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:
1 – 200 of 316 Newer› Newest»"I would like (read will delete) comments from anyone other than Dan and Bubba."
That doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean you wouldn't like comments from anyone other than Dan and Bubba?
Or do you mean you would like them, but will delete them?
Sorry, I will delete comments from anyone other than D&B, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out.
Craig, thanks for the invitation. I'm not sure what point there is to it, as I feel as if I've answered endless questions from Bubba, only to be met with more and more questions, generally misconstruing my positions.
IF Bubba would like to ask ONE question at a time for clarification, I will consider it. Frankly, I'm tired of reading his thousand-word diatribes that read into what I have said things I have not said.
However, if Bubba honestly wants a question answered, he can ask it here (ie, "Dan, when you say "xxxxx," it sounds like you mean zzzz. Is that the case?") - like that. I'll try to answer brief questions. I will pass on spending further time reading paragraph after paragraph of his rambling commentary.
The ball's in his park.
Or, Craig, if YOU have a question that Bubba asked that you don't feel I have answered, feel free to ask.
Dan,
I hope that by keeping it between you and bubba we can eliminate some of the tangental stuff brought by others. I also think that Bubba has asked some really good questions, so I'd like to let him continue.
As to your concern about lenght and number, I welcome suggestions for ground rules that will make this clearer.
I'll be really limited for the next few days, but do want to see where this goes.
Thanks for your willingness to try this.
Craig,
Allow me to extend to you and your family my sympathies on your loss. I pray he hears God say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
Dan,
Please. The question is not how many words Bubba types. You demand that others not leap to conclusions and seek clarification when a response is not clear. As your responses have thus far done little to enlighten us as to your understandings and how you came to them, Bubba's long comments are indeed those requests for clarification that you've demanded. You seem to be quick to judge each of us guilty of attack, rather than to presume that we are innocently trying to understand you. That you've received a shot or three over the years is irrelevant.
Me too, Craig. I'm sure even now, he is with my Dad laughing at the vain attempts by us mortals to understand the nature of God.
My condolences, Craig, and my prayers are with you and yours.
My suggest on format would be a simple, to the point Q & A. If Bubba has a question of me, he can ask that specific question. I will respond as briefly as possible. If he understands my response, fine. If not, he can ask a follow up question (just one at a time, please).
I will probably not read any comments/questions that exceed ~500 words (one post). If you can't say what you want in that brief a space, I don't have the time or energy to read it (at this point from Bubba, after all our conversations - I don't have problems reading a lot, I do it all the time, but Bubba's comments have tended towards the rambling and overwrought in my opinion).
Everyone,
Thanks, give me a day or so to get back. It will probably prove a welcome diversion.
Thanks again.
Marshall asked me...
I'll ask again: is there a significant difference between the ARGUMENTS, between your argument for "gay marriage" and mine for "compulsory charity"?
To which I pointed out I had already answered his question. I had said earlier (and I've added a bit more for clarity's sake)...
Bubba, the problem with your "compulsory charity" analogy (ONE of the problems) is that it is an action someone is doing TO another against their will.
The analog in gay marriage would be IF I were advocating forcing gay marriage upon an unwilling recipient. Since I'm not doing that, your analogy falls apart before it even begins.
Your mock example says...
"and I think God would bless the act since He blesses charity."
To compare that to gay marriage would be to say...
I think God blesses Gay Marriage. Therefore, I'm going to marry that fella over there who does not necessarily know me or want to be married to me...
But we're not pushing for compulsory gay marriage.
Now, if you want to make the case for charity (as in, I wish to give a bunch of stuff away that belongs to me and that is mine to give or not), THAT would be the apt analogy to gay marriage.
We know that God is not a God of blunt force (meaning God does not force people to do stuff against their will - nor does God have us running about imposing actions upon others).
You DO make the point that it is fairly easy to argue just about anything using the Bible, even arguing points that aren't in the Bible (such as gay marriage or compulsory charity).
Now, I have answered that. IF you have a question about my answer, feel free to ask. I'd ask for a bit of respect and that you keep your questions reasonably short, please.
By this shall they know you are my disciples, if you have love one for another... (that's a reminder for me to strive to speak in love and with respect, as we attempt to dialog, fyi).
Thanks again, for the thoughts.
Mark, I think your probably right. I may post on his faith at some time since I am finding out how many people were blessed by him. His granddaughters (my neices) are sure that he has spent his time in heaven catching their other grandmother up on what she's missed in the past year. My sons have come up with a list of what he's done since he got there, that perfectly captures both his personality (engineer/inventor) as well as his sense of humor.
This is the first time in a couple of days to check in. I like Dan's suggestion to try to limit this to one question at a time as well as a limit on lenght. It seems as though there will be situations where a response necessitates a longer answer or a multi part follow up. So I look forward to seeing how this goes.
Dan and Bubba, the floor is yours.
I just noticed that my comment two above says, "Marshall said..." where it should say, "Bubba." d'oh.
Greetings!
Bubba has limited Internet access right now, but he wanted me to relay that
he'll begin commenting here as soon as he can, maybe as late as this time next
week.
Your patience is greatly appreciated.
-The Management
(not really)
Craig, in the meantime, if you have questions of Bubba's that you feel I have not adequately addressed, I would be glad to entertain them from you.
Dan, I have a *little* free time at another computer this evening, so I'd like to join this discussion, even if access will remain limited for the next few days.
I'll be the first to admit that my brevity isn't my strong suit, and that I prefer to be thorough rather than succinct. Part of the problem is that I haven't been limiting my comments to one subject (or, as some subjects require, one aspect of one subject), but I don't think that fully accounts for the increasing length of my comments to you.
I've been trying to continue a conversation or two (or more) across multiple threads, and trying to keep the conversation up-to-date requires summarizing what has been said before, elsewhere. But I'm not the one who's been leaving subjects to rot.
I've also been trying to provide overwhelming evidence for the claims that I make, since you insist on a high (and, I would argue, ridiculous) standard of evidence, at least from those who disagree with you.
And recently I have become absolutely convinced of your inconsistency, and proving inconsistent behavior requires more than a few words.
I don't think my comments have been "rambling" or "overwrought," but I think focusing on a single subject -- while keeping the discussion within a single thread -- will greatly simplify things.
I'll try to keep subsequent comments brief, even if I don't count words before posting.
I'll try to keep to one subject at a time.
And I'll try to ask one question at a time.
In the meantime, Dan, if you have any questions about what I believe and why, do feel free to ask them.
Dan, to be completely honest, my interest in this dialogue isn't primarily on either the subject of "gay marriage" or the specific point I've been making vis. "compulsory charity."
I would prefer to turn to the more general question of whether the details of your beliefs are good evidence of a deep respect for the Bible's teachings; specifically, I would rather go back to our discussion of the Resurrection and the Atonement. But I'm happy to stay on "compulsory charity" for a while longer.
I addressed your comment above over at Marshall's, here -- and I already addressed the point at greater length here -- and I would like to return to a question that I don't think has been answered thoroughly.
Let me first review the subject and my reason for bringing it up.
I presented an argument for "compulsory charity" here, and I have even suggested that a second argument could be made for the practice, which I could make explicit if you want.
The argument was deliberately constructed to closely follow the most recent version of your argument for "gay marriage." Though I admit that the two practices are quite different, I don't see a significant deviation between the ARGUMENTS for them. If you do, I'd like to know what makes comparing the arguments a fool's errand.
I doubt that you could rebut the argument for "compulsory charity," and I very highly doubt that your rebuttal would meet the same standards you invoke to dismiss our rebuttals against "gay marriage."
For instance, you write that God "does not force people to do stuff against their will" or "have us running about imposing actions upon others," but these are hard things to prove biblically, particularly when the Bible teaches that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, that only the elect are saved, and that Christ commanded the Twelve to commandeer a colt in Mark 11. It's certainly a harder thing to prove than, say, the simple claim of Genesis 2 and Matthew 19, that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
My position is that, if your approach to Scripture could justify something as absurd as "compulsory charity," then that approach is fundamentally flawed. My question is intended to test that position.
I asked the question earlier: Given your own arguments for "gay marriage," do you have ANY available recourse to dismantle my argument for compulsory charity as absurd?
Here's how I would state it for the purposes of this discussion, Dan.
QUESTION: Dan, how would you refute my argument for "compulsory charity"?
(Word count: 423)
(Dan, please be patient if it's a few days before I can address any responses. And I'm quite serious that you should feel free to ask me questions of your own. Thanks.)
I feel like I have fairly soundly disputed the notion but let me try again. I'll reverse things a bit this time to make a point.
1. Using the Bible, you can "prove" many things are good that aren't. Using the Bible you can find it hard to disprove actions that we generally accept as not good. For this reason, we MUST rely on our logic/reason (flawed though it is) in addition to reading the Bible/as we read the Bible.
a. Using the Bible, you can NOT disprove that polygamy is a bad thing. At the most, you can prove that bishops and perhaps kings ought to have only one wife, but other than those two examples, we have no condemnation of polygamy and plenty of examples of Godly men engaging in polygamy and even of God GIVING David his many wives. Indeed, using the Bible alone, we can't "prove" that having mistresses or concubines is wrong. You just can't prove it.
b. So, one could make the argument that perhaps using the Bible alone, one can't disprove forced charity (although I think you can make a helluva case against it).
c. We MUST rely upon our reasoning in addition to the Bible as we seek Truth. If something doesn't pass the stink test with our own logic ("this sure doesn't sound right that God sometimes commands people to kill children!"), then it is a good measure/rubric to consider. It is not a perfect rubric and it should not stand alone, but our logic ought to be given due consideration. After all, some things, as Mr Jefferson would argue, are "self-evident." Killing babies is self-evidently wrong and if it seems that the Bible sometimes has God commanding people to do so, it should give us pause to accept that at face value.
We MUST rely upon our God-given reasoning.
2. Having said that, forced charity can be disputed as biblically wrong because it is stealing and stealing is consistently condemned.
a. I "get" that you're saying "homosexuality is condemned," when Leviticus says "men shall not lie with men," but we must consider context.
b. In each of the handful of places where SOME TYPE of homosexual behavior is spoken of, there is reason to think that it is not talking about any and all homosexual behavior. Lev. 18/20 and Roms 1 are both speaking of it in the context of ritual pagan worship practices. In neither situation are they speaking of loving committed gay relationships.
c. Therefore, there is reason to think, at least to some of us, that it is not speaking of any and all gay behavior, but rather specific subsets of gay behavior. Promiscuity. Pagan practices. Rape. These are wrong regardless of orientation.
d. On the forced charity and stealing question, we find stealing condemned in the Bible. I don't find any contextual reason to think that there might be exceptions wherein we can "force" giving upon someone else.
e. Indeed, the notion of people doing something TO other people against their will, where there is a loss or harm, this notion is condemned in the Bible.
I find no special circumstances in the instances of bans on stealing for forced giving.
f. Logically, we know (it is self-evident) that it is wrong to take money from people against their will. So it does not pass the logic test. On the other hand, two people in a loving, committed healthy relationship who happen to be the same gender, there is no logical reason to oppose such behavior. Only religious ones based on a handful of verses that may not mean what some people think they mean.
[word count: 609 words. Okay, maybe my 500 word count challenge was overly strict. The idea is, let's strive for short answers to specific short questions, please... So, for instance, if you're wanting to follow up on this answer, why don't we take it in two pieces - the notion that ANYTHING can be claimed using the Bible is one, my disputation of forced charity being the second... Thanks!]
Bubba said...
if you have any questions about what I believe and why, do feel free to ask them.
A few, actually. I think HOW we (not just you and I, but all of us) read the Bible gets to the root of a lot of our problems. The thing is, I don't think we really read the Bible significantly differently. Your camp tends to suggest that you take the parts of the Bible that ought to be taken literally, literally.
You tend to agree, of course, that you don't take every part of the Bible literally, as it is not called for. For instance, your camp does not tend to think that when Jesus said, "blessed are the poor... and woe to you who are rich..." that he did not mean the literal poor and rich. And so you don't take that literally (whereas I DO tend to take those particular lines fairly literally). So, WHEN to take the Bible literally and when NOT to are perhaps some of the most significant differences of opinion between you and me.
Do you think that's fair?
So, here are a couple of questions that would get to how we read the Bible, for instance...
1. Do you agree that the Bible nowhere condemns polygamy?
2. And do you agree that we can't state definitively "The Bible is opposed to polygamy in all instances?"
Having asked this, my asking these sorts of questions may only gum up the works of an already heavy topic in an already rushed world, so I will put these out there to see where it leads, but may decide to focus on the questions you offer me, depending on how time and energy goes...
PC problems have been resolved sooner than I expected, but I have family here this week, so comments may still take a while. I'll still try to keep my comments brief, but it appears that it may be best to ignore exact word counts.
Dan, I would agree that our disagreements are sometimes about literalism vs. a figurative interpretation, but not always.
You seem to insist on a literal interpretation of Christ's sermon in Luke 4:16-21 and the beatitudes in the "Sermon on the Plain," in Luke 6:20-26, and I believe both passages should be taken figuratively. I think your position isn't very persuasive: Jesus didn't actually free any physical prisoners, but He did die to free us from the bondage of sin; and Luke 6 appears to contain a parallel account of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7), where Jesus explicitly pronounces that it is the "poor in spirit" who are blessed.
I believe my interpretation of these passages can be rightly described as figurative rather than literal, because I affirm unequivocally the authority, veracity, and divine authorship of the passage, and I have a plausible figurative interpretation for those passages.
To wit, Luke 4 is about liberation from sin, not physical bondage; after all, He was named Jesus because He would save people from their sins (Mt 1:21) and even Luke records that He preached repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Lk 3:3). And Luke 6 records a blessing for those who admit their spiritual poverty rather than the physically poor -- and is a warning for the self-righteous rather than the physically wealthy -- because the parallel passage in Matthew 5 is explicitly about the spiritually poor. Both passages are still absolutely authoritative.
On the other hand, when it comes to the supposed atrocities in the Old Testament, you don't offer a plausible figurative interpretation of the difficult passages, and you routinely denigrate the passages' authority, veracity, and authorship. You have written that the passages are something like "less than perfect" reflections of God's will, and you speculate that they are the result of ancient Israelite revenge fantasies. You're explicit in your belief that each difficult passage records Israel's expreience of God, which implies that it doesn't authoritatively record God's revelation to Israel.
We disagree about the passages' authority, authorship, and veracity. At least when it comes to the supposed atrocities in the Old Testament, it has never struck me as accurate to describe our disagreement as an issue of literal interpetation vs. figurative interpretation.
About your two questions:
Yes, I agree that, so far as I know, the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn polygamy.
And yes, I agree that, therefore, we cannot state definitively that the Bible is opposed to polygamy in all cases.
About "compulsory charity," you write that you think "you can make a helluva case against it."
I'd like to see that, because, so far, I don't believe that what you write is very convincing, and I highly doubt that it would stand up to the standards you invoke to defend your argument for "gay marriage."
You write, in 2-e, "the notion of people doing something TO other people against their will, where there is a loss or harm, this notion is condemned in the Bible."
If I were seriously defending "compulsory charity", I would point out that imposing something against someone's will is NOT always condemned, at least in the case of punishing wrongdoing. Exodus 21 doesn't teach that ancient Israel should put to death only willing murderers, and even Christ's command, in Matthew 18, to excommunicate an egregiously unrepentant brother doesn't appear to be limited to those who volunteer for such a serious outcome.
Beyond retribution and punishment, I don't think the Bible ever explicitly teaches that the loving relationships of marriage and parenthood always involve acting with the other person's consent.
You equate "compulsory charity" with stealing and write, in 2-d, "we find stealing condemned in the Bible."
We do, but we also find that homosexual behavior is condemned every time it's mentioned; if you don't conclude that the condemnation is necessarily universal in the case of homosexual behavior, why should we conclude that it's universal in the case of theft?
All of this leads to one of the biggest deliberate parallels between "compulsory charity" and "gay marriage."
I agree that the former is theft and is therefore immoral -- it's just that I'm not sure you can argue that persuasively given your own approach to "gay marriage" -- but "compulsory charity" is ALSO a contradiction in terms because charity is intrinsically voluntary.
By the same token, marriage is intrinsically heterosexual -- or, at the very least, the Bible always treats it as such and even teaches that our being made male and female is for a marital arrangement that is quite clearly heterosexual.
(I'd actually go further and say that the Bible is clear that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. I don't believe polygamy is ever portrayed in the Bible as one giant marriage: it's multiple simultaneous marriages where each marriage involves a common husband and a different wife. Leah was Jacob's wife, and Rachel was Jacob's wife, but they weren't bound to each other in a single three-party marriage. The Bible is clear that marriage is one man and one woman, it's just that -- to use imagery from electrical engineering -- there are numerous accounts of men having multiple marriages "in parallel" rather than merely "in series.")
So, just as "compulsory charity" is a contradiction in terms, "gay marriage" is, too. To argue that God blesses "gay marriage" because He blesses "marriage" is to overlook what the Bible teaches about what marriage is: it's not just to presume that the Bible's accounts are descriptive rather than normative, it is to oppose what Christ taught (from Genesis 2) about why we were created male and female in the first place.
But I think it's even harder to show that charity is inherently voluntary, than it is to show that marriage is inherently heterosexual: there aren't passages about charity that are as clear as Matthew 19:4-5.
It seems to me that, in order to (rightly) dispute "compulsory charity," you have to set aside and even oppose the sort of question-begging approach you use to justify your position on "gay marriage."
I'm not sure more questions about "compulsory charity" would make this any more clear. I do have other points to make and another question, which I'll try to post shortly.
Dan, it remains one of my primary contentions that the details of your beliefs contradict your stated deep respect for the Bible's teachings.
You write, "Killing babies is self-evidently wrong and if it seems that the Bible sometimes has God commanding people to do so, it should give us pause to accept that at face value."
I'm not sure what you mean that "it seems" that the Bible recorded such things: the accounts aren't unclear.
I note here that you don't have problems merely with the divine command to annihilate people, but even the divine act to annihilate, as in Numbers 16 and even the Passover, the central historical event of Judaism through which we understand the central event of Christianity.
Anyway, I have no problem with the idea that these accounts should give us pause. Some passages really are more morally challenging than others, but it matters how we resolve our issues with those "problematic" passages.
Consider the difficult but biblically significant story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. The story isn't just recorded in Genesis 22, Abraham's behavior is explicitly praised in vv. 17-19 in that great roll call of faith in Hebrews 11 -- to say nothing of its foreshadowing Calvary.
If a person diminishes the authority, veracity, and divine authorship of these passages, he can certainly argue that his beliefs remain rational and moral.
But I DO NOT see how he can honestly continue to call his beliefs biblical.
Probably sooner rather than later, I'd like to return to questions about what you believe regarding the Resurrection and the Atonement, in order that you might clarify what you believe and explain how those beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches.
In the meantime, about homosexuality, you write, "Lev. 18/20 and Roms 1 are both speaking of it in the context of ritual pagan worship practices. In neither situation are they speaking of loving committed gay relationships."
If the behavior is forbidden without any explicit exceptions, I'm not sure an exception can be inferred for a context of love and commitment; if you think it can, we're back to the question of "compulsory charity," which I define as (essentially) theft in the context of a loving, committed relationship.
Beyond that, I'm not sure about your claim that these passages are all in the context of pagan ritual.
First, note the details of Romans 1:22-27. Paul doesn't claim that the the homosexual behavior in their idolatrous rites were a reason the pagans were punished. Instead, their transgression was idolatry, for which (v. 26) God "gave them up to degrading passions," where they committed shameless acts with members of the own sex.
The desire wasn't the initial sin, it was the punishment. If God gave them up to these desires as a punishment for their idolatry, it's hard to imagine that He would ever give people over to similar desires in any other circusmtances and bless them for it.
About Leviticus 18 and 20, I'm not sure how one can conclude that the prohibitions of homosexual behavior apply only to pagan practices.
Lev 18 prohibits incest; I can't imagine that there's any question about it's prohibiting incest ONLY "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices."
Lev 20:13 prohibits homosexual behavior, and its immediate context also prohibits adultery (20:10) and bestiality (20:15-16). Again I can't imagine that the Torah forbids these other practices only in the context of paganism.
As I've said earlier in one of the other recent threads, I don't hang my position on Leviticus or Romans, because I don't think I have to. Still, I don't see what justifies what you claim here, particularly with Lev 20.
Question: What makes you think that Leviticus 20 condemns homosexual behavior "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices"? Whatever your reason is, do you believe the passage also condemns adultery and bestiality only in that same context?
It looks like I may be waiting a short while for a reply, which is absolutely fine with me: so long as this dialogue continues to a conclusion that is satisfactory to all involved, I won't mind reasonable delays, as I recognize that we all have higher priorities in our personal lives.
In the meantime, Dan, I've been thinking about my answers to your two questions, and I think I should clarify my position and preempt a response.
I stand by my position that, because I don't believe polygamy is ever explicitly condemned, we cannot state definitively that the Bible is opposed to polygamy in all cases, but what I mean by "definitively" is that we cannot be 100.000 percent sure.
But between the account of creation, the consistent problems that resulted from the polygamy of Israel's patriarchs and kings, and Paul's requirements that a deacon be the husband of only one wife, we can still be reasonably confident that polygamy is not what God intended for human sexuality -- that His allowing polygamy was a concession just like His allowing divorce.
The question probably cannot be settled with epistemological certainity, but it seems to me the argument against the moral sanction for polygamy is far stronger than the argument for it. For anyone seeking to conform his life to God's written word, that standard should be high enough.
To apply these questions and answers to the subject at hand, I believe that the Bible is clear enough that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife, a principle which precludes same-sex relationships, no matter how committed the couple may be.
I have yet to see a strong enough argument to the contrary that would allow me to conclude that reasonable, faithful, and mature Christians could disagree on this subject.
After all, while I believe it is true that "the Bible nowhere condemns polygamy," everywhere it mentions homosexual behavior, the Bible condemns it. And it's question begging to make hay out of the fact that the Bible doesn't condemn "gay marriage," because its treatment of marriage (and its claims about why we were created male and female in the first place) preclude "gay marriage" as a contradiction in terms or, at the very least, a option that God does not intend for us.
Because the Bible is clear on what marriage is (or at least should be) -- namely, the union of man and woman as husband and wife -- I find no significance in the absence of an explicit condemnation of deviant forms of marriage, and I suspect that those who do are seeking to justify a unsupportable position.
One might as well start finding significance in the fact that the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn promiscuous chastity or, yes, compulsory charity.
Or if one applied this approach to other books, he would have to find significance in the fact that even most thorough math books don't explicitly rule out fix-, six-, and seventy-nine-sided triangles.
Okay, I have had a busy weekend. Looking at your comments, I see three themes I'd like to try to tackle, Bubba.
1. Honestly calling one's beliefs biblical (sort of an aside you made)
2. Polygamy
3. "Compulsory Charity"
The short aside first. You said...
If a person diminishes the authority, veracity, and divine authorship of these passages, he can certainly argue that his beliefs remain rational and moral.
But I DO NOT see how he can honestly continue to call his beliefs biblical.
To which I'd have to ask: DO I "diminish the authority, veracity and divine authorship" of passages in the Bible? I think not. Not at all.
1. As to the "authority" and "veracity" of the Bible, I guess it depends on what you mean by this. I think the Bible is a God-inspired book. A special revelation from God to God's people. God has all authority, being God. God's revelation to us, perfectly understood, has all authority. However, it is the "perfectly understood" part that I think is in question.
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.
2. As to the "divine authorship" of the Bible, I would also suggest that depends on what you mean by such a term. Jesus says that all scripture is "God-breathed," or God inspired. I am okay with that. I don't think that God actually moved the hands of men to write "perfect" text. I don't know what "perfect" text would even be, I don't think "perfect" or "inerrant" are correct terminology to use in reference to Books of Truth.
