" and consider yourself a Christian, in what POSSIBLE sense is the belief essential to Christian faith?
What you mean by "essential" remains a complete mystery.
Finally, about Christ's promised return, you write, "it's talked about in the bible."
"Further, the Bible talks about Jesus returning 'one day' to take his children home. What that looks like, quite frankly, I don't know. What I do know is that we are to BE Christ to one another and that we are to MINISTER TO Christ in the least of these."
Well, do you also know that Christ actually is returning or not?
Does the fact that you admit the Bible "talks about" His return mean that you believe it, or does the admission imply that you don't believe it?
Do you mean, "The Bible talks about it, and so I believe it"?
Or do you mean, "The Bible talks about it, but I don't believe it"?
It frustrates me to no end, how much you can write about these subjects -- often writing the same thing over and over again, in slightly different terms -- without EVER making the key issue any more clear.
Telling me what the Bible says about Jesus' return tells me ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether YOU believe Christ is returning.
(Similarly, when Craig posted a list of essential doctrines back in April, you replied, "those five essentials are generally accepted in most evangelical circles the essentials of Christian faith." This tells the reader NOT ONE THING about whether YOU PERSONALLY accept those doctrines as essential.)
And telling me all your other lovely beliefs about how we're the body of Christ, also tells me ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether you believe Christ is returning.
You admit that the Bible "talks about" or describes Christ's substitutionary atonement, His dying for our sins.
QUESTION: Yes or no, do you believe that this description -- how the Bible describes Christ's death -- is actually true?
You write that the physical and historical Resurrection is "essential to the Christian faith."
QUESTIONS: Yes or no, does a person abandon Christianity if he denies this doctrine? If NOT, just what do you mean that the doctrine is essential?
And you write that the Bible "talks about" Jesus' return.
QUESTION: Yes or no, do you believe Jesus is returning?
These questions really aren't difficult to understand and actually answer.
For what it's worth, I answer those questions with a clear and unambiguous yes, yes, and yes.
Yes, the Bible's teachings about what Jesus accomplished through His death are true. Jesus really did die as an example for us, and He really did die to secure victory victory over the law, the flesh, the world, and death. But He ALSO really did die for our sins, as an atoning sacrifice.
Yes, a person who denies the historical and physical Resurrection has rejected the Christian faith: that's why the doctrine is considered essential.
And yes, Jesus Christ is returning as He promised. (John 14:1-3, Acts 1:11, I Thess 4:13-18, Rev 22:12, 20)
I cannot fathom why you wouldn't make crystal clear your beliefs on these questions, unless you don't want to make clear that you disagree with me or, agreeing with me, you disagree with people whose beliefs otherwise align more closely with yours.
Because "Dying for our sins" is imagery. Jesus did not literally "Pay" God (or the devil, depending upon which atonement theory you're talking about) "Jesus' Blood," so that God would "forgive the debt" we owe.
It's all imagery. I believe we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. Period. God wishes to save us, God offers us the gift of being part of the Community of God. We can choose Yes, or No. THAT is how I believe we are saved BY GOD'S GRACE. PERIOD. THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS. PERIOD.
These other atonement theories are ways that the Bible describes this grace happening and I think they are all true images of that Blessed Grace of God. Well, at least I think the Substitutionary imagery is True imagery. I think the Moral Example is not imagery but an actual example, which is why I find more meaning in that than in the imagery of substitutionary atonement.
If you ask me what I exactly believe about how we are saved, MY EXACT ANSWER IS AND HAS BEEN WE ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE. Because God wishes us to be saved and offers us this gift of communion with God. We can take it or leave it, but if we take it, it's God's Grace that saves us. THAT is exactly and specifically what I believe.
I don't know how I can be more crystal clear than that.
To answer your questions:
QUESTION: Yes or no, do you believe that this description -- how the Bible describes Christ's death -- is actually true?
It is true imagery. No, Jesus did not physically "Pay" God with his blood. It's imagery.
QUESTIONS: Yes or no, does a person abandon Christianity if he denies this doctrine?
That's above my pay grade. I don't know who is and isn't a Christian. I DO know the fruit of the Spirit when I see it. I DO know love, when I see it. I DO recognize those following in the steps of Jesus (feeding the poor, giving a cup of water to the thirsty, preaching good news to the poor, healing for the sick, in short, pouring out their lives in love, justice and doing so with grace) when I see it.
However, I'm not one that goes around saying "He does not believe the right things about tenet A, B and C, X, Q and W, therefore he is not a Christian." I don't find that to be my role, but rather God's role. I find no model in the Bible for saying "He holds the wrong position on the trinity or the atonement so he is not a Christian." Instead, in the Bible, I see Jesus pointing to actions, what you did for the least, not theologies. I see Paul, et al talking about the fruit of the Spirit and the Love that identifies us as Christians. Not holding to this theory or that about atonement or resurrection.
I believe the Resurrection of Jesus is an essential tenet of historic Christianity. Whether or not someone can NOT believe in that and still be a Christian is not a idea I find in the Bible.
If NOT, just what do you mean that the doctrine is essential?
I mean it is an essential component of historic Christianity. It is how we have always understood the life and death of Christ. If one does not believe in the bodily resurrection, one can not be a historic Baptist, or Catholic or Methodist, etc. Whether or not that means they're not a Christian, I DON'T KNOW.
How does one tell if that makes someone not a Christian? Does the Bible tell us, "If anyone has some OTHER idea about resurrection, then they are not a Christian?" I don't think so.
My answer, like it or not, is that I don't know. I can't give you an answer to what I don't know. I DO believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but I don't know that not believing in the physical bodily resurrection makes one not a Christian. It makes one not in line with the teachings of the historic church, but beyond that, I just don't know.
And you write that the Bible "talks about" Jesus' return.
QUESTION: Yes or no, do you believe Jesus is returning?
I answered this. Yes. Jesus is returning. Jesus returned already and he's down at the bar right now. Jesus is here in the least of these. Jesus is in the hands of the one offering a cup of cold water. Jesus is coming one day to judge the quick and the dead and to take his people home. I've answered this.
Now, I have a question for you.
Given that Jesus is coming some day to judge the quick and the dead, how embarrassed will you be if you discover you are mistaken? On a scale of 1-10.
If there is a conversation that goes something like this...
God: Dude! WTH? Seriously??
Bubba: What?
God: You thought I would tell people to kill babies? REALLY? You thought I suggested that babies aren't innocent? WHY??
Bubba: Bu...
God: I mean, did you get that my primary attribute is Love? I AM LOVE, you know? Did you not get from tradition, from your own heart, from the Bible that I REALLY DIG KIDS? I Love 'em, man!
Why would I tell people to go into a town and slaughter all the children?? Do you know how terrified they would be? How awful the moments leading up to their horrible deaths would be? Did you know that when child slaughter happens, they were sometimes hacked to death, sometimes died slowly and in horror and pain? Do you really think I'd command that??
Bubba: But, you're a God of wrath and justice...
God: Well, yes, I AM a God of justice and I DO get angry when people do unjust things. Like, you know, killing children 'CAUSE THAT'S WRONG. So, yes, I am a God of justice and love and that is abundantly clear, I think, from multiple sources. That's why I'm wondering why you'd think I'd command people to kill my holy, beloved children??!!
Bubba: But, the Bible describes you saying that... you know, commanding to kill children...
God: Oh? And where did I tell you to take that literally? Who said that this represents My Will? Did Jesus tell you that while he was here? No, I was listening in on those conversations and he didn't.
No one told you to take that kind of stuff literally. Didn't your own conscience scream out, "NOOOOOO!! God does not command the slaughter of innocents!" I mean, the Bible tells you that directly and repeatedly. "Don't shed innocent blood. It's wroooonnnng."
Bubba: But, but...
======
If there was THAT kind of conversation, how embarrassed - mortified, horrified! - would you be?
Or, is it the case that you even want to serve a God who doesn't command the slaughter of children sometimes? Who thinks that children are innocent?
I think this is one difficulty I have with my more conservative brothers (and with myself, at one time). If I were to stand before God and to find out I was wrong on some of these topics, I WOULD be mortified. But, my defense would be that I was striving to hold to the ideals that I learned from the Bible. Justice, Love, Grace - it is for these strong, primary biblical teachings that I oppose things like a literal interpretation for commands to kill children.
So, it was for primary Godly, biblical ideals that I hold my position. If I were to discover I was wrong somehow, it was an error based on the purest of ideals.
On the other hand, if you were facing the same realization, your defense would be that you were defending biblical inerrancy. An ideal that Jesus never taught. An ideal not directly found in the Bible.
The ideals that you all seem to defend most strenuously are what can fairly be called secondary biblical ideals. The virgin birth, the trinity, to a lesser degree, substitutionary atonement, these are tenets that we have derived from biblical teachings, but they are not direct biblical teachings. Justice, Peacemaking, Love, Grace, these are primary biblical teachings. Jesus taught specifically about all those primary teachings, not at all directly about the secondary teachings. And yet, those are the ones that you all (and I, at one time) defend the most vigorously and, sometimes, vehemently.
I believe all of those (virgin birth, trinity, various theories of atonement), but they are not primary in my Christian faith. That we are sinners saved by grace, that we are to follow in Jesus' steps, that we are to preach good news to the poor, healing to the sick, freedom for captives, that we are to side along with the least of these and live simple, peaceable, gracious lives, THESE are the primary direct teachings of Jesus and, being a Christian, they are my primary ideals.
Returning to clarify further, you said...
But you don't make clear whether you believe that the theory is true. What you do write suggests that you don't believe it's true, but you tend to gripe at anyone who draws conclusions beyond what you explicitly write.
The theory, as I believe you agreed, is imagery. One doesn't generally call stories/points using imagery or allegory, "True." One calls them valid. The Substitutionary Atonement theory is a valid theory.
It's not true in the sense that Jesus literally "paid" for our sins with his "blood," that's imagery. But it is a valid theory.
Jesus told the parable of the sheep and the goats and it is one of my favorite (and most haunting) parables. But if someone were to ask me, is it a TRUE parable, I wouldn't be able to say, "Yes," because True is not the appropriate word for imagery, parables, etc. This gets back to the whole "inerrant" thing - I don't think that "inerrant" is the appropriate word to use for a book of Truths.
Whether it's valid, meaningful, sound, appropriate... THESE are the terms to use in discussing stories using imagery to relate Truths, moreso than "inerrant" or "error-ridden."
I hadn't checked in on this for a while. I appreciate the dialogue, it is very interesting.
However, I am going to break my own rule and interject two observations.
1. Dan, I am also unsatisfied with some of your answers. For example, you write off Abraham's sacrifice of Issac as "parable" yet you give no basis for it to be interpreted as such. Further, you make no interpretation that would be consistent with that story being a parable. Finally, given the fact that God obviously did not intend for Abraham to actually sacrifice Issac, but to determine his level of trust in God and His promises, it seems as though your characterization of this passage as "God commanding someone to kill children" is somewhat misplaced.
While we are on the killing of children topic. Since the OT is replete with God chastising the Israelites for failing to obey his commandments, why did this chastisement get left out? You would think that God would have quickly sent someone to correct the huge mistake.
2. Can you explain your selectivity when it comes to following the clear teachings of Jesus? Your refusal to forgive seems in direct contradiction to multiple teachings of Jesus.
Carry on.
Craig asked about...
For example, you write off Abraham's sacrifice of Issac as "parable" yet you give no basis for it to be interpreted as such.
Because to suggest that God sometimes commands the killing of children is contradictory to the clear laws of God. It is an affront to the notions of love and justice, ideals about which the Bible is clear.
I am fine with calling it something other than a parable. What I find incongruous with the Bible and our own God-given logic, morality is to suggest that God would command the death of children.
On the other hand, if you want to say that God was just teasing Abraham, putting them through some odd, cruel test? Well, I find that hard to believe, but it's a better option than God actually commanding people to kill children, as shows up elsewhere. Those are the main passages I'm talking about in talking about god supposedly commanding the mass slaughter of children.
Can you explain your selectivity when it comes to following the clear teachings of Jesus? Your refusal to forgive seems in direct contradiction to multiple teachings of Jesus.
You're right. I ought to forgive people who've wronged me. What I can't do is forgive people who've wronged others. It's not up to me to forgive them, it's up to the person they've wronged.
It looks like this conversation isn't quite as close to wrapping up as I had thought just a couple days ago, which is absolutely fine with me. At this rate I won't get to some earlier topics -- like the parable of the dishonest steward -- by next weekend, but I do still plan to address those issues before the thread completely runs its course.
In the meantime there's a lot to cover.
The Virgin Birth. Dan, you wrote the following:
"The virgin birth, the trinity, to a lesser degree, substitutionary atonement, these are tenets that we have derived from biblical teachings, but they are not direct biblical teachings."
As I explained on July 27th, I believe the Trinity is a clear teaching of the Bible, because the Bible clearly teaches those claims -- e.g., the divinity of the Son, and the claim that the Father and the Son are distinct -- that necessarily imply trinitarianism to the exclusion of all other alternatives. I believe it's an essential biblical teaching, but I could accept the description that it's also "derived" from its explicit teachings.
The Atonement, I positively reject as "derived" even "to a lesser degree." I have more to say about this in a moment, but the substitutionary Atonement is clearly and explicitly taught, even by Jesus Christ Himself, and off the top of my head I know of three passages where it's taught: Matthew 26:28, I Corinthians 15:3, and I John 1:7.
But I would like to focus a moment on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth because it came up at length in one of the long discussions at Marshall's which led to this dialogue here.
Early on, I listed six topics where I find that the details of what you believe contradict your stated love for the Bible, including the claim that the Virgin Birth is extra-biblical.
I don't believe you actually did correct me on my understanding of your position on all of those issues -- and even on the two topics I further focused on, I still don't think you've been clear (more later about that) -- but you did address this issue, writing on June 18th, "I happen to believe that Mary was a virgin - it seems clear from the text and I have no problem with that." [emphasis mine]
I put that issue to rest that same day, writing, "Thanks for clarifying that; I'm fine setting that issue aside."
Well, what you now write is at least a partial return to the claims you made very early on in our conversations online, at Daniel Randle's blog.
There you referred to the Virgin Birth as "extrabiblical."
"I don't have a problem with the virgin birth. I just don't have a problem with Mary NOT having been a virgin.
"In short, I don't think it's a biblical principle at all - and certainly not 'incontrovertible.' It's a moot point."
You put a lot of emphasis on a word that could be interpreted either as "virgin" or as "young maiden," and my response remains valid (and so far unaddressed): the word parthenos, found in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27, is absent in Luke 1:34. Where Mary explains her disbelief at being pregnant, the verse ends with the Greek phrase, "since I know not a man."
It is ABSOLUTELY EXPLICIT that Jesus was born of a virgin, a clear and incontrovertible teaching that cannot be reasonably denied. It's not emphasized like the Resurrection, but it's clearly there. We can debate whether it's essential to Christian faith, but not whether it's clearly taught by Scripture.
By writing that the Virgin Birth is among a group of Christian doctrines that are "not direct biblical teachings," you've made a wholly inaccurate and easily refuted claim.
And, you've apparently changed your tune on this issue for at least the second time.
[continued]
[continued]
The teachings of Jesus. You made this comment about the Virgin Birth in the context of a larger point about how you supposedly emphasize Christ's teachings more than I do.
"The ideals that you all seem to defend most strenuously are what can fairly be called secondary biblical ideals. The virgin birth, the trinity, to a lesser degree, substitutionary atonement, these are tenets that we have derived from biblical teachings, but they are not direct biblical teachings. Justice, Peacemaking, Love, Grace, these are primary biblical teachings. Jesus taught specifically about all those primary teachings, not at all directly about the secondary teachings. And yet, those are the ones that you all (and I, at one time) defend the most vigorously and, sometimes, vehemently.
"I believe all of those (virgin birth, trinity, various theories of atonement), but they are not primary in my Christian faith. That we are sinners saved by grace, that we are to follow in Jesus' steps, that we are to preach good news to the poor, healing to the sick, freedom for captives, that we are to side along with the least of these and live simple, peaceable, gracious lives, THESE are the primary direct teachings of Jesus and, being a Christian, they are my primary ideals."
You write, "Jesus taught specifically about all those primary teachings, not at all directly about the secondary teachings."
But much of what you dismiss as secondary, I find Jesus did specifically address.
Of those claims that necessarily lead to the Trinity, Christ Himself explicitly taught many of them. He taught about the Father and the Holy Spirit -- simultaneously, at least once, in Jn 14:26 -- and He proclaimed His own divinity and taught that the Father and the Son are distinct.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." - Jn 8:58
"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." - Jn 5:19-23
These "verily, verily" statements are hardly minor teachings, Dan, and most of what is required for trinitarianism is found in what Christ "specifically" taught. Consider what the Evangelists added -- e.g., the presence of each of the three Persons in Mt 3:16-17 -- and you probably have in the Gospels all that you need to affirm the Trinity and deny all other alternatives.
And, as I've repeatedly noted, Christ Himself taught the substitutionary atonment, not only in describing Himself as the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep, but most emphatically in instituting the Lord's Supper.
"...this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." - Mt 26:28
Of the three "secondary teachings" you mention -- "virgin birth, trinity, various theories of atonement" -- only the first isn't specifically taught by Jesus Christ Himself.
In addition to the Atonement, Christ also taught about the other two issues I've asked about.
He repeatedly prophesied about His own death and resurrection, as the "sign of Jonah" and the rebuilding of "this temple" (Mt 12:40, Jn 2:19). He even taught about His resurrection less enigmatically, as in Mt 17:22-23.
He taught extensively about His return, the day of judgment and His role in it, and the eternal penalty of Hell. (See Jn 14:3, "that day" in Mt 7:21-23, and Mk 9:47-48.)
[continued]
[continued]
Further, even though you denigrate my commitment to the authority of Scripture as being based on a supposedly extrabiblical doctrine of inerrancy, I will remind you that Jesus Christ Himself routinely appealed to Scripture as the final authority in doctrinal matters, going so far as to draw deep theological conclusions from a single verb tense. In the Sermon on the Mount which you claim to revere so very highly, Jesus Christ affirmed the authority of Scripture for all time, and to the smallest penstroke.
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Mt 5:17-20
Funny how you don't mention any of this in your summary of what Jesus taught, perhaps because doing so completely obliterates your point.
I don't dispute that what you mention is some of what Jesus taught, but it's not comprehensive and it doesn't even include all of what must be included in any reasonable discussion of His major teachings.
Much of what Jesus taught was theological rather than ethical -- teachings about Who He is and what He is doing rather than commands about what we should do -- but you're even selective about His ethical teachings.
You write that Jesus calls us to live "simple, peaceable, gracious lives."
He does, but He also calls us to live CHASTE lives. You may not deny that, but you never emphasize it either.
Jesus denounced divorce -- teaching that it is a divine concession to human hardheartedness which should be allowed only in rare circumstances -- and He even taught that mere lust is as immoral as outright adultery. (See Mt 5, Mt 19, Mk 10.)
And let us not forget Christ's teaching about why we were created male and female.
What you present as Christ's teachings is largely true, but nowhere near the complete truth. It lines up quite nicely with your particular beliefs, particularly the political progressivism you support, but what you omit and downplay is not unimportant. The Gospels record far more than what your summary suggests.
[continued]
[continued]
How I defend my positions. Not for the first time, you ask how I'm not embarrassed about my beliefs. Before you asked how I could dare tell another person that I actually believe the entire Bible, and now you ask about how I would behave before the judgment throne of God Almighty.
I have much to answer for, particularly in my thought life and in my personal responsibilities, and though I'm becoming a more mature disciple of Christ, I'm also learning that such maturity is beside the point when it comes to God's judgment. For my shortcomings, I am learning to trust entirely on God's mercy and Christ's blood.
What sins I've committed aren't going to keep me out of Paradise, because Christ died for me. And what good things I've done aren't going to be what admits me in, because Christ died for me: any good that I have done or will do, I do ONLY because of God's redemptive work in me and through me.
I also trust in God's mercy in any areas where I happen to misunderstand His revealed truth, but I'm not worried about my belief that God really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
"I think this is one difficulty I have with my more conservative brothers (and with myself, at one time). If I were to stand before God and to find out I was wrong on some of these topics, I WOULD be mortified. But, my defense would be that I was striving to hold to the ideals that I learned from the Bible. Justice, Love, Grace - it is for these strong, primary biblical teachings that I oppose things like a literal interpretation for commands to kill children.
"So, it was for primary Godly, biblical ideals that I hold my position. If I were to discover I was wrong somehow, it was an error based on the purest of ideals.
"On the other hand, if you were facing the same realization, your defense would be that you were defending biblical inerrancy. An ideal that Jesus never taught. An ideal not directly found in the Bible."
That's not my defense, I don't appreciate your speaking on my behalf or your presumption about what I would say.
In another conversation at Marshall's, you explained that your problem has never been with presumption per se, but only with presumption that's inaccurate. "I don't have a problem with reading between the lines if you're any good at it," or so you claimed.