Regardless, the Bible does not say, nor does God tell us, that God is the "divine author" of the Bible, nor does it call the Bible inerrant or perfect. Having a healthy respect for the Bible and taking its truths seriously requires that we acknowledge this fact and not make claims about the Bible that God does not make. Thus, I think my arguments, while certainly flawed, are rational, moral AND biblical. The notion that we someone who disagrees with making claims about the Bible that the Bible does not make is not being "biblical" does not make sense to me.
RE: Polygamy, Bubba said...
But between the account of creation, the consistent problems that resulted from the polygamy of Israel's patriarchs and kings, and Paul's requirements that a deacon be the husband of only one wife, we can still be reasonably confident that polygamy is not what God intended for human sexuality -- that His allowing polygamy was a concession just like His allowing divorce.
I tend to agree with the conclusion but it is a conclusion that I reach that is beyond anything the Bible teaches. It is an extrabiblical conclusion based upon logic, not the biblical text on the subject.
Agree or disagree?
And I said Three themes earlier, but I meant to add a fourth:
Homosexuality in the Bible and pagan ritual, which I'll tackle next...
Dan, I see there are more comments coming, but the "aside" about your approach to the Bible is actually much closer to the subject that most interests me in this discussion.
I frankly don't see how to reconcile two claims that you make. First you write that God's revelation to us has all authority when it's "perfectly understood," but then you write that perfect understanding of the difficult passages of the Old Testament require us to conclude that God didn't command what the text says He commanded.
It seems to me that you think perfect understanding of Scripture sometimes requires us to downgrade the text from actual divine revelation to something much more subjective -- that the difficult passages were written "for what it meant to the people at the time," as oppressed people "may well find comfort in the notion that that enemy would be wiped out."
Perfect or not, that understanding doesn't seem to affirm the divine authorship of the passage or its complete authority.
You write that the Bible doesn't teach its own inerrancy, but it doesn't teach that it's errant, either. One's approach to the Bible must ultimately fall in one camp or the other, and since errancy is at least as extra-biblical as inerrancy, then you're no better off by assuming that the Bible can (or does) contain errors.
Beyond that, if you conclude that a teaching of the Bible is erroneous, I don't see how you could call that conclusion itself "biblical."
About the Old Testament passages in particular, I think you're using extra-biblical assumptions to conclude that certain pairs of passages are incompatible.
The Bible never teaches that the enemies who were annihilated were innocent life; you assume that at least the infants were.
And, much more importantly, the Bible never teaches that it is immoral for GOD HIMSELF to take even innocent life. The prohibition of taking innocent life might simply reflect the fact that it's His perogative when life comes to an end -- in which case, it's wrong for man to take innocent life on his own, but it's not wrong for God to take innocent life or even to delegate the task to human agency.
(You have, in the past, argued that God doesn't take life, but this is also extra-biblical. And if even God is morally prohibited from taking life, I'm not sure why you have insisted before that death can nevertheless be a "blessed event.")
The Bible itself doesn't give us any reason to question the historicity of those difficult commands. Instead, even the New Testament (spec. Hebrews) treats Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac as historical; and the Old Testament bases the claims of God's faithfulness on His intervention in the past. It's not just that the Passover is the central event of the Jewish religion, God's rescuing Israel from Egypt and securing the promised land for Israel is repeatedly invoked to reassure Israel of His present-day faithfulness.
If the account of the Exodus and the conquest isn't reliable, then Scripture's argument for God's faithfulness falls apart.
What Christ says about Himself in John 3:12 seems apt here, about the Bible: if we cannot trust its account of earthly history, I'm not sure how we can trust its teachings regarding heavenly things -- particularly because the heavenly claims are frequently rooted in historical claims.
You warn against the reliability of "making claims about the Bible that the Bible does not make," but you have repeatedly claimed that the Bible is a book of "Truths, not facts."
Nowhere does the Bible make this claim about itself; on the contrary, the Bible is clear, in I Cor 15, that the historicity of the Resurrection is absolutely crucial.
I wonder if you can show me where the Bible ITSELF claims to teach "Truths, not facts."
Bubba said...
Beyond that, I'm not sure about your claim that these passages are all in the context of pagan ritual...
Question: What makes you think that Leviticus 20 condemns homosexual behavior "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices"?
Leviticus 18 begins with this opening shot...
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
These "practices" mentioned here are refering to the practices of the canaanites and specifically their ritual worship practices of their god, Moloch.
As they note at St Johns MCC website...
"At the time, in order to get a conviction, Jewish law required four (male) witnesses, so whatever the action condemned in Leviticus was, it was likely a public event (there are no instances recorded in the Talmud of anyone being brought before the Sanhedrin and charged with homosexual activity). Worship of other gods provided a context where sex is very public, and there are 59 other places in the Bible where the worship of other gods is called an abomination (in the KJV). How could these two verses not apply to temple prostitution?"
I agree, how could they NOT be referring to pagan rituals?
Bubba said...
Dan, I see there are more comments coming, but the "aside" about your approach to the Bible is actually much closer to the subject that most interests me in this discussion.
Works for me. That is probably an easier topic to tackle, it seems to me.
Bubba said...
I frankly don't see how to reconcile two claims that you make. First you write that God's revelation to us has all authority when it's "perfectly understood," but then you write that perfect understanding of the difficult passages of the Old Testament require us to conclude that God didn't command what the text says He commanded.
In short, I think God is perfect. Actually, God is God and perhaps even beyond talking about in terms of perfection, but I reckon one could certainly refer to God as perfect legitimately.
Perhaps you can help me. I don't understand what is hard to understand about the notion that God did not command what the text says God commanded. You certainly think this is the case at times in the Bible. When Jesus engaged in hyperbole and offered a command (If your right eye offends you, pluck it out!), you have no trouble understanding that a direct command may not necessarily need to be taken literally. In that case, we all agree Jesus was speaking using hyperbole, yes?
When Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor... Woe to you who are rich," you have no problem setting THAT aside as not being needed to take literally. Even though, in that context, there is no hyperbole being used, you have decided (using your own logic, not having any command from God to do so) that it is speaking metaphorically of the poor and the rich.
You downgrade that from actual literal command to something more subjective. And yet, you say to me...
It seems to me that you think perfect understanding of Scripture sometimes requires us to downgrade the text from actual divine revelation to something much more subjective
And yet I am doing just the same as you. Logically and biblically, a literal reading of "kill those children" does not seem to be a sound logical conclusion and so, I write it off as something more of a parable ("a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle"), the moral principle being illustrated being that God is with the oppressed in a real way.
We both at times "downgrade" (or Upgrade, might be a better notion) some passages from a literal reading to something other than literal. You don't have a problem with the concept, correct? Just the instances in which I do so (not unlike my disagreeing with your "downgrade" of Jesus' beatitudes from literal to metaphoric).
QUESTION: So, why do you have a hard time reconciling that I do what you do?
You go on to say...
Perfect or not, that understanding doesn't seem to affirm the divine authorship of the passage or its complete authority.
I understand that this is what you think, but what I think is that a LITERAL translation of "Kill those children" would undermine the divine authority of the Bible.
As to divine authorship, I would still suggest that this is an extrabiblical notion. Divinely inspired? Yes. Divinely authored? Not suggested in the biblical text or by logic, seems to me.
QUESTION: What do you mean by "Divine Authorship"?
(I like the notion of preceding questions we want answered like that, to be clear on what we're asking...)
Bubba also said...
You write that the Bible doesn't teach its own inerrancy, but it doesn't teach that it's errant, either. One's approach to
the Bible must ultimately fall in one camp or the other...
As I have said (although you may have missed it), my approach does not fall in either camp, I'd say. My belief is that using "inerrancy" is not a proper word to use in reference to a book of Truth. When Jesus tells a parable to illustrate a Truth, you don't call it "errant" because the story isn't factually true. It is a story of Truth and that is the point. The "falsehood" or "errancy" of the story is besides the point.
I agree, the Bible does not claim that the Bible must be taken inerrantly AND the Bible does not claim that the Bible must be taken errantly. I think both claims would be invalid. The reality is, though (and we agree on this point), that not every line in the Bible does not represent an actual fact.
Those who suggest the Bible's Creation story says that the Earth was created in six "days," but deny that the days represent actual 24 hour days are denying the literal accuracy of that line. When you suggest that Jesus did not mean LITERALLY poor and rich in Luke 6, you are denying the literal accuracy of that line.
The FACT is that the Bible does not talk about the Bible as being inerrant OR errant and, for my part, I think that's correct. It's not the right term to use in reference to a book of Truth. A book of Truth would be errant if its TRUTHS were wrong. If the Bible taught the "Truth" that we ought to hate our neighbors, THEN, I would suggest, it is speaking in error.
I don't think that one must fall in one of the two camps. I don't.
Bubba said...
Beyond that, if you conclude that a teaching of the Bible is erroneous, I don't see how you could call that conclusion itself "biblical."
1. When you say that Jesus was not speaking of LITERAL poor or rich people in Luke 6, you are suggesting that the line from Jesus was not literally accurate. You suggest, I believe, that it was a metaphor.
2. When you do so, your conclusion is not strictly biblical, but rather logical. You look at the whole of the Bible and conclude that - given what the rest of the Bible has to say - it can't mean what it literally says. It must be a metaphoric truth, not a literal one, you argue. Correct?
3. When I say that God does not LITERALLY command people to "kill those children," I am suggesting that this line is not literally accurate. It would more rightly be called a parable or some other story type other than a literally factual history.
4. When I do so, my conclusion is not strictly biblical, but rather logical. I look at the whole of the Bible and conclude that - given what the rest of the Bible has to say - it can't mean what it literally says. It must be a truth given in parable or SOME story type, not a literal one, I argue.
What is the difference?
You said...
The Bible itself doesn't give us any reason to question the historicity of those difficult commands.
I strongly disagree. The command to kill innocents would be counter to what the Bible says in other places and I don't think God contradicts God's Self, therefore we have STRONG reason to not take such passages literally.
Dan, it appears that we're already covering more than one topic at a time, strictly speaking, and that we're asking each other multiple questions simultaneously. That's fine with me; let me know if that becomes a problem for you.
About polygamy, I would agree that my position is "an extrabiblical conclusion based upon logic, not the biblical text on the subject," assuming that we limit the term "biblical" to two things:
- what the Bible explicitly teaches
- what is a necessary logical conclusion of what the Bible explicitly teaches
Christ's divinity would be an example of the former (see, e.g., Jn 8:58), and I believe the Trinity is an example of the latter.
My position that polygamy was a divine concession doesn't fit either of these two categories, but I think it's a stronger fit than any alternative position. This would mean that, barring a stronger alternative argument about which I am not aware, I believe that I have a duty to conform my beliefs to this "best-fit" position.
About Leviticus 20, it appears that you're citing this page, which claims that the passages in Leviticus 18 and 20 are "in the clear context of opposition to the practices of the local fertility god Moloch."
I actually asked something of a two-part question, so I would like to reiterate the follow-up.
QUESTION: Do you believe Leviticus 20 also condemns adultery and bestiality only "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices"?
It appears that your position is that the entire section, at least chapters 18-20, are in reference only to pagan rituals; you ask, rhetorically, how could they not apply strictly to this one context.
QUESTION: Do you believe all three chapters, Lev 18-20, relate only to pagan ritual?
About your question regarding divine authorship, I would recommend the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to get a good idea about what I believe. Along with those who drafted the document, I believe that God inspired the text of Scripture down to the very words (Art. VI) without overriding the personalities of its human authors (Art. IX).
You continue to refer to the Bible as a "book of Truth", and seemingly not of facts, and you write that it would be invalid either to claim that the Bible is errant or inerrant.
I don't see why it would be invalid. Even if the Bible is only a book about truths (or "Truths") and not facts, those truth claims are either true or false. If the book's claims are always true and could not be otherwise, I think it's very appropriate to describe the book as inerrant; if its claims are or could be false, then it's errant.
There isn't a third option, even with this position that it's a book of "Truths, not facts."
Take Aesop. If some of his witty proverbs aren't actually all that wise or trustworthy -- say, "Slow and steady wins the race" -- then his fables can be described as errant even though the genre precludes the stories' describing historical events.
But if you want to continue to assert that the Bible teaches only Truths and not facts -- all while denigrating inerrancy for not being an explicitly biblical principle -- I insist on your reasoning for that assertion.
QUESTION: Where does the Bible teach that it contains Truths and not facts?
Bubba said...
I actually asked something of a two-part question, so I would like to reiterate the follow-up.
I was working on that answer when you said that you're really more interested in the question of how we read the Bible ("your approach to the Bible"), so I backed up and concentrated on that answer.
Why don't we stick to THAT topic so as to avoid confusion (MY confusion, anyway), IF that's the topic you're really interested in?
Dan, I saved what may be the most interesting subject for last: the difficult commands in the Old Testament.
Taking your very last comment first, you write:
"The command to kill innocents would be counter to what the Bible says in other places and I don't think God contradicts God's Self, therefore we have STRONG reason to not take such passages literally."
As I've pointed out numerous times, the Bible doesn't actually claim that they were innocent, those who God commanded to be annihilated.
What I meant, though, was that the Bible doesn't seem to treat these passages as contradictory, and the both the Old and New Testament reference the accounts as if they contain precisely what you rule out: a "literally factual history."
You bring up Christ's hyperbole and ask, "why do you have a hard time reconciling that I do what you do?"
I don't believe we're doing the same thing at all.
You say I dismiss Luke 6 as "not literally accurate" and that you do the same with the OT's divine commands to wage wars of annihilation, of (say) Numbers 25 or 31, and you ask, what's the difference?
The difference is that one case involves the proclamation's historicity, and the other involves its content.
God commanded wars of annihilation, and Christ commanded (at least some of) His followers to pluck out their own eyes.
Whether they actually gave these commands is a question of historicity.
What these commands MEAN is a question of content.
I believe that God DID quite literally and historically issue, in limited and specific circumstances, the command to ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation.
I also believe that Jesus DID quite literally and historically issue the command that, if their eyes or hands cause them to sin, His followers should maim themselves (Mt 5:29-30).
Both commands literally happened as historical events, though obviously not in English.
It's just that I think the OT command was intended to be taken literally, and Christ's command was intended to be taken figuratively.
If you thought that God really, historically issued the command but that the command wasn't intended to be taken literally by ancient Israel, then your position on that passage would more closely resemble my position re: Luke 6. But it's clear you don't think that.
"When I say that God does not LITERALLY command people to "kill those children," I am suggesting that this line is not literally accurate. It would more rightly be called a parable or some other story type other than a literally factual history."
An Old Testament analogue of my approach to Christ's parables and hyperbole is found in Exodus 20:7.
There, I believe God literally commanded not to take His name in vain, but we cannot literally "take" His name -- Heb. nasa, to lift up or carry.
The command was literally and historically given, but its content involved figurative language.
I'm literally typing this explanation, and I hope you understand me, even though you cannot literally stand under me.
I hope you see my point, even though there isn't literally a "point" to see with your physical eye.
I hope you grasp my meaning, even though I don't mean that you use your hands to do so.
Just saw your last comment, Dan.
If you could explain whether you extend your theory about the section's pagan context to Lev 20's prohibition of adultery and bestiality, and to the entire three chapters of Lev 18-20, I think I could move past that particular point after replying to your answer.
Bubba asked...
QUESTION: Where does the Bible teach that it contains Truths and not facts?
I don't know that it does. Nor does it teach that it IS a book of facts and NOT truths or that it is BOTH a book of Truths and Facts. These are all things we reason out for ourselves, n'est ce pas?
About the most the Bible claims along these lines is, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."
(Some) human tradition accepts the 66 books of the Bible as being Scripture and I'm okay with that (although I would be clear that I think this is a fine HUMAN TRADITION that I accept, not a definitive word from God), but all it says is that it is God-inspired.
Not God-authored. Not inerrant (or errant). Not perfect.
Because I love and respect the Bible, I am not willing to make claims about it that it does not make about itself.
My point would be that the Bible makes NO claims about the 66 and very few claims even about "scripture." It TALKS about scripture and references scripture, but makes very few claims about scripture.
Regardless, perhaps we can agree that the bible makes no claims that the Bible is ANYTHING and the Bible makes no claims to be a either a book of Facts OR a book of Truths, yes? No?
Bubba asked...
If you could explain whether you extend your theory about the section's pagan context to Lev 20's prohibition of adultery and bestiality, and to the entire three chapters of Lev 18-20, I think I could move past that particular point after replying to your answer.
The Lev 18-20 passages are dealing specifically with behaviors in contrast to the neighboring Canaanites and the Egyptians, whose land they just left. That's what the text literally has to say.
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
Once it gives this prelude, it launches into the list of banned behaviors. I think contextually, you really can't conclude anything else, sticking to just what the text says.
Now, having said that, do I think that means bestiality or stealing is wrong? Not at all. I'm just stating the fact that these passages are dealing with some specific behaviors related specifically to the surrounding peoples.
We all agree that some of the teachings (don't steal, don't commit bestiality) are good moral teachings that everyone ought to follow. We ALL agree that other of the teachings (don't trim your beard, don't wear polyester, etc) are NOT universal moral teachings.
And there are still other rules - tattoos, for instance - where people don't agree on whether or not it is a universal moral teaching.
But to answer your question: Do I think these are specifically talking about what the context SAYS they're talking about, yes, I do. Do I think there are applications for these rules BEYOND the context? Yes, I do.
Again, we all agree that some of those rules are universal and some are not. The point is that in the context, they are speaking about some fairly specific behaviors related to Canaan and Egypt. According to the text.
ummm, that should read, "Do I think that stealing or committing bestiality is NOT wrong..."
ummm, that should read, "Do I think that stealing or committing bestiality ARE NOT wrong..."
Dan, I understand what you meant with that sentence, but in other places I'm quite confused.
You write, "Because I love and respect the Bible, I am not willing to make claims about it that it does not make about itself."
But even though you admit that the Bible doesn't claim to be a book of Truths, not facts -- "These are all things we reason out for ourselves, n'est ce pas?" -- you still make the claim.
The Bible doesn't claim to be a book of "Truths, not facts." You claim that you are not willing to make claims about the Bible that it doesn't make for itself, and yet it seems you're making an exception for this particular claim.
About the claim, which you think we're free to reason out, I will reiterate that Jewish Scripture routinely appeals to God's actions in history as a reason to trust His faithfulness, and I Corinthians is unambiguous on the point that the historicity of the Resurrection is crucial.
About Lev 18-20, I'm also confused. You write the passages "are dealing specifically with behaviors in contrast to the neighboring Canaanites and the Egyptians, whose land they just left."
You write, "in the context, they are speaking about some fairly specific behaviors related to Canaan and Egypt."
And yet you agree that at least some of the commands have universal application.
Perhaps I could ask this a different way.
QUESTION: Do you believe that, for the nation of ancient Israel, Lev 20 ONLY prohibited bestiality and adultery if they occurred pagan rituals?
If your answer is no, then it seems less likely that the original purpose of the passage was ONLY to prohibit homosexual behavior in the context of pagan rituals.
While I'm waiting, I've thought of another couple instances of divine proclamation that I think were literal events in history, but whose contents involved figurative language.
- Gen 15:5 (cf. Gen 26:4) -- I believe God literally and historically communicated to Abraham His promise to give him numerous descendents, but there's not a literal 1:1 ratio between those descendents and the number of stars.
- Ex 3:8 (cf. Lev 20:24) -- I believe God literally and historically communicated to Moses His promise to bring Israel to a prosperous land, but that promised land didn't have literal rivers of milk and honey.
In no situation, Old Testament or New Testament, do I question the literal historicity of a divine revelation in text that is clearly historical in its genre, even if I do believe that some revelations entailed figurative language.
As an actual and historical event, these divine proclamations literally occurred, just as Jesus Christ literally and historically preached some very difficult things.
But it's not always the case that the proclamation uses strictly literal language: God used similes in His covenant with Abraham, just as Jesus used hyperbole (and metaphors) in the Sermon on the Mount.
When you argue that the event of God's difficult commands are parable, your position is entirely different than mine. Rather than being like my belief that Christ used hyperbole, it's like the belief that an entire gospel is a parable or an allegory.
The Gospel of Matthew ITSELF is not a fable or collection of fables like Aesop's, nor is it an allegory like The Pilgrim's Progress.
The Gospel of Matthew is HISTORY, as are the book of Exodus and the book of Numbers.
Out of time. Briefly...
You write, "Because I love and respect the Bible, I am not willing to make claims about it that it does not make about itself."
But even though you admit that the Bible doesn't claim to be a book of Truths, not facts -- "These are all things we reason out for ourselves, n'est ce pas?" -- you still make the claim.
Ahh, I get where I'm not being clear, I think.
I'm not willing to say, "THE BIBLE SAYS it's a book of Truth," if the Bible doesn't say that it is a book of truth. Rather, it is MY OPINION that the Bible is a book of Truth, but I'm not making the claim that the Bible claims that. It doesn't.
Nor does it claim to be inerrant, perfect or God-writ. Or errant. The Bible makes NO claims about itself and the closest one could come is that Paul claims that all scripture is God-inspired, a claim I agree with.
Does that get to the question you're asking?
I'm not willing to make a claim THAT THE BIBLE SAYS SOMETHING it does not say.
It is MY OPINION that it is a book of Truth.
It is your opinion, apparently, that it is inerrant. Fine, as long as we're clear that this is only your opinion and not something God has said or that the Bible has claimed.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but if one wants to determine whether God's command to wage a war of annihilation was a literal or figurative command, I would suggest you look further into the text and see if the people followed His instructions or not.
I'm guessing they took Him quite literally, and waged wars of annihilation. If His command was figurative, wouldn't He have punished them for killing people?
Sorry to ignore Craig's rule, but I felt that needed to be pointed out, for purposes of clarity. If you delete this, Craig, it's your blog and your rules. Go ahead. I won't be mad.
If I may say so, Mark, your point is something I wish I'd made. If one starts treating those difficult passages as mere parable, everything starts to unravel, and the record about the Israelites' obedience, with which God apparently approved, is only the beginning.
However -- as Dan and I have already spiraled away from our plans to focus on one subject at a time and ask each other only one question at a time -- it's probably best that this conversation doesn't digress much further from its original intent.
Dan, thanks for the clarification.
You write that you still hold the opinion that the Bible is "a book of Truth," but twice in earlier threads (see above) you wrote that the Bible is -- or is primarily -- a book of "Truths, not facts."
QUESTIONS: Do you still stand by this earlier claim? If so, do you disagree that (in I Cor 15) the Bible makes clear that a historical Resurrection is crucial? And do you disagree that the Old Testament frequently argues for God's faithfulness on the basis of His history with Israel?
Indeed, the Bible does not explicitly claim its own inerrancy OR the opposite position, for which I believe there is no third alternative, as it regards to any truth claims.
(You yourself write, "A book of Truth would be errant if its TRUTHS were wrong." I'm not sure why you think that there's a third alternative.)
But Christ Himself affirmed the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and in John 10, He not only seemed to equate Scripture with the word of God, He taught that Scripture cannot be annulled.
Christ frequently appealed to Scripture as the final authority, even going so far as to argue (in Matthew 22) that the verb tense of "I am the God of Abraham" is proof of the resurrection of the dead.
Given all this, I think it is very difficult to give Scripture more esteem than Christ Himself showed to Scripture, and VERY easy to give it less.
About the Bible's authorship, you say that the Bible does not claim itself to be "God-writ," and to that I would say that you may misunderstand what Paul wrote. Paul wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed -- the result of God's "breathing out" His word, not of man's "breathing in."
God "breathes" Scripture, and I don't see how that imagery does anything but strongly suggest His ultimate authorship.
But Paul isn't the only one with something to say about the Bible's authorship, and I would like to ask you a couple other QUESTIONS:
- Is Genesis 2:24 explicitly attributed to God, as in the "God said" or "the Lord said" of Gen 1:6, 1:9, 2:18, 3:14, and 12:1?
- If it isn't (and it isn't) who authored Genesis 2:24? It's traditionally held to be Moses, but it's somebody other than God, right?
Okay.
- In Matthew 19:4-5, to whom does Jesus Christ attribute Genesis 2:24?
These questions have simple answers, but the answers have very serious implications.
A few things. First Bubba wrote and then asked...
You write that you still hold the opinion that the Bible is "a book of Truth," but twice in earlier threads (see above) you wrote that the Bible is -- or is primarily -- a book of "Truths, not facts."
QUESTIONS: Do you still stand by this earlier claim? If so, do you disagree that (in I Cor 15) the Bible makes clear that a historical Resurrection is crucial? And do you disagree that the Old Testament frequently argues for God's faithfulness on the basis of His history with Israel?
1. I stand by the claim that I THINK the Bible is a book of Truth, not facts.
2. This does not preclude some facts being in the Bible. I think that Jesus factually rose from the dead, that Mary was factually a virgin, that the disciples were real people who followed Jesus and that the Israelis were a real people.
3. I do NOT think, nor have I said, that the Bible CLAIMS to be a book of Truth OR a book of facts. Clearly, it doesn't make either claim.
4. I think the Bible does argue that God was faithful to the Israelis. I think God WAS faithful to the Israelis. I just don't think each and every historic-sounding story included in the Bible demonstrates exactly how God was with the Israelis.
5. I don't believe that people wrote history the way we write history today. Sometimes back then (and frankly, sometimes today) people writing historic tales would weave in some more mythic/legendary aspects to the story. That's not to say that they were deliberately lying, that was the style.
Factually, that is often how people wrote history back then (or at least that's what I'm recalling from my studies - if you question the notion, I can research it to confirm my memory). That the authors of the Bible employed story telling techniques common to the day is not to undermine the stories and certainly not to undermine the Truth behind the stories.
Seems to me.
Now, jumping back to where I left off before I ran out of time, I think the questions of WHY we believe what we believe. Which is a question I would like to ask you, now.
First, why do I believe that the Bible is a book of Truth(s)?
Because I have read the Bible a great deal and learned important life lessons from its truths.
Because I have seen those Truths borne out in the real world. It IS more blessed to give than to receive. We ARE sinners in need of salvation. We CAN BE and ARE saved by grace. This incredible, complex, elegant world DOES suggest to me a Creator.
Now, some of these biblical truths are HARD truths. Daggone, as much as I might not like it, we really ought to love our enemies. As much a nuisance as it may seem, it IS important to do with and alongside the "least of these," and we often DO see Jesus as we do so.
The Bible as a book of Truths has been borne out to me in the real world. I believe, Lord God, I believe!
Conversely, I don't find "inerrant" to be the correct word to speak of the Bible because that has NOT borne itself out in the real world. Man, if someone truly believed that God sometimes speaks to people and tells them to kill babies, then we would have atrocities that CAN'T be of God! Taking that line as a factual reality and applying it in the real world would have evil, horrible consequences.
"Inerrancy" has not borne itself out in the real world for me. Thus, I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant. Or, better stated, I don't think "inerrant" is the correct word to use in reference to the Bible - UNLESS you're talking about whether or not its TRUTHS are inerrant. But generally, when people use the term, they are referring to the facts. If you're fact-checking the Bible, I would suggest you've got the wrong idea.
THAT is why I believe the bible is a book of Truth and why I don't believe it is a factually inerrant book. Now, a few questions for you...
QUESTIONS: Do you believe the Bible is a book of Truth(s)?
If so, why?
Why do you believe the Bible is inerrant?
Cleaning up a few tidbits, you said...
You yourself write, "A book of Truth would be errant if its TRUTHS were wrong." I'm not sure why you think that there's a third alternative.
As noted, if we're ONLY talking about inerrancy as it relates to Truth, perhaps two categories are sufficient. However, generally when people talk about inerrancy, they are stiving to suggest that particular lines ought to be considered factually/historically accurate. Thus the third category, 1. Inerrancy, 2. errancy or 3. Books of Truths where the factual accuracy of any stories is not generally the point, thus, inerrancy is not the correct term to use to describe it.
Bubba noted...
God "breathes" Scripture, and I don't see how that imagery does anything but strongly suggest His ultimate authorship.
Well, I am quite sure that it is true that you don't see how it suggests God as author. Nonetheless, it is equally true that I DO quite easily see how that imagery does not intend to suggest that God is the author. God breathed out and inspired people to write.
Bubba asked...
Is Genesis 2:24 explicitly attributed to God, as in the "God said" or "the Lord said" of Gen 1:6, 1:9, 2:18, 3:14, and 12:1?
In the text, the line appears to be fairly clearly the author speaking. So, no, it is not explicitly attributed to God.
Bubba asked...
If it isn't (and it isn't) who authored Genesis 2:24? It's traditionally held to be Moses, but it's somebody other than God, right?
Genesis is told using typical creation mythology language. It is doubtless a story that was passed down from person to person as part of the explanation of Creation. Inspired by God, seems to me, but still a creation myth, not written necessarily in a style that suggests we ought to take it as literally factual.
Bubba asked...
In Matthew 19:4-5, to whom does Jesus Christ attribute Genesis 2:24?
Matt 19...
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
And He [Jesus] answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from 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'?
Jesus is attributing it to God. And if you believe, as I do, that God inspired the creation myth stories, I don't take Jesus to be wrong. But neither do I take it to be suggesting that Jesus thinks God authored the Bible. I suppose you do?
Okay. I disagree.
Jesus also said, "blessed are you who are poor... and woe to you who are rich..." which you don't think Jesus meant literally. So, we both have instances where Jesus was speaking literally. And that's a good thing. We can agree that some lines - even of Jesus - are not to be taken literally, but rather, we need to use our logic to sort out hyperbole from parable from command from Truth.
QUESTION: As a very small aside, do you think the many other NT passages speaking of rich and poor are metaphorical, too? When Mary says, "He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away."? When James says, "Is it not the rich who oppress you?" is it metaphorical, in your mind?
Mark,
As your comment was brief, and moved the conversation forward, I will offer you some grace and not delete it.
I am having a hard time not jumping in, especially since there are some recent studies that disagree with Dan's contentions on how history was passes down. But I will abide by my own rules, and maybe post on this when I have time.
Dan and Bubba, this is good stuff. Thanks.
My "passed down" comment was just a guess based on how oral history has generally happened (how else COULD it have happened?). I don't have any information off the top of my head about the Creation story and how it was passed down. If you have valid information on it, I'd love to hear it, Craig.
That wasn't really a big point I was making, I'm not sure what possible other information you might have or how it would impact anything I've said, but I'd love to hear it.
Dan, you bring up a lot, and there's a lot to say in response.
Because we're discussing more than one topic, I hope you forgive my not being brief.
You ask if I treat all the Bible's passages about wealth as metaphorical, and I do not. Indeed, the Bible frequently teaches that we should care for the literally poor, and it warns about the perils of too much concern for literal wealth.
But it's also the case that the Bible speaks about spiritual poverty and spiritual wealth (e.g., the "poor in spirit" and "treasures in heaven" in Mt 5-6). I believe that you occasionally invoke as literal those passages that are more credibly understood as figurative.
You seem to do so only when it fits your progressive politics. After all, I've never seen you argue that the parable of the talents should be taken literally, to be included in your series on the Bible and economics, and to applied to economic issues.
You never argued that for Matthew 25:29.
Again, I do have particular arguments against your interpretation of Luke 4 and Luke 6: Christ didn't literally free any prisoners, but He did save us from the bonds of sin; and Luke 6 contains a fairly clear parallel to the Sermon on the Mount, where the poor IN SPIRIT are quite explicitly blessed.
You ask, do I believe the Bible is "a book of Truth(s)", and why? You ask, why do I believe the Bible is inerrant?
First, I do believe that the Bible is a book of truth, but my problem isn't with that particular claim, it's with your claim that it's a book of "Truth, not facts."
The reason I believe that the Bible is a book of truth -- and the primary reason I affirm inerrancy -- is because the Bible (credibly) claims to be God's written word, and Jesus taught that God's word is truth (Jn 17:17). The Bible claims to be God-breathed, and God cannot lie (Num 23:19).
The Bible is pretty clear about its divine authorship, and it is absolutely clear about that Author's integrity. Because God is incapable of lying, and because God is the ultimate Author of the Bible, it logically follows that the Bible is inerrant.
But that's not the only reason.
That's an argument for what I would call "strong inerrancy," the solid belief that the Bible is incapable of error; but there's also a sort of "weak inerrancy," built on the recognition that there is no clear objective standard against which the claims of the Bible could be measured.
Even if I were ever to concede that the Bible might contain errors, none of us are qualified to spot those errors, and none of us can produce an objective measure to determine where those errors are.
I believe that accepting every word of Scripture as authoritative and true, without any mixture of error, is FAR less spiritually dangerous than opening the door to picking and choosing what one accepts as true.
Behind that door is a very slippery slope, and it seems to me that you're already quite clearly riding down it, with a blog entry from late last year. As I noted earlier, because you believe you're justified in dismissing as erroneous the passages where God commanded wars of annihilation and those passages where He made sodomy a capital offense, you now apparently feel free to discard other passages on a whim, including those that condemn homosexual behavior.
A quick one, then. You said...
But it's also the case that the Bible speaks about spiritual poverty and spiritual wealth (e.g., the "poor in spirit" and "treasures in heaven" in Mt 5-6). I believe that you occasionally invoke as literal those passages that are more credibly understood as figurative.
Perhaps you have explained this to me and if so, I apologize for asking again, what is "rich in spirit" figurative language for? That they have treasures in heaven?
Briefly, Dan, I believe the "rich in spirit" are the self-righteous, those who do not recognize their spiritual bankruptcy before God and who (wrongly) believe that their good works and good character are sufficient to earn God's approval.
Luke 18:9-14 provides a vivid portrayal of one who is poor in spirit and one who isn't -- the latter of which "trust[] in themselves that they [are] righteous and regard[] others with contempt" (v 9).
Dan, the fact of the matter is, the central claims of the Bible are far more difficult than the ones you seem willing to prune away as unscientific or immoral.
You seem to believe that it's a "fact" that creation did not occur in literally six periods of 24 hours, but even that -- the creation of a large but finite universe, in the span of a small but finite time -- is quite literally nothing compared to the claims of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of God: the literally Infinite becoming finite, actually dying, and then rising from the grave.
You object not only to those Old-Testament passages where God commanded wars of annihilation, but even those passages where He Himself brought death, including that crucial event, the Passover. But these displays and commands of God's finite earthly judgment are (again) literally nothing compared to Christ's own warnings about the infinite judgment that is to come -- a judgment of fire that never stops burning (Mk 9:48).
You're straining at gnats but swallowing camels, and if your skepticism was ever consistently applied to the Bible, not much of even the fundamentals would remain.
You admit that the Bible contains "HARD truths," including the command to love your enemy and the importance of how we treat the least of our brothers.
Okay, but there seems to be hard teachings of the Bible that you nevertheless reject. The Bible teaches about God's wrath, poured out (in comparably limited scope) in history through natural disaster, plagues, and EVEN -- very rarely -- through human agency by direct command. You reject this hard teaching as atrocity.
The Bible also teaches a clear causal connection between Christ's death and our salvation, that Christ died "for our sins," and you diminish that hard teaching as mere imagery.
The Bible teaches that there are fundamental differences between men and women, and you speculate that that teaching reflects Paul's bigotry and/or mysoginy.
The Bible also teaches that ITS OWN HISTORICAL CLAIMS are important, that the fact of the historical and physicial resurrection is ITSELF an indispensible truth, without which our faith is futile. You accept that the Bible contains facts that happen to be factual, but you don't seem to understand that they're essential.
And, the Bible shows an esteem and respect for its earlier teachings that contradict your belief that the text contains "legendary" additions. Paul wrote in Galatians that it's theologically crucial that Abraham's justification preceded his circumcision, and Christ Himself frequently appealed to Scripture as the final authority. In doing so, He found great importance about a single verb tense to answer the question of the resurrection of the dead, and He appealed to the story of our creation to answer contemporary questions about marriage. Your approach to the Bible's factual, historical claims, simply bears no relation to the approach demonstrated by Christ and His Apostles.
(Nowhere does Jesus Christ suggest something as indirect and fallible as the idea that "God inspired the creation myth stories" that eventually, supposedly led to the Bible. About the addition of legendary material as stories are "passed down," it's simply not necessary that Moses received Genesis through tradition, oral or otherwise, since Moses had quite a close relationship with God at Sinai and throughout the exodus and wandering in the wilderness. But even if the broad strokes of the stories were handed down from the patriarchs to Moses, it seems clear that Christ and the Apostles believed that the Holy Spirit ensured the authority of the what Moses wrote down, again, down even to verb tenses and to the chronology -- and, ergo, the historicity -- of individual events.)
These are all hard truths that the Bible teaches, which you don't accept; just because there are some hard truths you accept, doesn't acquit you for those you reject.
Dan, I think my earlier questions have been answered to my satisfaction (or close enough for the purposes of this conversation), so I would like to ask you just one question and focus on its answer.
QUESTION: What are the essential truths of the Bible?
You've often enough written the Bible is a book of truths, and I'm curious to know precisely what those truths are, at least concerning the most important truths.
I'm not looking for an exhaustive list of every true teaching that you believe is contained in the Bible, but I AM wondering what you would consider to be a fairly comprehensive list of those essential, primary truths from which the others could be derived and where the omission of even a single claim would radically change the character of Christian doctrine and faith.
Though you're welcome to consult such documents to make sure you've covered all your bases, I don't want a reference to an extant creed. I want your own list.
Because this is a difficult question, I understand that this might take some time. Because this would be good for me as an exercise, I'll work on an answer to my own question and post it after yours.
I suspect that our answers will be quite different, less in what's contradicted and more in what's included or omitted.
Either way, I hope that this question might obviate the need to return to the details about your earlier comments. If it doesn't, I'll probably turn next to your prior comments regarding the historicity of the Resurrection and the reality of the Atonement.
You've given much for me to think over and respond to, but in the meantime, you have offered a fairly easy question to answer...
QUESTION: What are the essential truths of the Bible?
We are all - humanity - "lost" and in need of salvation and grace.
God loves us all and wishes to offer us this gift, this grace of salvation, of new life.
God offers us the invitation to be part of God's Realm, God's Kingdom, the community and family of God.
God loves us and we ought to love one another.
In fact, the world will recognize us as followers of God when we love one another.
Jesus is the son of God, who came living a perfect life showing us how to live, inviting us to follow in his steps.
This invitation is not to those you would normally expect to be invited (rich, powerful, those who have it all together), but to the poor, the marginalized, the down and out, the despised.
Which is not to say that the rich and powerful can't join in the party, only that they need to lose their dependence upon wealth and power.
Jesus was killed and yet True Love can't be held down, for love is stronger than hate, light is stronger than darkness, and life is stronger than death.
This is our Creator's world and we are invited to share in its abundance and tend to it and one another. Especially the least of these.
We ought to live simply and with grace.
We ought to live peacefully.
We ought to do no harm.
We ought not force our way upon others.
Those sorts of truths are some of the major truths I find in the Bible.
How about you?
Of course, I would also want to include....
When one has sinned, one ought to repent and turn from that sin. This is true with God and with others and with ourselves.
Part of accepting that grace, that salvation is the process of asking for forgiveness and agreeing with Jesus that his way is the right way to live (ie, repentance).
I don't think that's that complicated a question, unless perhaps I've missed some great import behind it. I think these truths are all fairly self-evident and run rampant through the Bible and through our own God-given reason.
Quickly, Bubba said...
The Bible teaches about God's wrath, poured out (in comparably limited scope) in history through natural disaster, plagues, and EVEN -- very rarely -- through human agency by direct command. You reject this hard teaching as atrocity.
Well, whereas you take Jesus fairly straightforward teachings ("Blessed are you who are poor, woe to you who are rich...") and think they're metaphorical, I think the teachings of God exploding God's wrath via natural disasters and commands to slaughter babies are metaphorical, not literal representations of God's Way.
Which is not to deny God's wrath. God is a God of justice and God DOES get angry, I'd say, about oppression, about greed, about destruction and causing harm, especially to the innocent and marginalized.
But I don't think God tends to work through "sending tornadoes to wipe out the gays" or anything like that. Such places in the Bible are better understood as metaphors for God's anger and for the natural consequences that we reap when we sow bad actions.
And certainly God does not command us to do what God has commanded us NOT to do. That makes NO biblical, moral or logical sense whatsoever, seems to me.
Dan,
No time now to go into this, and this is not the place. But recent studies of how oral history actually works strongly suggest that those who passed down oral history actually had a much higher standard of accuracy than most would suspect. I don't have the stuff here because I loaned the book to a friend, but I'll e mail the author and ask if he will direct me to his sources. Sorry to interrupt.
Let me try a bit systematic approach to listing what I think essential teachings are found in the Bible, if I may...
God created the Heavens and the Earth and it IS good;
God created humanity in God's image, and humanity is good;
God's creation is one of plenty where there is enough for everyone, assuming none strive to take too much (ie, assuming lives in balance with creation);
God invites humanity to enjoy and tend to God's creation;
Being created in God's image means we have the freedom to choose right and wrong and unfortunately, we too often choose wrong;
God does not wish for us to choose wrong, for that is the path to death, oppression, ill-health and destruction;
God is looking for a people to join with God on paths of right-living within the parameters of God's realm;
However, given our penchant for choosing the path of wrong (despite the fact that we are created in God's image and have that of God within us), we are bound for death and destruction;
God is not willing that ANYone choose that route and so, by grace, offers us salvation and the option of redemption;
Jesus is the son of God, who came to earth to become "the least of these," to take part in this life right with and alongside of the homeless, the marginalized, the oppressed, the tortured, the forgotten, the poor;
Jesus lived a perfect life and taught us/demonstrated the Way to live, to take part in God's Realm;
Jesus was killed by the religious and the powerful of the day in the manner of the typical political prisoner for having the audacity of teaching about Another Realm, Another Kingdom, another way that undermined (or at least so they thought) the rich and powerful;
Jesus rose from the dead, demonstrating that life is more powerful than death, love is more powerful than hate;
Jesus invites us, by grace, to join in the party, the Realm of God;
Jesus specifically invites the least of these, the marginalized, the poor, the oppressed, the "undeserving" to join in the party and to follow in his steps;
Jesus would love for all of us to join in this Way, but he has some pretty specific warnings to the rich and powerful that their wealth and independence will have to be set aside in order to join in the party - with tears of compassion in his eyes, Jesus warns that wealth can be a trap that will weigh us down and keep us out of the Realm;
Jesus invites us all to follow in God's way - not by our works, but by grace;
Jesus does ask that we ask forgiveness for our wrongs (of God and of one another) and that we agree that God's Way is THE Way to live, and then join joyfully in the Community of Faith;
By Jesus life, death and resurrection, God has demonstrated how we can and how God does atone our sins, being At One, with God and all Creation;
God wants us to love one another, for this will be one way that people will know that we are God's followers;
God wants us to do as Jesus did and join right with and alongside the least of these and work with and for them as we would for God, for in truth, that is just what we'd be doing;
How's that?
Glancing at this thread this morning, I see that you've answered my question at length, Dan, and I appreciate that.
I jotted down on paper a few notes last night that I would like relay before I read your response and reply to it in earnest.
Here's what I believe to be the central and essential truths taught by the Bible. This summary was first made and is now being written independently of what you just wrote, though obviously I'm aware of things that you've written in the past about, for instance, "the meat of the Gospel."
I've tried to make this list actually comprehensive -- which means it is lengthy -- but I'll highlight the key ideas.
First of all, the Bible teaches the Bible's authority, on which all its other teachings rest. The Bible was written by human hands, but it was uniquely inspired by God. Christ Himself affirmed its authority to the smallest penstroke and taught eternal truths from even the verb tenses that are used. He frequently appealed to Scripture as the final authority, to the degree that "it is written" is indistinguishable from "God says."
Everything the Bible teaches, it does so authoritatively, but I believe that the primary teachings are about God's character, man's conundrum, and God's acting through history to rescue man.
God is perfect, all-knowing, almighty, ever-present and unchanging. He is the Creator and Ruler of the universe, He is the Redeemer and Father of His chosen people.
God is triune, three Persons in one Being. The Bible is monotheistic, but not unitarian: there is one God, but He is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
God is holy, perfectly righteous, perfectly just, and perfectly uncompromising with evil.
Unfortunately, man is sinful. Man was "very good" and perfect when God created us in His image, but man abused the free will that was given by God, to rebel against God, a rebellion which deserves death and caused death to enter this world. Now, man is born in sin, and his sin condemns him to death and eternal damnation; there is nothing man can do to rectify this problem and restore his relationship with God.
Man is enslaved by sin and death, from which he absolutely needs salvation from God.
God is perfectly holy, but God is also perfectly loving, and He has acted in history to save us while not compromising His holiness or our free will, through a plan that has unfolded and is continuing to unfold over literal millennia.
1) God made a covenant with Abraham, promising to bless the nations through his seed and reckoning his faith as righteousness (Rom 4, Gal 3).
2) God then sent us His law through Moses, to heighten our awareness of the need for salvation "extra nos" (outside of ourselves).
3) God sent, through His prophets, the promise of salvation: the anointed Messiah who would rule as the perfect and eternal king, the Suffering Servant whose wounds would secure the forgiveness of our sins, and a new covenant where God's law would be written on our hearts.
4) God then sent His Son, Jesus Christ -- who is God Incarnate, fully God and fully man -- who is His promised Messiah and Suffering Servant, who fulfills the law and the prophets. He both taught and lived out the full implications of the law, and He fulfilled what the prophets predicted. Most importantly, through His bodily and historical death and resurrection, He secured our sins' forgiveness and our eternal life.
5) God then sent His Holy Spirit to dwell within all who believe in His Son, to give us a new birth and lead us to maturity -- about which I have more to say.
6) God documented all of this for all time, through His written revelation: the historical events, their eternal meaning, and the promise of His Son's glorious return as Judge and King.
[continued]
[continued]
A few things need to be highlighted about God's plan for salvation.
First, specific aspects of salvation are accomplished by specific works of individual Persons in the Trinity.
Justification and eternal life come through the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Son, and regeneration and sanctification come through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's a double exchange where, because Christ died for our sins and took the penalty of our sinful lives, we can claim the righteousness of His perfect life. And because Christ rose, we will one day rise with Him to live with Him in eternity. When we repent of our sins and trust Christ as Savior and Lord, His Holy Spirit dwells within us, first to give us a new birth without which we cannot see the kingdom of God, and then to lead us to spiritual maturity.
As Gal 4:4-6 teaches, the Father sent His Son into the world to die for us and secure our adoption as sons, and He sent His Spirit into our hearts to live in us so we can experience that adoption: there is Christ's decisive act in history, and the Spirit's work in the life of each Christian.
Salvation is by God's grace alone, and not through His law; as Paul teaches, e.g., in Gal 2:21, the two are mutually exclusive.
Salvation is in Christ alone, specifically in His death. This truth can be found throughout what was taught about Christ by John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, John, even Christ Himself, but look again at Galatians 2:21: salvation by works would not only nullify God's grace, it would nullify Christ's death.
Salvation is by faith alone, and not by works, as Paul makes clear in Romans 3-4 and, again, Galatians 2.
But while the means of our receiving salvation is our faith alone, God's purpose for offering salvation doesn't stop there. Our justification and forgiveness is just the very beginning of God's work in our lives. Paul and James both instruct lives of good works and personal purity, in part because, while faith alone saves, saving faith is never alone.
Salvation comes through faith alone, but salvation is for a life of holiness, being set apart by God for God's purposes. God adopts us into His family, but He doesn't want His adopted children to remain infants; He wills that we grow into maturity. This life of holiness and maturity may be seen as having five aspects:
- One's relationship with God. God calls us into a closer communion with Him, through the study of His written word, prayer to the Father, increasing conformity to the Son, and increasing reliance on the power and guidance of the Spirit.
- One's relationship with fellow believers. God's adoption into our family doesn't just make Him our Father, it makes us brothers. God freed us from sin in part so that we could be servants of our Christian brothers (Gal 5:13), and we grow as a family by observing Christ's ordinance of baptism when we join the family, observing His ordinance of the Lord's Supper as a family, and when we gather together for corporate worship of God and mutual fellowship and support.