To put it mildly, your proficiency at presumption is debatable, so if you're going to be a hardliner when I draw conclusions you don't like, you should be very careful not to draw conclusions to which I will object.
[continued]
[continued]
I don't think a defense will be either necessary or even possible before the eternal Judge, but here is what would be my defense of my belief that, for instance, God really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
1. In lieu of a better source of authority -- such as the earthly presence of Christ Himself, His prophets, or His Apostles -- I believe the Bible really is the best authoritative source for divine revelation.
(This isn't an insistence on inerrancy but is rather the "soft inerrancy" I've mentioned earlier: since there's no way to reliably sift out any errors the Bible may contain, the safest position is to assume it contains no errors.)
(For what it's worth, I obviously disagree with Roman Catholicism, but I respect the position of theologically conservative Catholics, since they believe they do have a better source of authority: they believe the Pope is essentially a living Apostle. The theological liberals who have no better source of authority, do not have my respect on this issue.)
2. In the case of Abraham and Isaac in particular -- an extreme case which I believe has implications for other passages, such as the Passover and the wars of annihilation -- I'm merely following the example of James and the author of Hebrews.
3. In terms of Scripture in general, I'm not just following the teachings of Christ's hand-picked Apostles, I'm also following Christ Himself, who affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke.
The Bible teaches, as you seem to admit, that "Jesus is coming some day to judge the quick and the dead."
Well, Jesus is the one who affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and He chose the Apostles who documented and expounded His teachings.
I quite seriously trust that, in His mercy and even justice, Jesus Christ doesn't have much of a problem with sincere efforts -- however inexact -- to follow His teachings and example. In affirming the historicity of Abraham and Isaac, I'm trying to do precisely that.
You claim that the Bible teaches truth (Truths) and not facts, that it's not accurate in the details, and that it contains "less than perfect" revelation. In all these claims and more, you demonstrate that your approach to the Bible DOES NOT coincide with Christ's teachings and example.
Mine does.
Whatever mistakes I make in interpreting Scripture, my approach adheres far closer to Christ's teachings and example than does yours.
You seem to think that my belief in God's justice is expendable, or that this is at least an avenue worth exploring.
"Or, is it the case that you even want to serve a God who doesn't command the slaughter of children sometimes? Who thinks that children are innocent?"
You write, "Justice, Love, Grace - it is for these strong, primary biblical teachings that I oppose things like a literal interpretation for commands to kill children."
You seem to think that I deny these teachings. I absolutely do not. I ABSOLUTELY affirm both God's justice and God's mercy.
What I deny is that we can completely understand these attributes. As I tried to explain on the 18th, God's revealed will may not always be obviously reasonable.
You oppose a literal interpretation of the Old Testament's difficult passages, only because you don't understand how they're compatible with God's love and mercy. It doesn't follow that, because Dan Trabue doesn't see how, the passage really is incompatible with God's nature.
You're simply not exhibiting Christian humility. We're commanded to trust the Lord and not our own understanding (Prov 3:5), and the main point of the entire book of Job seems to be the God's will is sometimes inscrutable -- that God's ways are higher than ours (Is 55:9).
You don't seem to take that teaching seriously. You act as if God's revealed will must always be obviously just and merciful, but a relationship of complete trust in God gives a person no such guarantee.
[continued]
[continued]
The Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Parousia. Finally, back to the three subjects I mentioned earlier this week, I still think you're not being clear.
1. About the Atonement, your explanation for why it must be imagery isn't convincing.
"Because 'Dying for our sins' is imagery. Jesus did not literally 'Pay' God (or the devil, depending upon which atonement theory you're talking about) 'Jesus' Blood,' so that God would 'forgive the debt' we owe."
Once one talks about what Christ's blood accomplished, such as paying for our sins or cleansing us from our sin (I Jn 1:7), we probably are introducing figurative language.
But it doesn't follow that the central claim, "Jesus died for our sins," is also figurative. Any figurative language about His blood might still point to a literal fact.
If my brother was wrongly convicted and executed for crimes I committed, I could say, "My brother died for my crimes," and this would be quite literally true. The same holds for the cross of Christ.
But even if I concede the point that the phrase is imagery, you can't seem to settle on what is and isn't imagery, and what kind.
You first wrote that the Bible presents three different theories that are "all true images of that Blessed Grace of God."
But you immediately reversed yourself to say that the moral example theory isn't imagery: it's reality.
And you then wrote that the substitutionary atonement isn't a "true image," just a "valid" image or theory.
Okay, fine.
This all begs the question: VALID IN WHAT WAY? In what way is the substitiounary atonement a true and/or valid image of what happened on Good Friday?
It seems to me that there is only one obvious, reasonable answer: the imagery is valid if and only if Christ's death caused our forgiveness.
You still seem to deny a causal relationship between Christ's death and our forgiveness. How does God forgive us? You think the answer is, He just does.
"If you ask me what I exactly believe about how we are saved, MY EXACT ANSWER IS AND HAS BEEN WE ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE. Because God wishes us to be saved and offers us this gift of communion with God. We can take it or leave it, but if we take it, it's God's Grace that saves us. THAT is exactly and specifically what I believe.
"I don't know how I can be more crystal clear than that."
One way you could be more clear is to provide an actual answer to a question I've asked repeatedly: do you believe that there is a causal relationship between Christ's death and our forgiveness?
You seem to think the answer is no, but you have never provided such a clear answer, instead giving the non-answer that it's "all of one cloth."
"God forgives us by forgiving us. Period. God offers us heaven by God's Grace. Period."
I agree that God's grace is the reason He forgives us of our sins and offers eternal life. But it's not the MEANS by which He makes that offer: the means is Christ's death.
As I pointed out before, all of this is clear in Romans 3:21-26.
We are "justified by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith."
It's that middle clause, which I highlight in bold, which you seem to deny.
If you could make clear your belief that, NO, there is no causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation, I'd appreciate it.
Beyond that, I'd like to know, if Christ's death didn't cause our forgiveness, in what way is the "imagery" of the substitutionary atonement actually valid?
Or is this another instance where you just shrug your shoulders and admit that, here too, yours is "not an especially satisfying explanation"?
[continued]
[continued]
2. About the Resurrection, you believe that it's not your place to answer whether a person who denies the Resurrection is still a Christian.
"That's above my pay grade. I don't know who is and isn't a Christian. I DO know the fruit of the Spirit when I see it. I DO know love, when I see it. I DO recognize those following in the steps of Jesus (feeding the poor, giving a cup of water to the thirsty, preaching good news to the poor, healing for the sick, in short, pouring out their lives in love, justice and doing so with grace) when I see it.
"However, I'm not one that goes around saying 'He does not believe the right things about tenet A, B and C, X, Q and W, therefore he is not a Christian.' I don't find that to be my role, but rather God's role. I find no model in the Bible for saying 'He holds the wrong position on the trinity or the atonement so he is not a Christian.' Instead, in the Bible, I see Jesus pointing to actions, what you did for the least, not theologies. I see Paul, et al talking about the fruit of the Spirit and the Love that identifies us as Christians. Not holding to this theory or that about atonement or resurrection."
You appeal to what's in the Bible, but you miss a couple things. For instance, Paul taught that anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed (Gal 1:6-9), and John taught that anyone who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God (I Jn 4:2-4).
The Bible is clear that doctrine matters.
But I wonder, is the question of who is a Christian, in terms of doctrinal beliefs, entirely above your pay grade?
You point to the fruit of the Spirit and to actions, to love and to doing good to the least of one's brothers: "feeding the poor, giving a cup of water to the thirsty, preaching good news to the poor, healing for the sick, in short, pouring out their lives in love, justice and doing so with grace."
Supposed a professing Christian fit all this external criteria but repeatedly denied THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Could this charitable atheist still be considered a Christian, or is that too beyond your ken?
Do you think Christianity can contain even professing atheists?
If you don't, then you've just introduced at least one doctrinal criterion -- something you would denigrate as a "hoop" in other circumstances -- that makes your comment about judging people by their loving actions alone not entirely honest.
If you do, I'd love to see you say so outright.
Either way, you don't explain how the doctrine is essential to Christianity. You now say that it's essential only to "historic Christianity."
"I mean it is an essential component of historic Christianity. It is how we have always understood the life and death of Christ. If one does not believe in the bodily resurrection, one can not be a historic Baptist, or Catholic or Methodist, etc. Whether or not that means they're not a Christian, I DON'T KNOW."
Well then, it's still not clear how you think it's essential to Christianity. In discussing "historic Christianity," you write about the faith as it always has been, but NOT necessarily as it must always be.
If you can't explain how the doctrine is essential to Christianity -- and not simply as it's been "historically" understood -- you probably shouldn't claim to believe the doctrine of the physical and historical Resurrection really is essential.
[continued]
[continued]
3. Finally, about the Parousia -- Christ's return as Judge, at the end of history -- I asked, simply, whether you believe Jesus is returning.
"I answered this. Yes. Jesus is returning. Jesus returned already and he's down at the bar right now. Jesus is here in the least of these. Jesus is in the hands of the one offering a cup of cold water. Jesus is coming one day to judge the quick and the dead and to take his people home. I've answered this."
Actually, I don't believe you had already answered this question, and I believe this is the first time you've written something along the lines of, "Jesus is coming one day to judge the quick and the dead and to take his people home."
I appreciate that answer, but it's still not clear, because of what you say in the same paragraph.
"Jesus returned already and he's down at the bar right now. Jesus is here in the least of these. Jesus is in the hands of the one offering a cup of cold water."
I sincerely doubt that you actually believe that Jesus Christ -- the man who was born to Mary in the Roman province of Judea about two thousand years, who healed the sick and raised the dead, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was raised three days later -- is, quite LITERALLY, "down at the bar right now."
If you do believe that quite literally, please say so. But if you don't, it calls into question quite what you actually believe about Christ's return.
A clear explanation of whether you believe Jesus Christ will literally return would be appreciated.
On all three fronts, you've written quite a bit -- most of it reiterations from earlier -- but you're still not being truly clear.
What I'm asking has never been difficult to answer, so I ask you again to make your beliefs truly plain.
I appreciate your participation in all this: your writing at length, your reading my lengthy replies, and I thank you in advance for your response. I'll keep an eye on this thread and answer when I can: if it's going to be later than next weekend, I'll let you know.
I really feel like we've answered most questions that have been left out there and are approaching the point where we're going in circles, but to try to answer a few questions you've raised...
If you do believe that quite literally, please say so. But if you don't, it calls into question quite what you actually believe about Christ's return.
1. I believe it means you are ministering to Jesus in a very real way (to minister to the least of these), but no, I don't think it means Jesus, the man, literally.
2. I don't know what the future holds. I believe that we all will be held accountable for our lives, beyond that, I don't know. Is there some rapture? Is there some 1000 year reign? Is there some specific guy named the AntiChrist who will rule? I tend to think of all of this as more imagery, rather than literal. But I don't know, I'm not a future reader.
I believe we will be held accountable for our lives and that it will serve us all well to find ourselves under God's grace.
You? Do you have some vision into what the future will literally look like? I'd have to doubt it.
Bubba said...
If you can't explain how the doctrine is essential to Christianity -- and not simply as it's been "historically" understood -- you probably shouldn't claim to believe the doctrine of the physical and historical Resurrection really is essential.
Brother, I'm not a theologian. I know that Christians have traditionally considered a physical resurrection of Jesus to be an essential. I don't have a problem with the notion, I believe it. I have no reason not to.
I suppose traditionally, we have thought that if Jesus did NOT physically rise from the dead, we wouldn't have a basis for our salvation.
To me, our salvation is in God's grace. Our salvation is in following in Jesus' steps. Our salvation is in following Jesus' actual teachings.
Again, as I noted earlier (and as you disagree with), you (and traditional Christianity, to some degree) have considered the BIG TENETS of Christianity are ideals that Jesus did not directly even address.
The Trinity: Jesus NEVER discussed such an idea.
That Jesus was born of a virgin IS discussed, but not as some major Tenet of Jesus on how to follow him. (ie, "if you believe I was born of a virgin, you will be saved" - it's just a ridiculous suggestion, Jesus never even came close to suggesting anything of the sort or that it was an important point).
Many of these points are hinted at or even talked about in the Bible, but they are not talked about in the terms of "essential beliefs" that one must have to be a follower of Jesus.
What I believe as a Christian, for myself, is what Jesus specifically taught us as important: We are sinners in need of salvation; God provides for our salvation by God's grace; we are all invited to enjoy that grace and invited to be part of God's community; As we ask forgiveness for our sins, we are invited to follow in the Kingdom of God by following in Jesus' steps, preaching good news to the poor, healing for the sick, giving with and to the least of these, being peacemakers, turning the other cheek, overcoming evil with good, living simple lives of grace, etc, etc... THESE things that Jesus taught are the things I know for sure to be important.
The other traditional beliefs that we believe that are DERIVED from biblical teachings (but aren't specifically biblical teachings), I tend to believe and agree with, but they hold a secondary level of importance to me than what Jesus directly taught.
Do you find that wrong? I don't.
Dan,
As I read your responses to my interruption I was struck by the following.
1.(Forgiveness) You seems to have constructed this loophole that allows you to have your cake (anger/offense) and eat it (not forgiving) too. Nicely done, you have managed to (arguably) stick to the letter of the law (I only have to for give those who have wronged me) while completely ignoring the spirit of the law (forgiveness, grace, and all that stuff). Again, well done.
2. (Parable) You forget that you were the one who introduced the idea that these stories (Aberaham/Issac, Saul/Amalekites) were parable. You did this with no foundation, no reason why these are parables and other OT stories aren't, nothing but your say so. (BTW I have never heard anyone but you advance the theory that these stories are parables. Not to say that there isn't some obscure theologian out there who isn't but, I haven't seen one.) You ignore the fact that a major characterization of a parable is the word "LIKE" (The kingdom of God is LIKE...). You provide no interpretation of how these function as parables. You don't even address the fact that God apparently (in only these two instances) allows the Israelites to get away with such a massive misunderstanding of his message. (Note, the OT is rife with instances of God sending prophets both to individuals {David} and to Israel as a whole to let them know when they have chosen not to follow God.) Yet, when asked to provide some foundation for your claim, some shred of connection with other parables, your answer is "I am fine with calling it something other than a parable.". Again you seem to forget that you called it a parable, not Bubba, not me.
To answer your question (I will not go beyond this, because It will lead into a rehash of our earlier "original sin" discussion) I will leave it at this.
1. God is sovereign over life and death. I would not presume to usurp his sovereignty.
2. God can and does use humans in fulfilling his sovereign will and purpose.
3. I am unaware of any clear biblical teaching that prohibits the taking of life under any circumstances.
4. Interesting that the ultimate outworking of both love and justice involved the death of an innocent man.
I'm done with this line of questioning, if you want any further response check your archives.
This is exactly the type of response that makes this dialogue frustrating. It also leads to people feeling as though you have not actually answered their questions.
I apologize for the digression here, I think you are both doing a fine job (each in his own way) articulating your points.
I must not interfere further, Bubba it's all you.
BTW, Bubba you should have a blog.
Craig said...
Nicely done, you have managed to (arguably) stick to the letter of the law (I only have to for give those who have wronged me) while completely ignoring the spirit of the law (forgiveness, grace, and all that stuff).
Craig, go to hell. Okay?
Have you yet forgiven this pervert dude in the news for his kidnapping of the eleven year old girl and the subsequent 18 years of rape and torture and brainwashing?
Don't be an asshole. It's not your place to forgive him for his crimes against another person.
And perhaps I apologize for being so harsh to you, Craig. You're usually slightly more reasonable and personable than many of our detractors.
But for you all (who so strongly, it seems to my tribe, live by the letter of the law at the cost of grace) to call one of MY tribe (me, in this case) on being ungracious, well, I'm not buying it. You all seem to live by the letter of the law that kills so much of the time and reject any grace towards those who disagree with you that, at least tonight, it nauseated me.
Tomorrow, I may apologize.
Craig said...
3. I am unaware of any clear biblical teaching that prohibits the taking of life under any circumstances.
Don't shed innocent blood. It's repeated often and clearly.
if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.
~Jer 7
These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren
~Prov 6
They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood
~Psalm 106
So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, and bloodguiltiness be on you.
~Deut 19
Their feet run to evil,And they hasten to shed innocent blood; Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity,Devastation and destruction are in their highways.
~Isa 59
For instance. Under the circumstance of shedding innocent blood, it is consistently wrong.
Do you disagree? Do you think that sometimes shedding innocent blood is okay?
Bubba stated and asked earlier...
One way you could be more clear is to provide an actual answer to a question I've asked repeatedly: do you believe that there is a causal relationship between Christ's death and our forgiveness?
You seem to think the answer is no, but you have never provided such a clear answer, instead giving the non-answer that it's "all of one cloth."
"God forgives us by forgiving us. Period. God offers us heaven by God's Grace. Period."
I agree that God's grace is the reason He forgives us of our sins and offers eternal life. But it's not the MEANS by which He makes that offer: the means is Christ's death.
You make a distinction between the reason and means. I don't see it as needed. We are saved BY God's grace. THROUGH God's grace. THROUGH faith in Jesus. Grace IS the means by which we are saved.
Feel free to disagree. This is my opinion of what the Bible says.
Is there a "causal relationship" between Christ's death and our salvation? I don't know. I would guess that God LOVES US so much that Jesus came to live amongst us. To die with us and for us. So, sure, there is a causal relationship between Jesus' life, teaching and death and our salvation. I don't believe I would separate out specifically Jesus' death. Jesus' life, death, resurrection, these are ALL part of God's grace, God's gift to us, God's love for us.
We are invited to share in this grace and love. We are invited to walk in this Way. That's how I think we are saved. By God's grace. Through faith in Jesus.
I DO think that God forgives us when we ask to be forgiven because God wishes to forgive us, if we will only ask.
Do you disagree? That's fine, if you do. It's what I see in the Bible. How many times shall I repeat myself on this point?
To follow up with some possible misunderstandings, Bubba wrote...
You seem to think that I deny these teachings. I absolutely do not. I ABSOLUTELY affirm both God's justice and God's mercy.
I did not say that you deny God's justice and love. I stated that MY reasoning for holding MY positions (related to these topics we're discussing, anyway) are all related to striving to live up to God's ideals of justice, grace and love. You may well believe in them, I don't believe I have offered an opinion.
It is my position, though, that those who suggest that God may sometimes command the killing of innocent children are undermining God's teaching of justice, grace and love.
On another topic, Bubba had a problem with my statement...
On the other hand, if you were facing the same realization, your defense would be that you were defending biblical inerrancy.
Bubba responded, saying...
That's not my defense, I don't appreciate your speaking on my behalf or your presumption about what I would say.
That is, Bubba, you are stating that if God were to judge you for your position that God sometimes commands the killing of innocent children, your defense would NOT be that you were defending biblical inerrancy, is that what you're suggesting? Then perhaps you could clear up what exactly WOULD be your reasoning for holding that position, because, based on what you've said, it sure sounds like you're talking about defending biblical inerrancy.
You said...
In lieu of a better source of authority -- such as the earthly presence of Christ Himself, His prophets, or His Apostles -- I believe the Bible really is the best authoritative source for divine revelation...
I quite seriously trust that, in His mercy and even justice, Jesus Christ doesn't have much of a problem with sincere efforts -- however inexact -- to follow His teachings and example. In affirming the historicity of Abraham and Isaac, I'm trying to do precisely that.
It SOUNDS like, to me, your defense would be that you hold the position that God sometimes commands killing children because you are defending the notion that "the Bible really is the best authoritative source..." and because you are "affirming the historicity [ie, literal, inerrant history] of Abraham and Isaac."
That SOUNDS like, to me, a defense of inerrancy.
Question: What exactly ARE your reasons for holding to the notion that God sometimes commands killing children?
Question: Or, asked another way, what specific teachings of Jesus or the early church (as found directly in the Bible) are you defending when you defend the notion that God sometimes commands the killing of children?
Bubba also said...
Whatever mistakes I make in interpreting Scripture, my approach adheres far closer to Christ's teachings and example than does yours.
You are, as always, free to think so. I disagree, if it's all the same to you.
Bubba said...
You seem to think that my belief in God's justice is expendable, or that this is at least an avenue worth exploring.
I'm not sure at all what you mean by this. Your belief in God's justice is expendable? Where did I suggest that? My problem is that you are not adhering to God's sense of Justice, as I understand it, not that God's justice is expendable. I believe in/love/fear/respect/deeply desire to see God's justice. Hallelujah! Thank God! Let Justice roll down like a river, oh Lord, please!
Bubba said...
You oppose a literal interpretation of the Old Testament's difficult passages, only because you don't understand how they're compatible with God's love and mercy. It doesn't follow that, because Dan Trabue doesn't see how, the passage really is incompatible with God's nature.
It's not just about whether Dan Trabue sees how an action is just. It's about whether an action is or isn't just and loving in the real world.