- One's relationship to all people. We are called to humble service to others -- and submission to God's will -- in all our relationships, in the church, with the state, at work, and in the faimly. We are commanded to love everyone, even the marginalized and even our enemies, and our love should entail aid and support, forgiveness, and non-retaliation.
- One's relationship to self. Each of us is called to a life of personal purity and self-control, denying the self and putting to death the desires of one's old nature, in order to follow the Spirit (Gal 5:24-25), because it is only through self-denial that we can serve God and others.
- One's participation in the good news of God's salvation. We are not to receive God's salvation for our sake only, but in order to become conduits (as it were) of God's truth and love, by evangelizing and discipling others.
[continued]
[continued]
Here I've reviewed our need of salvation, the unfolding of God's plan for salvation in history -- a plan that, again, satisfies His own perfect holiness while extending to us His unlimited love -- and the details of that plan in our lives: we are saved by Christ's death and the Spirit's indwelling, by grace alone, in Christ alone, and through faith alone, but for holiness.
All that remains is to say that, from our creation to our redemption and everything God has done and will do, it is all for God's glory alone. The plan of salvation, the initiative, and its fulfillment are God's alone. We were justified, we are being sanctified, and we will be glorified, by God's work alone.
"O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
"'For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?'
"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen." - Rom 11:33-36
There are a couple things worth noting about that summary.
First of all, I think it actually touches on every major aspect of the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Baptist Faith & Message, and the five "solas" of the Protestant Reformation. I had almost forgotten "sola gratia," which I reference at the end, but otherwise the summary is all mine without referencing these or any other church statements.
Second, I've spent the last two months carefully studying Galatians, and I think it shows. Much of what I cite in Galatians can be found in other books of the Bible, particularly Romans, but it's the book that has been most on my mind.
Dan, before I turn to your summary, I want to briefly address your latest comments about the supposed atrocities in the Bible.
First, I agree that God would not simultaneously command AND forbid any action, but I think you're being presumptuous in concluding that those difficult commands are what God has elsewhere forbidden. We don't have to dismiss those historical commands to wage wars of annihilation in order to revere the prohibition of taking innocent life: the two CAN be reconciled.
One way to reconcile the two is simply to note that the Bible doesn't ever attribute innocence to those that Israel wiped out under His command. Another (I think, stronger) approach is to reason about why shedding innocent blood is forbidden.
It's forbidden TO US because it's God's perogative; He created human life, and it is His decision when to bring that life to an end. If one recognizes God's sovereignty in ending human life, one can see that He could end life through human agency while otherwise forbidding us from ending innocent human life on our own.
About taking those difficult passages as metaphor, it's enough to note that the Bible treats the passages as historical and does not permit that approach.
But if you do treat those passages as metaphor, I wonder whether you treat them as occasional metaphorical interludes through an otherwise historical account, or as episodes in a larger allegory or metaphor.
I wonder if you think that God really and historically did make a covenant with Abraham, while the account of Abraham sacrificing Isaac is an interlude of sheer metaphor; that God really did rescue Israel from Egyptian slavery, but the account of the Passover is metaphor; that God really did lead Israel into the Promised Land, but His commands to wage war to secure the land were metaphor, too.
If it's not that, I wonder if you think that everything's metaphor: the sacrifice AND the covenant, the Passover AND the exodus, the commands to wage war AND the leading into the promised land.
The former approach of flip-flopping from history to metaphor and back, is completely unsupported by the text itself and can ONLY be the result of whim -- of one's personal tastes about what is acceptible behavior for God, and what isn't.
The latter approach undermines Jewish theology and, subsequently, Christian theology because both are firmly rooted in the claims of historical events. If God did not actually make His covenant with Abraham, there's no longer a covenant for Christ to fulfill.
You write:
"Well, whereas you take Jesus fairly straightforward teachings ("Blessed are you who are poor, woe to you who are rich...") and think they're metaphorical, I think the teachings of God exploding God's wrath via natural disasters and commands to slaughter babies are metaphorical, not literal representations of God's Way."
I don't see what's NOT "straightforward" about the claim that God killed the firstborn of Egypt, and I don't see you making appeals to Scripture about why this isn't a literal expression of "God's Way."
And I'll reiterate that Matthew 25:29 is pretty straightforward, too, but I seriously doubt you insist upon a literal interpretation of that passage.
Dan, to get to your your lengthy and timely answer, I reiterate that I appreciate the response.
From your answer, I see one thing that I believe I omitted and should have included as an important detail: repentence.
Receiving salvation by faith entails the confession and repentance of sin, and accepting God's offer of forgiveness and eternal life: with both we acknowledge our need for salvation and God's provision of salvation.
That said, a few things stick out, many of which have been noted in the past.
1) You focus on the earthly consequences of sin -- "death, oppression, ill-health and destruction" -- but there's not much explicit about either the eternal consequences of sin or the eternal consequences of salvation.
2) You mention many earthly aspects of Christian life, including living simply and peacefully, but I don't see much about those particular activities that are uniquely Christian: prayer, Bible study, baptism, communion, and evangelism.
3) You attribute Christ's death to the earthly powers that be, but don't mention the other clear teaching of the Bible, that the Father sent His Son to die, and that the Son came to die.
4) You mention Christ's death and our salvation, but it remains unclear whether you believe that the former caused the latter.
You write:
"By Jesus life, death and resurrection, God has demonstrated how we can and how God does atone our sins, being At One, with God and all Creation;"
God has demonstrated "how we can"... do what? How we can atone for our sins? Is Christ's death merely a exhibition of the fact that God offers salvation, or is it the means by which we are saved?
5) You mention the Resurrection, but it's not clear whether you believe that a bodily and historical Resurrection is essential. One comment suggests not...
"Jesus was killed and yet True Love can't be held down, for love is stronger than hate, light is stronger than darkness, and life is stronger than death."
...but the restatement could be read as suggesting, more strongly but not clearly, a historical and physical Resurrection.
"Jesus rose from the dead, demonstrating that life is more powerful than death, love is more powerful than hate;"
It remains to be seen whether you believe that a historical and physical Resurrection is essential.
6) You mention that we should agree with Jesus about His ethical teachings...
"Part of accepting that grace, that salvation is the process of asking for forgiveness and agreeing with Jesus that his way is the right way to live (ie, repentance)."
...but I don't see much about trusting the saving work of His death and resurrection. In other words, obedience to Christ as Lord is (AND SHOULD BE) mentioned, but trust in Christ as Savior is omitted.
7) Finally, you write about Christ's coming, but I see absolutely nothing about Christ's promised return.
I don't see anything that is in obvious discord with the ancient, extra-biblical creeds, but your answer to my question does tend to confirm my suspicion that you're softening the Christian gospel to make it more palatable to modern, pluralist sensabilities.
The eternal consequences of sin and salvation; the provision of salvation through Christ's death and resurrection; the steadfast claim that the historical and bodily resurrection is essential; and the promise of Christ's return in judgment and glory: these could CERTAINLY be inferred or assumed by biblical Christians who seek to give you the benefit of the doubt on such matters, but they could also be seen as deliberate omissions by theological radicals.
More clarity would be appreciated.
As a brief aside, there's one other omission that I'm not sure is entirely noteworthy but is a complement of sorts to Christ's promised return.
Christ's first-century ministry looks forward to His promised return, but it also looks backward to the prophecies about Him. As Paul puts it in I Corinthians 15, Christ died for our sins "according to the Scriptures."
The claim that Jesus is the Christ -- which Greek for the Hebrew word Messiah, which means annointed -- necessarily entails the claim that He fulfills Jewish prophecy regarding the Messiah.
It seems to me that a thorough summary of the essential Christian truths would tie Christ's earthly ministry back to the Scriptures He claimed to fulfill, forward to His promised return in judgment, and to the Apostles' explanation of what He accomplished (and how).
It might not use ten-cent words, but any thorough summary of the Bible's essential teachings would be Christological and eschatological.
A problem with this sort of discussion - through no one's fault involved - is that this has become massive and rambling. I think we are striving quite mightily to keep it organized, but nonetheless, wow... How to deal with this all, right?
Just pointing that out for what it's worth and as a reminder for all of us to be patient in striving to wade through this (and to point out that this is why I was hoping for simplicity and taking little chunks at a time - it's easier stated as a goal than to make a reality, it seems...).
A couple of things. You said...
1) You focus on the earthly consequences of sin -- "death, oppression, ill-health and destruction" -- but there's not much explicit about either the eternal consequences of sin or the eternal consequences of salvation.
I think death, oppression and destruction all cover both temporal and more eternal aspects of sin. Fair enough?
2) You mention many earthly aspects of Christian life, including living simply and peacefully, but I don't see much about those particular activities that are uniquely Christian: prayer, Bible study, baptism, communion, and evangelism.
I would include those (at least some of which are not what I would call essential biblical teachings) under the broader Biblical essential teaching of joining in God's community and following in Jesus' steps. (as an aside, I don't know that they are uniquely Christian - other faith traditions pray, study their holy texts, spread their "good news," etc).
3) You attribute Christ's death to the earthly powers that be, but don't mention the other clear teaching of the Bible, that the Father sent His Son to die, and that the Son came to die.
It occurred to me later that I ought to include some language to suggest that I think that essential Bible teaching is that we ALL contribute to death and destruction - including Jesus' death. That it was not merely the actions of a few bad Jews and Romans, but that we all "crucify Jesus" by our actions at times.
I'm not sure that I would use the phrase "God sent his son to die" as an essential Biblical teaching. That would fall more under the category of how some of us have explained Jesus coming/God's plan, although it's certainly in the Bible a bit. Again, not saying I disagree, just that I'm not sure that it's what I would consider an essential Biblical teaching.
John says, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Jesus says HE is the Way, not "My death" is the way.
John says, again, "God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die."
That is, whoever has faith IN JESUS, not in his death.
Romans tells us that it is by GRACE we are saved through FAITH in Jesus, not that we are saved by his death.
You know what I'm saying? I'm not so sure that the notion that God sent his son to die so that we might be saved by his death is central biblical teaching.
It seems to me, the "more" central/essential teaching is that we are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus, not by works. Yes, there are passages that suggest that blood atonement view, but I'm not sure that I would call that one view the "most correct" way of considering salvation and certainly not the one and only way of viewing how we are saved.
Continuing in response to your points, you said...
4) You mention Christ's death and our salvation, but it remains unclear whether you believe that the former caused the latter.
Well, I think the essential thrust of the Bible is that we are saved by God's grace. Certainly there are passages that express salvation as a direct outcome of Jesus' death, but then, there are other passages that say plain and simple, we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.
I think the way to express it and stay truest to the Bible is to say that we are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus. You want to hang on to the notion that God had to be appeased by the shedding of Jesus' blood in order to save us, you're welcome to. I don't think that is the most biblical, most straightforward way to say it.
As I believe we have discussed before, there are several theories on atonement. Clearly atonement language is used in the Bible but what does the language mean?
I hold probably closest to the Moral Influence theory of atonement.
You can see the theories listed here.
Continuing...
5) You mention the Resurrection, but it's not clear whether you believe that a bodily and historical Resurrection is essential. One comment suggests not...
I don't know what to say more than I have on this topic. I believe in Jesus' actual resurrection. In light of biblical teachings, I think it an essential biblical teaching that God overcomes death, as most clearly demonstrated in Jesus' resurrection. I believe that with God, there is the promise of resurrection and life everlasting.
Bubba said...
6) You mention that we should agree with Jesus about His ethical teachings...
...but I don't see much about trusting the saving work of His death and resurrection.
This gets back to the various atonement theories. I believe you hold more closely to the Satisfaction Theory which suggests that God demands a literal blood sacrifice to literally pay for sins and only Jesus' perfect blood can pay the ultimate price for all of our sins.
I think language in the Bible that suggests support for this theory is more metaphorical in nature. I don't believe God "requires" a literal blood sacrifice to "pay" for sin. That's imagery, not to be taken literally.
No, we are not saved by a blood sacrifice, we are saved by Grace, through faith in Jesus. This, I think, is the central essential teaching of the Bible.
Yes, we should trust in Jesus. Yes, we should agree with Jesus and submit ourselves to his Lordship and follow in his steps.
Bubba said...
7) Finally, you write about Christ's coming, but I see absolutely nothing about Christ's promised return.
As I noted in my "Thesis" of biblical essentials...
"Jesus invites us, by grace, to join in the party, the Realm of God;"
We are invited to join in God's Kingdom come, God's will be done. We are called to join the community of believers. That begins when we accept the grace of God and continues.
Yes, Jesus is coming again. Jesus is coming again all the time. Jesus is outside my door today in the face of the least of these (at least that's what Jesus says).
I'm not much into "end times" stuff. The Bible is quite clear that we don't know what tomorrow may bring.
What we do know is that we are invited to join the Realm of God today and live into it tomorrow, whatever and whenever that tomorrow may be. And not only that, but Jesus is joining in that Realm with us in very real and present ways.
I don't think that it's an essential biblical teaching to believe in some great Rapture and Triumphant Return of Jesus to those Left Behind(TM). There is certainly imagery like that offered in the Bible and for the most part, I think much of the Revelation-type stories are imagery and/or metaphorical. But I don't know that, perhaps Jesus is coming very much like it's described in Revelation.
Regardless, I don't find that to be a central point to the teachings of the Bible. The central point is that we are to be living into the Kingdom today, seems to me.
I've a question for you, you state...
but your answer to my question does tend to confirm my suspicion that you're softening the Christian gospel to make it more palatable to modern, pluralist sensabilities.
Softening? Softening, how?
By suggesting we ought to be pouring our lives out in love to and with the least of these in elegant but simple living Christian community? By suggesting that we live out the very real commands of Jesus to be peacemakers in the face of violence?
I'm not sure what you're seeing as "softening," would you mind explaining?
My guess is that because I don't believe in the Atonement in the blood sacrifice demanded by an angry God kind of way that you do, that you see that to be softening.
I find the challenge to live in the footsteps of Jesus, pouring out our lives with the least of these in peacemaking and righteous living ways to be much more vigorous and daunting than merely believing in blood sacrifices to pay for sin, but you can tell me if that's what you mean...
Thanks.
Dan, it looks like we'll probably, eventually tighten our focus to those issues that I brought up earlier, namely, the necessity of a bodily and Resurrection, and the reality of the Atonement.
In the meantime, I'll certainly try to be patient in waiting for your replies.
I hope you don't mind my responding to what you've already written.
About peaceful and simple living, versus prayer, baptism, and evangelism. First, it's certainly not the case that either "living simply" or "living peacefully" is a uniquely Christian ideal. The Stoics did the former, and Buddhists strive to do the latter.
On the other hand, Bible study and evangelism are uniquely Christian insofar as the text we study and the good news we proclaim differs greatly from those of other faiths.
I'll set aside what's unique and what's not.
About "prayer, Bible study, baptism, communion, and evangelism," you write, "at least some of [these] are not what I would call essential biblical teachings."
I wish you wouldn't be vague.
QUESTION: Of prayer, Bible study, baptism, communion, and evangelism, which do you NOT consider to be essential biblical teachings?
About the Atonement. You write that you think it's essential to mention the role of the powers that be in Jesus' death, and even to mention our own culpability, but NOT the initiative of the Father and the Son.
"I'm not sure that I would use the phrase 'God sent his son to die' as an essential Biblical teaching. That would fall more under the category of how some of us have explained Jesus coming/God's plan, although it's certainly in the Bible a bit. Again, not saying I disagree, just that I'm not sure that it's what I would consider an essential Biblical teaching."
QUESTION: Why do you not consider it essential to attribute Christ's death to the Father and the Son, when you think it's essential to attribute His death to the Romans and to ourselves?
You cite John 3:16, arguing that salvation is for "whoever has faith IN JESUS, not in his death."
Notice that God "gave" His Son, suggesting that the Son was given over to die. This is a not-unreasonable supposition in light of the previous verses, 3:14-15, in which Christ teaches that the Son of Man must be lifted up -- on a cross, perhaps? -- just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.
You cite John 14:6, writing, "Jesus says HE is the Way, not 'My death' is the way."
What about John 6:35, where Christ says He is the bread of life? Is this not perhaps an allusion to the supper He institutes to commemorate His death?
And what about the clear statement of John 10:11?
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
("For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." - Jn 10:17-18a)
Christ taught that He gave Himself up to die, and Paul taught likewise, in Gal 2:20 and Eph 5:2 and 5:25, here using the same verb paradidomi that the Gospels use of Christ's being handed over to death by others.
Paul also taught that Father gave up the Son in Rom 4:25 and 8:32, and Peter attributed Christ's death to God's purposes in Acts 2:23, and he described Him as the Lamb who was "destined before the foundation of the world" in I Pet 1:19-20.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, you write:
"Romans tells us that it is by GRACE we are saved through FAITH in Jesus, not that we are saved by his death."
This claim is simply not accurate, and I ask you to look again at Paul's great "but now" statement that explains God's response to man's dire situation, where all are guilty and in need of salvation.
"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, emphasis mine
I could go on, and I think I will.
"Now the words, 'it was reckoned to him [Abraham],' were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification. - Rom 4:23-25
Romans 5:1 seems to begin favorably for your position, as "since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." But look on.
"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person -- though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life." - Rom 5:6-10
And there's more.
"We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." - Rom 6:9-11
"What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else?" - Rom 8:31-32
Indeed Romans teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, but "not that we are saved by his death"? That claim is absolutely false.
The Bible is clear:
The source of our justification is God and His grace.
The means of our jutification is faith.
But the GROUND of our justification is clearly Christ and His cross.
Are there passages that mention the first two and not the last? Possibly, but a glib appeal (for instance) to Rom 5:1 would have to ignore its immediate context of the PRIOR verse of 4:25 and the related verses of 5:6-10. I will remind you that earlier you pointed to I Peter 2:21 and its claim that Christ suffered as our example, but THREE VERSES LATER Peter teaches that Christ "bore our sins in his body on the cross."
I'm not convinced that there are that many passages that teach the source and means of our justification without the ground of Christ's death. But even if there are, it remains that, when the Bible DOES explain the ground of our justification, it consistently points to the cross.
The alternative "moral influence" theory simply does not account for the gravity of sin, nor does it account for what Christ's instituting the Lord's Supper in the Upper Room; His anguish in Gethsemane; or His cry of dereliction on the cross.
All these things are explained by His substitutionary death for our sins; none of them are explained by the moral influence theory.
[continued]
[continued]
About whether the historical and bodily Resurrection is essential. You write:
"I don't know what to say more than I have on this topic. I believe in Jesus' actual resurrection. In light of biblical teachings, I think it an essential biblical teaching that God overcomes death, as most clearly demonstrated in Jesus' resurrection. I believe that with God, there is the promise of resurrection and life everlasting.
Let's separate the two clauses.
"I believe in Jesus' actual resurrection."
"In light of biblical teachings, I think it an essential biblical teaching that God overcomes death, as most clearly demonstrated in Jesus' resurrection."
Does that mean that you believe the physical and historical Resurrection of Jesus is ITSELF an essential biblical teaching?
It's still not clear. To briefly review earlier comments, you have written that it's intrinsic but not indispensible to Christianity; you concede that it's essential yet say that its denial doesn't entail abandoning Christianity.
About eschatology. You write, "The Bible is quite clear that we don't know what tomorrow may bring."
Jesus did promise to return, in Matthew 16 and 24, in Luke 9 and 21, and in John 14; Paul wrote about His return in I and II Thessalonians, as did John in the Revelation.
The Bible is clear that only the Father knows the hour, but the Bible is by no means open-ended about last things.
Frankly, as much as you write about how we should "agree with Jesus and submit ourselves to his Lordship and follow in his steps," I'm vexed by how little stock you put in His own teachings about His return.
Or the meaning of His own death.
Or the authority of Scripture.
Or why we were created male and female.
Or, APPARENTLY, some or all of His commands to pray, baptize, observe His supper, and evangelize.
More later; dinner calls.
I'm back, briefly.
Dan, about my suspicion that you're softening the Christian gospel to make it more palatable, you ask, "I'm not sure what you're seeing as 'softening,' would you mind explaining?"
Suppose someone preached the authority of Scripture, the doctrine of salvation through Christ's death, and the promise of Christ's return, but he didn't mention the cost of discipleship that we should reckon before following Christ -- that it entails self-denial, the forgiveness of one's enemies, care for the needy, and the suffering of persecution for Christ's sake.
I would say that that preacher is softening what the Bible teaches, to make it less offensive.
You're emphasizing what he would minimize, and denying what he would affirm, but I think you're ultimately doing the same thing.
Sure, you affirm some difficult ethical commands, but you don't affirm all that the Bible teaches.
(That wouldn't be half so bad if you didn't present your beliefs as biblical, and if you didn't claim to deeply respect the Bible's teachings.)
You don't affirm that God did and commanded all of what the Old Testament records, you don't conform to what even Christ Himself taught about Scripture or the meaning of His own death.
You don't even emphasize ALL the ethical commands, as you don't seem to really believe Christ's teaching about why we were created male and female.
"Softening? Softening, how?
"By suggesting we ought to be pouring our lives out in love to and with the least of these in elegant but simple living Christian community? By suggesting that we live out the very real commands of Jesus to be peacemakers in the face of violence?"
No, by diminishing what else the Bible teaches.
And as difficult as it may be to be peacemakers who meet the needs of the poor, the call for pacifism and charity isn't what I'd call all that offensive nowadays -- and it's certainly not offensive in the radical leftist circles that you seem to frequent.
In I Corinthians 1:23, Paul wrote, "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."
It's clear you don't proclaim the same thing.
In Galatians 5:11, Paul wrote that he was being persecuted because of "the offense of the cross." It's fairly clear that, whatever difficulties you face for proclaiming pacifism and "social justice," you don't face persecution for holding to that same offensive notion which the world finds to be such a stumbling block.
(Just where do you stand between those who are persecuted for the cross and those who are doing the persecuting? I think I have an answer, but you won't like it. "I don't believe in the Atonement in the blood sacrifice demanded by an angry God kind of way that you do." Your summary of the substitutionary atonement isn't precisely accurate, and it borders on sneering.)
In Matthew 26:28, Jesus Christ Himself taught that His blood was to be "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Do you proclaim the work of His blood that He taught? It's not even clear that you believe commemorating His death through the meal He Himself instituted, is an essential teaching of the Bible.
The Bible's own claims of authority; its clear teachings that the Son gave Himself up to death and that the Father gave up the Son; its clear and emphatic teaching that Christ died for our sins; the necessity of His physical and historical Resurrection; the reality of His promised return; even such central and biblical practices as prayer, Bible study, baptism, communion, and evangelism: you're distancing yourself from all of these things.
You stand firm in promoting peace and social justice; good for you.
But so much that is central to biblical Christianity, you downplay, dismiss, or even denigrate.
The Christianity you affirm strikes me as, in many ways and in regards to quite a few theological issues, a pale shadow of what the Bible teaches, but it bears an uncanny resemblance to your progressive political philosophy.
I don't think that's a coincidence.
A couple of comments on our various Atonement theories. I would note first of all that deeper meanings of atonement are truly getting over my head. I have read the Bible seriously and deeply and I've read and heard various thoughts on Atonement and the Moral Influence one is the theory that comes closest to making sense of biblical text to me.
Feel free to disagree.
Bubba said...
I will remind you that earlier you pointed to I Peter 2:21 and its claim that Christ suffered as our example, but THREE VERSES LATER Peter teaches that Christ "bore our sins in his body on the cross."
And it certainly does. It is a metaphor. Jesus did not literally bear our sins on the cross, what would that mean? What would that look like? No, it is a metaphor. What else could it be?
Bubba said...
The alternative "moral influence" theory simply does not account for the gravity of sin, nor does it account for what Christ's instituting the Lord's Supper in the Upper Room; His anguish in Gethsemane; or His cry of dereliction on the cross.
All these things are explained by His substitutionary death for our sins; none of them are explained by the moral influence theory.