It would seem by your comment above that we can't see or fully understand what God's justice looks like, so we're flopping around like fish out of water, not having a clue about what to call just or unjust. I mean, if someone says, "I've kidnapped that 11 year old girl and made her my wife to fulfill God's justice and to demonstrate God's love," IF we can't say that such an action is definitely opposed to God's will, then where is there ANY line that can be drawn? You seem to be advocating moral anarchy and/or perhaps, moral relativism.
"Just because Dan can't SEE how God would not command people to slaughter a whole city of children, doesn't mean that God wouldn't..." "Just because Bubba can't see God commanding the rape of puppies, does not mean that God wouldn't..."
What line can we draw if we can't even agree that God would not command the killing of children? Or, if we wish to not box in God, what line can we draw if we can't agree that WE ought never kill children? If THAT behavior is possibly moral, godly, then what behavior is beyond the pale?
As an aside, I checked and, if we were to put this conversation in book format, just the part of it here on Craig's "Bubba v Dan" post, it would be about a 300 page book thus far.
Or perhaps a 300 page sleeping pill?
Craig, thanks for your kind words. If I ever figure out a format that would allow me to blog at least weekly without it taking to much time, I'll do so, and I'll let y'all know about my blog.
In the meantime, my personal responsibilities require me to spend less time online, not more. The thorough discussion here is with an eye to reach some sort of closure, however imperfect, with my literal years of frustrating runarounds with Dan. It's a lot of pages' worth of writing, but I think it's worthwhile.
(I can say that I've read every word, and this thread is still shorter than the thousand-page "reform" bills that members of Congress are now frequently asked to support, sight-unseen.)
Obviously there's another conversation going on elsewhere between you and Dan, but I don't know the details -- y'all mind sharing a link? -- and I won't add much to that particular conversation.
What I will say is that I believe it's at least possible that Christians have an opportunity (and perhaps even a duty) to communicate or even extend God's forgiveness to others.
Only the offended party can forgive, but ultimately all sins are against God (Ps 51:4), and since we are the body of Christ -- who is God Incarnate -- I think we can and probably should extend the message God's forgiveness to people, in Christ's name.
Anyway, Dan, I have a lot to say in reply, but I'd like to organize my thoughts some more, to make sure I cover all the bases but actually try to be as brief as possible with what I have to say.
With a long weekend coming up, I have other obligations right now, but I *WILL* try my best to reply in detail by the middle of next week.
Thanks for your patience in the meantime.
Dan,
First, I'll just say this, you need to be consistent. You have no problem assuming the offended persons anger, so why not forgive. It seems by your reaction that maybe I have struck a tender spot. So feel free to continue your reasonable name calling and condemnation. It's your conscience that has to live with it not mine. Again for the record, I am simply saying that in this one instance it appears that you are consciously choosing to disobey Christs clear teaching on forgiveness. Therefore it appears that you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself. I'm done with this now.
Second, once again you have done your subtle switch, impressive, but please deal with what I actually wrote.
I said "I am unaware of any clear biblical teaching that prohibits the taking of life under any circumstances." You then respond to a different point by introducing the concept of innocence. Your leap of logic from what I actually said to assuming that I would condone taking of innocent life is groundless.
So, If you would like to deal with, and respond to what I actually wrote, I welcome that. If your prefer to respond to something I didn't actually write (as well as a small part of what I did), then please save both of us the time.
Again, I would like to step back out, if you will let me.
Bubba,
I hope you figure out a format that works with your time constraints. That is the primary reason why I don't do more. I have enough time keeping my Habitat blog current.
The intruding conversation to which I have referred was a conversation at Dan's regarding the concept of original sin. You can find the thread in Dan's archive. It is dated May 25, 2009. If you are interested in seeing the background. Sorry to incorruptible, carry on.
Sorry again, should read interrupt, not incorruptible. I can only blame spell check.
Dan/Bubba, it's been a few days with nothing. If you're done it's been interesting if not I look forward to more.
Dan, been a little out of things lately, but it seems as though you might be mistaken about Jesus view on forgiveness, no time now. Maybe I'll do a separate post.
I don't know what you're thinking I'm saying about Jesus' teachings. Clearly, WE are to forgive when someone has wronged us.
What we can't forgive is what someone has done to someone else. If a murderer/rapist comes up to you and asks for forgiveness for what he did to "Alice," and you're not Alice, what do you say to that murderer/rapist? AND, if that murderer/rapist isn't really apologizing even, are you saying that you would go around and pronounce, "On behalf of Alice and her family, I would like to forgive this unrepentant murderer/rapist..."?
What hubris that would be! It's not your place to forgive what someone has done to someone else. The murderer/rapist would need to apologize to Alice's family and, of course, to God, if they were truly seeking repentance and forgiveness.
Jesus no where says that we ought to forgive folk for what they have done to others. That's not in the Bible. Do you suspect that it is?
The only thing remotely close to that in the bible is where Jesus says...
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
~ John 20
But that is not a command to forgive someone for what they've done to someone else. I think perhaps you're mistaken here.
There's sort of two strands here, it seems to me...
1. Yes, we ought to stand ready to forgive those who've sinned against us, but unless they've actually repented, they can't really be forgiven by God, I don't think (except, perhaps, in the case where they have sinned in ignorance).
2. The bible does not command or even recommend that we forgive others for the crimes against someone besides us.
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. ~Luke 13
Dan,
I am working on this so I'll not respond except to say that I was not talking about John 20. However if you actually read what you pasted it would seem that the text says "if you forgive the sins of ANY...", it does not say "ANY who sin against you"
Second, thank you for making my point. If as you say it is would be hubris to forgive someone for what they did to someone else. Then how is it any less hubris for you to take on the offense that you say was done to someone else. Further how are you to determine (short of hubris) whether anyone is "truly" apologizing or showing repentance.
I will post on this when I am ready, so I hope you will do me the courtesy of responding to what I actually post rather than what you think I might post. That seems reasonable to me.
Sorry for the delay in commenting, guys. I was hoping to reply Tuesday, but I've been busy this week, and I've also been giving some serious thought about what to write.
Dan:
First, briefly, about the claim that God really did historically command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, I DO believe in biblical inerrancy, but I do not think you accurately described how I would defend my belief in this claim.
You originally wrote that my defense would be "that [I] were defending biblical inerrancy. An ideal that Jesus never taught. An ideal not directly found in the Bible."
My defense doesn't entail what I call a "strong inerrancy," where the Bible MUST be inerrant. Instead, it involves the easier position of "weak inerrancy" where one gives the Bible the benefit of the doubt in lieu of any more reliable source of authority.
(You've never provided a more reliable source, so far as I can tell. Christ Himself is not physically present on earth, nor are His prophets or hand-picked Apostles, so their written teachings are the next-best thing. Since we cannot reliably sift through those writings to discern truth from error, the spiritually safe position is to give ALL OF IT the benefit of the doubt.)
And if this position isn't explicitly affirmed in the Bible, it has far stronger support than the opposite position. What's more consistent with what the Bible teaches about itself, and how Christ approaches scripture in both His teachings and example? To trust that it's all authoritative to the smallest penstroke? Or to speculate that some passages contain atrocity, bigotry, and other errors, and that therefore some passages are "less than perfect" revelation?
The answer's obvious.
About your beliefs regarding Scripture's account of Abraham and Isaac, you raise a question that deserves to be answered:
"What line can we draw if we can't even agree that God would not command the killing of children? Or, if we wish to not box in God, what line can we draw if we can't agree that WE ought never kill children? If THAT behavior is possibly moral, godly, then what behavior is beyond the pale?"
There is an answer to this question, and I have struggled quite a bit over the question of how blunt I should be in providing that answer.
I'll clarify presently, but I must let the chips fall where they may.
THERE IS NO LINE.
Other than contradictions like a divine command to disobey God -- or an explicit command to commit evil from a God who claims to be holy -- there is no clear line that we can draw where we can say, everything on this side, God WILL commmand, and everything on that side, God will NEVER command.
I say that because the following three things are true.
1) Our knowledge is limited, while God is all-knowing.
2) Our knowledge is tainted by sin, while God is perfectly holy.
3) The point of existence is not mere conformity to God's rules, but A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD HIMSELF.
Given these three facts, there is no guarantee that God will never challenge us with commands that we do not understand. On the contrary, if we are supposed to learn to trust Him, He may well teach us to trust Him precisely with challenging commands.
If you believe all three of these claims above, I'd love to hear an explanation how you nevertheless discount the possibility that God will issue commands we don't understand.
To be absolutely clear, I DO NOT believe -- as Muslims apparently do -- that God is ultimately capricious. God is perfectly holy, perfectly just, and perfectly merciful.
And I do not believe, as you suggested earlier, that "we're flopping around like fish out of water, not having a clue about what to call just or unjust."
[continued]
[continued]
We do have a preponderance of clues in the Bible -- guidelines we should follow in the VAST majority of circumstances -- but the Bible never permits us to say that God would never, for instance, command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
Instead, Genesis records the event as clearly historical, and both the Apostle Peter and the author of Hebrews praise Abraham for his obedience in this event.
And, more broadly, the Bible doesn't permit us to conclude that God will always issue commands that we'll fully understand. His ways are above our ways, and His thoughts are above ours.
The Gospels record numerous instances where Christ gave seemingly inexplicable commands.
They're out of wine? Go bring some water.
The multitudes are out of food? Start handing out this scrap of bread and fish.
You're not catching any fish today? Cast your nets four feet over, on the other side of the boat.
Stand up and walk.
And even the morality of some commands are not always easy to grasp, as turning the other cheek seems to invite more evil, and not casting your pearls before swine strikes some people as heartless given the stakes of evangelism.
And -- as I repeatedly noted before -- Christ told the twelve to commandeer a colt for His entrance into Jerusalem, an act that is superficially in defiance of the Decalogue's prohibition of theft.
To some degree, I must wonder how much you really believe in the necessity of one's trusting relationship with God.
In your earlier answers about the essential teachings of the Bible, you emphasize living simply and peacefully with others, but there's nothing about living in utter dependence on God. Those activities where Christians explicitly rely on God's provision -- e.g., prayer and Bible study -- you diminish as less important.
"He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
The last clause in Micah 6:8 is as important as the rest, and I believe that a humble walk with God requires us to defer to Him on matters of justice and mercy.
If you believe that the justice of every divine command must be obvious to us, you hold a reasonable position.
But it's not a biblical one, and so you shouldn't claim to love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings.
I see that you've recently changed the name of your blog, in part because you believe your focus hasn't been on the "simple living ideals" to which the original name alludes.
Such concern for truth in packaging is admirable, but I wish you were more concerned about being honest in your regard for what the Bible teaches.
In trying to cling to your own theories while claiming reverence for what the Bible teaches, you've had to twist yourself (and the book) into the most bizarre shapes.
For instance, you theorize that at least some passages about the life of Abraham must be taken figuratively, but you don't provide any evidence that the text -- or any other book of the Bible -- even suggests that sort of reading.
(Instead, while Paul teaches a great truth about justification from the chronology of Abraham's life, and while Christ Himself deduces the immortality of the soul from a single verb tense in the Torah, you assert that such historical books weren't all that concerned with chronology and other details.)
You don't even provide an actual figurative interpretation -- much less a plausible one that affirms the text's authority.
It must be a parable or allegory, you say. A parable of what? An allegory for what? On that, you're silent, because you're clearly not seeking to understand the text.
You're trying to twist the text to make it fit what you already believe.
Dan, about the other three subjects we've been discussing -- the Atonement, the historicity of the Resurrection, and Christ's return -- you seem frustrated by having to repeat yourself.
But I'm not asking for repetition, I'm asking for clarification.
If you think -- rightly or wrongly -- that I frequently misunderstand you when I try to draw inferences from what you've written, I think you should be more explicit so such inferences need not be made.
About Christ's return, you write:
"I don't know what the future holds. I believe that we all will be held accountable for our lives, beyond that, I don't know. Is there some rapture? Is there some 1000 year reign? Is there some specific guy named the AntiChrist who will rule? I tend to think of all of this as more imagery, rather than literal. But I don't know, I'm not a future reader.
"I believe we will be held accountable for our lives and that it will serve us all well to find ourselves under God's grace."
Never mind the details of eschatological prophecy: after all, the details of the Messiah's first coming were tough to reconcile until it actually came to pass, one chief realization being that Isaiah's Suffering Servant IS the anointed King of David.
The Bible is clear that Jesus Christ will return. Jesus Christ Himself is clear on this point.
On the one hand, you seem to affirm what the Bible teaches on this subject...
"Yes. Jesus is returning."
...but you don't make it REMOTELY clear what you mean by this, adding (for instance) that "Jesus returned already and he's down at the bar right now."
You seem to have admitted that this second claim wasn't literal, but does that mean that the first claim is likewise figurative? You don't say.
I reiterate, a clear explanation of whether you believe Jesus Christ will literally return would be appreciated.
Providing that clear explanation would be new for you.
About the necessity of the Resurrection, you write:
"Brother, I'm not a theologian. I know that Christians have traditionally considered a physical resurrection of Jesus to be an essential. I don't have a problem with the notion, I believe it. I have no reason not to.
"I suppose traditionally, we have thought that if Jesus did NOT physically rise from the dead, we wouldn't have a basis for our salvation.
"To me, our salvation is in God's grace. Our salvation is in following in Jesus' steps. Our salvation is in following Jesus' actual teachings."
This doesn't make your beliefs on the subject clearer. You explain what we "traditionally" thought (past tense) about why the Resurrection is essential, to then suggest that your beliefs diverge.
If you don't agree with that traditional understanding, it's STILL not clear why you think the Resurrection's essential: essential in what way?
[continued]
[continued]
And, about the atonement you write:
"Is there a 'causal relationship' between Christ's death and our salvation? I don't know. I would guess that God LOVES US so much that Jesus came to live amongst us. To die with us and for us. So, sure, there is a causal relationship between Jesus' life, teaching and death and our salvation. I don't believe I would separate out specifically Jesus' death. Jesus' life, death, resurrection, these are ALL part of God's grace, God's gift to us, God's love for us."
Even in this one paragraph, you say two contradictory things, first that you don't know whether there's a causal relationship between Christ's death and our forgiveness...
"Is there a 'causal relationship' between Christ's death and our salvation? I don't know."
...and then you say that there is:
"So, sure, there is a causal relationship between Jesus' life, teaching and death and our salvation."
Or at least, there is when it's lumped with His teaching.
I agree (with what you seem to say) that God's grace caused Christ's death, and I agree that God's grace caused our forgiveness.
But those two facts don't imply a causal relationship between His death and our forgiveness.
"The rain caused my garden to grow."
"The rain caused a leak in my neighbor's roof."
It doesn't follow that the leaky roof caused my garden's growth, or that my growing garden caused damage to the roof.
Did Christ's death cause our forgiveness? The Bible is clear that it did. CHRIST HIMSELF is clear that it did, in Matthew 26:28.
Do you agree? It's not remotely clear. I suspect that you don't, but because you insist that I keep to what you explicitly write, I urge you to make completely clear whether you believe Christ's death caused our salvation.
Finally, Dan, in your comment focusing on the Resurrection, you make some other points that require a response.
You write:
"Again, as I noted earlier (and as you disagree with), you (and traditional Christianity, to some degree) have considered the BIG TENETS of Christianity are ideals that Jesus did not directly even address...
"Many of these points are hinted at or even talked about in the Bible, but they are not talked about in the terms of 'essential beliefs' that one must have to be a follower of Jesus.
"What I believe as a Christian, for myself, is what Jesus specifically taught us as important: We are sinners in need of salvation; God provides for our salvation by God's grace; we are all invited to enjoy that grace and invited to be part of God's community; As we ask forgiveness for our sins, we are invited to follow in the Kingdom of God by following in Jesus' steps, preaching good news to the poor, healing for the sick, giving with and to the least of these, being peacemakers, turning the other cheek, overcoming evil with good, living simple lives of grace, etc, etc... THESE things that Jesus taught are the things I know for sure to be important.
"The other traditional beliefs that we believe that are DERIVED from biblical teachings (but aren't specifically biblical teachings), I tend to believe and agree with, but they hold a secondary level of importance to me than what Jesus directly taught.
"Do you find that wrong? I don't."
This is an incredibly loaded question, and I strongly disagree with the implication that you are following all that Christ Himself teaches.
In two comments on "The teachings of Jesus" -- begin on Aug 29th, 9:49 am -- I made clear my belief that, "much of what you dismiss as secondary, I find Jesus did specifically address."
Here again you mention the Trinity, but Christ did teach about the Father, about the Spirit, and about His own divinity.
You write that Christ taught the following: "We are sinners in need of salvation; God provides for our salvation by God's grace; we are all invited to enjoy that grace and invited to be part of God's community; As we ask forgiveness for our sins, we are invited to follow in the Kingdom of God by following in Jesus' steps," etc.
Indeed He did, but Christ ALSO taught that His blood was shed for the remission of sins.
He prophesied His own death and resurrection, and (what I failed to mention earlier) whether the latter was physical is decided conclusively by His telling Thomas to examine His wounds -- in John 20:27, where He told Thomas to believe that He was raised.
And, Christ routinely affirmed the authority of Scripture by His teaching and even His example, and -- even focusing on ethics -- Christ also taught chastity alongside charity, where we were created male and female for a very specific reason.
As I summarized before:
What you present as Christ's teachings is largely true, but nowhere near the complete truth. It lines up quite nicely with your particular beliefs, particularly the political progressivism you support, but what you omit and downplay is not unimportant. The Gospels record far more than what your summary suggests.
You give a conveniently incomplete summary of what Christ taught, and then denigrate (quite INACCURATELY) other traditional doctrines as not being taught by Christ Himself.
It's galling for you to act as if you're treating what Christ taught as primary, because you're being quite selective about what to emphasize EVEN among THOSE teachings.
[continued]
[continued]
About Christ's death, you write:
"You make a distinction between the reason and means. I don't see it as needed. We are saved BY God's grace. THROUGH God's grace. THROUGH faith in Jesus. Grace IS the means by which we are saved.
"Feel free to disagree. This is my opinion of what the Bible says."
It's a frankly inaccurate opinion, and I'll point you once again to what Paul wrote in Romans 3:21-26.
We are "justified by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith."
Again it's that middle clause, which I highlight in bold, which you seem to deny.
And, I've quoted this before in a larger context but need to address it more thoroughly:
"To me, our salvation is in God's grace. Our salvation is in following in Jesus' steps. Our salvation is in following Jesus' actual teachings."
If this is an accurate description of what you believe, I must reject your beliefs as thoroughly un-Christian and even anti-Christian.
You've repeated over and over how we're saved by God's grace alone, to the apparent exclusion of Christ's death, but now you write that we're saved by God's grace and you INCLUDE what appears to be human works of obedience.
"Our salvation is in following in Jesus' steps. Our salvation is in following Jesus' actual teachings."
This is frankly a works-based religion.
I agree that we are saved FOR following Jesus (following HIM, not just His teachings), that our discipleship and obedience is the PURPOSE of our salvation.
But it's not a cause of our salvation.
And by suggesting that it's how we are saved, you repudiate all that you've written before about salvation by God's grace through our faith.
(You repudiate Christ's death, too -- see Gal 2:21 -- but let's focus on what you seem to affirm as essential for salvation.)
Look at Romans 4, Dan, where Paul contrasts justification by works and justification by faith (4:1-5), and where Paul contrasts the law and grace (4:15-16).
These describe two WHOLLY separate systems.
One is law and works: God provides the law, we respond with works of obedience to that law, and we are saved by those works.
The other is grace and faith: God offers forgiveness because of His grace, and we respond in faith, and we are saved by that faith.
(Again, Romans 3 paints the clearest picture by explaining Christ's role in the process, that we are "justified by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.")
The two systems are completely mutually exclusive.
If you honestly mean this...
"Our salvation is in following in Jesus' steps. Our salvation is in following Jesus' actual teachings."
...then you reject a system of salvation by God's grace through our faith, in favor of a system of salvation by God's law (e.g., Jesus' teachings) through our works (i.e., our "following" those teachings).
I surely hope that you misspoke, because your significant deviation from what the Bible teaches is bad enough without works-based salvation.
The Good News is what Christ has already done for us, not what we are supposed to do in following Him.
One other thing that I failed to work into my lengthy comments last night, Dan, was your frequent invocation of a hypothetical command to rape puppies.
There are huge differences between that wholly hypothetical situation and the divine command to take human life.
The divine command to take human life -- in very limited, specific circumstances, given to very specific people -- IS found in the Bible.
But more than that, the divine ACT of taking human life is found in the Bible.
And the divine PREROGATIVE of taking human life is found in the Bible.
The Bible doesn't teach that taking human life is intrinsically immoral and something that even God does not do. It's immoral for humans to take human life ON THEIR OWN because that decision belongs to God.
The Bible does NOT teach that the decision belongs to no one, that (as you have put it) death is just a part of nature and can be a blessed thing: no, death entered the world because of sin, and God is sovereign over death.
In order to argue against the historicity of the divine command to take life (as with Abraham or ancient Israel) you ALSO argue against the historicity of the divine ACTION to take life, as with Sodom and even that crucial event of Judaism, THE PASSOVER.
The Bible is clear that God does not lie (Num 23:19), but God does end human life, and in the case of the wars of ancient Israel, God simply chose to use human means to carry out a judgment for which He had previously used natural and supernatural means -- such as the flood and the angel of death.
I don't think He will test anyone else as He tested Abraham, in part because His covenant with Abraham was absolutely unique. And I don't think He will command wars of annihilation as He did with ancient Israel because THAT relationship was also unique: the state of ancient Israel was, in some cases, a conduit of divine wrath, and Christ's church is a conduit almost entirely of His mercy.
But the prerogative remains His.
What does God say, according to Deut 32:35, Rom 12:19, and Heb 10:30?
"Vengeance is evil, sayeth the Lord"?
NO: "Vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord."
Dan, you asked:
"Question: What exactly ARE your reasons for holding to the notion that God sometimes commands killing children?
"Question: Or, asked another way, what specific teachings of Jesus or the early church (as found directly in the Bible) are you defending when you defend the notion that God sometimes commands the killing of children?"
The first question, I answer above.
For the second question, there are at least four New Testament teachings that are undermined by your belief that God really didn't historically command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
First, there's Christ's own affirmation of Scripture's lasting authority to the smallest penstroke.
Second, there's the commendation of Abraham's actions in that specific event, from the Apostle Peter and the author of Hebrews.
Third, there are Christ's repeated promises of judgment. If you object to God's sovereignty over life and death, I do not see how you can accept His sovereignty over eternal life and eternal judgment.
And, finally, there is the implicit teaching in the literally dreadful miracle of the withering of the fig tree, in Mt 21 and Mk 11. As C.S. Lewis wrote in Miracles, this "single miracle of Destruction" repeats "small and close, what God does constantly and throughout Nature." God is not only the God of life, He is also the God of death.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, the tapestry of Scripture is too tightly woven -- in part because Christ Himself tightly coupled its authority and His own authority: He taught that Scripture points to Him, and He repeatedly pointed to Scripture as the final word on doctrine.
You cannot pull at any one thread and expect not to damage the entire fabric.
And you're pulling at so many threads -- including, to various degrees, the Bible's clear teachings about the Virgin Birth, Christ's death for our sins, the essential nature of His physical resurrection, and His promised return, to say nothing of the Bible's teachings about its own authority, about God's rule over death, and even why we were created male and female -- that what remains is a rag, sheer in places and torn in places, that is a poor substitute for all that the Bible teaches.
That ragged cloth of your beliefs bears an uncanny resemblance to your political progressivism -- which should surprise no one who has closely followed what you've written -- but it is no evidence of a deep love for the Bible and abiding respect for ALL that it teaches.
You've written a lot, Bubba, and I'm working through digesting it (and hoping I don't get indigestion...). But let me clarify an easy one right off the bat. You said, more than once...
You're trying to twist the text to make it fit what you already believe.
This is bullshit. It's not true. You are mistaken. While you are free to think what you wish, you are wrong for believing so.
You don't know my mind better than I do. I have explained more than once that it is the factual case in the real world that the positions I hold, I hold BECAUSE OF the Bible (although I think it better stated now that I hold them because I seek to find God's will).
I have not twisting ANYTHING to try to match what I already think. Rather, I have studied the Bible from infancy, believing it quite literally for the first half of my life and finally, I had to set THAT belief aside (in a literal/inerrant Bible) BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOES NOT TELL ME SO.
I was opposed to gay marriage and had to set that aside only after much prayer and Bible study and NOT because I wanted to because it was the LAST thing I wanted. I did not believe gay marriage to be a godly position IN THE LEAST and I was certain that the whole notion would be repugnant to God UNTIL I studied the Bible. It simply is not the case that I have twisted the Bible to make it say what I wanted to say. In fact, it was just the opposite.
I believed in the notion of just war, I believed in saying the pledge to the flag, I believed in cars, I believed in a great manner of things on my own BUT I had to change my position AFTER continued studying of the Bible and "twisted" MY positions to align more closely with what I thought/think the Bible teaches.
Your statement and others like it are mere balderdash. Excrement. Utterly false and I have the history to prove it.
Now, I am not saying I'm never mistaken, that I THINK something is what the Bible says, but what I've done, in fact, is twist the Bible to fit my cultural beliefs. This is the case with gay marriage, in fact. I HAD twisted the bible to meet what I already believed, but I had done some mostly not deliberately. That is, when I was opposed to gay marriage, I hadn't DELIBERATELY twisted the Bible to meet my preconceived beliefs, I was just confused.
And that is always a possibility. I am a mortal human being. But I can honestly say that I have not DELIBERATELY twisted the Bible to match beliefs. I have my sins and errors, but this is not one of them.
You are wholly and factually ass-backwards mistaken on at least this point. This much I can assert as indisputable fact.
Dan:
"Your statement and others like it are mere balderdash. Excrement. Utterly false and I have the history to prove it."
The history is inconclusive. You say you used to be theologically conservative and now you're not, but that's hardly proof that Bible study is what caused the transformation.
The only good evidence isn't your personal history: it's the actual argument from Scripture.
You always ultimately come back to your history and not your argument, and I suspect that's because you have no argument -- at least not a remotely plausible argument.
From "gay marriage" to the idea that the Passover must be interpreted figuratively, you invoke question-begging assumptions that you should never (and WOULD never) accept from people arguing the contrary position.
You can't point to any passage where the Bible actually praises homosexual behavior, because no such passage exists. Instead, you note that it praises marriage but IGNORE how the Bible treats marriage as husband-and-wife, and you IGNORE that Christ Himself taught that God made us male and female for that husband-and-wife union.
And you can't point to any passage where, for instance, the sacrifice of Isaac is treated as figurative: you just speculate that it must be a parable or allegory -- that is, when you're not speculating that the passage is "less than perfect" revelation -- and you NEVER give an explanation for what this supposed parable or allegory might mean, much less a remotely plausible meaning that affirms the text's authority.
In brief, your arguments are shit.
And your biography is a poor substitute for a good argument.
If a "season" of careful and prayerful Bible study really is why you now believe that God blesses "gay marriage" and that God didn't historically command the sacrifice of Isaac, you'd be able to walk us through the passages that required this change of heart.
Instead, you point to "before" and "after" pictures of your theology and we're supposed to accept on faith that the difference was Bible study? When there are GLARING disparities between your position and the book's actual text? And when there is -- surprise, surprise -- a near total alignment between your position and your political progressivism?
I don't think so. Your claim has never been credible, and I'm never going to be cowed into pretending otherwise from your apparent outrage that someone would dare question your integrity.
I can be convinced by a good argument, but not by any appeal to your good character.
If a "season" of careful and prayerful Bible study really is why you now believe that God blesses "gay marriage" and that God didn't historically command the sacrifice of Isaac, you'd be able to walk us through the passages that required this change of heart.
I've done so. That you weren't similarly convinced is not evidence that it didn't happen with me. In fact, I DID believe as you do and AFTER Bible study and prayer, I no longer do believe as you do on gay marriage. It wasn't because I "wanted" to change, I didn't. It was not my opinion that gay marriage could conceivably be a good thing. It WAS my opinion that it could only be a horrible wrong.
And yet, DESPITE my desires NOT to change my mind, I did and I did so after careful Bible study and prayer.
I don't care if you believe that to be true or not, I know it is true because it happened to me and you DON'T know - CAN'T know that it's not true because it did not happen to you.
What POSSIBLE other explanation would you offer (in ignorance, since you weren't me) for what might have happened? What would have changed a conservative who STRONGLY believed in the utter sinfulness of gay marriage to change his position?
You certainly have no evidence except what I've told you, which happens to be the truth.
I suspect that it's the case that you can't conceive of someone "changing sides" on this issue (just as I could not have possibly conceived of it, unless maybe someone lost their faith) and so you choose to believe I'm a liar rather than accept that possibly someone COULD come to a different conclusion in good faith.
And you STILL do not walk us through what passages changed your mind, Dan. You STILL do not present a plausible argument for why the Bible requires (or even permits) the condoning of homosexual behavior in any circumstance.
That argument is the only convincing proof, and you continue to refuse to present that argument, relying instead on your personal biography.
Well, at least you live by your own standards, and you would never offer denigrating speculations about other people...
"I suspect that it's the case that you can't conceive of someone 'changing sides' on this issue (just as I could not have possibly conceived of it, unless maybe someone lost their faith) and so you choose to believe I'm a liar rather than accept that possibly someone COULD come to a different conclusion in good faith."
...oh, well, never mind, then. If you don't want me to air defamatory suspicions about you, you should probably not do PRECISELY what you condemn.
[ahem]
You're mistaken, you're wrong, your suspicion is bullshit -- balderdash, excrement -- and I know myself better than you do, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Is it possible that a person can reach a different conclusion from good faith? ABSOLUTELY.
Do I believe you've reached your conclusions in good faith? Absolutely not.
And I won't until you present a genuinely strong argument that the Bible actually teaches what you say it does.
You haven't, and I don't believe you can, NOT because I'm so close-minded that I can't conceive of disagreement.
(After all, I believe that there is a SET OF WORLDVIEWS that qualify as "biblical," not just one worldview.)
It's not because I'm close-minded about others' beliefs.
It's because I know the Bible well enough not to be snowed by your bullshit.
And you STILL do not walk us through what passages changed your mind, Dan.
Bubba, I've been doing that for probably about three years, now. Is it possible that you weren't part of the big discussion (on Marshall's blog maybe?) where I spent a GREAT deal of time describing specifically the process of how I went from where I was to where I am?
I've gone over and over my reasons for changing my position, done to try to align myself better with God's Will and God's Word. None of it convinced you and it's not "good enough" for you, but that does not mean I have not done so.
Is it the case that I need to try to go back and find some of these passages where I've spent gobs of time describing how I came to my conclusion? I'm pretty sure you've seen them already, but will try to locate them if you want.
No need: I believe that here and here contain the most recent summaries for your argument that the Bible permits "gay marriage." In both instances, I responded -- here and here -- that the same approach could justify something as absurd as "compulsory charity." I also made the very obvious point that the Bible doesn't treat marriage as an androgynous institution.
About "compulsory charity," here in this thread you wrote how you think you can "make a helluva case against it." I asked you to do so, and so far as I can tell, you never have gotten around to tackling the subject again in detail.
You have presented arguments for your position, but they've been extremely poor. As I wrote earlier today, "You STILL do not present a plausible argument for why the Bible requires (or even permits) the condoning of homosexual behavior in any circumstance."
That adjective "plausible" is key. Your arguments aren't anywhere near plausible.
And you respond to my comment, "you STILL do not walk us through what passages changed your mind," but you STILL haven't done so: what specific passages convinced you that God blesses at least some instances of homosexual behavior? You've never said, and I believe it's clear that no such passages exist.
Suppose that I were to give your integrity the benefit of the doubt: suppose I accept your claim that you really did change your position on homosexuality as the result of Bible study.
The argument you advance to explain that change is so incredibly poor that, in order to assume good will on the part of your character, I have to draw some very negative conclusions about your ability to reason.
If you're not a flagrant liar, Dan, you must be a very sloppy thinker.
The question-begging assumptions and inconsistent standards you employ to justify your position permits no other conclusion.
I know the text of the Bible well enough to know that, while there is certainly some amount of room to disagree, there's not so much room as this. The differences among reasonable, good-faith readings of the Bible only go so far, and the obvious weakness of your arguments is proof positive that your reading is far outside of those boundaries.
That adjective "plausible" is key. Your arguments aren't anywhere near plausible.
I get it. You don't find my biblical/logical/moral arguments for gay marriage or against inerrancy plausible.
Likewise, I don't find your biblical/logical/moral arguments in these two areas to be plausible.
Now what?
And you respond to my comment, "you STILL do not walk us through what passages changed your mind," but you STILL haven't done so: what specific passages convinced you that God blesses at least some instances of homosexual behavior? You've never said, and I believe it's clear that no such passages exist.
And yet, I believe that I HAVE done so. I HAVE repeated ad nauseum...
1. The Bible is entirely silent on gay marriage. Not one mention of it.
2. The Bible is fairly quiet about homosexuality, with only a handful of verses taking up some form of the behavior.
3. From studying the very few (3-6) passages that seem to touch on some form of gay behavior, it is clear to me that it is speaking of some form of sexual acting out (usually in the form of pagan sex rites and/or temple prostitution), but I DO NOT BELIEVE that these handful of passages are condemning homosexual behavior in and of itself, any more than I believe that the many passages against heterosexual acting out is a condemnation of all heterosexual behavior.
With me so far? From a careful survey of the Bible and its context, then, I have reached the conclusions that A. gay marriage is not condemned, B. gay behavior in and of itself is not condemned.
4. From there, I formed the conclusion that marriage itself (that is, some form of committed healthy respectful relationship) IS recommended in the bible.
5. I disagree with your conclusion that because the examples given in the Bible are made up entirely of male/female monogamous and polygamous relationships, then that is the only acceptable form of marriage. It's a fine hunch, but we all know that a behavior's presence in the Bible is not an indicator of its morality or of the opposite (that is, a behavior NOT mentioned in the Bible must be wrong...).
6. I disagree with that conclusion and conclude that the ideal reasonable, moral and godly relationship between gay folk is, as it is with straight folk, a committed relationship, ie, marriage.
There, for the hundredth (?) time is how I got from where you are to where I am. You don't accept it. I get it. You don't find it plausible. I get that. Neither do I find your position biblical, moral or plausible.
We disagree. Now what?
Returning to this earlier aside, you said...
Do I believe you've reached your conclusions in good faith? Absolutely not.
Answer me this question: How DO you think I reached my conclusions, if not in good faith?
Is it the case that you don't think I was raised conservatively and was, in fact, a strong conservative for the first half of my life?
Is it the case that you suspect that I WANTED to believe gay marriage was good and so I deliberately twisted the Bible (in your opinion) to make it fit what I wanted?
Is it the case that you don't think I believe that I twisted the Bible earlier when I thought gay marriage was right?
How much of my story do you think is dishonest and/or a lie? Do you not think that I am Dan Trabue of Louisville, KY, married for almost 25 years to Donna Trabue? Loving father of two children?
What part of my story do you think is true and what part not? And why?
Dan, obviously a person who is honest about some things isn't necessarily honest about all things. I presume you're honest about your name and where you live; good for you, but that proves nothing.
And just as an attorney doesn't need to account for somebody's whereabouts in order to discredit his alibi, I don't need to speculate about what may have been the real reasons you changed your position on "gay marriage." The weakness of your arguments is enough to question whether you really reached your present position in good faith: I don't have to speculate about your motives for fudging your biography.
You're capable of writing volumes while revealing nothing new or interesting. You're extremely evasive and coy about matters that probably undermine your claims, for instance, to be a Bible-loving Christian.
I STILL do not know some very basic things about your beliefs regarding Christ's death, resurrection, and second coming.
If you can be so evasive about these fundamentals, then there's no reason to hope that you'll ever be truly frank about your personal history.
I do wonder if your "season" of prayerful Bible study was nothing more than attending a series of one-sided lectures like the one you recommended at your blog, but if that's true, it doesn't answer what you were doing there in the first place.
You sometimes placed great emphasis on the apparent fact that some gay couples at your church display Christian love and other fruits of the Spirit, suggesting the possibility that their seemingly godly behavior in other areas motivated you to find justification for their sexual relationships.
You've written about how, when you you were younger, you sought to "take the Bible seriously," and your doing so led you to Jeff Street and an emphasis on communal living, but it's never been clear why you've ended up de-emphasizing doctrinal issues that the New Testament writers teach as essential -- such as the reality of Christ's Resurrection and Incarnation (I Cor 15, I Jn 4).
And you emphasize that you used to be politically and theologically conservative, but I have repeatedly noted that you don't seem to understand conservatism, so I wonder how deep your roots really were.
All of these points raise more questions than they answer, but they do provide room for the possibility that you're not being completely honest about your theological and political transformation.
The most important reason I question your good faith isn't that I have (or will ever have) enough information to speculate about what really happened. What's most important is the weakness of your argument...
[continued]
[continued]
About your argument, your chain of reasoning has some links that are supported by scripture -- sometimes trivially -- and you emphasize those links, to draw attention from those crucial links that have no such biblical support.
For instance, you write the following about those passages that condemn homosexual behavior:
"... I DO NOT BELIEVE that these handful of passages are condemning homosexual behavior in and of itself, any more than I believe that the many passages against heterosexual acting out is a condemnation of all heterosexual behavior."
The comparison isn't valid, because, while there ARE passages that condone conjugal relations between a husband and wife, there are NO similar passages regarding any homosexual relationship.
I can point to I Cor 7 and the entire Song of Solomon to show that the Bible doesn't condemn conjugal relations between husband and wife.
There is no similar passage for homosexual relationships. You cannot point to one, because no such passage exists.
There is no biblical reason to believe that God ever condoned any homosexual relationship in any form, but you obscure this crucial point by making a question-begging comparison to those marital relationships that the Bible DOES condone, clearly and repeatedly.
You also write, "I disagree with your conclusion that because the examples given in the Bible are made up entirely of male/female monogamous and polygamous relationships, then that is the only acceptable form of marriage."
First, that's not a conclusion I've drawn. I don't point to mere descriptive examples of a marriage being between husband and wife: I point to the NORMATIVE COMMAND of Jesus Christ Himself, that God made us male and female so that a man (male) will become one flesh with his wife (female).
But, beyond that, you don't point to any biblical reason to dismiss these accounts as merely descriptive. There is no biblical reason to do so, because the Bible is wholly consistent that marriage is the union of husband and wife, and (again) the Bible even connects this specific union to our being created male and female in the first place.
QUESTION: Which specific passage of Scripture convinced you that God condones at least some homosexual behaviors?
QUESTION: Which specific passage of Scripture convinced you that marriage is an androgynous institution?
You don't answer these questions, and I suspect that you can't because no such passages exist.
As a result, you're presuming precisely those key details that are the most contentious and that ought to have at least some scriptural support.
You're question begging, Dan.
The Bible uniformly condemns homosexual behavior. You have no biblical reason to believe that exceptions exist, but you hold that belief anyway.
The Bible uniformly treats marriage as an intrinsically heterosexual union and even connects this composition of marriage to our being made male and female. You have no biblical reason to believe that marriage is androgynous, but you hold to that belief anyway.
This is sloppy thinking or dishonest arguing, take your pick.
The weakness of your arguments is enough to question whether you really reached your present position in good faith
Then, by your reasoning, I ought to assume that you did not reach your position in good faith, that you're a liar and you only wish to twist the Bible to meet your pre-held positions. After all, I think your arguments are EXTREMELY weak (it's why I disagree with them), so, does that mean that you think that I should presume you to be not arguing in good faith?
QUESTION: Which specific passage of Scripture convinced you that God condones at least some homosexual behaviors?
The Bible is silent on most gay behaviors. It does not talk about gay friends, it does not talk about platonic gay relationships, it does not talk about gay (or straight) dating as we know it and it does not talk about gay marriage.
Which passages convinced you that all of these are wrong, since it does not talk about them?
QUESTION: Which specific passage of Scripture convinced you that marriage is an androgynous institution?
The bible does not talk about gay marriage, nor does it suggest that gay marriage is okay OR that it is wrong. It only talks about monogamy and polygamy, both of which seem to be acceptable.
Which specific passage convinced you that polygamy is wrong, since the Bible never says that?
The specific passages that convinced me that gay marriage is good would include Song of Solomon and some of the passages that talk about marriage favorably. "She shall be a helper to you," for instance, from Genesis. Having a lover and a helper in the context of marriage seems to be a good and blessed thing.
Dan, I think the comparative strengths of our arguments are obvious. If you think my position is argued so weakly that I cannot be arguing in good faith, feel free to say so and make yourself look even more foolish.
I asked: Which specific passage of Scripture convinced you that God condones at least some homosexual behaviors?
You did not point to any passages, and you cannot, because none exist.
I asked: Which specific passage of Scripture convinced you that marriage is an androgynous institution?
Again, you did not point to any passages, and you cannot, because none exist.
Indeed numerous passages commend marriage, but since the Bible treats marriage as the union of husband and wife, it's sheer question begging to assume that those passages apply to a configuration that the Bible never mentioned.
"The specific passages that convinced me that gay marriage is good would include Song of Solomon and some of the passages that talk about marriage favorably. "She shall be a helper to you," for instance, from Genesis. Having a lover and a helper in the context of marriage seems to be a good and blessed thing."
Never mind that you didn't actually cite any SPECIFIC passages: because they praise marriage doesn't mean that anything we label (or mislabel) as marriage is praiseworthy.
Words mean things, and if the Bible praises marriage, what it praises is (quite obviously) the Biblical conception of marriage: that praise doesn't extend to whatever bizarre practice that some iconoclast labels "marriage."
There are NO passages that could convince you that "gay marriage is good" and a more consistent man would admit this, since you just wrote, "The bible does not talk about gay marriage."
I made the point in June, and it bears repeating:
--
I could summarize and paraphrase your argument this way.