Again, you are welcome to think so. I disagree. I think the Moral Influence theory takes sin very seriously and quite gravely deals with the problem of sin. I don't see what Communion has to do specifically with either theory.
What ISN'T explained by Substitutionary Death (is that the Satisfaction Theory you're suggesting? Or the 16th Century Penal Substitution update to that theory? Could you clarify, please?) is (and my questions to you are)...
1. What does it mean to "Pay for our sins with Jesus' blood"? What does that mean? God isn't literally placing Jesus' spilled blood on each of our sins, right? God isn't pouring Jesus' blood over God's head to "wipe out" any memory of our sin, right? It is quite obviously, to me, metaphorical language being used when the Bible employs "paying for sin" sorts of language.
2. God asks us (EXPECTS us) to forgive one another. How do we do that? Do we have to offer up some sort of blood sacrifice to obtain forgiveness? OR, does God just expect us to "just do it" - simply forgive the sin and wipe the slate clean? While it's an oversimplification of the concept, I suggest God just expects us to simply forgive. No sacrifice necessary.
That being the case, IF God wishes to forgive our sins AND God is an omnipotent God, why can't God simply forgive our sins? Why does God need a sacrifice? I don't think logic or the Bible suggest God DOES need a sacrifice to pay for sins.
In fact, it is a central, common theme in the Bible that God demands mercy (love), not sacrifice. If we mere mortals can forgive just by doing it - by sheer will, if you please - why wouldn't God, in whose image we are created?
3. Perhaps the greatest problem with Satisfaction/PS theories is that they downplay God's grace. We are saved by God's GRACE, through faith in Jesus. IF God saves us by torturing and killing his son, then that suggests a Salvation by vengeance to me. God HATES SIN so much that it MUST BE PUNISHED and punished severely. But rather than take it out on us, God gets relief by taking it out on God's Son, instead.
This does not sound rational nor does it speak of grace, but of vengeance. At least to me. Where is Grace in the S/PS theories?
If my son commits a wrong, I will be angry and disappointed. I will expect repentance and a turn around in behavior and a following in the right path. My son, in turn, can know that I will love him regardless of how he responds, but that by repentance and grace, he can be restored to a right relationship.
Again, I'm not sure how qualified I am (or you are?) to get into extremely deep discussions of the various atonement theories, but them's my thoughts. What're yours?
Bubba asked...
QUESTION: Why do you not consider it essential to attribute Christ's death to the Father and the Son, when you think it's essential to attribute His death to the Romans and to ourselves?
You seem to separate Jesus' life from his death.
I think that it is all one. God demonstrated God's love for us by sending Jesus to be and to be with the least of us. God joined in our community and thus, invited us to join God's community. Jesus came to live and to die and to show us how to live.
I attribute Jesus' coming and life and resurrection to God/Jesus. I attribute Jesus' death to our actions.
I think this is a central essential biblical teaching.
At this point, I would like to note that you raised the question of specifically "essential biblical teaching," and that is what I'm speaking of in this conversation. That is, those ideas we get specifically from reading the Bible.
Some teachings come from human tradition moreso than the Bible. The Belief that the Bible is Scripture, for instance, is solely a human teaching and can't at all be called an essential Bible teaching, since the Bible does not address this at all.
A belief in a Triune God is more of a human tradition and an aspect of Christianity, but it's not a core essential biblical teaching. It is an extrapolation, perhaps, of biblical teaching and one that Christians may rightly believe in, but I don't think it is fair to call it an essential biblical teaching.
Am I making sense? I don't think every one of our important Christian tenets are profoundly and explicitly biblical teachings. We may extrapolate them more or less from the Bible, but that's not what I'm thinking of when I talk of "essential biblical teachings."
By that term, I mean those ideas that one would find abundantly evident if one read the Bible with no preconceived notions of what it SHOULD say (ie, with no traditions defining what the Bible is saying, just an open, honest reading of it). I probably should have made that clear early on. Is that what you meant by this, too? Or were you asking me to pass on what I thought essential CHRISTIAN teachings are (as opposed to essential biblical teachings)?
Bubba said...
The reason I believe that the Bible is a book of truth -- and the primary reason I affirm inerrancy -- is because the Bible (credibly) claims to be God's written word, and Jesus taught that God's word is truth (Jn 17:17). The Bible claims to be God-breathed, and God cannot lie (Num 23:19).
So, you have a book and you believe it to be a book of truth because the book claims (credibly) to be God's written word.
How do you know it is God's written word? Because the book claims it? That's circular reasoning and you're not doing that, right? No, you're claiming you believe it because you believe the book credibly claims to be God's written word.
Can you tell me what evidence you have that the book credibly makes this claim?
But first, can you tell me where the Bible makes the claim that it is God's written word? Or do you acknowledge that the Bible doesn't actually make this claim?
Of course, since I agree that the Bible is a book of Truth, I'm not disputing your ultimate claim. Rather, I'm trying to discern your reasoning process to get to that point. I've explained how I reach that conclusion. I'm interested in how you reach your conclusion, if you don't mind.
Dan, it may be until sometime tomorrow for me to tackle every subject that you raise, as I *DO* have some time to reply, but not all in a single block.
About the crediblity of Scripture, I do not make a circular argument that the Bible's claim to be God's word is credible because it's from the Bible.
Instead, I believe the Bible's credibility is inexorably linked to Jesus' credibility, and His credibility is very convincing.
That Jesus historically lived and that Jesus was crucified are claims that are not seriously disputed.
Furthermore -- as Lee Strobel briefly outlines in The Case for Christ, and as JP Holding argues in an essay on the "impossible faith" -- the bodily and historical Resurrection is, barring a priori assumptions against all miracles, the best explanation for the rapid growth of the early Christian church.
The Resurrection appears to be a historical event.
And, even excluding claims about inerrancy, the Gospels appear to be trustworthy accounts of Jesus' life, ministry, and teachings, and Jesus affirmed Scripture in numerous ways.
Jesus' affirmation of Scripture is so frequent and so complete that, if anyone believes the Gospel accounts aren't trustworthy on this point, then we can know absoultely nothing about what Jesus did or taught.
For instance, when Jesus was tempted in the desert, He rebuked Satan by appealling to Scripture as if it were the final word, in Mt 4 and Lk 4. In Mt 5, Jesus affirms the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke; and in Mt 15 and Mk 7, He contrasts human tradition and Scripture as "the word of God."
He not only affirms Scripture, He claims that Scripture affirms Him. That's what He did in one of your favorite sermons, in Lk 4 ("Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing"). In Jn 4, He claimed to be the Christ who was promised to come, and after His Resurrection, in Lk 23:27, He interpreted to His followers "the things about himself in all the scriptures."
Jesus' claims to be God and the Messiah are credible, because the claim of His bodily Resurrection is credible.
And because Jesus has authority, the Scripture He affirms (and which affirms Him) also has authority.
You write:
"But first, can you tell me where the Bible makes the claim that it is God's written word? Or do you acknowledge that the Bible doesn't actually make this claim?"
The Bible records that Jesus treats Scripture as God's written word (see above), and that's good enough for me.
Your approach to the Bible reminds me of how some people approach the Constitution: they can see a right to abortion in the emanations of penumbras, but they deny what's right in front of them, like the right to bear arms. In your case, you can devise an argument that God blesses "gay marriage," and the argument is not only from silence, it's in direct opposition to the Bible's consistent condemnation of homosexual behavior, what the Bible says about the composition of marriage, and even Christ's own teaching about why we were created male and female. But on issues like inerrancy, you apparently expect nothing less than an explicit statement like, "These 66 books comprise the Bible, and they are each inerrant."
If you ever applied your standards for inerrancy to your position on "gay marriage" -- or even your position that the Bible contains atrocities, bigotry, and other errors -- your own position would disintegrate. The argument for inerrancy is strong, but you demand perfection from others' arguments when your own are incredilby weak.
More later, possibly this evening.
Dan:
About the Trinity, you write:
"A belief in a Triune God is more of a human tradition and an aspect of Christianity, but it's not a core essential biblical teaching. It is an extrapolation, perhaps, of biblical teaching and one that Christians may rightly believe in, but I don't think it is fair to call it an essential biblical teaching."
This claim I reject completely.
(You also write, "The Belief that the Bible is Scripture, for instance, is solely a human teaching and can't at all be called an essential Bible teaching, since the Bible does not address this at all." The Bible does address this, in Luke 4, for instance, which you esteem so highly: Jesus referred to the passage as Scripture. Elsewhere, Paul concludes his first letter to the Thessalonians by commanding them to read the letter aloud, just as they doubtlessly read Scripture, and Peter makes explicit what is implicit in Paul's command: in II Peter 3:16 he refers to Paul's letters and "the other scriptures.")
I'll refer back to what I wrote earlier: there is doctrine that is essential to salvation (ES), doctrine that is essential to Christianity (EC), and doctrine that is clear from the Bible (CB). I believe ES is a subset of EC and EC is a subset of CB.
In other words, EVERY essential teaching of the Christian faith is also a clear teaching of the Bible.
I don't hold to this belief with blind faith, as I believe it can be demonstrated on any essential doctrine.
For the Trinity, we have a few central claims from the Bible that -- all together -- lead inexorably to a triune God and exclude all other possibilities, such as polytheism and monotheistic modalism.
(I wonder if you think the Bible doesn't clearly teach monotheism.)
The following are the necessary and sufficient claims that lead to Trinitarianism and exclude all alternatives. They are all clear and repeated teachings of the Bible, but I will reference only a few passages where the teachings can be found.
1) The claim of monotheism, that there is only one God (Deut 6:4, which Christ in Mk 12:29).
2) The Father is God (Jn 4:23-24).
3) The Son is God (Jn 8:58).
4) The Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4).
5) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct (Mt 3:16-17, Jn 14:26).
You write about "those ideas that one would find abundantly evident if one read the Bible with no preconceived notions of what it SHOULD say."
Okay: upon reading the Bible with no preconceptions, do you find that it is the least bit unclear about these claims? About there being one God? About the divinity of the Son, and the fact that the Son is distinct from the Father and the Spirit?
I know of no such passage.
That is to say, I know of no such passage that undermines any of these clear claims of the Bible.
Now, Dan, we come to what I think is one of the most important issues we've been discussing.
About the Atonement, you write that I Peter 2:24 contains a metaphor, in its claim that Christ "bore our sins in his body on the cross."
"It is a metaphor. Jesus did not literally bear our sins on the cross, what would that mean? What would that look like? No, it is a metaphor. What else could it be?"
The passage uses figurative language, certainly, but I don't think it must be a metaphor in the sense you mean it.
By "bearing our sins" the passage could simply mean that Christ endured the penalty for our sins, rather than the idea that claims that He died for our sins really mean that the ground of our justification is something else entirely.
If a man in the ancient Roman empire committed a capital offense and his brother was wrongly accused and executed for it, the real criminal could say that his brother "bore his crime on the cross," and there would be no doubt about what he meant.
As I pointed out earlier, the Ten Commandments use figurative language when it commands us not to "take the Lord's name in vain." How does one "take" a name? What does that look like? Or can we all admit that we have a good grasp on figurative language and not play dumb?
You yourself used figurative language in the first paragraph of your comment on the Atonement, writing, "deeper meanings of atonement are truly getting over my head."
Meanings get over your head? What does that mean? What would that look like? Or, if one is being obtuse asking questions about your use of figurative language, are you not being obtuse about Peter?
The most irritating thing about your claiming that Christ's bearing our sins on the cross is a metaphor, is that you don't answer the implicit question, a metaphor for what?
If "Christ died for our sins" is a metaphor for how God really justifies us and forgives us for our sins, you never explain the real grounds for our justification and forgiveness.
Instead, you write as if there are no real grounds for these things, that God accomplishes these things "just because."
"...IF God wishes to forgive our sins AND God is an omnipotent God, why can't God simply forgive our sins? Why does God need a sacrifice? I don't think logic or the Bible suggest God DOES need a sacrifice to pay for sins.
"In fact, it is a central, common theme in the Bible that God demands mercy (love), not sacrifice. If we mere mortals can forgive just by doing it - by sheer will, if you please - why wouldn't God, in whose image we are created?"
If, as I suspect, these rhetorical questions reflect your actual position, my response would be (and is) that God's command simply to forgive does not imply that He forgave us just as simply, because God is not only loving, He is holy and just.
Because He is loving, God seeks to forgive, but because He is holy, the penalty of sin must be paid.
If you believe that the penalty goes unpaid, then it's not the case that you believe Christ's dying for our sins is a mere metaphor for the real ground for our forgivness: instead, you must believe that the claim has NO real meaning, metaphorical or otherwise.
You claim, "the Moral Influence theory takes sin very seriously and quite gravely deals with the problem of sin."
At best, you haven't explained how.
If these rhetorical questions reflect your own beliefs, then we have a much worse case, where there is no explanation for how, where God deals with the problem of sin by ignoring its penaly and "simply" forgiving us, and where your rhetoric about taking sin seriously and gravely is hollow.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, I'm not sure how my beliefs compare to, for instance, the "16th Century Penal Substitution" update of the satisfaction theory of the Atonement, but I would say that my beliefs regarding the Atonement line up with John Stott's description in The Cross of Christ.
The Atonement is an act of self-satisfaction. God isn't primarily satisfying the demands of Satan, or His own law, or His own honor. Instead, the Atonement is an act by which God primarily satisfies Himself, His own character, His own holy righteousness.
And, the Atonement is an act of self-substitution. The Atonement is an act of substitution, whereby Another took our place and died our death on the cross, paying the penalty of our sins. That substitute was God in Christ, fully God and fully man and who is therefore (in Stott's words) fully and uniquely qualified to represent God and man and to mediate between them.
You wonder about whether either of us are qualified to discuss the Atonement in deep detail, but it's not necessary to understand the "how" of the Atonement in order to believe the "what" of the Atonement, as described in the Bible.
None of us can fully grasp how God is three Persons in one Being, but we can accept that as a true revelation of Scripture: ditto the centuries-old dilemmas of God's holiness and love; and God's sovereignty and man's freedom; and Christ's being fully God and fully man. We can accept THAT these things are true even if we do not fully understand HOW they are true.
But when you argue that what the Bible teaches about Christ's death isn't actually true, you already wade into pretty deep waters and make claims that MUST be repudiated as (at a minimum) unsupportable by Scripture.
You ask three groups of questions.
1. About "what does it mean" that Jesus paid for our sins with His blood, I believe it means -- at the very least -- that Jesus Christ died the death that we deserved as sinners, so that, because He suffered the penalty of our sinfulness, we who believe in Him are imputed the reward of His righteousness.
2. About our duty to forgive, it isn't that we are expected to conduct a sacrifice to forgive others, but we are still supposed to take any actions that are needed to restore the broken relationship. If someone stole from us, we aren't to forgive ONLY after the thief pays back what he stole; instead we are to "eat" the cost of what he stole and forgive, having thus suffered the cost of his offense.
And we should remember that all sins are ultimately sins against God and not against each other (see Psalm 51:4). We forgive others simply, NOT because God forgives "simply," but because He has already given EVERYTHING -- including His only begotten Son -- in order to forgive the man who has offended us.
3. You ask, where is grace in the substitutionary atonement?
I'll first remind you that I believe the Bible is clear both that the Father sent the Son, and that the Son sent Himself. It's not as if the Son died in order to appease an "angry" Father (your word) who was unwilling to forgive; and it's not as if the Father sent a reluctant Son who was unwilling to die.
They were both willing, even eager participants in this divine plan. Why? Because both the Father and the Son love us.
But I would add to these reminders, a reminder to consider the Trinitarian implications of the Bible's claims about Christ's death.
The Bible teaches that the Father sent the Son to die on the cross.
But the Bible is also clear that the Father is God, and that the Son is ALSO God: "Before Abraham was, I am."
So: GOD SENT HIMSELF TO DIE ON THE CROSS.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, because God sent Himself to die on the cross for our sins, that death is consequently a clear demonstration of His love for us.
Your difficulty in finding grace in Christ's dying for our sins, I could understand coming from a non-believer who hasn't studied the Bible, but not from someone who claims to have read the Bible "seriously and deeply."
I say that because the Bible ITSELF is clear that Christ's dying for our sins is a demonstration of God's love, in one of its most famous passages.
"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.
"Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life." - Romans 5:6-10, emphasis mine
According to Paul, Christ's dying for us -- our being justified by His blood and reconciled to God through His death -- isn't incompatible with God's love, it's proof of God's unfathmable love for us and His "amazing grace."
If you don't see God's love in Christ's dying for us and for our sins, your problem isn't with me, or with the 16th century Reformers, or with the earlier Christian theologians who fleshed out the theory of Christ's substitutionary death, or EVEN with Paul himself.
Your problem is ultimately with Christ who called Paul and authorized him to preach in His name.
Finally, Dan, I had asked two questions in my last group of comments from last week:
QUESTION: Of prayer, Bible study, baptism, communion, and evangelism, which do you NOT consider to be essential biblical teachings?
QUESTION: Why do you not consider it essential to attribute Christ's death to the Father and the Son, when you think it's essential to attribute His death to the Romans and to ourselves?
You didn't address the first question at all, and I reiterate the question because I really would like an answer.
The second question, you address, but I'm not sure I can find an answer in your reply:
"You seem to separate Jesus' life from his death.
"I think that it is all one. God demonstrated God's love for us by sending Jesus to be and to be with the least of us. God joined in our community and thus, invited us to join God's community. Jesus came to live and to die and to show us how to live.
"I attribute Jesus' coming and life and resurrection to God/Jesus. I attribute Jesus' death to our actions.
"I think this is a central essential biblical teaching."
I'm not sure why (or in what way) you think I separate Christ's life from His death, but here you give conflicting answers about who caused His death.
You write that "Jesus came... to die," but you attribute His death to our actions.
(That last bit raises an interesting question: how are our actions in the twenty-first century responsible for His death in the first century, if it ISN'T that He died for our sins? If His death wasn't to pay the penalty for the sins that we would commit two millennia later, just WHAT is the causal connection between our present actions and His death two thousand years prior?)
I agree that the Bible is clear that Pilate, the Jewish leaders, Judas, and even our own sins sent Christ to the cross.
But the Bible is EQUALLY clear that the Father sent the Son to die, and that the Son sent Himself to die: see Gal 2:20, Eph 5:2 and 5:25, Rom 4:25 and 8:32, Acts 2:23, and I Pet 1:19-20.
You write that you attribute Christ's death to our actions because it is a "central essential biblical teaching," but you HAVE NOT explained why you do not also attribute His death to the Father's initiative and the Son's initiative, and why you do not consider THESE attributions as central, essential teachings of the Bible.
I'll respond when I get a chance...
No problem, Dan, but THANK YOU for the heads-up.
(I know I wrote a lot, but there was a lot to respond to, and we're obviously covering a couple serious topics that demand that much space.)
If a response is going to take a noticeably long time on my part, I'll try to let y'all know with a one-line comment.
I don't think it's strictly necessary to check in for the sake of checking in, but if or when either of us is going to bow out altogether, courtesy would require explicit notice.
Dan, while we're waiting for the dialogue to resume, there is one comment which I didn't fully address, and I'd like to rectify the matter now, if briefly.
"I think the Moral Influence theory takes sin very seriously and quite gravely deals with the problem of sin. I don't see what Communion has to do specifically with either theory."
I would like to know exactly how the moral influence theory actually deals with the problem of sin, but I didn't respond to your last sentence.
I recommend that you look to Matthew 26:28.
"...this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
When He instituted the observance of His supper, Christ did not assert that His death was to be a moral influence for others; rather, He clearly taught that His death was for "the forgiveness of sins."
We can go into details later about why I think the substitutionary atonement is uniquely supported by the account of the Lord's Supper in the upper room, His anguish in Gethsemane, and His cry of dereliction on the cross.
For the moment, it suffices to note that, in that verse, Christ Himself linked His death with the forgiveness of sin.
Dan, by my count it's been over a week since you checked in, and almost two weeks since you've posted anything of substance.
I know there's flooding in Louisville right now, and I do hope everything's okay in regards to the weather and the rest of your life in the non-digital world, but I've noticed that you're still blogging, albeit very lightly.
If you're still visiting this discussion, I would appreciate an idea about when to expect your next substantive reply, so I don't have to keep checking a dead thread in the meantime.
I don't mind a delay and would certainly understand if circumstances make a delay unavoidable, but if you have time to blog at some length at your place, I would appreciate your taking the time to comment here.
If you want to resume this discussion in a few days, weeks, or even months, that's fine with me. Just let me know.
Thanks.
I'm striving to get to it as soon as I can. I am busy in the real world right now and, while it may slow down some this next week, it picks back up the following week. So, I'm hoping to return this weekend or next week, at this point.
One issue is, we've gotten to a point where there's more and more to wade through and just getting started to try to answer something or address something takes a larger commitment of time, which, as noted, is in short supply these days.
Posting quotes from the Bible at my blog did not take so much time and, thus, was easier to accomplish in the few minutes I've had available here and there.
Thanks for your patience.
Absolutely no problemo, Dan. Thank you very much for the quick update.
I think I answered your major question back on the 26th, clarifying why I believe in the authority of Scripture: I'm fine putting that particular issue to the side if you are.
About the issues I raised in my string of comments on the 27th, I really don't think ANY of them is less than crucial in terms of the chasm between our two sets of beliefs or -- more importantly -- whether I'm right that your beliefs deviate significantly from what the Bible clearly teaches.
From whether the Trinity is a clear teaching of Scripture to the doctrine that Christ died for our sins; from your claim that the Bible does not teach as essential some or all of some very central Christian practices -- namely prayer, Bible study, baptism, communion, and evangelism -- to your belief that it's essential to attribute Christ's death to the Romans and ourselves but it's NOT essential to attribute it to the will of the Father and the Son: all of these are extremely serious, and I'm simply not at all willing to drop any of them.
If you want to take them one at a time -- the Trinity, the Atonement, essential practices, and who's responsible for Christ's death -- that's quite fine with me.
But, for each subject, I've raised questions or presented arguments that really need to be addressed.
If you're going to be out of pocket for the next week or so, that's absolutely fine.
I do hope everything's okay.
In the meantime, I'll keep checking in for a reply, AT LEAST once a week, probably sometime over each weekend.
If it's clear by, say, next Friday the 14th that it'll still be some time before we can continue this dialogue, it'd be great if you can let me know.
(Of course, I'll do my very best to extend the same courtesy to you when my own schedule gets in the way.)
I wouldn't call this discussion fun by any stretch, but it's enlightening, and I would prefer to bring it to a point where it can conclude in a manner that's satisfactory to all involved. We're not there yet, from my end, but we're getting there.
In the meantime, I do appreciate your continued participation.
Bubba/Dan,
I agree that this discussion is enlightening and also hope that this can end in a satisfactory manner. Thanks for the time and effort from both of you.
Dan, I echo Bubba in hoping that all is well with you in what sounds like a difficult time.
I look forward to more from both of you.
Thanks
I appreciate your patience. I've been very busy and have had a hard time finding time for this discussion. I'll continue as much as time allows.
Bubba mentioned this exchange between the two of us, with Bubba saying...
"You mention many earthly aspects of Christian life, including living simply and peacefully, but I don't see much about those particular activities that are uniquely Christian: prayer, Bible study, baptism, communion, and evangelism."
And me replying...
"I would include those (at least some of which are not what I would call essential biblical teachings) under the broader Biblical essential teaching of joining in God's community and following in Jesus' steps."
Allow me to clarify. Since Bubba brought it up here, I'll answer here and over at Craig's, where I'll continue the conversation as I have time (I won't try to continue any conversation here, since I'm busy enough as it is).
1. To be clear: The conversation Bubba and I are in is about what IS and ISN'T in the Bible, not about Christian doctrine, per se. For instance, I think the Trinity is something that can be extracted from the Bible as a reasonable conclusion, but it is not in the Bible, and certainly not any suggestion of a belief in a triune God as a prerequesite for following Christ or as an "essential," as far as what the Bible has to say. We're just talking about what the Bible does and does not say.
2. To be clear, all of these actions are mentioned in the Bible, in some form or the other.
3. When I suggested that not all of these are "essential biblical teachings," what I was trying to get at, I believe, was that these actions as formal policy/rituals of church and as we understand them generally today are not essential biblical teachings.
4. The one that is most obvious to me is what we call Communion or Lord's Supper. I don't believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus was implementing a "sacrament" or ritual that the church should observe with that. They were gathered to eat and Jesus said, "as often as you do this (ie, break bread together in your meals or share wine/drink together) recall me and my life and death." That is, I don't think the Bible supports the notion that Jesus was implementing a church-service ritual to be called "Communion," in which people would artificially bring out little wafers and cups of grape juice and symbolically recall Jesus life and death and resurrection. That specifically is what I am speaking of.
5. I do agree that the Bible teaches that praying is a good and healthy thing and a biblical notion, that it's taken as a given ("when you pray..."). I agree that studying scriptures to be approved, to be educated and enlightened, that this is a biblical notion. I agree that baptism is a ritual that is biblically supported. I believe that sharing the Good News and, as we're going out in the world, making disciples, that THESE are biblical notions. I question what evangelism has come to mean in at least many evangelical circles - going door to door and getting people to say the "sinner's prayer," many of our revival services, etc - but in the sense that we are to share the good news as Jesus shared it, in THAT sense of evangelism, yes, it is a biblical notion.
Does that help clarify? I think perhaps you were over-reacting to something I said, perhaps poorly. I would also point out again that I don't think those actions themselves are uniquely Christian at all. Most if not all religions pray, study their scripture and have some sort of evangelism, perhaps baptism and "communion" are uniquely Christian, though.
Let me attempt to answer at least one more question from you and then I want to return to your answer to a question of mine.
Your question...
QUESTION: Why do you not consider it essential to attribute Christ's death to the Father and the Son, when you think it's essential to attribute His death to the Romans and to ourselves?
Perhaps I need to reframe my original position.
1. The Bible makes claims that God "sent God's son" to die, to be a sacrifice. That sort of language IS in the Bible.
2. The Bible makes other claims, giving a historical reading of the events that led to his death which involve the powers that be - the Romans at many levels of gov't and the Jewish leadership.
3. The Bible makes other claims - that it is because of sin, ALL of our sin - that Jesus died. That sin leads to death, destruction, hatred and all manner of ugliness, all of which Jesus came to set aside by his teaching of a better Way. God's Way.
So, I would say that given a unbiased reading of the Bible, one could find all of these claims about Jesus' death within the Bible. I don't believe you could reasonably conclude from what the Bible says that ONE reading or the other is "more" essential. These are just all ways that the Bible talks about Jesus' death. There probably are others, too, if I had the clarity of mind to think it through.
Along these lines, let me offer what the Mennonite position is on atonement. I think it relates.
The Anselmian “satisfaction” or substitutionary model of the atonement, emphatically articulated by the Magisterial Reformers, was not wrong in the Anabaptist’s view for they agreed with most of it. In their direct references to the atonement, they affirm biblical themes and use the general language of substitution. But to them, that model was inadequate or insufficient. It concentrated chiefly on Christ’s death and had been reduced to a passive or forensic doctrine which concerned only a change in humanity’s legal status before God. It was an external benefit bestowed by God regardless of human involvement. No wonder that Luther and Calvin who followed this line of thinking resorted to the Augustinian doctrine of predestination.
To the Anabaptists, however, atonement meant much, much more...
source
And...
Each of these motifs—conflict-victory, vicarious suffering, atoning sacrifice—contributes something essential to our understanding of the cross. And there are several more besides—e.g., redemption, reconciliation, justification.
source
These are the ideals I've been trying to get across, however poorly. I do not object to the notion that Substitutionary Atonement is a biblical way of looking at the atonement or Christ's work. I, along with most anabaptists, merely think that it is ONE WAY of looking at it, but not the ONLY way of looking at it.
Do you think all of us anabaptists are mistaken in thinking thusly?
I think I had another question of you in all this, but I'm forgetting it right now. Maybe I'll come back to it.
Earlier, I asked Bubba...
"But first, can you tell me where the Bible makes the claim that it is God's written word? Or do you acknowledge that the Bible doesn't actually make this claim?"
To which Bubba replied...
The Bible records that Jesus treats Scripture as God's written word (see above), and that's good enough for me.
And I think my point remains solid, I don't see how any of your comments would contradict my thinking: The Bible itself does NOT make the claim that the Bible itself is God's written word. That is a human extrapolation, not a biblical declaration. Yes, no one is disputing that Jesus treats "Scripture" as God's Word and revelation to us. But no, the Bible clearly does not specifically designate its 66 books as either "scripture" or "God's word."
At the best, we can see in the NT that the NT writers compared some of Paul's writings to scripture, but two notes on that...
1. I'm not sure that comparing Paul's letters to Scripture infers that they are necessarily scripture.
2. We don't know WHICH of Paul's writings that the NT writers reference.
So, QUESTION 1: We ARE in agreement that no where in the Bible does it specifically state that the 66 protestant books are scripture or God's word, yes?
QUESTION 2: Are we also in agreement that we don't have really anything other than tradition to suggest that the 29 books of the NT are as Scripture, to us?
Regarding the notion that the Bible calls the Bible "scripture," am I mistaken or is the whole argument this passage from 2 Peter?
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. ~2 Peter 3
Peter refers to what Paul "wrote to you" as "according to the wisdom given him (Paul)," and suggests that "all of [Paul's] letters" are good for teaching, as are "the rest of the Scriptures." In finding this in the Bible, we could conclude that Paul's "writings - all his letters" - however that may be defined - were considered as part of "the rest of the Scriptures," at least in Peter's opinion.
1. We don't know - from the Bible - if Peter is talking about the 13 books, Romans thru Philemon, traditionally considered to be written by Paul, or just some of them, or some other set of Paul's letters. The Bible does not make clear which of Paul's letters Peter referred to. Agreed?
2. Beyond that, at the most then - from what the Bible says - we could conclude that the Pauline epistles are scripture. But there is nothing in the Bible to include the Gospels, the other epistles or Acts or Revelation. Agreed?
OR, is there some other biblical argument that you have that makes you conclude that the Bible calls the Bible itself - specifically, the 66 books of the protestant Bible - "scripture" or "God's Word?"
Dan, I'm glad to see we can resume the discussion, and I appreciate your returning to this thread.
I'll reiterate that I believe all the essential doctrines of Christianity are also clear teachings of the Bible. If you disagree, then I'm compelled to ask the following QUESTION: to what other sources of authority do you submit regarding Christian doctrine?
If the Bible doesn't teach all of what is essential to Christian faith, there must be another source of authority that fills in the gaps -- something like Tradition, the non-canonical writings of the early church fathers, the councils, or papal decrees. I wonder what you think that source is.
About the Trinity in particular, I believe that the Bible's clear teachings preclude all other theological possibilities -- including polytheism and unitarian monotheism -- and teaches what is both necessary and sufficient for trinitarianism.
If you disagree, I would like to know precisely where the Bible is unclear regarding the claims that fit trinitarianism uniquely.
QUESTIONS: Do you believe the Bible is unclear that Jesus Christ is God? Do you believe the Bible is unclear that the Holy Spirit is God? Do you believe that the Bible is unclear that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct?
If the Bible is clear on all these things which necessarily lead to the doctrine of the Trinity, I do not see why it's unclear about the Trinity itself.
About the traditional religious practices of the Christian church, you reiterate, "I don't think those actions themselves are uniquely Christian at all. Most if not all religions pray, study their scripture and have some sort of evangelism, perhaps baptism and 'communion' are uniquely Christian, though."
I will reiterate, Bible study and evangelism are uniquely Christian insofar as the text we study and the good news we proclaim differs greatly from those of other faiths. It's not actually the case that most other religions have Scripture or are evangelistic, but the study of our particular holy text and the proclamation of our specific gospel IS unique to Christianity, especially compared to those activities you emphasize, of living simply and peacefully.
On that subject, you write:
"When I suggested that not all of these are "essential biblical teachings," what I was trying to get at, I believe, was that these actions as formal policy/rituals of church and as we understand them generally today are not essential biblical teachings." [emphasis in original]
I never stated nor implied that I was listing those activities as policy or ritual, or merely as they are understood today, but that seems like an odd distinction to make for THESE activities when you mention other activities as essential teachings of the Bible. To wit:
"God loves us and we ought to love one another."
And:
"We ought to live simply and with grace.
"We ought to live peacefully.
"We ought to do no harm.
"We ought not force our way upon others."
Your explanation for why you disregard duties like prayer and/or communion as essential teachings of the Bible -- in that you were considering them only "as formal policy/rituals of church and as we understand them generally today" -- doesn't explain why included other duties.
(For what it's worth, I Cor 11 is quite clear that the Lord's Supper was an ordinance that Christ instituted and which the church should observe very carefully.)
[continued]
[continued]
About who is responsible for Christ's death, you write that you're now reframing your original position. After summarizing a few claims from the Bible about who is responsible for Christ's death, you write:
"So, I would say that given a unbiased reading of the Bible, one could find all of these claims about Jesus' death within the Bible. I don't believe you could reasonably conclude from what the Bible says that ONE reading or the other is 'more' essential. These are just all ways that the Bible talks about Jesus' death. There probably are others, too, if I had the clarity of mind to think it through."
You earlier did what you now think dismiss as an unreasonable conclusion; you did seem to teach as essential the idea that Christ was killed by the Romans, on more than one occasion, where the idea that the Father sent to the Son to die is emphatically NOT essential.
"I'm not sure that I would use the phrase 'God sent his son to die' as an essential Biblical teaching. That would fall more under the category of how some of us have explained Jesus coming/God's plan, although it's certainly in the Bible a bit. Again, not saying I disagree, just that I'm not sure that it's what I would consider an essential Biblical teaching." [emphasis mine]
If you're now saying all these claims are equally essential, that's a dramatically different position from what you wrote earlier.
About the Atonement, you write:
"I do not object to the notion that Substitutionary Atonement is a biblical way of looking at the atonement or Christ's work. I, along with most anabaptists, merely think that it is ONE WAY of looking at it, but not the ONLY way of looking at it."
I only skimmed those two articles to which you linked, in part because -- as you have put it -- our conversation is about "what IS and ISN'T in the Bible," and anabaptist essays hardly qualify.
QUESTIONS: Where does the Bible teach that Christ's dying for our sins is only "one way" of looking at His death? If it doesn't actually teach that, what specific passages teach that there are other ways to look at His death?
Now, about the authority of Scripture, you ask two pairs of questions.
"So, QUESTION 1: We ARE in agreement that no where in the Bible does it specifically state that the 66 protestant books are scripture or God's word, yes?"
Yes, but the Bible frequently references subsets of the Protestant canon as Scripture or God's word: for instance, Jesus taught that Isaiah is scripture, in one of your favorite passages, in Luke 4. And nowhere does the Bible claim that any of the 66 books are anything other than Scripture, e.g., that a particular passage is the result of human speculation rather than divine revelation.
Because the Bible doesn't contain systematic theology, it doesn't worry me that it doesn't explicitly list the 66 books of canon as Scripture.
"QUESTION 2: Are we also in agreement that we don't have really anything other than tradition to suggest that the 29 books of the NT are as Scripture, to us?"
No, we are not in agreement. First, this is as good a place as any to refute your claim that Peter merely compared Paul's writing to Scripture, that "At the best, we can see in the NT that the NT writers compared some of Paul's writings to scripture."
You write, "I'm not sure that comparing Paul's letters to Scripture infers that they are necessarily scripture."
But Peter didn't merely compare Paul's letters to Scripture. In II Peter 3:16, Peter wrote that some distort Paul's difficult teachings just as they distort the "OTHER" scriptures -- using the word loipoy, meaning the rest or the remaining.
If I said mentioned Paul McCartney and the remaining Beatles, I'm not comparing him to the Beatles, I'm including him with the Beatles. Likewise, Peter didn't compare Paul's letters to Scripture, he included the letters with Scripture.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, about Peter, you seem to admit as much, writing, "In finding this in the Bible, we could conclude that Paul's 'writings - all his letters' - however that may be defined - were considered as part of 'the rest of the Scriptures,' at least in Peter's opinion."
Since Peter authored part of the Bible, what Peter writes in those canonical letters, the Bible also teaches.
Even laying this point aside, it's not the case that "we don't have really anything other than tradition" to discover the canon of the New Testament: in addition to examining whether the book was accepted by its immediate audience, the church can and has examined whether a particular book was written a prophet of God (or apostle of Christ) who was confirmed by acts of God; it can and has tested whether the message is consistent with what was already revealed as Scripture, and whether its message has been effective. The books that became the canonical New Testament were recognized as authoritative primarily because of their apostolicity, not merely because of church tradition.
"1. We don't know - from the Bible - if Peter is talking about the 13 books, Romans thru Philemon, traditionally considered to be written by Paul, or just some of them, or some other set of Paul's letters. The Bible does not make clear which of Paul's letters Peter referred to. Agreed?"
Agreed, but even if Peter had referred by name to Paul's letter to Rome and his two letters to Corinth, there's wiggle room for you: he could have been referencing *SOME* letter Paul wrote to Rome, but not necessarily *THIS* letter.
In most cases, there's little to no serious doubt that the NT books explicitly attributed to Paul were authentic letters of Paul.
The question is, what does the Bible teach about itself? The answer to that is that the Bible DOES teach its own divine authorship and subsequent authority.
It doesn't teach this explicitly enough for your tastes, but here I don't find your standards to be reasonable, just as I believe they are not reasonable when it comes to "gay marriage."
It seems to me that you're looking for reasons to obscure much of what it clearly teaches.
"2. Beyond that, at the most then - from what the Bible says - we could conclude that the Pauline epistles are scripture. But there is nothing in the Bible to include the Gospels, the other epistles or Acts or Revelation. Agreed?"
No, I don't agree, because Peter's claim isn't the only reason Paul's letters are considered canonical: there's also his own claim of apostolic authority, having been picked by Christ Himself and not by any human intermediary (see, e.g., Gal 1:1). Since Peter and John were also apostles, their letters (and John's gospel) carry the same weight.
The synoptic gospels appear to have been written by the apostles' closest associates, so their canonicity is based on the same authority, if (slightly) indirectly. There are two reasons to accept the Revelation: its apostolic authorship AND its explicitly prophetic nature.
Let me grant that the Bible teaches LESS about its divine authorship and authority than you apparently require -- that it doesn't list all 66 books of the canon and affirm the divine authority of each one.
It's still not the case that it teaches something OTHER THAN its divine authorship and authority. It doesn't once teach that even a single passage contains atrocity, bigotry, or any other form of error.
This entire train of thought leads to what might be two of the most important QUESTIONS:
Dan, do you believe that the Bible is authored by God? If you don't, just why is it so important to conform to its teachings?
Last two questions first.
do you believe that the Bible is authored by God?
The Bible makes no such claim. The Bible claims that scripture is God-breathed. That is what I believe. I respect the Bible too much to say that it says something it does not say.
But we've gone over that, haven't we?
If you don't, just why is it so important to conform to its teachings?
Because I am a Christian, a follower of the teachings of Christ and the Bible contains the written teachings of Christ.
Is that reasonable enough?
Dan, I don't think it's actually the case that the Bible says nothing about the question of its divine authorship. What it says isn't comprehensively detailed down to listing the 66 books of canon and describing each one as authored by God, but it's not altogether silent on the subject. For example, Genesis 2:24 is not explicitly spoken by God, but Matthew 19 attributes the passage directly to the almighty Creator.
But I didn't ask whether the Bible teaches its own divine authorship.
I asked, do you believe that the Bible is authored by God? It's a question about your beliefs about the Bible, not the Bible's own claims about itself.
"I respect the Bible too much to say that it says something it does not say."
If you don't believe the Bible claims its own divine authorship, I wouldn't ask you to say that it does. But that doesn't answer whether you believe that it's divinely authored or not.
About why you think it's important to conform to the Bible, your answer is unpersuasive.
"Because I am a Christian, a follower of the teachings of Christ and the Bible contains the written teachings of Christ."
It might be more accurate to say that the Bible contains written records of the spoken teachings of Christ.
Well, it's true that the Bible contains Christ's teachings, but that doesn't explain why a Christian should conform to the entire Bible and NOT just those words Jesus Himself spoke.
After all, your local Barnes & Noble "contains the... teachings of Christ" insofar as it contains the Bible in numerous translations, but that's no good reason to try to conform one's life to the entire bookstore.
What you provided is a reason to conform to the teachings of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospels and perhaps a few other sections, such as I Cor 11, the beginning of Acts, and the first few chapters of Revelation.
That leaves a good 50 or 60 other books of the Bible, none of which directly quote Jesus Christ, MOST of which were written before Jesus was even born.
I ask again, assuming that I'm right that you don't believe the Bible is authored by God, just why is it so important to conform to its teachings -- to the entire Bible's teachings, and not just words directly attributable to the incarnate Christ? Your first answer addressed, at best, only 10 percent of the books of the Bible.
One reason I ask is Mark 7:8, where Jesus sets at opposition God's command and human tradition.
We are to reject mere human tradition in favor of God's commandments: it seems to me that the ONLY reason a Christian can believe that he has a moral obligation to conform to the Bible is if he believes that the text is divinely authored and not just the work of speculative humans.
If the Bible isn't divinely authored, what is the source of the Christian's moral duty to conform to it?
If there is no such duty, why make a big deal about whether your beliefs conform to what the Bible teaches?
I asked, do you believe that the Bible is authored by God?
We were discussing what the Bible does and does not say, hence my answer. But to your question, no, I don't think the bible is authored by God. Clearly, it was written by people.
People whom I believe to have been inspired by God. So, I am with the Bible fairly literally on that point.
As to why I think it good to read and study the Bible, it's because I'm a Christian and Jesus respected the OT as the Scriptures, so I do, too. In the NT, what we have is the (protestant) church's decided opinion that those 29 books represent our canon and I'm okay with that.
They represent a line to the early church, founded by Jesus. They represent a line to the teachings of the people who sat at Jesus' feet and learned from Jesus, or learned from those who learned from Jesus (in Paul's case). As I have noted, I accept the 66 as authoritative and I accept the human tradition that considers them as scripture.
I just don't say that the Bible makes that claim. We do, and I'm okay with that human tradition.
QUESTION: to what other sources of authority do you submit regarding Christian doctrine?
I strive to submit to God and God alone - not the Bible and certainly not someone else's opinion about what the Bible does and does not say.
Question: Do you strive to submit to God or the Bible?
I strive to discern God's will using the Bible, my God-given reasoning, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God's law written upon our hearts, my faith community and I am informed also by history, especially the history of my faith tradition (ie, the Christian church).
Bubba asked...
QUESTIONS: Do you believe the Bible is unclear that Jesus Christ is God? Do you believe the Bible is unclear that the Holy Spirit is God? Do you believe that the Bible is unclear that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct?
I believe the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit. I believe that there is one God, the creator of all. Given this, I think it logical to consider a God with a triune nature makes sense.
But it's not stated in the bible so I don't see how you can suggest that it is an essential biblical teaching. I would think a teaching would have to at least show up in the bible at least once in order to be considered essential.
Which gets us back to your earlier question to me:
What are the essential truths of the Bible?
I have answered that. You object because I did not include bible study, prayer, evangelism, communion and baptism.
Those are certainly biblical teachings, at least in some form or the other.
Now, as you now, there are all sorts of teachings in the Bible. Teachings to give to the poor, to not shed innocent blood, to not eat meat, to not get tattoos, that we are not saved by works, but by grace, that we are to love our enemies, etc, etc, etc.
In addition to the teachings (ie, teachings about how we should act, about how God operates and how we should respond), there are also all manner of stories that mention Stuff. Praying is mentioned regularly, reading Scriptures is mentioned frequently, invading neighboring nations is mentioned, polygamy and variations on that theme are mentioned, etc, etc.
There are all sorts of teachings and examples given in the Bible. You asked me to try to identify what I consider ESSENTIAL biblical teachings and I have offered that.
I certainly believe in prayer and contemplation and study and might well add them to my list of critical/essential biblical teachings. I don't really object to them, they just didn't occur to me (I think that the passages that mention it tend to be more of the type that are mentioning them, not commanding them, that's probably why they didn't jump right to my attention).
I certainly believe in sharing the good news and, "as you go, make disciples," so I could see adding evangelism in that sense to essential Bible teachings.
Probably less so for baptism and communion. Both of them are rituals I dig and take part in, but if we add ALL of the Bible's teachings as "essential" then we'd have a long list and the notion of "essential" would suffer a bit.
Dan, if a teaching is essential, it should be added to the list of essential teachings, no matter how long that list is. Wikipedia lists over three dozen essential fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals, and that's not a problem because the article isn't listing the "top ten" essentials, but all essentials.
I specifically requested a fairly comprehensive list when I first made this request.
"I'm not looking for an exhaustive list of every true teaching that you believe is contained in the Bible, but I AM wondering what you would consider to be a fairly comprehensive list of those essential, primary truths from which the others could be derived and where the omission of even a single claim would radically change the character of Christian doctrine and faith."
It seems to me that the omission of baptism and communion would radically change Christian faith as it has been practiced for two millennia; considering the length of your original answer (and mine), I don't think brevity is a good enough explanation for their absence.
To be clear, I would hope that I would strongly reject any proposed list of essential teachings of the Bible that includes prayer, Bible study, baptism, and communion, if it does not also include the duty to love your neighbor -- included either at this high level, or (preferably) in details about forgiveness, non-retaliation, and charity.
This is a big reason I made sure to include both aspects in my own list of the essential teachings, that we are called to a life of holiness which entails our relationships to fellow believers and our relationships to all people. For the former, we are called to be "servants of our Christian brothers (Gal 5:13)," and we grow together as a family as we "gather together for corporate worship of God and mutual fellowship and support." For the latter, we are "commanded to love everyone, even the marginalized and even our enemies, and our love should entail aid and support, forgiveness, and non-retaliation."
But just as I believe it's wrong to omit the command for neighborly love to focus on baptism, I think it's also a mistake to omit the command to be baptized to focus on neighborly love.
Your frequent appeals to following Jesus' "Way" and teachings and example doesn't account for the omission, Dan, because the Gospels make clear that Christ was baptized and that Christ partook of His own supper.
(Regarding baptism, it's clear that Christ was baptized DESPITE John the Baptist's belief that he needed to be baptized by Him, in order to "fulfill all righteousness," as Mt 3:15 put it.)
It's not only that Christ Himself performed these two acts, He clearly commanded both, as when He commanded His followers, not only to go and make disciples, but to baptize them as well -- and as He clearly instituted the Lord's Supper as an ordinance to be repeated by His church.
You denigrate both ordinances as mere rituals, but they were enacted and commanded by Christ, so by your own appeals to following Jesus' "Way" I don't see why even now you think they should be omitted.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, about your earlier comment, and as a minor aside, I begin with your comment that the books of the NT "represent a line to the teachings of the people who sat at Jesus' feet and learned from Jesus, or learned from those who learned from Jesus (in Paul's case)."
According to Paul himself, it IS NOT the case that Paul learned from those who learned from Jesus.
"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.
"But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus." - Gal 1:11-17, emphasis mine
In the first chapters of this epistle, Paul goes on to explain his two short visits to Jerusalem and his confronting Peter's bigotry in Antioch, his point being that, while Paul's gospel was indeed identical to that of the Jerusalem Apostles (2:6-9), his gospel was received independently, directly from Christ Himself.
Now, you assert that the Bible was "clearly" written by people, with which I agree, but not the implication that it was written merely by people. You describe the Bible's human authors as the following:
"People whom I believe to have been inspired by God. So, I am with the Bible fairly literally on that point."