1) Marriage is a good thing that God blesses.
2) "Gay marriage" is marriage.
The first part is certainly rooted in Scripture, but the second part CLEARLY isn't, and you've never been able to generate one shred of evidence to the contrary.
--
Over and over you claim that #1 is biblical, and it is, but that's not the crucial and contentious claim.
The contentious claim is #2 -- that "gay marriage" is marriage -- and you have never, ever, EVER appealed to Scripture to defend this claim. I was asking you to defend this claim; you don't, and you can't.
If the Bible never treats marriage as androgynous -- and it doesn't -- then your conclusion that marriage includes same-sex couples is AT BEST extra-biblical. Since the Bible goes further and explains why we were created male and female, your conclusion is positively contrary to Scripture.
You ask:
"Which specific passage convinced you that polygamy is wrong, since the Bible never says that?"
There are at least three passages that point to the idea that polygamy is -- at best -- a divine concession that deviates from God's original plan for marriage.
1) Genesis 2. God makes man (singular) and woman (singular) and we are taught that therefore a man (singular) will leave his family and become one flesh with his wife (singular).
2) Matthew 19. Jesus Christ explicitly affirms the teaching from Genesis 2, above. It's worth noting that He attributes to God a passage that is not explicitly attributed to Him.
3) I Timothy 3. Here, Paul teaches that a bishop (and, likewise, a deacon) should be the husband of only one wife, a limitation that would make no sense if polygamy is morally equivalent to monogamy.
I could keep going with other, less obviously relevant passages -- there is one bride of Christ, is there not? -- but it suffices to say that I can appeal to at least three passages to justify the position that marriage is ideally monogamous.
That's three more passages than YOU can point to, to show that marriage is androgynous.
What really gets me, Dan, is the presumption on your part -- illustrated, for instance, by your invoking the Bible's praise of marriage to conclude that it praises your definition of the institution.
More than that is the way you skew the standards by which the two sides of this argument (and other arguments) are evaluated.
Suppose there were a criminal trial where John Doe is being tried for murder.
The prosecution presents a significant amount of evidence pointing to his guilt, but not enough to prove his guilt conclusively -- that is, beyond any reasonable doubt.
The defense presents no evidence whatsoever: they just point out that the prosecution's evidence doesn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury ought to rule in favor of the defense, but ONLY because of the presumption of innocence: in the American system of criminal justice, the defendant is presumed innocence until proven guilty, and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But what if that presumption wasn't there? What if the two sides started on completely even footing?
Well, the prosecution presented a significant amount of evidence pointing to the man's guilt, but not conclusively.
The defense presented NO evidence whatsoever.
In total, there's a significant amount of evidence, and it ALL points toward the man's guilt. Even though the prosecution's case isn't conclusive, it's so much stronger than the defense's (practically non-existent) case, that -- in the absence of any presumption of innocence that tilts the playing field in the defense's favor -- the jury should convict.
Why?
Because, with an even playing field, you don't compare the prosecution's case against a hypothetical case that's conclusive: you just compare it against the defense's case.
I'm certainly not arguing about the merits of an uneven playing field in a criminal trial.
I bring all this up to point out the uneven playing field you're trying to create in these discussions.
In several of the subjects we've discussed at length -- specifically, biblical inerrancy and the morality of homosexual relationships -- your argument is that the theologically conservative position hasn't been proven conclusively.
You repeatedly make the point that there isn't a verse in the Bible that explicitly declares the inerrancy of all 66 books in the canon, and that there isn't a verse that explicitly forbids "gay marriage" and homosexual relationships in all its numerous manifestations.
Christ affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke, Paul asserted that all Scripture is God-breathed, and Christ taught that we were made male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female). Those seem pretty definitive to me, and I suspect that, barring mental disability, one must be deliberately obtuse -- yes, WILLFULLY DEFIANT -- not to grasp the meaning of these teachings.
But never mind: for the sake of argument, I'll concede momentarily that the arguments for inerrancy and the traditional definition of marriage aren't absolutely conclusive.
They're still far, FAR stronger than your arguments to the contrary.
I can cite quite a few passages that point to inerrancy, even if not absolutely conclusively. You cannot point to a SINGLE passage that teaches that any part of Scripture contains error.
I can cite quite a few passages that condemn homosexual behavior and point to the intrinsic heterosexual nature of marriage, even if not absolutely conclusively. You cannot point to a SINGLE passage that condones homosexual behavior or teaches that marriage is androgynous.
[continued]
[continued]
The sum total of the scriptural evidence may not prove my position, conclusively and beyond any shadow of a doubt. But that would only matter if your position is presumed true in the absence of such a conclusive argument to the contrary.
We should make no such presumption.
Instead, we should compare the arguments head-to-head, rather than require the traditional position to prove its case absolutely conclusively.
If we do that, we see that all of the scriptural evidence -- ALL OF IT -- points to the traditional position, and NONE OF IT points in the opposite direction.
Suppose that we assign a numerical value to each person's argument, based on the amount and quality of the scriptural evidence that is presented to defend that position.
A "100" would mean that enough scriptural evidence is present to secure an absolutely conclusive and irrefutable argument.
A "0" would mean that NO evidence is provided at all.
For the traditional position, "T", that the Bible is inerrant, forbids homosexual relationships, and defines marriage as the union of husband and wife, you contend that the evidence is less than conclusive:
T < 100
But there is still evidence.
T > 0
For your radical position, "R", that the Bible contains error, that it permits homosexual relationships, and that it permits an androgynous definition of marriage, you present no evidence whatsoever.
R = 0
R EQUALS zero
(Evidence that God blesses marriage, for instance, has no bearing on whether marriage is androgynous.)
Because T > 0 and R = 0, the following is true:
T > R
That is to say, the scriptural evidence for the traditional position outweighs the scriptural evidence for the radical position -- again, there is no evidence for the latter.
I'd say that T is MUCH greater than R, and far closer to 100 than it is to 0, especially on the subject of the composition of marriage.
(Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"?)
You make a huge stink about the fact that the traditional argument's evidence is less than conclusive, that T < 100.
But that only matters if T bears the burden of proof, if one presumes that R is true in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary.
Head-to-head on an even playing field, the arguments for the Bible's inerrancy and the traditional definition of marriage are the decisive winners.
I suspect that you refuse to give these arguments that even playing field because you don't like that outcome.
That's why I don't believe your claim that Bible study is the sole reason you changed your view on these positions. The only way to reach the outcome you have, is to presume that outcome, and thereby deny the overwhelming force of contrary arguments on the basis of the artificial standard (inconsistently applied) that all arguments contrary to your own must be absolutely airtight, to hell with whether they thoroughly trounce your argument on the merits.
Dan, I'm going to be away for at least the rest of the weekend, and probably to the middle of next week -- hopefully no later than Tuesday, possibly as late as Thursday.
In the meantime, there are other subjects which I would like to revisit, where you continue to be unclear. If you could provide clear and coherent answers to the following questions, I'd appreciate it.
About Christ's death. Yes or no, do you believe Christ's death caused our forgiveness?
You seem to believe that the Atonement is mere imagery, yet still true and/or valid imagery. If your answer is no, in what possible way is the Atonment a true or valid description of what Christ's death accomplished?
About the Resurrection. Do you believe that someone who denies the physical and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ is still a Christian?
It seems that you believe a Christian can deny that doctrine. If that's accurate, what do you mean by agreeing that the doctrine is still essential? In what possible way is the doctrine essential? And why is it essential?
I'm not asking why historic Christianity "traditionally" thought the doctrine is essential: I'm asking why YOU think it's essential -- and what you mean by that if a man can deny the doctrine and remain a Christian.
About the Second Coming. Yes or no, do you believe Jesus Christ will literally return?
I will say for the third time, a clear explanation of whether you believe Jesus Christ will literally return would be appreciated.
About the means of our salvation. Yes or no, do you stand by this comment?
"Our salvation is in following in Jesus' steps. Our salvation is in following Jesus' actual teachings."
It seems to me that this comment suggests that our salvation comes by works of obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ -- that it could mean nothing else.
If you didn't mean that, just what DID you mean?
Frankly, I'm not all that interested in an argument about these issues. The Bible is quite clear -- and often Christ Himself is quite clear -- why Christ died, that He was physically raised, that He is returning, and how we are saved.
[continued]
[continued]
About Christ's death, resurrection, and return, the Bible is clear.
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." - Mt 26:28
"But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith." - Rom 3:21-25
"Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe." - Jn 20:27
"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ -- whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." - I Cor 15:12-19
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also." - Jn 14:1-3
"While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'" - Acts 1:10-11
"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words." - I Thess 4:13-18
"Surely I am coming soon." - Rev 22:20
[continued]
[continued]
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." - Mt 5:3
"Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease." - Mk 5:34; cf. Mt 8:13, 9:2, 9:22, 9:29, 15:28; Mk 2:5; Lk 5:20, 8:48, 17:19, 18:42
(Who can be saved?) "For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible." - Mk 10:25
"Your faith has saved you; go in peace." - Lk 7:50
"You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved -- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God -- not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life." - Eph 2:1-10
("But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." - Eph 2:13)
The Bible says what it says.
I see no need and have no inclination to argue about what it says. I just want to understand more clearly precisely what you believe about these very crucial matters of doctrine -- to see if those beliefs are consistent with your claim to love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings.
I truly am a bit tired of going in circles on all these points, Bubba. So far as I can see, it comes down to what I have frequently stated:
"I get it. You don't find my biblical/logical/moral arguments for gay marriage or against inerrancy plausible.
Likewise, I don't find your biblical/logical/moral arguments in these two areas to be plausible.
Now what?"
I will try to address at least a few more items that you feel are important and have gone unaddressed. First, as to your argument against polygamy, I can only say that the most your arguments do is say that deacons and bishops should be the husband of one wife.
That Genesis and Jesus both mention man marrying woman does not preclude that men could marry multiple women. "For this reason, man shall leave his mother and father and be joined with a woman..." does not preclude, "and another woman, and another woman..." Indeed, we have biblical models of polygamy from some of bible heroes, including David, a man after God's own heart.
Indeed, God even says GOD GAVE David his many wives.
Your conclusion that it is, at best, "a divine concession that deviates from God's original plan" is not supported by the Bible.
What are we to draw from this? That Dan supports polygamy? No. Clearly I don't.
But I do draw a few things from it.
"Divine concessions?" I don't know that I would frame it that way, but I would say that different cultures have different rules, even on something as fundamental as marriage. And God, in the Bible, seems okay with this.
Times change. Places change. Now, some rules DON'T change - we ought not murder, we ought not steal, we ought not oppress, we ought not be cruel, etc - but some more cultural norms do change and that is okay. I think it is a horribly wrong idea to judge all cultures and all times by 20th century Western norms. It is bad exegesis - it is letting our culture dictate how we read the Bible and that's a poor way to read the Bible.
Given that, it is another brick in the wall of gay marriage. IF God creates people who are innately homosexual and these brothers adn sisters can enjoy close communion and dating - just as straight folk can - and do so without oppressing, without domineering, without engaging in any obvious sin (as opposed to cultural "sins") and if they would be extremely lonely if they were forced to be alone, then marriage seems a wholly logical, moral and, yes, biblical idea, one in which we could rejoice.
Further, as to the suggestion that they just try to "be straight," that too, seems to be a cultural norm, not a biblical norm. After all, as Romans 1 says, it is wrong to try to exchange the natural for the unnatural. We know now that for gay folk, the natural attraction is for members of the same gender.
That IS what is natural and trying to get them to exchange the natural for the unnatural, which in Paul's culture, would seem to be suggesting women for men and vice versa. BUT, that was in Paul's culture. Today, we know that is not the case. It would be incorrect to suggest that Paul's culture was right (and force gay folk to miss out on wedded bliss) just as it would be wrong to assume that polygamy must be accepted today.
On some points made in the Bible, times and cultures change and that's okay. We just need to strive to discern which points are more cultural/temporal and which are more universal.
I think lying, cheating, slander, murder, gossip... THESE behaviors are rightly considered to be universal wrongs.
I think marriage rules - as demonstrated by polygamy/monogamy and gay/straight issues - are more cultural. I think that is the most logical, biblical and moral way to read the Bible.
You disagree. I disagree with you.
Now what?
I have answered these questions in depth explaining my position. I don't think exactly as you do on them and, as a result, you appear to have a hard time understanding my answers. I'm sorry about that, but I don't know what to do other than repeat what I've already said.
About Christ's death. Yes or no, do you believe Christ's death caused our forgiveness?
I believe that is one way the bible talks about it and it has some validity to think of it that way.
It's not the only way the Bible talks about Jesus' death and so it's not the only way (or even the primary way) that I think about Jesus' death.
What I most exactly believe can probably be summed up thusly:
I believe Jesus' life and death were a living out of God's grace to us. It is God's grace which saves us. Period. God's grace through faith in Jesus. THAT is what I think saves us. If you ask me again, I shall repeat again: I believe we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.
Ultimately, I believe God's grace causes our forgiveness. It was/is God's wish to forgive us if we repent and turn to God.
However many times you ask the question, my answer will remain the same: We are saved by Grace.
Clear enough?
About the Resurrection. Do you believe that someone who denies the physical and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ is still a Christian?
I don't know.
That is my very best answer. I would need to know the details of the story and even then I probably wouldn't know. That is because I don't know the person's heart. I'm not God, that way, just a guy with limited knowledge.
Is it possible that someone might think that Jesus DID raise again and that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus who rose again AND YET, when that person says he thinks Jesus rose again, he thinks of it metaphorically, not physically and actually, well, I don't know if that person is saved or not. Seems to me that if he is trusting in God's grace through faith in Jesus the Christ and has repented and dedicated his life to Christ and all that and is merely mistaken on the notion of Jesus raising physically from the dead, then it seems to me that this person would be a Christian who's mistaken on a point of faith. But still a Christian.
But truly, that's ultimately between God and that person and I don't know if he is saved or not.
About the Second Coming. Yes or no, do you believe Jesus Christ will literally return?
I don't know exactly. I literally don't know what will happen in the future.
I think Jesus WILL return and IS returning, but will that be a "literal" and "physical" return? I don't know. I tend to think so, but those passages could be speaking metaphorically.
After all, most of Israel was pretty clear that the Messiah was coming (and they were right) as a conquering warrior (and they were literally wrong).
My very best answer is I believe Jesus is coming, I believe Jesus is here now, I believe Jesus will come and judge the quick and the dead and take God's people home, all of that...
BUT what some NT passages mean exactly and physically about Jesus coming again, I don't know HOW exactly he will come. I don't know if it will look literally like Revelations talks about (I doubt it very seriously, as I think most of that is imagery, not literal) or somehow else.
Best answer I have. Take it or leave it.
Tell you what, let's look at this biblically.
Jesus is approached one time and asked SPECIFICALLY, "Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (ie, "be saved").
Jesus replied quite specifically, "Obey all the commandments," and when the fella says he has, Jesus tells him to go sell all he has, give it to the poor and come, follow him.
On the surface, that is a very works-based answer. The one time Jesus is asked what we need to do to be saved, Jesus says follow the commandments and sell all you have and follow me.
On the other hand, Paul tells us equally clearly that we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. "For it is BY GRACE you are saved, through faith," which is, itself - according to Paul - a gift from God.
On the OTHER hand, Paul tells the Philippians "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." This, in a passage where Paul is telling them to be like-minded, to do nothing out of conceit, to have a servant attitude, etc. Ie, works. Behave correctly.
On yet ANOTHER hand, the one time Paul is directly asked what someone must do to be saved, the transaction goes like this...
"‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . . .’" And not only the jailer, in that case, but his whole family.
AND YET, we know that the bible ALSO tells us that "even the demons believe" in Jesus, and they tremble, so we also know that merely believing in Jesus as the son of God, or (as Paul later adds) merely believing that Jesus is the messiah, the son of God who died and rose again, merely believing that is not what saves us.
And there are other passages with other variations on thoughts about salvation.
So, looking at ALL of that, I look for the common thread and come to the conclusion that while ALL of these ways of looking at salvation - "working out our salvation," "believing on Jesus and his resurrection," etc - that the overarching theme is Grace. We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.
We can view Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice and there is some validity in that view. We can view Jesus' life, death and resurrection as an atoning example or an atoning victory and there is validity in those views. But when it comes right down to it, I believe we are saved by Grace.
I don't know that it's necessary that I also define some "mechanism," as you seem to wish me to do. Perhaps you're right and I'm just not as smart as you are to grasp it. That must be it.
For me, though, I rest my salvation in God's grace, hallelujah. Sorry if I can do no better for your sake.
Sorry for the delay in replying: I've been commenting elsewhere, obviously.
Dan, I do not believe that II Samuel 12:8 is proof that polygamy is within God's perfect will, as opposed to His permissive will.
"I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more."
Just a few verses later, in 12:11, the Lord speaks the same word (nathan) to pronounce that, as a punishment, He will "give" David's wives to other men:
"Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun."
By your logic, God must not only commend polygamy: He must commend indiscreet acts of adultery and cuckoldry.
More than this, we know that the ultimate Old Testament gift from God wasn't the gift of Saul's wives to David, but the gift of the law to the people of Israel: yet, in Matthew 19, Christ Himself taught that the law -- which He affirmed to the smallest penstroke and upheld as divinely authored -- contained concessions.
"It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery." - Mt 19:8-9
"From the beginning it was not so."
Christ authoritatively taught that divorce was never intended "from the beginning." Since Adam was given one and only one helper, can we not conclude the same thing about polygamy?
(And, your emphasis on God's act of giving calls into question your claim that your pacifism came about because of Bible study. The same Hebrew word is used -- e.g., in Joshua 6:2, 8:1, and 10:8 -- to relay that God gave Israel's enemies into their hands. His doing so often involved miraculous intervention, but the fact of military conquest cannot be ignored.)
Ultimately, this is all a digression.
The question of polygamy is a question of whether one can be in more than one marriage simultaneously.
The Bible remains consistently clear that each marriage is strictly one man and one woman: Michal was David's wife, and Abigail was also his wife, but these two women weren't married to each other.
And even if the Bible isn't clear about whether marriage is monogamous, it's STILL quite clear that marriage is heterosexual.
There are no passages that suggest the institution is androgynous, and the subject of polygamy is nothing more than a distraction from this very clear point.
You write:
"I think marriage rules - as demonstrated by polygamy/monogamy and gay/straight issues - are more cultural. I think that is the most logical, biblical and moral way to read the Bible.
[Christ seems to disagree; see Mt 19:4-5. -- Bubba]
"You disagree. I disagree with you.
"Now what?"
I believe that the situation is not nearly as symmetrical as you think. I disagree with you, and vice versa. I find your arguments to be pathetic, and vice versa. And yet I believe it really is the case that one person's arguments here are obviously weaker than the other's, and so weak that they almost certainly aren't the result of a good-faith study of Scripture by any reasonable adult.
I wish that person would have the integrity not to make the transparently ridiculous claim that his beliefs are the result of Bible study, and that he loves the Bible and deeply respects its teachings.
Clearly, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
So: now what?
Well, does it appear that I misunderstand your position? Do you have any other arguments to present to defend your position? Do you have any other questions for me?
If the answer is no to all these questions, then this part of the conversation is over, and I think the record speaks for itself.
More, shortly.
Dan, I'd like to tackle those three issues in reverse order, since that puts the easiest topic first.
About Christ's return, I finally see you give an answer that's easily understood.
"I don't know exactly. I literally don't know what will happen in the future.
"I think Jesus WILL return and IS returning, but will that be a 'literal' and 'physical' return? I don't know. I tend to think so, but those passages could be speaking metaphorically.
"After all, most of Israel was pretty clear that the Messiah was coming (and they were right) as a conquering warrior (and they were literally wrong)."
About that side comment, first, the first-century Israelites may have been wrong only in the timing: Christ's Second Coming could well be described as the conquest of a warrior (see Rev 19:11-21).
Second, you seem to think Christ's first coming was political -- that He committed acts of civil disobedience and died as a political martyr. I find it ironic that you point out the first-century Jews' misunderstanding of Scripture, especially since you have the benefit of the New Testament to correct that fallacious belief.
I agree with the broad statement that we probably will not know how precisely eschatological prophecy will come to pass. We can (and should) believe that it will all be fulfilled, even if it will probably be clear only in hindsight how the pieces fit together, and what was literal and what wasn't.
But I believe there's a very, very strong case that Christ's return will be literal and physical.
After all, His Resurrection was literal and physical (see Jn 20:27). Christ promised to return (Jn 14:3), and on His Ascension the angels made explicit what that promise suggested implicitly, that His return would be in the same manner as His leaving (Acts 1:11).
The doctrine isn't just implied in the apocalyptic book of John's Revelation [singular, fyi], it's taught in other books and is connected to the doctrine of our own resurrection.
In I Cor 15, Paul argues that the Resurrection of Christ is essential and is linked to the resurrection of the dead. Elsewhere he connects Christ's return to our resurrection:
"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words." - I Thess 4:14-18
John, who taught that Christ truly did come in the flesh and who, in his gospel account, emphasized Christ's physical Resurrection, also connected His resurrected being with ours.
"Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. - I Jn 3:2
If John is clear that Christ rose bodily, and he is clear on that point, then "when he is revealed" we too will have physical bodies, though doubtless much more than this, beyond what we can guess.
Our eternal hope, which is a central feature of the Good News, depends both on Christ's Resurrection and His Return, and the Bible is clear that both are physical, literal, historical events.
I appreciate some real clarity about your beliefs on this subject, but it does seem like you downplay those theological beliefs that non-Christians might ridicule. In doing so, you've established a troubling pattern.
[continued]
[continued]
About whether the physical resurrection is essential, you respond to my question by seeming to answer another question.
I asked, "Do you believe that someone who denies the physical and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ is still a Christian?"
You seemed to focus on the question, is that person still saved?
"Is it possible that someone might think that Jesus DID raise again and that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus who rose again AND YET, when that person says he thinks Jesus rose again, he thinks of it metaphorically, not physically and actually, well, I don't know if that person is saved or not. Seems to me that if he is trusting in God's grace through faith in Jesus the Christ and has repented and dedicated his life to Christ and all that and is merely mistaken on the notion of Jesus raising physically from the dead, then it seems to me that this person would be a Christian who's mistaken on a point of faith. But still a Christian.
"But truly, that's ultimately between God and that person and I don't know if he is saved or not."
I DO know some Christians who resolutely believe (even if they haven't thought it through) that being a Christian and being saved are equivalent states.
In other words, they believe that ALL Christians are saved and that ONLY Christians are saved.
I believe that salvation comes through Christ alone (Jn 14:6), but I don't believe that all who claim to be Christians are saved, nor do I believe that only Christians are saved.
(I'm surprised to see you seem to believe otherwise.)
After all, Jesus taught that not all who call Him Lord will be saved (Mt 7:21), and it's clear from the Transfiguration that Moses and Elijah were saved, and they were pre-Christian Jews.
So, salvation and membership in the group labeled "Christian" aren't always connected.
Is an outspoken atheist saved? I would suspect not, but I ultimately don't know, and that is indeed a question between him and God. All I know is that, if he is saved, it's because of Christ.
Is that atheist a Christian? ABSOLUTELY NOT, and it's no affront to God's sovereignty to say so. By definition, Christians believe in God, and atheists deny God. Q.E.D.
Is an orthodox Muslim saved? Again, I don't know.
But is that Muslim a Christian? Again the answer is a clear no, because, by definition, Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, and Muslims believe that Jesus is merely a prophet. All Christians believe the central tenet that Jesus died and rose, and Muslims deny the Crucifixion. And all Christians affirm the central tenet that Jesus is God, and Muslims deny the Incarnation. Q.E.D.
"Is a man who denies the bodily Resurrection still a Christian" is a question along the same lines.
It's not about whether the man is saved, but whether his beliefs align with the essential beliefs of the faith.
Indeed, the belief that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead might not be sufficient for Christian faith -- there's also belief in His Lordship and the discipleship that follows -- but these are still necessary for Christian faith.
You write that, if our hypothetical individual is "merely mistaken on the notion of Jesus raising physically from the dead, then it seems to [you] that this person would be a Christian who's mistaken on a point of faith. But still a Christian."
Okay: Is a self-described Christian who denies that Jesus is God merely mistaken on a point of faith yet still a Christian?
Is a self-described Christian who denies the existence of God merely mistaken on a point of faith yet still a Christian?
(These aren't hypothetical questions with no possible relation to the real world.)
This all comes back to your claim that the belief in a physical and historical Resurrection is essential, and my bewilderment at what you could possibly mean by this.
[continued]
[continued]
About the "mechanics" of how we are saved, my focus on this issue isn't out of nowhere: it's because the Bible teaches quite a bit on the subject.
I wonder whether your beliefs align with what it teaches, and that wonder isn't from nowhere, either: it was prompted by your repeated claim to love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings.
You suggest that the Bible teaches a few conflicting things about salvation, but in at least two cases, you take a passage out of context to make it say what it doesn't say.
(This isn't the first time you've done this, either. In an earlier conversation you pointed to I Peter 2:21 as proof of an explanation of our salvation that didn't include Christ's death, and I demonstrated that the immediate context proves just the opposite.)
First, to suggest that the Bible teaches salvation by works, you point to the story of the rich young ruler:
"Jesus is approached one time and asked SPECIFICALLY, 'Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' (ie, 'be saved').
"Jesus replied quite specifically, 'Obey all the commandments,' and when the fella says he has, Jesus tells him to go sell all he has, give it to the poor and come, follow him.
"On the surface, that is a very works-based answer. The one time Jesus is asked what we need to do to be saved, Jesus says follow the commandments and sell all you have and follow me."
But that's not where the story ends, Dan. As I pointed out, probably last year, your summary of the encounter with the rich young ruler misses five key points that are present in all three gospel accounts of the story -- including the fact that the disciples concluded that no one could be saved, and Christ's response that salvation is possible with God.
As I wrote then, it appears that Jesus told the rich man to keep the law and sell all he had, not because He was teaching that an attempt to obey is a viable path to inheriting eternal life -- no one is good but God -- but because He wanted to highlight the impossibility of that path and lead people to trust in God, for whom all things are possible: to trust in Him for salvation and eternal life.
Second, after another passage that teaches salvation by faith, you allude to Philippians 2:12.
"On the OTHER hand, Paul tells the Philippians 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.' This, in a passage where Paul is telling them to be like-minded, to do nothing out of conceit, to have a servant attitude, etc. Ie, works. Behave correctly."
Now, I'm not quite sure the passage here means that "working out" one's salvation means causing that salvation: it could simply mean bringing to completion or fruition the process that salvation started.
Either way, the passage is absolutely clear that salvation (OR its fruit) isn't earned by human works -- which would have been obvious if you quoted the entire sentence:
"Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure." - Phil 2:12-13
Paul has never even remotely suggested salvation by works, and he even pronounced anathema against those who did (Gal 1:8-9).
It seems to me that the only way you can argue that the Bible is unclear about our salvation -- that its cause is God's grace, its ground is Christ's death, and its means are our faith -- is to take passages out of context.
There are now three passages where you do precisely that, and that doesn't speak highly of you.
[continued]
[continued]
Now, I asked, do you believe Christ's death caused our forgiveness?
You begin your answer telling me exactly nothing about what I asked:
"I believe that is one way the bible talks about it and it has some validity to think of it that way."
Does this mean, the Bible talks about it in this way, and so you believe it? Or do you mean, the Bible talks about it in this way, but you don't believe it?
Does the fact that thinking of the subject in this way "has some validity" imply that you do think of it in this way? Or that you don't?
I've repeatedly asked a yes-or-no question which doesn't seem to be of the loaded "do-you-still-beat-your-wife" variety. The simplest response would be a yes or a no.
Yes, I believe that Christ's death caused my salvation, or no, I don't.
That's the one sort of answer you refuse to give.
You continue, giving what you call a summary of what you "most exactly believe."
"I believe Jesus' life and death were a living out of God's grace to us. It is God's grace which saves us. Period. God's grace through faith in Jesus. THAT is what I think saves us. If you ask me again, I shall repeat again: I believe we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.
"Ultimately, I believe God's grace causes our forgiveness. It was/is God's wish to forgive us if we repent and turn to God.
"However many times you ask the question, my answer will remain the same: We are saved by Grace.
"Clear enough?"
In a word, no.
It's not clear enough.
"We are saved by Grace." Does that mean we are NOT saved by Christ's death? If that's what it means, why not say so?
And if you don't believe that Jesus' death caused our salvation, what do you mean by writing that "it has some validity to think of it that way"?
If the idea is factually true, it's not just simply valid as a way of thinking about things, it's TRUE.
If the idea isn't factually true, I can't conceive of what one can mean by saying it's still valid.
I find myself having to ask the same few questions, because you either have not attempted an answer, or your response doesn't qualify as a clear and coherent answer.
QUESTIONS:
1) Yes or no, do you believe that Jesus Christ's death caused our salvation?
2) If the answer to #1 is no, just what in the world do you mean by saying that the substitutionary atonement is a "valid" way of thinking about Christ's death? Valid in what possible way?
3) As I asked earlier, suppose a professing Christian fit all the external criteria of the fruit of the Spirit while repeatedly denying THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Could this charitable atheist still be considered a Christian?
4) If a professing Christian can deny the physical and historical Resurrection of Christ and still be a Christian, what in the world do you mean when you describe this doctrine as "essential"? Essential in what possible way?
I ask these things because, after all the essays we've exchanged, your beliefs on these crucial, fairly simple, and (at first glance) politically innocuous issues remain entirely shrouded in mystery.
Bubba said...
And yet I believe it really is the case that one person's arguments here are obviously weaker than the other's, and so weak that they almost certainly aren't the result of a good-faith study of Scripture by any reasonable adult.
Me, too.
Now what?
I wish that person would have the integrity not to make the transparently ridiculous claim that his beliefs are the result of Bible study, and that he loves the Bible and deeply respects its teachings.
Me, too. (or actually, I wish that he would not make the claim that his beliefs are the result of Bible study alone and that he has not let culture influence his position...) Now what?
Bubba said...
I appreciate some real clarity about your beliefs on this subject, but it does seem like you downplay those theological beliefs that non-Christians might ridicule.
Well, it may SEEM that way to you, but the fact is I downplay those theological beliefs that I don't think matter as much on a day-to-day basis and that aren't in fitting with the emphases that JESUS MY LORD taught. It has nothing to do with non-Christians and the thought quite honestly never even crossed my mind.
Bubba said...
First, to suggest that the Bible teaches salvation by works, you point to the story of the rich young ruler...
A clarification:
I don't think that the Bible teaches salvation by works. I think that the bible has a lot to say about salvation and that some of these teachings SOUND contradictory and all over the place. Some teachings DO in fact sound like salvation is found in works and I think there is an element of truth to that.
Does that mean I think that salvation is in works? Heavens no! But I am an adult capable of understanding nuances in meaning and in literature and in communication.
In a sense, yes, we are saved by our works. We might reasonably say that we are saving one another in giving a cup of water in Jesus' name, in feeding the poor, in solidarity with the poor and their solidarity with us.
In a sense. But are we saved by works? No! Again, communication in general is nuanced and not always clean cut and clear and the Bible's revelation is no exception to that. Sometimes there is some truth in THIS and sometimes there is some truth in THAT. Does that mean Truth is meaningless? No!
I just think that we are able to see in shades and nuances and, in fact, this grand creation was made to be seen in such a manner. If we only saw black and white, what could we understand of a sunset or of the shadows of one million leaves in a forest of ten thousand trees of various shades of green and gold and blue?
Feel free to disagree.
Dan had said...
"However many times you ask the question, my answer will remain the same: We are saved by Grace.
"Clear enough?"
To which Bubba replied...
In a word, no.
It's not clear enough.
I am sorry. It is clear enough for me. You may disagree if you wish.
"We are saved by Grace." Does that mean we are NOT saved by Christ's death? If that's what it means, why not say so?
Because Christ's death is an acting out of that Grace. It is one and the same. It is, as I have noted in the past, all of one cloth.
1) Yes or no, do you believe that Jesus Christ's death caused our salvation?
2) If the answer to #1 is no, just what in the world do you mean by saying that the substitutionary atonement is a "valid" way of thinking about Christ's death? Valid in what possible way?
Your questions have all been answered. We are saved by Grace, that is what I think. Jesus came to earth in God's love and grace, in my opinion. Jesus' life and death were all an acting out of that love and grace, in my opinion.
If it helps to understand God's grace - that by which we are saved - to understand Jesus' death as a sacrifice for sins, then that is a fine and valid way to understand the deeper truth that we are saved by God's grace. The point would be, though, NOT that we are saved by pouring out of blood to appease an angry God who can only be satisfied by sacrifice, but that we are saved by God's grace.
Bubba asked...
3) As I asked earlier, suppose a professing Christian fit all the external criteria of the fruit of the Spirit while repeatedly denying THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Could this charitable atheist still be considered a Christian?
I don't know. Jesus tells us that it's the person who does God's will who has been saved, who has accepted the call, not necessarily the one who SAYS he has heard and heeded the call.
Jesus' story about this is enough for me to say, "I don't know the answer to that question."
Do you?
Bubba said...
4) If a professing Christian can deny the physical and historical Resurrection of Christ and still be a Christian, what in the world do you mean when you describe this doctrine as "essential"? Essential in what possible way?
In the sense that it is a core component of historical Christianity. Christians have believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus. I believe in it.
The fact that I will own up to not knowing if someone is saved who does not take this teaching literally is just part of my limited genius. I am not all knowing and gladly admit such.
Sorry.
Dan, I already answered your "now what?" in re: our disagreements over the Bible and homosexuality:
I repeat:
Does it appear that I misunderstand your position? Do you have any other arguments to present to defend your position? Do you have any other questions for me?
If the answer is no to all these questions, then this part of the conversation is over, and I think the record speaks for itself.
I asked what may (hopefully) be my final four questions, and you still haven't answered any of them clearly.
1) You write, "Christ's death is an acting out of that Grace. It is one and the same. It is, as I have noted in the past, all of one cloth."
If Christ's death and God's grace are "one and the same," I don't see why you absolutely refuse to say, explicitly, YES, Christ's death caused our salvation.
2) About the validity of the Atonement, you write:
"If it helps to understand God's grace - that by which we are saved - to understand Jesus' death as a sacrifice for sins, then that is a fine and valid way to understand the deeper truth that we are saved by God's grace. The point would be, though, NOT that we are saved by pouring out of blood to appease an angry God who can only be satisfied by sacrifice, but that we are saved by God's grace."
First, the Bible doesn't teach that Christ's death satisfies "an angry God," but rather a HOLY God who HIMSELF endured the penalty of our sins, a penalty which I don't believe you have explained, only explained away.
Second, and more importantly, here you suggest that the Atonement might help people understand God's grace.
That means that the idea is USEFUL, but that has nothing to do with whether the idea is VALID and you have yet to explain the idea's validity apart from the obvious, that Christ really did die for our sins.
3) I didn't ask whether an atheist would be saved, and I just wrote at length how I **DO NOT** treat "Bob is a Christian" and "Bob is saved" as interchangeable statements.
I'm (again) surprised to see you suggest that equivalence, but that's not what I'm asking.
Is it possible for any professing atheist TO BE A CHRISTIAN? If you could answer that question rather then admit ignorance about the hypothetical atheist's salvation, I'd appreciate it.
4) Finally, you don't give a coherent explanation of what you mean by saying that the bodily and historical Resurrection of Christ is essential.
What do you mean by the word? In what possible way is the doctrine essential? You answer:
"In the sense that it is a core component of historical Christianity. Christians have believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus. I believe in it."
"Essential" doesn't mean that it is a core component of "historical" Christianity, implying that future generations could dispense with it and still be rightly described as Christian. If they can do that, the doctrine isn't essential.
The word doesn't mean simply that Christians "have believed" in it, but that they must continue doing so.
And it's not enough for the doctrine to be essential for you to affirm your personal belief in it: an accurate use of the word implies that one believes ALL Christians must share that belief.
Hence the word, "essential."
I ask you again to provide a clear and coherent answer to my questions.
If Christ's death and God's grace are "one and the same," I don't see why you absolutely refuse to say, explicitly, YES, Christ's death caused our salvation.
God's grace causes our salvation and Jesus' death is an acting out of God's grace. In that sense (the sense that Jesus' death is an embodiment of God's grace), I suppose one COULD say that. But I wouldn't. It's too vague a way to describe our salvation by GRACE.
I would say (as I have been saying) that we are saved by God's grace. Period. That is the language that I think most biblically and logically correct.
Dan, you first said that Christ's death and God's grace are "one and the same." You now say that the former is "an acting out of" the latter, or "an embodiment of" the latter.
You seem to have changed your mind, so if the two aren't interchangeable, it STILL isn't clear whether you believe Christ's death caused our forgiveness. I suspect you would say no, but you don't just come out and say it.
One can level many complaints about the idea that our sins are forgiven because Christ died in our place, but "too vague" doesn't seem to apply when you have no problem making thoroughly vague statements like, "God forgives us by forgiving us. Period."
And the idea that Christ died for our sins is very, very biblical.
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." - Mt 26:28
"But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith." - Rom 3:21-25
"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." - I Cor 15:3-5
The only way you've been able to downplay the importance that the Bible puts on Christ's death, as it concerns our salvation, is to rip passages out of even their most immediate context to suggest that the Bible is inconsistent about what caused our salvation, that it even teaches works-based salvation.
As for what's most logical, you never made clear what you believe happened to the penalty of sin -- much less reconciled your downplaying of the Atonement with Christ's upper-room claims about His death (see Mt 26:28 above), the agony in Gethsemane, or the prayer of dereliction on the cross.
The problem of the penalty of sin -- along with all of these unusual facets of the gospel accounts of Holy Week -- can be explained by the claim that Christ really did die for our sins. I don't think you've accounted for any of them.
For now, I will presume that your answer is NO, Christ's death did NOT cause our forgiveness.
It's the most likely answer I can draw from what you've written. If you don't like my inferring things beyond your explicit statements, I welcome you to correct the conclusion I'm making by (FINALLY) answering my question more explicitly.
Otherwise, I would appreciate clearer answers to my other three questions.
I've answered for years and months now, brother Bubba. If you don't like my answers, I apologize that I could not answer them in a way that suited you. It is not from a lack of trying.
To sum it all up:
I am a Christian saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.
As a Christian, a follower of Jesus, I love and respect the Bible and take it extremely seriously.
The positions I hold, I hold from seeking God's will through the bible, through God's Spirit, through God's law written upon our hearts and through my God-given reasoning. Not for political reasons, not for cultural reasons, certainly not for ease.
Those are my ultimate answers and they are true. Disagree with any of them if you wish, they shall remain true and you shall be disagreeing with truth.
I'm finished answering these questions here, for at least the time being.
Thanks for the conversation.
Dan:
"Yes, I believe that Christ's death caused our forgiveness," or "No, I believe that Christ's death did NOT cause our forgiveness."
I do not believe that either of these statements are hard to understand or express, and for all the effort you clearly displayed, I don't see why these sort of statements were never made. As uncharitable as you may think I'm being, I'm inclined to wonder how much energy was really spent trying to clarify, as opposed to obfuscate.
You still have not clearly said whether you believe Christ's death caused our forgiveness and, if not, how that doctrine is nevertheless valid.
And you still have not explained how a belief in the physical and historical Resurrection is essential, if (as it appears) you believe that a Christian can deny the doctrine and remain within the faith.
The only thing you've made clear recently is that you do believe Christ is returning, but -- even so -- you don't know whether His return is literal and physical.
Earlier I wrote, "I would have been pleasantly surprised for clear explanations about what you believe regarding these subjects, but never was I naive enough to believe that you would actually reveal what all you believe, quickly and with any sort of clarity."
Nothing that was written since has made me regret expressing such a cynical opinion.
On some of the most essential doctrines of our faith, I still have no clear idea what it is you believe.
On other subjects, when I DO understand what you believe, I do not see how they could possibly be the result of a reasonable good-faith effort to conform to the clear teachings of the Bible.
Some of what you believe is clearly biblical, but together these beliefs don't correspond to all of what the Bible teaches: you're selective in what you believe.
In other areas, such as whether the Bible contains atrocity, bigotry and other errors -- and, yes, the question of what the Bible teaches about sexuality and marriage -- your positions entail so much question-begging and so many inconsistent standards that they can only be extra-biblical at best, anti-biblical at worst.
I didn't honestly expect truly clear answers at this point, and it was obvious that this discussion wasn't going to go much further.
I would prefer ending this discussion permanently rather than suspend it "for at least the time being." I don't see what useful points could possibly be added later.
I'll try to wrap things up on my end by next weekend, hopefully sooner.
Dan, if you have any thing else you'd like to say as this discussion concludes, please do so by then as well.
Dan, if it's possible for you to field one more question, I would like to bring up one more subject -- one that is raised almost entirely too late.
This isn't an instance (or near-instance) of l'esprit de l'escalier, nor was I holding back on some really powerful ammunition, to use it at the very end when it was least likely to be addressed.
No, I raise this issue simply because of the good fortune of having to study a particular section of Scripture for this week's Sunday morning Bible study at church.
I noticed something in that passage, and I would like to discuss that passage.
If I understand you correctly -- and I do stand to be corrected -- your position has been that God Almighty would not ever command the armies of ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation, and your argument is rooted in the Bible's condemnation of shedding innocent blood.
"When the Bible has a passage that says God sometimes commands killing babies, in contrast to other passages that condemn the killing of 'innocents,' I think the closest we can come to perfectly understanding that passage is to understand that sometimes passages were written not to be taken literally but for what it meant to the people at the time. A people threatened by a cruel, oppressive enemy may well find comfort in the notion that that enemy would be wiped out and thusly, such a story could make it into the Bible. But perfectly understanding it requires that we realize that God does NOT command people to kill babies." [emphasis mine]
Toward the end of this discussion, you provided Craig with a list of passages where the Bible condemns the shedding of innocent blood, including the 106th Psalm.