I disagree strongly with that conclusion that you're agreeing with the Bible: the Bible says much more about its inspiration and its ultimate authorship, and your stated belief that the Bible isn't divinely authored is germane PRECISELY because the Bible asserts otherwise. I say again that, in Matthew 19, Christ Himself attributed Genesis 2:24 directly to God even though the passage makes no direct attribution. And I urge you to look to John 10, to which I alluded earlier.
"Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your law, "I said, you are gods"? If those to whom the word of God came were called 'gods' — and the scripture cannot be annulled — can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" - Jn 10:34-36
It's not just that the writers were inspired by God: it's that "the word of God" came to them. The only logical reason that scripture is eternal is if it actually is the word of God, revealed through human writers -- certainly -- but ultimately authored by God.
As I pointed out before, Christ affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and He also upheld God's command over and against human tradition. The only way to reconcile these two actions is to conclude that Christ Himself believed Scripture to be much more than a merely human artifact.
Jesus isn't the only one to attribute the message of the Bible and its writers to God and not just human authors. Paul wrote about his own gospel and God's gospel (cf. Rom 1:1, 2:16), but these weren't references to two different gospels: they were references to two different attributes of the SAME gospel.
As Paul described it in Gal 1:11 above, "the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin."
The gospel is Paul's because Paul proclaimed it, because he was entrusted with it.
But the gospel is also God's because God authored and originated it.
Christ and His Apostles did not treat Scripture as a merely human work: they treated it as God's word.
[continued]
[continued]
You write, "Jesus respected the OT as the Scriptures, so I do, too."
Would that this were true, but I don't see how it is.
Jesus didn't assert that any OT records of divine commands were mere metaphor, nor did He teach that the commands are atrocity if taken literally, NOR did He teach that passages were the result of ancient Jewish "revenge fantasies" that merely documented their perception of God rather than God's revelation to them. Jesus didn't assert that the account of the Passover -- THE PASSOVER, the central event of Judaism through which Christ Himself taught about His own death, the central event of Christianity -- was a "less than perfect" revelation of God's will.
From the details of your beliefs about the Old Testament, I do not see from you any genuine effort to conform your attitude to Scripture to Christ's.
Now, you write that the NT books "represent a line to the early church, founded by Jesus," and you then affirm that the canon is authoritative.
"As I have noted, I accept the 66 as authoritative and I accept the human tradition that considers them as scripture."
QUESTION: Just what do you mean that the 66 books of the Bible are "authoritative"?
Do you simply mean that they are accurate records of the beliefs of the early Jewish religion and the early Christian church? That doesn't make them authoritative in the sense that we are morally obligated to conform to them.
If something is authoritative, that means it has authority, but either you don't think the Bible has authority or you quite explicitly don't submit to it.
"I strive to submit to God and God alone - not the Bible and certainly not someone else's opinion about what the Bible does and does not say."
You write that you do not strive to submit to the Bible, so I don't see how you can believe that the Bible has authority, so I can only speculate about what you mean when you "accept" the Bible as "authoritative."
Your question on this subject presents a false dilemma.
"Question: Do you strive to submit to God or the Bible?"
Since I believe that the Bible is God's authoritative written revelation, there's absolutely no conflict in submitting to both simultaneously.
The Bible is not God, but it is God's authoritative written revelation. God is not the Bible, but He is its author.
It's a matter of metaphysics and epistemology -- that is, a question of what is true versus how we come to know the truth.
I worship God alone and seek to obey His will alone, but I believe that the Bible is the standard against which which I judge all other claims to revelation about the Deity I worship and His will which I am to follow.
Your question -- along with the accusation of idolatry that you've leveled in the past -- is built on an assumption that there is a conflict between following God and following the Bible, and that assumption is simply not logically necessary.
That assumption can just as easily be employed against whatever method of divine revelation you actually accept as authoritative over all other sources.
[continued]
Regarding the Bible and "divine authorship" and whether or not the Bible talks about its 66 books: I think this is an important point because many folk out there are looking for consistency and honesty. If we can't be straightforward and admit that, no, in fact, the Bible does not talk about itself, we will sound less like we're being illogical and more like we're being honest about what the Bible does and does not say.
People can see that the Bible plainly does not talk about itself. If we begin with this admission, then we have a stronger - not weaker - case that the Bible deserves to be taken seriously. It helps Christianity to be taken more seriously. As it is now, it seems to me that much of Christendom is being written off as irrelevant precisely because we hang on to human tradition and not acknowledge what the bible does and doesn't say.
One man's opinion.
Bubba, after objecting to my claim that 1. the Bible does not talk about itself and 2. the Bible does not claim divine authorship, you say...
Let me grant that the Bible teaches LESS about its divine authorship and authority than you apparently require -- that it doesn't list all 66 books of the canon and affirm the divine authority of each one.
It's still not the case that it teaches something OTHER THAN its divine authorship and authority. It doesn't once teach that even a single passage contains atrocity, bigotry, or any other form of error.
Let's say that I have a book that is written by Bob. Bob's name is attached to the book and no one really disputes this. Now, within the book, Bob never says he is the author. Is that an argument that, because Bob's book never claims that it WASN'T written by God, that it might therefore have been written by God?
I'm really not sure what you're arguing. As far as I can tell, you freely admit that the books of the Bible were written by people, abeit people who were inspired by God, that the books were "God-breathed," not "God-written." I guess what your hunch is is that when God "breathed" inspiration upon the authors, that God in some fashion or the other, took control of the pen and made the authors write what and only what God wanted. Well, I'm fine with you believing that if you wish, but the Bible does not go that far. All the bible says is that "all scripture is God-breathed." We are left to our own devices to decide what exactly that means, since the Bible does not tell us what it intended by that phrase.
I believe your camp's argument goes like this - that "God-breathed" means something more than merely inspired by God. It means, according to John MacArthur, "that the Bible is the product of God breathing out His words so what He wanted written got written. In other words, the Scriptures are the product of divine breath assuring us that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the very words of God."
But MacArthur makes a leap of opinion with that. I accept that the term means breathed-out, but who says that the only way to consider what "God-breathed-out" means is that it must mean that God breathed out a bunch of specific words? And, of course, MacArthur also makes the same leap to applying the notion to all 66 books. After all, I have read some commentaries noting that Adam was also "God-breathed" - does that mean God infilled Adam with a bunch of specific words?
Perhaps you are more aware of Greek translations and history than I am, but I don't believe I've ever read anything that supports this exclusive definition of "God-breathed."
Once again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the selection of the 66 books as our canon, I dig the 66 books. I think they are, indeed, God-breathed.
But the Bible does not make that claim, we do. It's an important disctinction for the reasons I gave earlier.
Are we agreed, or 1. do you have some passage where the Bible defines what it meant when it said "God-breathed"? or 2. Do you have some historical fact-based Greek lesson you might give me on "God-breathed"?
Bubba asked...
QUESTIONS: Where does the Bible teach that Christ's dying for our sins is only "one way" of looking at His death? If it doesn't actually teach that, what specific passages teach that there are other ways to look at His death?
1. No where does the Bible teach that Jesus dying for our sins is only "one way" of looking at his death. No where does the Bible teach that Jesus dying for our sins is the ONLY WAY of looking at his death.
2. The Bible teaches, for instance, that Jesus came, leaving us an example that we might follow in his steps (the Moral Example atonement theory).
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps...
When he was insulted, he returned no insult; when he suffered, he did not threaten; instead, he handed himself over to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
In this passage from 1 Peter, you can see all three views of atonement that the Anabaptists tend to accept as biblical. The Christus Victor view, the Moral Example view and the Subsitutionary view.
Here's another passage that, at least for some of us, implies a Moral Example atonement...
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. We love because he first loved us [ie, through the "atoning sacrifice"]. 1 John 4
[continued]
About that subject, Dan, I wonder which method of revelation you DO hold as ultimately authoritative.
"I strive to discern God's will using the Bible, my God-given reasoning, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God's law written upon our hearts, my faith community and I am informed also by history, especially the history of my faith tradition (ie, the Christian church)."
Suppose there is a conflict (real or apparent) between two or more of these means through which you seek to discern God's will.
QUESTION: In discerning God's will, to what source of information do you ultimately defer -- that is, which source of revelation casts the "deciding vote" when there is conflict among several sources?
The glib answer that God casts the deciding vote merely punts the issue by begging the question, how does God communicate that vote to you?
That deciding vote is obviously not given to the Bible, given your speculation that the Old Testament contains divine commands to commit atrocity, and that Paul's letters is "doubtless" a reflection of his misogyny and/or bigotry. So what is it?
The Holy Spirit and God's law written on your heart would be a good answer -- in the sense that it would be a more direct revelation from God when it's authentic -- but how do you determine its authenticity? How do you distinguish between a leading of the Holy Spirit and your own sinful human nature? The Bible is external and objective; the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not, so -- if you take its leadings as the ultimate authority -- how do you authenticate that a message came from Him?
Whatever your answer is, I could ask the same ridiculous question you asked me: do you strive to submit to God or to X? If X really is the most authoritative source of divine revelation, there's no inherent contradiction in submitting to both simultaneously, because you're submitting to God BY submitting to His message.
Finally, in addressing a few of my questions, you write:
"I believe the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit. I believe that there is one God, the creator of all. Given this, I think it logical to consider a God with a triune nature makes sense.
"But it's not stated in the bible so I don't see how you can suggest that it is an essential biblical teaching. I would think a teaching would have to at least show up in the bible at least once in order to be considered essential."
I didn't ask whether the Bible is clear that Jesus is the Son of God; I asked, do you believe the Bible is unclear that Jesus Christ is God Himself?
I didn't ask whether the Bible merely speaks of the Holy Spirit; I asked, do you believe the Bible is unclear that the Holy Spirit is God?
And, I asked whether you believe the Bible is unclear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct, and you didn't even address that question.
Setting that aside, I see that you write that the doctrine of the Trinity is "not stated in the bible so [you] don't see how [I] can suggest that it is an essential biblical teaching."
I believe that all biblical teachings -- essential and otherwise -- come from two groups of statements:
GROUP A: Those statements found explicitly in the Bible.
GROUP B: Those statements that are NECESSARY logical conclusions from the statements in Group A.
Group A is the Bible's explicit teachings, and Group B is its implicit teachings: both groups comprise what I believe must be considered biblical teachings.
No statement in Group B is explicitly stated, but they're all implicitly found -- inexorably and out of logical necessity -- in what IS explicitly stated.
[continued]
[continued]
For what it's worth, I included those two groups in a comment on July 20th: I've been quite clear in using the term "biblical," not only for what the Bible explicitly teaches, but also for "what is a necessary logical conclusion of what the Bible explicitly teaches." I named the doctrine of the Trinity as in the latter, not the former.
Now, suppose a math book gave the following explicit statements:
- a rectangle is a parallelogram with four right angles
- a rhombus is a parallelogram with four equal sides
- a square is a parallelogram with four right angles and four equal sides
Even if the book doesn't make it explicit, it is a logically necessary consequence -- and therefore still an IMPLICIT teaching of the math book -- that a square is also a rectangle, and that a square is also a rhombus.
You write, with needless sarcasm, "I would think a teaching would have to at least show up in the bible at least once in order to be considered essential."
It is my position that the doctrine of the Trinity DOES show up in the Bible, implicitly, because what shows up explicitly are all of the claims that are necessary and sufficient in pointing solely to a triune God to the exclusion of all other possibilities such as polytheism and unitarian monotheism.
(Namely, the claims that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and the three are distinct.)
Let's take a simpler doctrine, the doctrine of theism in the general sense, namely, "belief in the existence of a god or gods."
QUESTIONS: Do you believe theism is a clear teaching of the Bible? If so, where is it stated in the Bible?
Taking your position to its illogical conclusion, that the Bible's teachings include only what is explicit and not what is implicit, I find the untenable position that the Bible actually isn't clear about the existence of God.
This would mean, to use your earlier language regarding the Trinity, that even mere theism is "an extrapolation, perhaps, of biblical teaching and one that Christians may rightly believe in," but not something that it is "fair to call it an essential biblical teaching."
In other words, on the very first question of religion -- the existence of God, theism vs. atheism -- the Bible is silent. Christians could "perhaps" extrapolate theism from the Bible, but your approach means that the Bible doesn't definitively affirm theism and deny atheism.
Again this is untenable.
Dan, I know we're both writing A LOT to each other in this thread, because we're covering quite a few subjects, and because these subjects cannot be addressed without a good bit of detail. If you want to, we can abstain from bringing up any additional topics -- such as the Second Coming, to which we SHOULD return at some point -- and work to wrap up what we're now discussing, with an eye to hone in on one subject and keep to one comment at a time.
To reply to your comments today, you write that "consistency and honesty" requires us to admit that, "no, in fact, the Bible does not talk about itself."
I disagree.
Suppose I say, "My hand has a birthmark." My mouth is speaking words about my hand.
Or suppose I write, "My mouth has 32 teeth." My hand is writing about my mouth.
In both cases, it's fair, accurate, honest, and consistent to say, I'm talking about myself, and I'm writing about myself. I'm certainly not writing or speaking about anyone else, am I?
Just so, the Gospel of Luke records claims about the book of Isaiah, that at least part of it is scripture which Jesus fulfilled. II Peter makes claims about Paul's epistles, that they are scripture. Books of the Bible DO make claims about other books of the Bible, and I think it's honest and consistent to say, therefore, that the Bible does talk about itself.
After writing that you do believe all 66 books of the Bible are God-breathed and questioning what that means, you write:
"But the Bible does not make that claim, we do. It's an important disctinction for the reasons I gave earlier.
"Are we agreed, or 1. do you have some passage where the Bible defines what it meant when it said 'God-breathed'? or 2. Do you have some historical fact-based Greek lesson you might give me on 'God-breathed'?"
I do not believe that the Bible defines what is meant by the phrase, nor do I have a detailed argument for MacArthur's position, which I happen to share.
But this one word isn't what's most important. What's most important is this:
QUESTION: Do you believe the Bible has authority over your life and your beliefs, or not?
On the one hand, you write, "I accept the 66 as authoritative."
On the other hand, you write, "I strive to submit to God and God alone - not the Bible and certainly not someone else's opinion about what the Bible does and does not say."
QUESTIONS: If you DO accept the Bible has authority, where does its authority come from if NOT from its divine authorship? Or if you reject its authority, why do you so frequently make claims to love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings; and why do you act as if (e.g.) your position on "gay marriage" should be the result of a season of careful and prayerful Bible study?
You frequently claim to respect the Bible and yet you consistently undermine its authority as divine revelation.
For the third time I ask:
QUESTION: assuming that I'm right that you don't believe the Bible is authored by God, just why is it so important to conform to its teachings -- to the entire Bible's teachings, and not just words directly attributable to the incarnate Christ?
For the sake of honesty and consistency, I ask you to explain the moral obligation to conform to the Bible if it ISN'T a divinely authored work.tu
And, Dan, about the various theories of the Atonement, why not treat all that the Bible teaches about Christ's death, not as various "ways of looking at his death" but as the reality?
The Bible teaches that Christ died to give us an example, so why not believe that that's what actually happened?
The Bible teaches that, in His death, Christ secured victory over the law, the flesh, the world, and death. Why not believe that this is actually what He did?
And, the Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins, that He was the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Why not believe that this too is the reality?
I believe these are all objective facts about Christ's death, but your "way of looking at it" language suggests that they're merely subjective experiences of His death.
I'm not questioning that the Bible teaches these other claims, and I uphold them as equally and objectively true ALONGSIDE Christ's substitutionary atonement.
What I don't understand is your tendency to portray these claims as subjective rather than objective.
QUESTION: Where, specifically, does the Bible lend credence to the idea that these claims about Christ's death are merely "ways of looking at His death"?
If you do affirm all that the Bible teaches about Christ's death as objective reality rather than merely various subjective experiences, your language up to this point has certainly not helped to make that clear.
Bubba, I really feel like we're going in circles with you keep asking me questions that I've already answered, then asking them again in different ways. How long shall we do this? My answers will remain the same. In an attempt to help make clear my answers, I'll respond again.
You asked...
QUESTION: Do you believe the Bible has authority over your life and your beliefs, or not?
God has authority over my life. One primary way we know about God is God's revelation through the Bible. But the Bible is not a perfect answer book. I can't look up "Gay marriage" and find the One Correct God-Response (OCGR) to the topic. I can't look up "Atonement" and find the OCGR for that topic. I can look at the various places the bible talks about peacemaking and war-making and strive to reason out what the OCGR is, but it's not written right out for me in direct terms.
We also know about God through our God-given reasoning and through God's creation and through God's community and through God's Spirit and through God's Law written upon our hearts. I strive to let God have authority over my life to the best of my ability through these means, no one of which is perfect, since we have to sort it all out our own selves through our own reasoning and prayer and contemplation. You have to do this and I have to do this.
So, NO. The bible does not have authority over my life. But God's Word does, the best I can discern it. I'm not sure what it would even look like for the Bible to have "authority" over anyone's life. Perhaps you can answer that:
What does it mean to you that the Bible has "authority" over your life, if indeed, you think it does?
And don't say that "I think God speaks to us through the Bible and it is our final authority, so when the Bible says to do something, that means I think we should do it..." if you really mean... "when the Bible says to do something and I have discerned the best I can that this is right and God's will, then that means I think we should do it..."
When people say, "IF the Bible says to do something, I do it," then that means that if the Bible says to kill gays (ie, you think the Leviticus passages means that we ought to kill gays), then you kill gays. IF you're saying, "Well, I reason through it and see that that passage no longer applies today..." THEN you are not doing what the Bible literally says. You are doing what I do and reasoning your way through the Bible. As you should.
I think we are doing the exact same thing - reasoning our way through the Bible - and you merely disagree with my reasoning on some topics, but not that you're doing something that I'm not doing. But you can answer that for yourself. So, repeating...
What does it mean to you that the Bible has "authority" over your life, if indeed, you think it does?
QUESTIONS: If you DO accept the Bible has authority, where does its authority come from if NOT from its divine authorship?
The authority comes through our (the Church) common recognition of the Bible as a book of God's revelation. We have agreed that these 66 are as scripture to us and they contain the best grouping of Jesus' teachings of which we are aware. Further, it contains the best selection of early church writings that we have been able to determine and it has the OT scriptures, which Jesus his own self referenced. We, the church, believe these to be the revealed, God-breathed Word of God to us and, as such, they are good and acceptable for teaching and instruction and contemplation and study.
Where do you think the authority comes from? We agree, after all, that God nowhere in the Bible says, "These 66 books are books I wrote and therefore, I want you to heed them.
Is it the case that you have just reasoned out that the Bible is God's Word and therefore, based on your reasoning and the tradition of the church that you think it is authoritative? If so, then we basically agree on that point.
Or if you reject its authority, why do you so frequently make claims to love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings; and why do you act as if (e.g.) your position on "gay marriage" should be the result of a season of careful and prayerful Bible study?
I don't reject its authority. I just believe we all use our reason to sort out its authoritative meaning. And, indeed, we do.
Why do I "act" as if my position on gay marriage "should be the result of a season of careful and prayerful Bible study?"
I don't.
That is, I don't act that way at all and don't believe I have suggested such. Instead, I have merely made the statement of fact that after a season of prayer and Bible study, it is the conclusion that I have reached. I find it a reasonable position to reach, but, having NOT held it for the first half of my life, I fully understand how some reasonable people may not reach that conclusion, at least not right away.
QUESTION: assuming that I'm right that you don't believe the Bible is authored by God, just why is it so important to conform to its teachings -- to the entire Bible's teachings, and not just words directly attributable to the incarnate Christ?
For the sake of honesty and consistency, I ask you to explain the moral obligation to conform to the Bible if it ISN'T a divinely authored work.
I believe that a God-breathed book is something we ought to legitimately strive to study and seek God's revelation within its pages. No dishonesty there. If God has inspired a written document, that is a document I wish to study and in which pages I will seek to find God's Will.
Do you disagree?
Our difference here appears to be in God-authored - which is not a claim supported by the Bible - and God-inspired, which IS supported by the Bible. If, by God-authored, you mean God-inspired, then we agree.
I'm not sure that it's a difference with a distinction, though.
How is a God-authored book going to look different than a God-inspired book?
Dan, I will keep asking questions until I actually understand what it is you believe, at least in regards to the Bible. You think you're repeating yourself, but I don't think the responses you've provided always qualify as actual answers, to say nothing of their being coherent and consistent answers.
For instance, I've asked, Do you believe the Bible is unclear that the Holy Spirit is God? Your response -- "I believe that the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit" -- is a total NON-ANSWER. It doesn't imply a clear yes, a clear no, or an explanation why my question was malformed or premised on bad assumptions.
If you persist in providing uninformative and useless responses like that, I'll continue to reiterate the same questions, because they have not yet been properly answered in the first place.
You ask, "What does it mean to you that the Bible has 'authority' over your life, if indeed, you think it does?"
I do think the Bible has and should have such authority, and what it means is that a person should conform his beliefs and actions to what the Bible teaches.
Indeed, the Bible is not and does not contain a manual on ethics or a comprehensive and systematic overview of theology. Nevertheless, it does clearly reveal things about God, man, and salvation.
About God, the Bible clearly reveals not only His universal will for all humanity, but His specific will for individuals or groups throughout history: it reveals not only His eternal attributes but also His words and actions within history, past, present, and future.
About man, the Bible reveals our being created in God's image, our fall because of sin, and our eternal condemnation in the absence of literally divine intervention.
About salvation, the Bible reveals God's actions through history -- specifically, the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ -- through which salvation has been provided, and it reveals the means by which we appropriate salvation (faith alone, but faith that results in good works) and the purpose for which we are saved, namely our holiness and eternal glory with God.
Indeed, human reason is necessary to discern what the Bible actually teaches, but a life under its authority means simply this: what the Bible teaches, I believe.
If it makes claims about God that I don't fully understand, I still defer to its claims; and if it gives ethical instruction that I conclude applies to my life, I obey regardless of whether I understand all the reasons for the instruction.
You write:
"I think we are doing the exact same thing - reasoning our way through the Bible - and you merely disagree with my reasoning on some topics, but not that you're doing something that I'm not doing."
And I disagree, strongly. There are some difficult passages, such as in Leviticus, where I believe that the direct command applied to the ancient Israelites under the old covenant and does not apply to the church under the new covenant.
(Heck, Christ's command to the twelve to commandeer a colt doesn't apply to us either, nor does His command in Cana to bring Him several large containers of water, and the latter command is especially morally innocuous.)
But the difference between us is this:
I believe that the difficult passage in Leviticus is the result of divine revelation, and -- as best as I can tell -- you theorize that it's human speculation, that all the difficult passages in the Old Testament record little more than the Israelites' perception of God rather than God's revelation to Israel.
I believe that, even though the command doesn't directly apply to me, it still came from God and that (therefore) universal principles can still be deduced from specific commands. You apparently do not.
Instead, you are quite willing to denigrate difficult passages as "less than perfect" revelation that contains atrocity, boderline blasphemy, bigotry, and other errors. Those are steps I am not willing to make, and those steps make a world of difference between us.
To be clear and direct, yes, I think the Holy Spirit of God is God.
As I have stated often, I am fairly orthodox in most of the matters discussed in the various Creeds.
You said...
I do think the Bible has and should have such authority, and what it means is that a person should conform his beliefs and actions to what the Bible teaches.
Indeed, the Bible is not and does not contain a manual on ethics or a comprehensive and systematic overview of theology. Nevertheless, it does clearly reveal things about God, man, and salvation.
You believe the BIBLE should have authority and that a person should conform his life to what THE BIBLE teaches.
Fine. The Bible teaches that we must kill men who lay with men. How many men who lay with men have you killed? Are you conforming yourself to that unambiguous and quite clear teaching?
The Bible says clearly "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard." Are you doing so contrary to clear biblical teaching? That Leviticus 19 passage ends, "You shall thus observe all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them; I am the LORD."
ALL God's Statutes, ALL God's ordinances. DO THEM. Are you?
I suspect not.
I suspect you don't blankly read the Bible and conform to its teachings, period. Rather, you read the Bible seeking God's will, and when you find a passage that you suspect was for a specific people at a specific time, you reason that it does not apply to you, even though the Bible nowhere SAYS it doesn't apply to you. You step beyond the Bible to seek God's Will, rather than blindly conforming to the Bible's teachings.