"Don't shed innocent blood. It's repeated often and clearly...
"'They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood'
~Psalm 106
"For instance. Under the circumstance of shedding innocent blood, it is consistently wrong."
The question is not whether the Bible condemns the shedding of innocent blood, but whether that condemnation is relevant to the subject at hand.
What has always been disputed is your claim that this condemnation is inconsistent with the divine command, given under very specific circumstances, to wage wars of annihilation.
For this week, I studied Psalm 106, and I believe the psalm -- particularly verse 34 -- severely undermines and possibly obliterates that claim.
My question to you, Dan, is simply this.
QUESTION: HAVE YOU ACTUALLY STUDIED PSALM 106?
I ask because the way you invoke the psalm indicates that you didn't really notice its entire contents. Perhaps you used a search engine to find verses that mention "innocent blood," perhaps you're simply quoting someone else's list assuming he's trustworthy.
But I sincerely doubt that your use of this psalm is evidence that you carefully studied its contents: to say the least, this psalm is hardly the strongest passage to reinforce your position that divine commands to wage wars of annihilation must somehow be dismissed.
If I may be so bold as to summarize Dan's Biblical support for "gay marriage".
"
"
Okay, and if I may be so bold as to paraphrase Craig's biblical support for opposing gay marriage:
""
""
It ain't talked about in the Bible, so it is difficult to make a biblical case for or against something that is missing in the Bible.
My biblical case against (and your case for, perhaps?) nuclear weapons is much the same.
Okay, I'm dropping it...
Dan, no matter how convenient it would be if it were true, it's simply not the case that our two positions stand on equal ground in terms of biblical support.
Those most contentious claims on which your position depends -- that God doesn't forbid homosexual relationships in all circumstances, and that marriage is an androgynous institution -- are, at best, built on nothing but arguments from sheer silence from the text. At worst they contradict the Bible's clear meaning. (See Matthew 19.)
On the other hand, we can tell you chapter and verse where the Bible forbids homosexual behavior, we can tell you the almost innumerable passages where the Bible treats marriage as the union between man and woman, and -- most importantly -- we can point to Christ's very own words that we were made male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
The words "gay marriage" aren't found in the Bible, but every relevant passage -- literally every one --- supports our position, and none of them supports yours.
I'm hopefully wrapping up today, in a few lengthy comments in two big bursts. Sorry for the delay; I've been busy commenting elsewhere.
Dan answered my question in another thread here, and I'll respond shortly.
First, there's an issue or two from much earlier that I finally want to address: digressions, but important digressions. There might have been others, but skimming the thread hasn't jogged my memory. Whatever issues I don't end up addressing, they might not have been all that important in the first place; regardless, one must "let go" at some point.
About the parable of the unjust steward, found solely in Luke 16:1-9, Dan wrote the following on August 14th, comparing the parable to the difficult OT commands to wage wars of annihilation.
"Even if the parable is a less than satisfactory explanation (because it depicts God unfavorably, seemingly ordering the killing of children), there's precedent for that - in Jesus' parable about the shrewd manager, the cheating manager is praised for being dishonest and sneaky in order to make his plight better - so, EVEN IF that explanation is not great, it is one hundredfold MORE REASONABLE and plausible than the God sometimes orders people to do wrong."
First, the comparison isn't apt, because there's no indication from the text that those divine commands (or the recorded events in which they take place) are intended as parable.
Luke 16:1-9 is almost certainly a parable, as it fits the conventions of those stories that are explicitly called parables (Gk parabole), like the four parables in Matthew 13.
One noteworthy feature of the undisputed parables of Christ is the absence of God as a character within the parable. This makes sense because parables take earthly (often agricultural) events to make a spiritual or theological point. If the story mentions God directly, it's almost certainly not a parable as the Bible uses the literary device.
Second, this claim is simply not accurate: "in Jesus' parable about the shrewd manager, the cheating manager is praised for being dishonest and sneaky in order to make his plight better."
No, the shrewd manager wasn't "praised for being dishonest."
The dishonest manager was praised for being shrewd.
"And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light." - Lk 16:8, emphasis mine
That makes a world of difference.
Christ wasn't praising dishonesty, He was praising being shrewd, with an apparent a fortiori argument: if worldly, dishonest men can behave so shrewdly, how much more shrewdly should God-fearing Christians behave?
[continued]
[continued]
The same point was made at a webpage Dan cited, here:
"Non-believers are more shrewd in dealing with each other than believers are, He said. They know how to use their position and authority to gain influence so they’ll have something to fall back on if they get into a jam. If they do this to help themselves in a worldly context, how much more should we work to gain influence in an eternal one?"
So far as I can tell (admittedly just by skimming), this site doesn't support Dan's claim that Christ commended the man's dishonesty rather than his shrewdness.
There's nothing wrong with being shrewd, as Christ's comparison between earthly treasures heavenly treasure (Mt 6:19-21) is an appeal to prudence: the former is fleeting, the latter is secure, so it's wise -- shrewd, even -- to focus on what's eternal.
In Luke 16, I believe the point is (at least partially) that it is simply shrewd to use earthly mammon as means to heavenly ends.
With all this said, it's easy to answer a question that I never got around to addressing.
"I wonder, Bubba, what your criteria have to say about the story of the shrewd manager? Does your explanation affirm the veracity of the story (was Jesus literally praising dishonesty)??
"Jesus' conclusion in that story was:
" 'I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.'
"That seems to be rather an ugly parable teaching a less than savory image of God. Not unlike a parable that would suggest God commands killing babies."
Christ commended being shrewd, not being dishonest. As such, I don't see any problem affirming the passage's veracity or authority. Christ actually did teach this parable -- though the literal and historical fact of this teaching doesn't make the parable itself historical -- and He did so authoritatively.
I frankly don't see anything "unsavory" about this parable or its moral: there's only one "friend" who can let us into eternal dwellings, and there's nothing unseemly about using mammon for His purposes -- or in pointing out that it's shrewd to do so.
But, more to the point, there's no application regarding the difficult OT passages. We treat Luke 16:1-9 as a parable because the text makes it fairly clear that it's a parable. But the Bible is equally clear in its claims that God really did, historically and literally, command wars of annihilation.
Mere outrage at a text's supposedly "unsavory" conclusions is no reason to re-interpret it into something more palatable, which is the point I was trying to make with Dawkins.
Again, I believe that "Jehovah is evil" is totally implausible as a description of God, both in reality and even as He is described in the Old Testament. But I believe that "Jehovah is evil" is completely plausible and even accurate as an interpretation of what Dawkins wrote. It is, essentially, what he wrote.
"God commanded wars of annihilation" is the only plausible interpretation of what the Bible teaches. A true and healthy love for the Bible takes the text as it is, not for what one would like it to be.
About the letter versus the spirit, Dan claims that the "specific details" of the Old Testament aren't that important, and weren't that important to Christ and His Apostles.
After quoting Mark 2:23-28 -- which records the controversy over the disciples' picking grain on the Sabbath -- Dan wrote the following, on August 25th:
"The 'Specific detail' of the Scripture is that you ought not work on the Sabbath. But the SPIRIT of the scripture (ie, the 'broad strokes') is NOT found in the literal lines that the pharisees so slavishly and harshly decreed. Jesus had to remind the pharisees over and over, the law was made for humanity, not humanity for the law."
[continued]
[continued]
Dan didn't say which precise passage Jesus contradicted in terms of the specific details. None of the few commentaries I consulted pointed to any OT commandment that was being broken. John Gill's exposition quotes traditional interpretations (e.g., by Philo the Jew) that were violated, but not the decree of Scripture itself.
Through my own quick use of a Bible search engine, I could find no prohibition of picking grain, by hand, on the Sabbath.
The Decalogue prohibits doing any work on the sabbath (Ex 20:10, cf Ex 31:15, Lev 23:3), but it doesn't define what qualifies. In Deut 23:24-25, the subject of traversing a neighbor's land is discussed, and there's a clear difference established between picking wheat by hand and using tools. That same distinction could apply to the Sabbath.
More importantly, in a parallel passage, Christ appeals to Scripture to show that priests are blameless for "servile work" during the Sabbath:
"Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless?" - Mt 12:5
As Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown note, the priests had much more involved obligations on the Sabbath, including double sacrifices and new-baked showbread (Num 28:9-10, Lev 24:5-8).
It's hard to prove a negative, but in the utter absence of evidence to the contrary (and a lot of evidence pointing strongly in another direction), I'm very confident that Jesus Christ did not violate the "specific details" of any Old Testament command.
Dan continues:
"Similarly, Paul says in 1 Corinthians...
" 'Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God, who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.
" 'Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, was so glorious that the Israelites could not look intently at the face of Moses because of its glory that was going to fade, how much more will the ministry of the Spirit be glorious?'
"Throughout the NT, Jesus and the apostles have to wrestle with those who take an ungraciously harsh and overly literal reading of the scriptures and remind them that it is grace, not law, it is the Spirit, not the letter of the law, that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not the humanity for bearing the burden of the Law."
Here, I believe Dan misapplies II Cor 3:5-8. He seems to be suggesting that Paul emphasizes "the spirit of the law" over "the letter of the law" -- that is to say, the general gist of what was intended over the "specific details."
But Paul isn't saying that adhering to the "spirit of the law" gives life. He's claiming the Holy Spirit gives life.
And Paul isn't saying that that the "letter of the law" kills or brings death, but that law-righteousness -- salvation by works -- brings death, as he says more clearly in Romans 4:15.
By his own example, Paul relied on the authority of Scripture, even in the details -- such as the fact that Abraham's justification long preceded his circumcision, which is key both to justification by faith and to the unity of Jews and Gentiles (see Rom 4:10-11).
[continued]
[continued]
For what it's worth, it's not the consistent testimony of the New Testament that "Jesus and the apostles [had] to wrestle with those who take an ungraciously harsh and overly literal reading of the scriptures."
Christ affirmed Scripture over and against "human traditions" (see Mk 7:6-13), but it's not always the case that those traditions were "ungraciously harsh."
Sure, the Pharisees had numerous Sabbath regulations, but they also apparently permitted divorce under any circumstances, and Christ taught that divorce is as bad as adultery in all but the most extreme cases.
Much of Matthew 5 records a rebuttal against Pharasaic tradition ("you have heard"), but Christ frequently tightened rather than loosened the moral implications of the law.
Lust is as bad as adultery, and hatred is as bad as murder: these teachings can hardly be described as lenient.
And as for an "overly literal reading of the scriptures," I reiterate that Christ taught the reality of the immortality of the soul from a single verb tense. (See Mt 22 and Mk 12.)
Now, Dan answered my question about Psalm 106. For whatever reason, he did so here, in another thread.
Dan claims to have read through the Bible "more than a few times," and he writes that he is aware "that there are parts of the chapter that suggest God commands killing people."
("Suggest"?)
I was hoping for an admission of ignorance that would partially exonerate him: using a search engine to find passages on shedding innocent blood, without checking the context of those passages, is foolhardy but not a deliberate sin.
On the other hand...
There is simply no textual support for his dismissing Ps 106:34 while championing 106:36-37, either in the psalm itself or anywhere else in the Bible.
If Dan is being honest about being fully aware of the contents of Psalm 106, then I believe he may be guilty of a willful rejection of the Scripture that Christ Himself affirmed.
That would be a very serious thing.
More, hopefully this afternoon.
I started skimming through Bubba's thoughts and I'll probably just point out the wrong path he's going down on one front, although it appears to be more than one red herring and bad reasoning involved.
Right off the bat, Bubba said that I am arguing from silence on gay marriage (and I am - that is, the Bible is silent on gay marriage and therefore, ANYONE who holds ANY opinion about gay marriage holds it based on silence in the Bible, since it is silent on the issue). Bubba then says...
On the other hand, we can tell you chapter and verse where the Bible forbids homosexual behavior, we can tell you the almost innumerable passages where the Bible treats marriage as the union between man and woman, and -- most importantly -- we can point to Christ's very own words that we were made male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
And he is begging the question. No. You can't. You can't point to "chapter and verse where the Bible forbids homosexual behavior..." because that is not in the bible.
You CAN point to a handful of verses that condemn SOME FORM of gay behavior. But the Bible does not make the same leap that Bubba makes and say, "Men laying with men [like they do in Pagan rituals, in context] is wrong, therefore ALL gay behavior is wrong..."
BUBBA THINKS that those three or so passages like this are talking about forbidding all gay behavior, but that is a leap that the Bible does not make.
Again, the bible does not talk about gay marriage at all. It does condemn many forms of sexual behavior - mostly extramarital and abusive - but it does not condemn (or support) gay marriage, nor does it condemn (or support) all forms of gay behavior or straight behavior.
Just so you understand, what we have here is a topic on which the Bible is silent and Bubba wants to believe that it is not silent, but it is, in fact. And his condemnation of all gay behavior is extrabiblical in nature.
Which returns us to Bubba's opening statement in these last few comments:
no matter how convenient it would be if it were true, it's simply not the case that our two positions stand on equal ground in terms of biblical support.
What's happening is that Bubba believes his position is the most biblical and I disagree. He believes that his argument is clearly stronger on this topic from a biblical point of view and I disagree.
That's the nature of disagreements. You WILL think your biblical argument is stronger. Because you believe it and it validates your belief system which you were taught and it's hard to get past those cultural mores you learned growing up.
I, on the other hand, think my position is strongest. Feel free to disagree, and I shall disagree with you.
Idolatry, adultery, theft, murder, dishonesty, lust, and covetousness; bestiality, incest, fraud, hypocrisy; even the shedding of innocent blood: by the standards Dan Trabue invokes -- hypocritically, inconsistently, and without any justification -- one could draw the very same conclusions about these sins that Dan draws about homosexual behavior.
Oh, one CAN point to a handful of verses that condemn SOME FORM of that behavior -- or so the argument would go -- but the Bible does not make the leap that the behavior is wrong in all circumstances.
If one were to apply this approach consistently, one would conclude that the Bible teaches nothing in terms of the moral law -- or at least, nothing that actually constrains our behavior. None of what the Bible CLEARLY condemns as sin, it condemns in clear enough language that a rebellious heart couldn't find a way to relativize or otherwise ignore its clear teachings: the human heart's powers of deception (including self-deception) are simply too strong for that.
But let's not kid ourselves: Dan Trabue has no intention of applying his standards and tactics consistently. In the very same Old Testament passages where homosexual behavior is condemned, bestiality is likewise condemned, but we don't see Dan tell us that that behavior is condemned only in the context of pagan passages and so, therefore, God blesses loving, committed relationships between man and beast.
And in Romans, Paul uses the same language to describe how God gave man up to sinful passions AND to describe how God gave him up to other vices. Not only will Dan not dismiss the latter, he'll actually invoke the passage to criticize others as gossips and slanderers.
The fact is: in the vast majority of its teachings, the Bible is clear, but only to those who are willing to submit to it. Those who don't want to face what they find will ALWAYS be able to find ways to tell us (and themselves) that they don't see what staring right in their faces.
If Dan had an argument FROM THE TEXT that those passages condemn homosexual behavior only in limited circumstances, or that God ever EVER condones homosexual behavior in ANY circumstances, or that marriage is an androgynous institution even in God's eyes, HE WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THAT ARGUMENT LONG AGO.
Instead, he's playing games.
And he's playing games with his kicking around this idea that we're on equal footing. By appealing to "the nature of disagreements," he makes a point that reduces to the absurdity that, IN ANY ARGUMENT, the two who disagree are on equal footing by the sheer fact of disagreement.
Despite the mere existence of even quite passionate disagreement, there are arguments where one side is CLEARLY far superior to the other.
Dan can say that this is not one of those times -- and who would think that he wouldn't? -- but the arguments really do speak for themselves.
Despite the mere existence of even quite passionate disagreement, there are arguments where one side is CLEARLY far superior to the other.
I agree entirely. The argument that babies are "guilty" of something and they are "sinners" is a ridiculously outclassed argument in favor of the notion that babies are, by definition, innocent. It's a goofy, goofy argument and anyone suggesting that those who argue in support of the notion of guilty babies has lost before he's begun.
The argument suggesting that Jesus might support Christians torturing or dropping nuclear bombs on cities is a hopelessly inferior argument to the one that Jesus would NEVER suggest we do such crimes.
Clearly, there are some arguments that are stronger than others.
On the other hand, there are some arguments that are more fuzzy. Does the Bible condemn only SOME homosexual behavior or ALL homosexual behavior is one of those arguments. Ultimately, it comes down to a couple of passages that condemn "men laying with men" - written in the context of pagan rituals and a condemnation by Paul of "abandoning natural desires." Do those verses CLEARY say ALL gay behavior is wrong? No, of course they don't. Do they clearly say that SOME gay behavior is wrong and other gay behavior is right? No, they don't do that, either.
No, the Bible is fairly silent about gay behavior and totally silent on the morality of gay marriage.
So, we have to use our reasoning a bit to strive to discern God's will. Christians of good will who honestly seek God's will may come to disagreeing positions on it. I know because, while I was opposed to gay marriage, I held that position only with the purest of intents (no matter how much harm I may have caused by it) and now I hold the contrary position purely as a desire to do God's will.
And one difference between this topic (gay marriage) and bestiality is the clearly abundant logical moral objections to bestiality. An animal has no say in how they are treated and it is not a mutually respectful, mutually agreed upon behavior. People do. To compare the two is a hurtful and ugly as hell. Apples and oranges.
Oh, I see: you don't object to the idea that some positions are obviously inferior to their alternatives, it's only when your positions are being scoffed at to you begin invoking empty platitudes about how the "nature of disagreement" implies some sort of equal footing between those who disagree.
And while we're on the subject of inconsistency, I think it's hilarious how you think it's "hurtful and ugly as hell" to bring up bestiality: when discussing the Bible's accounts of divine commands to commit wars of annihilation, you have no problem talking about hypothetical situations involving "puppy rape" time and again.
But, if you notice, bestiality isn't the only thing I mentioned: I also mentioned idolatry, adultery, theft, murder, dishonesty, lust, covetousness, incest, fraud, and hypocrisy.
My point isn't that homosexual behavior is as immoral as bestiality or the others. It's this:
Your position is that the Bible isn't clear in prohibiting homosexual behavior universally, but the same arguments you use can be invoked to argue against the universal prohibition of ALL THESE OTHER SINS as well: not just bestiality, but lust and covetousness, theft, adultery, and murder.
Anyway, I've been too busy in the real world to quite finish my closing comments -- which I want to get just right, making the comments brief but thorough -- but I was under the distinct impression that we were wrapping up.
If we're continuing this discussion, maybe you can FINALLY make absolutely clear what you actually believe about Christ's death and our forgiveness. What passages in Scripture justify this belief? And if the claim that Christ died for our sins is imagery yet still valid, in what possible way is the claim valid imagery?
One other thing, Dan. About gay "marriage", you write:
"Christians of good will who honestly seek God's will may come to disagreeing positions on it. I know because, while I was opposed to gay marriage, I held that position only with the purest of intents (no matter how much harm I may have caused by it) and now I hold the contrary position purely as a desire to do God's will."
Your personal testimony is an absolutely worthless substitute for an actual argument.
The fact that you may have changed your mind is no evidence that there were good reasons for your doing so.
What matters isn't your transformation, but the reasons for it.
So far, the reasons that you've provided for your current position are wholly unpersuasive, based AT BEST on an argument from silence and, much more probably, in outright contradiction to what the Bible clearly teaches about homosexual behavior, about marriage, and even about the reason God made us male and female.
Can you point to anywhere in the text that suggests that the Bible's prohibition of homosexual behavior is limited rather than universal? Can you point to anywhere that suggests that homosexual behavior is ever condoned? Can you point to any passage that allows marriage to be treated as an androgynous institution? NO, YOU CANNOT, and your argument for your position is so poor that it's practically non-existent.
Your personal testimony doesn't change that fact, and it wouldn't even if you weren't untrustworthy.
Can you point to anywhere in the text that suggests that the Bible's prohibition of homosexual behavior is limited rather than universal?
You mean, Can I do this AGAIN.
Yes, I could once again give you my reasoning for concluding that the passages (all three of them) that touch on gay behavior are limited, but they will be the same reasons I gave the first 100 times I've explained my position, so I'm not sure what the point would be.
Clearly, contextually in both Leviticus and Romans, Paul is talking about gay behavior in the context of pagan worship. What possible reason can you give for presuming it is referring to ALL homosexual behavior? There is no biblical reason to do so, so, I would have to conclude that you (as I used to) hold that position for cultural reasons: You were raised to believe that it means all gay behavior, so therefore it must mean all gay behavior.
I just don't find tradition a sufficient justification to hold on to bad exegesis.
It must be my bad memory, but I don't remember any exegesis on your part that shows how -- as I said -- the text suggests that the Bible's prohibition of homosexual behavior is limited rather than universal.
You have your reasons, sure, but they're not from the text.
Lev 18:22 and 20:13 doesn't prohibit homosexual behavior ONLY in the context of pagan rituals, any more than 18:23 and 20:15 prohibits bestiality in the same circumstances.
And in Romans 1, Paul writes that, as a result of their idolatry, God gave the wicked over to their degrading passions: if such passions were EVER morally permissible, it makes no sense for Paul to write that God gave them up to them.
Look at what Paul writes about God giving them over to wickedness, in Romans 1:20-32:
20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. [emphasis mine]
That last giving-up is to sins like malice, envy, and deceit; since the passage's argument is that God gave these wicked people up to these things because of their idolatry, it is inconceivable that these things are commendable or even permissible IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
You certainly thought this last passage implied a universal condemnation when you invoked it just a few weeks ago to criticize Mark.
If that passage implies a universal condemnation of slander and gossip, the passage IMMEDIATE PRIOR implies a universal condemnation for the very same reason.
I stand by my position that you cannot point to anywhere IN THE TEXT that suggests that the Bible's prohibition of homosexual behavior is limited rather than universal.
I welcome you to try to prove me wrong, though if you could do so without ripping passages out of their immediate context, that would be splendid.
And, if you are hanging around, I ask you again to clarify and justify your position regarding Christ's death and our forgiveness -- to explain how the Atonement is "valid" if it's only "imagery."
You certainly thought this last passage implied a universal condemnation when you invoked it just a few weeks ago to criticize Mark.
If that passage implies a universal condemnation of slander and gossip, the passage IMMEDIATE PRIOR implies a universal condemnation for the very same reason.
Gossip and slander are condemned elsewhere, as well as here. Beyond that, we have logical reasons for understanding the immoral nature of slander and gossip.
We have none of that for all gay behavior. Your observation supports my point. ALL gay behavior is not condemned in the Bible nor is it logically condemned.
Understand the difference?
And so, I stand by my position that you cannot point to anywhere IN THE TEXT that suggests that the Bible's prohibition of homosexual behavior is universal rather than limited.
Dan, your response about Romans 1 is inaccurate:
"Gossip and slander are condemned elsewhere, as well as here. Beyond that, we have logical reasons for understanding the immoral nature of slander and gossip."
Homosexual behavior is condemned elsewhere, twice in Leviticus, and we do have logical reasons for condemning homosexual behavior as immoral: it is an offense to the reason that Jesus Christ Himself gave for why we were created male and female in the first place.
But note: your response isn't an exegesis of the text.
If Romans 1 was literally the only passage condemning homosexual behavior, it STILL doesn't follow that the condemnation is limited rather than universal.
And just because you personally can't see any reason for the behavior's immorality, it also doesn't follow that the condemnation is limited rather than universal.
But I said you don't have any reasons FROM THE TEXT to reach your conclusion, you say you do, but look how you're not discussing the text.
I guess I'll have to do that for both of us.
I'll continue doing so by noting that there are (broadly) three categories of human behavior:
1) what's morally required, such as alms-giving
2) what's morally permissible, such as playing music
3) what's morally prohibited, such as murder
Let's put out there an abridged version of what Paul wrote and see which of these categories can fill-in-the-blank.
"They exchanged the glory of immortal God for man-made images, and therefore God gave them up to _______ ."
God gave them up to morally required behavior? To obedience? To acts of alms-giving? That doesn't work at all.
God gave them up to morally permissible behavior? To music-making? To walks along the beach? That too doesn't work.
The only thing that works is this, that God gave them up to MORALLY PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR.
God gave them up to murder, to malice, to deceit, and to all the other things listed beginning in 1:28.
In short, God gave them up to sin. The logic of his argument doesn't work if God gave them up to behavior that is ONLY sometimes impermissible in limited circumstances. It works only if God gave them up to acts and desires that are always and universally wicked.
The way Paul mentions homosexual behavior in this passage tells us EXACTLY what he must think of the behavior, and that is the opposite of your position.
Paul wrote that God gave the idolaters up to homosexual passions, implying NOT that such passions were wrong ONLY in that case, but that they're wrong in all circumstances.
Again, the passage simply does not work if you plug in behaviors or desires that are morally permissible.
I'm going to assume that Dan's not going to post (or link to an earlier presentation of) his argument that THE TEXT ITSELF condemns homosexual behavior only in limited circumstances, in part because I don't believe any such argument exists.
In both Leviticus and Romans, a limited condemnation simply cannot be inferred. The conclusion Dan reaches, he MUST reach for reasons beyond the text, such as his decidedly extra-biblical claim not to understand the logic behind the immorality of the behavior.
Account for the crucial principle given in Genesis 2 and Matthew 19, and it becomes very clear what the Bible teaches regarding sexual morality: Dan's position is in defiance of that very clear teaching. It is not from any plausible alternative interpretation of the text itself, but from extra-biblical, often question-begging assumptions, applied inconsistently -- to the point of being applied haphazardly, except that there's a consistency to the inconsistency, which I suspect is nothing more than bias.
I'm also going to assume that Dan doesn't have anything he wishes to say in summation.
I'll try to wrap up on my end when I can; I do apologize for taking so long to conclude.
Busy. I will answer your question more specifically than I have already and repeatedly, but too busy right now.
...well?
I find I've lost my interest for now, given the limited time I have.
Maybe later if and when things slow down a bit...
Dan, you clearly have not been too busy, this past week, to comment at length at Stan's blog, in multiple threads.
You have claimed that the passages in the Bible that forbid homosexual behavior, do so only in limited circusmtances such as pagan rituals. You have also claimed that the opposite position could have only resulted from cultural predispositions:
"What possible reason can you give for presuming it is referring to ALL homosexual behavior? There is no biblical reason to do so, so, I would have to conclude that you (as I used to) hold that position for cultural reasons: You were raised to believe that it means all gay behavior, so therefore it must mean all gay behavior."
But, Dan, YOU HAVE NEVER PRESENTED AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT FROM THE TEXT ITSELF TO JUSTIFY THESE CLAIMS, and since you're confident enough (arrogant enough?) to discount the traditional position as mere culutural bias, you ought to have the simple common decency to support your claims with an actual argument.
If you studied these passages as closely as you would have us believe, an argument from the text should be easy to produce.
If you've already produced that argument multiple times (as you claimed earlier), a link to one of those instances should be easy to provide.
I urge you to substantiate your claims or retract them rather than make weak explanations about your interest and your time.
I've already explained why Romans 1, for instance, logically requires a universal prohibition of homosexual behavior, just as clearly prohibits malice and deceit universally as well: God handed the idolators over to these behaviors, and it doesn't make any logical sense for God to hand them over to behaviors that are morally permissible even only in certain circumstances.
You'll notice it didn't take all that long for me to offer this explanation.
It's high time for you to rebut it and present your counter argument, if you can.
(This is all to say nothing of other dangling threads, such as a clear explanation of what you actually believe regarding Christ's death and our forgiveness.)
I frankly don't find your comment acceptible at all.
Answers to my questions and objections would be ideal.
Barring that, if it's really the case that time constraints must delay this conversation (as it has before, from both ends), I would prefer a clear and specific timeframe for when you will resume.
If you're not going to answer me now, and if you cannot or will not provide a clear timeframe for when you will, don't give me a vague statement about how you might comment further "Maybe later if and when things slow down a bit."
I won't accept that "maybe" or that "if and when."
Answer my request immediately, or provide a timeframe for when you will.
Or just bow out.
Elsewhere, I repeated my request that Dan continue this dialogue immediately, or that he provide a clear timeframe for its resumption, or that he simply bow out.
Dan has chosen to conclude our dialogue.
"I bow out, then. I've played enough over there."
I noted that, perhaps if Dan hadn't played around so much, this conversation wouldn't have required me to ask the same few questions, time and again.
What I failed to add is that we didn't seem to have those communication issues that have so plagued our discussions: for once, Dan understood my request and provided a clear, coherent, and on-topic response. A near miracle at the end of it all.
For my part, I'll wrap up as soon as I can, hopefully this week, but probably no later than the end of next week.
Probably beginning with an October, 2006, comment thread at Daniel Randle's, my dialogue with Dan has ultimately run for about three years, and it has reached this point most directly through a single discussion that started this past June and was primarily conducted -- quite needlessly -- across three different threads, here, then here, and finally this thread here at Craig's.
Skimming this conversation to review it has been frankly exhausting, not because so much was covered, but because so little was discussed.
Dan believes that his opponents, who believe the Bible universally condemns homosexual behavior and the Bible instituted marriage as an explicitly heterosexual union, do so for "cultural reasons," but he never got around to providing an actual exegesis of the relevant texts, nor did he ever respond to the substance of my analysis. As he has often done before, he has left the conversation without responding to difficult questions with clear and relevant substance.
It's apparent that Dan does not believe that there actually is a causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation, but he never came out and said precisely that. He never explained how the Atonement is "valid" as imagery, and he never justified his conclusion with any appeal to Scripture that didn't rip a passage out of even its immediate context.
About the doctrine of the historical and bodily Resurrection, Dan has not explained what he means by saying that the doctrine is "essential" when he clearly believes that a Christian can abandon the belief and not abandon Christianity or (some sort of) faith in Jesus. In avoiding any clear explanation of his beliefs regarding the boundaries of Christian faith, he hasn't even answered the very simple question, is it possible for any professing atheist to be a Christian?
The most progress that was made was in regards to the Virgin Birth, and even that progress was largely undone.
I had asked Dan to justify his apparent belief that the Virgin Birth is an extra-biblical doctrine, the belief that was the subject of what is probably our first exchange online.
On June 18th, Dan explained, "I happen to believe that Mary was a virgin - it seems clear from the text and I have no problem with that."
I then made clear that I was setting that issue aside, but here at Craig's, Dan returned to his original position as I understood it:
"The virgin birth, the trinity, to a lesser degree, substitutionary atonement, these are tenets that we have derived from biblical teachings, but they are not direct biblical teachings."
He returned to his old position, but he's never substantiated it, nor has he addressed the points I made regarding Luke's account of Christ's conception, points I made back at Daniel's.
Dan has written much but has said very little.
[continued]
[continued]
Some of what I've wanted to write in conclusion, I've already mentioned -- e.g., my response to Dan's misuse of the parable of the unjust steward. Some of what I've wanted to write no longer seems worthwhile: the points are redundant and unnecessary for anyone who's kept up with all this, and I'm frankly exhausted.
--
Dan seems to frequently misread what the Bible teaches. In another thread here I recounted five instances where Dan cites Scripture to make some point that COMPLETELY contradicts the cited passage's immediate context.
(There, I did not include his conclusions about Luke 16 and Mark 2, and II Cor 3, which I addressed here in earlier comments, but I did listed a few non-biblical examples of the same pattern of behavior.)
Among those examples -- in fact, the very first one I listed -- was about Romans and pacifism.
I listed, "Your invoking 'overcome evil with good' (Rom 12:21) to oppose war when Paul IMMEDIATELY follows up with the claim that the government is an agent of God's wrath that 'does not bear the sword in vain.'"
The hilarious thing is that Dan repeats this very mistake just over five hours later.
"I'll just say that Jesus, who taught us to be peacemakers, who eschewed violence himself, who taught us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, who taught us to overcome evil with good, who taught us to follow in his peaceable steps, is recognized the world over and throughout history as a pacifist - with the exception of certain Right-ish segments of his church." [emphasis mine]
He does this all the time, invoking "overcome evil with good" as a reason for pacifism, which would be question-begging (does the Bible teach war is an unqualified evil?) even if it were not true that Paul immediately follows up this command with the principle that the state has the authority to use force. I've pointed out the context on more than one occasion, and Dan has never explained why Romans justifies his pacifism.
Perhaps it's just his "bad memory", but what he does is create a perpetual cycle of talking points. Whatever the talking point is -- be it biblical such as, Romans 12 justifies or supports pacifism, or political, such as the claim that Weather Underground never intended to kill -- it's only asserted and never argued. If it's rebutted, Dan dismisses the rebuttal, sometimes by questioning the source or with a glib "I disagree," but his position is never substantiated. Given enough time, the talking point reappears unmodified, as if the earlier conversation never took place.
That endless loop is a good indication that I shouldn't keep trying to have an honest dialogue, but it is the sort of thing that should be pointed out.
[continued]
[continued]
Another thing I would point out is a recurring accusation from Dan Trabue, not only in the threads that constituted this discussion, but in other threads as well.
He has repeatedly tried to frame things as if my objection is merely because Dan disagrees with me -- as if the content of his beliefs are irrelevant beyond this point.
The charge showed up in the original discussion, on June 8th.
"...Bubba thinks because I don't read the Bible the way he does that this is proof that I don't love the Bible." -
I explained, "I question your stated love for the Bible, not simply because you don't read the Bible the way I do, but because you question its veracity and divine authorship."
In the second thread that carried our conversation, on July 2nd, he berated me for supposedly not substantiating my accusation of dishonesty, and again he suggested that my problem with you is merely because his opinion differs from mine.
"Is that how you think the church should behave? Go around and, when someone has a different opinion, hound them constantly demanding answer after answer and accusing them of lying when the answers don't satisfy the almighty Bubba?
"I don't think that is how the church ought to behave."
I objected to his (still-) unsubstantiated claim "that my motives are rooted in the mere fact that we disagree."
On September 26th in another thread here at Craig's, Dan attributed my criticism of his character to mere disagreement.
"You are mistaking disagreeing with you on some bible passages and on how to read the Bible with a lack of principles. If mere disagreement is all it takes to demonstrate a lack of principles, then you and Craig and, well, everyone, must have a lack of principles, because we all disagree with someone sometimes."
I explained again, "The conclusions I have [reached] with you, I do not reach with everyone who disagrees with me: it's not the mere fact of disagreement that's determinative, but the unconvincing (and often hypocritical) tactics you employ to defend your position and even the less-than-forthright manner in which you describe your position."
[continued]
[continued]
The accusation came up at least one more time, in a comment thread at his own blog: he noted that Obama didn't do a whole lot to earn a Nobel Prize, and the confrontational progressive Feodor turned on him and other erstwhile allies to accuse them of prejudice for reaching that conclusion.
(Feodor's conclusion is absurd, but the irony is delicious, considering that, not too long prior to this, Dan looked at a mediocre painting, counted the "dark faces," and concluded that the politically conservative artist is like other white Americans who "often overlook and undercount the contributions of minority Americans." Feodor's ranting at Dan is presumptuous race-baiting, but it's also sauce for the gander.)
In criticizing Feodor, Dan compared his behavior to political conservatives, making a clear allusion to me.
"It's one thing to disagree with someone on a particular interpretation of the Bible, but some must also say, 'Not only are you wrong in your interpretation, clearly you don't respect or love the bible - otherwise you'd agree with me.' That's arrogant, ignorant and bullying."
Never mind Dan's frequent invocation of idolatry when discussing the doctrine of inerrancy -- a habit that fits the bill in terms of arrogant, ignorant bullying.
It's not merely that I disagree with his interpretation of Scripture: it's that there appears to be no real correlation between his beliefs and the text on a variety of issues, and he does not defend his interpretation with substance and with honor.
[continued]
[continued]
My problem with Dan has never been the mere fact that he holds a position that deviates significantly from mine, but how he argues for that position.
It is not only clear that some of Dan's beliefs deviate significantly from what the Bible clearly teaches, it is also clear that those beliefs ALIGN WITH ANOTHER BELIEF SYSTEM, namely his political progressivism. Dan's positions are not only very poorly argued, they're also so poorly articulated that one cannot help but suspect deliberate obfuscation.
Jesus was a pacifist who taught non-violent resistance and was killed by the "powers that be" because of the threat Jesus posed to their political systems, and for acts of civil disobedience: this view is not supported by the Bible, which instead teaches that the Father sent the Son to die, and that Jesus Christ chose to lie down His life for our sake, to die for our sins, even though even Pilate clearly knew that he was condemning a man who was guilty of absolutely nothing.
This view that Dan holds cannot be the result of Bible study that takes Scripture at face value.
It also cannot be accounted for by attributing to Dan some eccentricities that result in unorthodox conclusions because, where his views deviate from the Bible, they hew very closely to his political philosophy.
I know what the Bible teaches, and I know (in broad strokes) Dan's political views. It's quite clear which of those two has more of an impact on the positions Dan reaches about the Bible.
And, frequently Dan's views are very poorly argued. There's question-begging that is, AT BEST, from sheer silence and is often in opposition to the text, and ridiculous standards are inconsistently invoked to support his position and rebut the alternative: on "gay marriage," Dan is satisfied by nothing less than literally perfect proof in support of his opponent's position, but his own position can be supported by QUITE LITERALLY nothing at all.
All that would be bad enough, but Dan adds to that an unwillingness to be quite clear about what it is he actually believes.
From all appearances, Dan does not believe that Christ died for our sins. He dismisses this clear teaching of the Bible as imagery that yet remains valid (he doesn't say how), but he cannot justify this conclusion from the text itself, he rips more than one passage out of their IMMEDIATE context to support this conclusion.
But ON TOP OF ALL THIS he cannot apparently bring himself to provide a clear answer to that very simple question, does he believe that Christ's death caused our forgiveness?
It's this last bit that's the most (hopefully metaphorically) damning.
Christians are definitionally monotheists, and Mormons aren't.
Suppose I were arguing with a Mormon and asked him, point blank, do you believe there is only one God?
If the man responded with a non-answer like, "I believe there is only one Jehovah," one can -- AND SHOULD -- conclude that he's being deliberately deceptive.
Here, Dan's stubborn unwillingness merely to state his positions clearly forces the same conclusion.
[continued]
[continued]
I've reached some very negative conclusions about Dan -- most recently, about his character -- and I stand by those conclusions.
I stand by a comment from a few months ago that, as a best summary of what I believe Dan is doing, Dan is literally subversive in his attempts to twist language, forensics, and ultimately the Christian faith itself in order to advance his political agenda.
At times, I feel genuine sorrow at the thin gruel he holds as his faith, seeing as he cannot provide the same awe-inspiring answer that the hymn provides in raising the all-important question, "What can wash away my sins?"
Peter and John agree with Paul -- in I Pet 2:24 and I Jn 1:7 -- that Christ died for our sins. John the Baptist declared Christ to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF taught that His blood was shed for our forgiveness. Dan denies this emphatic teaching of the lengths to which God has gone to save us, and that's frankly sad.
About the claim that Christ died for our sins, Dan asked here, where is the grace? He asks this despite the fact that, in Romans 5:6-10, Paul points to this claim as a demonstration of God's grace.
According to Paul, we have been justified by Christ's blood and reconciled to God through His death, and "God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us."
But Dan doesn't grasp the fact that Christ's death for our sins is almost certainly the very greatest demonstration of God's love for us.
That's sad.
Dan may well be a Christian in a minimalist sense, and he may well be saved, but he does not know the depths of God's love, love that sent the Father's Son -- God Himself -- to die for him and for his sins.
I feel sorry for him, I wish that I could convince him of what the Bible clearly teaches, but that's clearly beyond my abilities, so I now leave that entirely in God's hands.
In terms of what he denies himself, he's pitiable, but in terms of what he's trying to do to Christ's church, Dan Trabue represents a danger that must be opposed.
[continued]
[continued]
It's only more recent bit of evidence, but elsewhere, Dan contrasted the "little details" of the Bible with its "Big Truths" and -- astoundingly, and very disconcertingly -- Dan Trabue counts among these "little details" a claim that is absolutely crucial: the bodily, physical, literal and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Responding to the obvious fact that, if Jesus is still a corpse, Jesus is not God, Dan asks, "Says who?"
It cannot be overstated how troubling that comment truly is: for all he chides me to remember that we're all fallible, he apparently thinks that he has correctly categorized what's important, and he is disastrously wrong.
He begs the question: if even the bodily and physical Resurrection isn't a "Big Truth" about which all Christians must agree, what other historical claims are expendable?
Can we live-and-let-live over the claim that Jesus was crucified, since Dan doesn't apparently believe that Christ died for our sins?
Since the Gospels could possibly be reinterpreted as completely allegorical, must we stand by the doctrine of the Incarnation, or even the doctrine that Jesus is truly a figure of history?
Does Dan believe that a Christian can deny that Jesus is God, that Jesus really lived, and that Jesus actually died, since he doesn't clearly affirm that any of these are "Big Truths" to which we must cling?
He doesn't say, and I doubt he would say, but he leaves the possibility wide open.
[to be concluded]
[continued]
I say again, as I did at Stan's, that Dan Trabue's behavior is treacherous and treasonous.
He's clearly trying to subvert the Christian faith and church to suit his political agenda. As much as he can be personally pitied, he and those like him must be opposed, cordially if possible, but vigorously at all times.
It is my belief that this conversation clearly demonstrates that the details of Dan's beliefs contradict his stated love for the Bible and respect for its teachings.
It is my hope that this conversation also stands as an indictment of Dan Trabue's deceptive and treacherous attempts to subvert the Bible and the Christian faith.
And it is my hope that Bubba learns a bit more of the grace by which we are saved and the love of the family of Christ.
Peaceful holidays to you all.
Post a Comment