As you should. As we all do, hopefully.
Yes, you and I both agree that the Bible "does clearly reveal things about God, man, and salvation." Some things that we think are clear, we agree upon. Some things that we think are clear, we don't agree upon.
Does that mean that they are not clear? Does that mean that you are stupid for thinking the way you do, when it's so obvious that I am clearly correct? Or, is it the case that, no matter how clear we think the Bible is on many topics, not everyone reaches the same conclusion.
I'd posit that this is the case. And it's why we ought to embrace the same grace that God shows towards us towards our mistaken brothers and sisters.
About the authority of the Bible, Dan, I disagree that its authority comes from the church. Neither the Old Testament prophets nor the New Testament Apostles were picked by the priests or the church to teach orally or through the written word.
They were chosen by God, and the authority behind the texts they wrote is the same as their own authority: it is God Himself.
The church indeed recognizes the authority of the canon, but it does not regulate that authority: it discovers canon, but it doesn't determine canon.
"The authority comes through our (the Church) common recognition of the Bible as a book of God's revelation...
"Where do you think the authority comes from? We agree, after all, that God nowhere in the Bible says, 'These 66 books are books I wrote and therefore, I want you to heed them.[']"
Here, you're being inconsistent.
Or do any of the 66 books claim that their collective authority comes from the "common recognition" of the church?
So far as I can tell, your answer about the Bible's source of authority is wholly unsupported by the actual text of the Bible, so I don't know why you insist on a VERY precise affirmation of its divine authority.
You have a very nasty habit of requiring an iron-clad argument from your opponent while your own argument can be built on next to absolutely nothing. You score rhetorical points against your opposition by comparing their argument against some hypothetical ideal, ignoring the fact that your own argument is in even worse shape.
As a complete digression, I believe that many recent attacks on the free market take this very approach: they take note of the latest crisis while ignoring the reality that interventionism in all its many forms is demonstrably worse in handling crises. What's not a digression is the fact that you play this same game with the subject of "gay marriage."
From those who believe that "gay marriage" is biblically impermissible, you seem to demand a passage where the practice is explicitly condemned, but your own position isn't based on an equally explicit commendation of the practice: at best, it's built on a sheer argument from silence, and I believe it's based on LESS THAN EVEN THAT, because your argument dismisses what the Bible does teach about homosexual behavior, about the composition of marriage, and EVEN Christ's own teaching about why we were created male and female in the first place.
We were created male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female). That's not an explicit condemnation of "gay marriage", but it points MUCH MORE strongly in that direction than in the opposite direction.
Likewise, all scripture is God-breathed. That's not an explicit teaching that scripture's authority comes from God, but it suggests that MUCH MORE strongly than it does your theory that scripture's authority derives from the church.
If you can point to a passage where the authority of the 66 books is attributed to the church, I welcome you to do so.
Dan, you write, further:
"Why do I "act" as if my position on gay marriage "should be the result of a season of careful and prayerful Bible study?"
"I don't.
"That is, I don't act that way at all and don't believe I have suggested such. Instead, I have merely made the statement of fact that after a season of prayer and Bible study, it is the conclusion that I have reached."
To imply -- as you do here -- that your position regarding "gay marriage" was the result of Bible study, IS to suggest a belief that the position is and should be the result of Bible study.
That is to say, for all your (current) denials of the Bible's divine authority, you give the impression that you submit to its teachings regarding (e.g.) the issue of "gay marriage."
This isn't the first time you've given this impression. Here is just one example, from our most recent lengthy exchange at Marshall's.
You wrote:
"I/we HAVE studied the scripture in an attempt to discern God's Will. We prayerfully read what the Bible has to say, we considered context and did research to better learn context. We sought God's will and the best we can discern God's Will on this topic, it is a good and blessed thing to be married - whether you're straight or gay."
I asked what specific passage convinced you of this, and you provided numerous verses about marriage being blessed by God, but nothing about marriage being an androgynous institution. I objected after quoting the passage above:
"You make it sound like you looked to Scripture as the authority on this subject and focused on what is written, but the most crucial and most contentious part of your detailed argument -- #6, the observation of loving gay relationships among supposedly godly people -- has nothing to do with the text.
"It's dishonest to act like your position on 'gay marriage' is strictly the result of careful and prayerful Bible study." [new emphasis]
WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE?
"You are free to think so, but you'd be wrong to suggest it's dishonest. I HAVE in fact studied the Bible and the context of the five or so relevant passages. I HAVE in fact done so prayerfully (and indeed, starting from your point of view on the topic).
"The facts are, in my case, BEFORE I engaged in Bible study and prayer, I was opposed to gay marriage. AFTER I engaged in Bible study and prayer, I am supportive of gay marriage, believing it to be a good and blessed thing.
"Those ARE facts. You can disagree with my conclusions, you can say, 'I don't see how you reach that conclusion,' but what you can't say honestly is that those are not the facts." [emphasis mine]
Time and again, you place Bible study as the key event between your old position and your new position, implying a causal relationship and (more importantly) a submission to what it teaches.
You now write, "The bible does not have authority over my life. But God's Word does, the best I can discern it."
You make clear that you (now) distinguish between the Bible and God's word, but -- going back a bit -- I see that that hasn't always been the case:
"I was in many conservative, watered down churches before I found my current church where the Bible is feverishly taught as God’s Word to be heeded…" [emphasis mine]
It's a ridiculous claim in light of the details of your beliefs, but you did make that claim and, so far as I can tell, you never retracted it.
Dan, about whether the Bible is God-breathed, God-authored, or both, you write:
"Our difference here appears to be in God-authored - which is not a claim supported by the Bible - and God-inspired, which IS supported by the Bible. If, by God-authored, you mean God-inspired, then we agree."
First, I believe that the Bible's divine authorship IS supported by the Bible. Again, the Bible records that Christ attributed Genesis 2:24 directly to God even though the verse doesn't contain a direct quote from God.
And, again the Bible records that Christ affirmed scripture; and it records that Christ upheld the word of God over and against human tradition. The only way I see to reconcile these two facts is to conclude that scripture is ultimately divine in origin, that -- contra Dan Trabue -- the Bible actually is God's written word.
There might be very little difference between "God-authored" and "God-breathed" if (and only if) the latter implies that every verse is true without any error.
It's clear that you don't accept that implication, since you denigrate a variety of passages by suggesting that they contain atrocity, bigotry, or other errors.
"How is a God-authored book going to look different than a God-inspired book?"
It's not a difference of the text's appearance but rather what's appropriate as a reaction. If a text is merely inspired by God, one can more easily argue that difficulties are "signal noise."
I suspect the reason you don't accept the Bible's divine authorship is that doing so would require submitting to all that it teaches. You would be less able to pretend that there is a conflict between submitting to God and submitting to the Bible.
Dan, I see you've written more while I've been replying.
Thanks for clarifying your answer re: the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
"To be clear and direct, yes, I think the Holy Spirit of God is God."
But that's not precisely what I asked: I asked whether you think the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit is God.
I hope you can appreciate the fact that my repeated questions are often the result of responses that don't quite answer what I ask.
About the rest of your comment, the key 'graph seems to be this:
"I suspect you don't blankly read the Bible and conform to its teachings, period. Rather, you read the Bible seeking God's will, and when you find a passage that you suspect was for a specific people at a specific time, you reason that it does not apply to you, even though the Bible nowhere SAYS it doesn't apply to you. You step beyond the Bible to seek God's Will, rather than blindly conforming to the Bible's teachings."
That would be an inevitable conclusion to draw, except for the fact that the New Testament actually does address whether (and what parts of) the Old Testament law applies to us. Christ strengthened the prohibition of adultery to include lust, but He taught that food doesn't defile; likewise the author of Hebrews commands his readers to keep the marriage bed undefiled but not to worry about useless dietary regulations -- all after writing about how Christ fulfills the old sacrificial system which was a mere shadow of His death.
And then there's the great argument about the Gentile converts, recorded in Galatians -- where Paul teaches that circumcision and all it represents is superfluous to saving faith -- and resolved in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
Even if it WERE the case that folks like me use our God-given reason to ascertain that some commands are universal and some aren't, that's STILL a million miles from your theorizing that passages are "less than perfect" revelation that have been contaminated by atrocity, revenge fantasies, misogyny, and other errors.
Whether the former approach is reliable or not, it still affirms the divine authorship and inerrant authority of the Bible: your approach doesn't.
But I contend that it's not necessary to appeal to extra-biblical reason: the New Testament is quite clear that not all of the Old Testament commands apply to the Christian church, and it's often clear about which apply and which do not.
We've both probably written more than enough for one night, Dan, so I'll wrap up with this comment.
On the subject of using reason to sift through scripture, earlier you wrote this:
"One primary way we know about God is God's revelation through the Bible. But the Bible is not a perfect answer book....
"We also know about God through our God-given reasoning and through God's creation and through God's community and through God's Spirit and through God's Law written upon our hearts. I strive to let God have authority over my life to the best of my ability through these means, no one of which is perfect, since we have to sort it all out our own selves through our own reasoning and prayer and contemplation. You have to do this and I have to do this."
You still haven't answered which source of knowledge about God casts the deciding vote when there is disagreement among these disparate sources.
QUESTION: Of these many sources of knowledge about God -- the Bible, the church, creation, reason, etc. -- which has the final say?
If the answer is some subjective source -- such as the leadings of the Holy Spirit -- I still wonder how you distinguish between God's Spirit and your own sinful tendencies.
Or if there is no constant answer, and if you constantly muddle through, I wonder what you use to decide which source should cast the deciding vote in a given circumstance.
Me, I put the Bible first, not because it's more important than the Holy Spirit (it's not), but because it's external and objective. Because I believe God authored the Bible, I believe that His Holy Spirit (who is God Himself) and His written word will not conflict, and so I use the external and objective written text simply to authenticate potential revelations from His indwelling Spirit.
(John writes, in I Jn 4:1, that we should test every spirit, but he writes nothing about testing his own apostolic claims, e.g., about the message he proclaims in 1:5. I think it's a very sound, apostolic approach to test apparent leadings of the Holy Spirit against what God has already revealed through His prophets and Apostles, as documented in their written scripture.)
What do you put first? It's never been clear what source of revelation about God you consider authoritative -- authoritative ABOUT God and over all other sources, not authoritative OVER God.
I'm not asking you to choose between God and the Bible, which (as I say) is at least arguably a false dilemma. I'm asking you to choose among the many purported sources of revelation about God, because conflict among these sources is frequent almost to the point of being constant.
With that, I'll be around. Thanks for the substantial comments, and have a good evening.
I have family coming in tomorrow, so it MIGHT be until Sunday or even Monday before I can reply at length, but I hope to make time before then.
QUESTION: Of these many sources of knowledge about God -- the Bible, the church, creation, reason, etc. -- which has the final say?
If the answer is some subjective source -- such as the leadings of the Holy Spirit -- I still wonder how you distinguish between God's Spirit and your own sinful tendencies.
Here's the thing, Bubba: It's ALL subjective. If you have an opinion about Genesis 1-2, it is your subjective opinion. If you have an opinion about gay marriage based on some biblical passages, it is your subjective opinion of what the passage is saying. If you have an opinion about the Sermon on the Mount, or the Sermon on the Plain in Luke, it is YOUR subjective opinion about what you have read there.
For me, I acknowledge we have to use our reason to study the Bible, to look at creation all around us and draw conclusions, to ponder the relationships of our community and the stories from our history. We all have to use our reason to sort these things out. Even any "still small voices" that we may hear, we have to use our reason to discern if that is of God or not.
When it comes to opinions about God, all of our opinions - even those conclusions we gather from the bible - are subjective. It's just the way it is.
So, it's not a matter of whether or not you have an objective source for faith matters - you don't - it's a matter of whether or not you acknowledge that you are using your subjective reasoning for whatever you find in the Bible.
Bubba said...
I put the Bible first, not because it's more important than the Holy Spirit (it's not), but because it's external and objective.
Okay, so Jesus says, "Blessed are you who are poor... Woe to you who are rich..." what is the objective truth in that passage?
The OT tells us that sometimes, God commands Israel to utterly destroy a whole people, down to the last child and donkey - what is the objective truth in that passage?
The OT has rules about how a father is to correctly sell off his daughter into slavery ("And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. ") - what is the objective truth in that passage?
Do you see that whatever you bring to these interpretations is YOUR subjective opinion?
Yes, the Bible may well objectively say, "God commands you to kill men who lay with men," but you subjectively interpret what that means (in your case for that passage, you think the first part says all gay behavior is wrong but the second part can be ignored, right?).
Being human, we have to use our reason to sort through the meanings in a book of Truth like the Bible. It's all we have.
Bubba stated..
I suspect the reason you don't accept the Bible's divine authorship is that doing so would require submitting to all that it teaches. You would be less able to pretend that there is a conflict between submitting to God and submitting to the Bible.
I've given you explicitly the reason I don't use the term "divine authorship" - because the Bible makes no such claim and because God makes no such claim. The Bible was written by people inspired by God. Thus saith the Bible and the Lord.
I DON'T submit to all that the Bible teaches. Neither do you. No one does, nor should.
RATHER, we strive to submit to God, not the Bible. The Bible is a fixed book with fixed words and those words need to be interpreted aright. If one reads the passage that says "God sometimes commands the killing of children," then one can come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches killing children is a good thing if God tells you to do it, but it's NOT a good thing to do. If you hear voices telling you to kill children, those voices are not from God.
We are striving to submit to God, not the Bible. To submit to the Bible is to place the Bible above God, to make a god of the Bible, and that would be wrong, according to the Bible!
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
At any rate, you don't have to guess incorrectly about why you suspect I don't accept God's "authorship" of the Bible - I've already given you the answer. Just read the words I've already written and we won't have to have this dance, Bubba.
There might be very little difference between "God-authored" and "God-breathed" if (and only if) the latter implies that every verse is true without any error.
That, being Bubba's subjective opinion of how to interpret "God-breathed."
Question: You DO understand, don't you, that when you say, "God-breathed must mean that every verse is true without error," is your subjective opinion of what that line may mean, don't you?
Dan,
Just as I believe you don't always use the word "literal" in the most precise manner possible, here I believe you're misapplying the word "subjective," meaning, "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind."
"I like spinach." "I do not like Munch's The Scream." "I like this table."
These are all purely subjective statements. They are neither valid nor invalid.
(They might be inaccurate, such as if I pretend to like a table just to avoid hurting the carpenter's feelings. And they might be the result of a disordered aesthetic sensibility, but the statement about one's liking a particular object is neither valid nor invalid.)
Assuming that one agrees with Plato and Augustine that aesthetic beauty is an objective reality, "This table is beautiful" is NOT a subjective statement. The statement is objective, and though it might correspond to the speaker's liking of the table, that correspondence is not necessarily the case. People can, for sentimental reasons, like tables that they know to be ugly, and people can dislike tables that they know to be beautiful: they can do so for utilitarian reasons, as a beautiful table may be too short for an architect's purposes of draftsmanship.
There's an even more obviously objective statement one can make about a table.
"This table has four legs."
I submit that it should be obvious that statements about the content of a literary work like the Bible -- as opposed to one's feelings about the work and its content -- are objective: their validity can be measured against the object being described.
"The Bible forbids idol worship." "The Bible commands idol worship."
These statements are much more like the statement, "This table has four legs," than the statement, "I like this table."
For all these statements, the validity can be measured against the object. You can determine whether the table has four legs by counting the legs. You can determine whether the Bible forbids or commands (or permits, or is silent on, or is inconsistent on) idol worship by reading the text.
There are some statements whose validity is easier to ascertain than it is for others.
"This table has four legs" is trivial to evaluate.
"This table was built with pre-modern tools" may require an expert, but it can still be evaluated.
"This table was finished on a Wednesday" may be IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate but it's still an objective statement, because it's a statement about the object, and the statement is valid or not even if we CANNOT evaluate its validity.
Likewise, it may be harder to ascertain whether the Bible teaches anything about homosexuality or its own authorship (and to ascertain what it teaches), than it is to ascertain what it teaches about idolatry. But objective claims whose validity are difficult or even impossible to evaluate ARE STILL OBJECTIVE CLAIMS.
For what it's worth, I believe an individual's ability to reason is also objective. I object, not only to your describing interpretation as subjective, but to your alluding to "subjective reasoning."
I believe that there is a big-R Reason to which all human efforts at rationality strive to conform: if there weren't, then there would be no content in the claim that a particular argument from reason (or application of reason) is either valid or is fallacious. If reason is subjective, then argument is useless.
Some arguments -- and some people -- are objectively less rational than others, and this observation is meaningful because there is objective Reason against which arguments and behavior can be judged, however imperfectly.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, if you're going to argue that biblical interpretation is subjective, you should at least be consistent about it.
"To submit to the Bible is to place the Bible above God, to make a god of the Bible, and that would be wrong, according to the Bible!"
Leaving aside (for a moment) the illogic of the claim, you shouldn't be telling me that idolatry is wrong "according to the Bible."
In order to be consistent, you should be telling me that it's wrong according to your SUBJECTIVE OPINION of the Bible, which I can thus disregard with impunity just as I can every other subjective statement: I can like spinach even if the rest of the world doesn't, and I can hold a supposedly "subjective opinion" about the Bible that's different from yours without hesitation.
You should be consistent if you're going to play this little game, but I believe you shouldn't play this game in the first place.
About what source of knowledge about God that I hold as ultimately authoritative -- as the "deciding vote" when sources of potential revelation disagree -- you write:
"So, it's not a matter of whether or not you have an objective source for faith matters - you don't - it's a matter of whether or not you acknowledge that you are using your subjective reasoning for whatever you find in the Bible."
Again, I object to the ridiculous notion that one's interpretation of scripture is subjective, but even so, my interpretation -- which you sometimes call a reasoning and sometimes denigrate by calling it a mere opinion -- is NOT the final authority to which I appeal.
If my interpretation of what the Bible says is my final authority regarding truth, I would never seriously study the Bible again, beyond some rote ritual: I wouldn't have to, because my final authority is what I already believe about the Bible, to hell with whether there are serious disagreements between my beliefs and what the text actually teaches.
No, my final authority is what I already said it is. It's not my interpretation of the Bible, it's the Bible itself.
I have -- and hope always to have -- a practice of studying the Bible in order to evaluate what I believe against what it teaches, and to adjust my beliefs accordingly. There have been a few times in my life where I've made some pretty major changes to my belief system based on what I have read in the Bible.
Indeed, I change my beliefs according to what I BELIEVE the Bible teaches, and my beliefs only reflect my best understanding of what it teaches.
But because I constantly return to the text itself and seek constantly to improve that understanding, the final authority to which I appeal isn't my understanding: it's the Bible itself, it is the text against which my understanding is constantly being compared.
To be clear, I MISUSED THE WORD "SUBJECTIVE" MYSELF, in an earlier statement.
"If the answer is some subjective source -- such as the leadings of the Holy Spirit -- I still wonder how you distinguish between God's Spirit and your own sinful tendencies."
I apologize for misspeaking.
The Holy Spirit is an objective reality, as are His leadings, but it's still the case that the source is INTERNAL, not EXTERNAL, and sifting His leadings from one's own desires strikes me as an intractable problem.
[continued]
[continued]
About my question about what source you appeal to as the final authority, you seem to give "reason" as your answer.
"For me, I acknowledge we have to use our reason to study the Bible, to look at creation all around us and draw conclusions, to ponder the relationships of our community and the stories from our history. We all have to use our reason to sort these things out. Even any "still small voices" that we may hear, we have to use our reason to discern if that is of God or not."
I readily agree that reason has an important role in Bible study: it is through reason that we eliminate certain possible interpretations as contradictions, and reason is what allows us to discuss which approaches at reconciling difficult passages are the most likely.
Because God is omniscient, constant, holy, and good (all of which are clear teachings of the Bible) I believe that God is rational, and that nothing about the Creator or His creation is inconsistent with Reason.
But a lot is beyond Reason, which leads to one of a couple concerns I have with your answer.
First, reason cannot deduce some of the central doctrines of Christian faith, some of which may be essential for salvation. Reason can be used to discern, for instance, that the Bible asserts the divinity of Jesus Christ, but it CANNOT deduce that assertion on its own: the Incarnation and the Trinity are both key Christian doctrines that are, technically speaking, "mysteries." They are not inconsistent with reason, but they cannot be deduced or even explained by reason.
Look again to what you wrote as part of the Bible's essential teachings.
"We are all - humanity - 'lost' and in need of salvation and grace.
"God loves us all and wishes to offer us this gift, this grace of salvation, of new life."
I believe that our need for salvation can be deduced by reason, since -- as Romans teaches -- the moral law and our guilt before it are obvious to all.
But the PROVISION of that salvation is not deducible by reason or any other general revelation: we know it ONLY through special revelation, supremely by God Incarnate ("the Word made flesh") but also through His prophets and apostles, and their writings, all confirmed afterwards by the indwelling of His Spirit in our hearts.
In short, you seem to be appealing to general revelation as supremely authoritative, when much of what is crucial about God, man, and salvation has only been revealed through special revelation.
Second, by making reason primary, you make it more difficult for scripture to correct faulty reasoning. I don't believe God or the Bible is incompatible with Reason, but that's ONLY with true, valid, big-R Reason.
The reasoning ability of an individual human being can be (and often is) flawed, because of either faulty premises, invalid logical operators from which conclusions are drawn, or individual instances where perfectly valid premises and operators are sloppily misapplied.
Scripture can be a useful tool for correcting poor reasoning -- particularly in correcting flawed premises. You yourself admit that the Bible teaches, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."
But it seems to me that, by making reason primary, you're using your own reasoning to evaluate scripture -- not just to discern what it teaches, but to determine what to disregard as "less than perfect" revelation -- and that leaves little room for scripture to correct your reasoning.
Two obvious examples come to mind.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, the first example is the fact that you have apparently reasoned that taking innocent human life is intrinsically immoral, not just for a human acting on his own, but for God Himself: you have reasoned that God Himself cannot command the taking of innocent human life or even take such life Himself through natural or supernatural means.
(I'm sometimes not quite sure how serious this position is, considering your defense of Michael Schiavo's supposed legal right to kill his wife by starvation, your support of perhaps the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, and even your stated belief that death can be a blessed thing. If death can be a blessing, I don't understand why you think even God Himself cannot so bless us.)
Your position that taking innocent human life is immoral even for God IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT, and it might be altogether wrong. If you took the Bible as decisively authoritative, it's possible that its record of divine commands to wage wars of annihilation and its record of Passover could get you to reevaluate your thinking about why taking human life is wrong in the first place.
(Biblically, the reason it's wrong appears to be that it's God's prerogative -- that the Creator alone has the right to decide to end the life he created.)
Instead, because you let your reasoning trump clear meaning of the Bible, you alternate between doing one of two things. You argue the implausible and (thus far) unsubstantiated position that these difficult passages are mere metaphor -- which means either that the entire OT history is one giant allegory (which would invalidate the covenant promises that the NT presumes are historical) or that, bizarrely, the OT history alternates imperceptibly between history and allegory.
Or, when you don't make a vague appeal to a non-literal interpretation that you never actually outline, you simply dismiss passages (like THE PASSOVER) as "less than perfect" in terms of being divine revelation and recorded history.
Because your reasoning trumps the Bible, you invoke vague and implausible interpretations to dismiss some clear teachings of the Bible and -- when that doesn't fly -- you dismiss the teachings altogether as at least partially erroneous.
The second example is your difficulty seeing God's love in the claim that Christ died for our sins, which you expressed earlier in this thread.
"Perhaps the greatest problem with Satisfaction/PS theories is that they downplay God's grace. We are saved by God's GRACE, through faith in Jesus. IF God saves us by torturing and killing his son, then that suggests a Salvation by vengeance to me. God HATES SIN so much that it MUST BE PUNISHED and punished severely. But rather than take it out on us, God gets relief by taking it out on God's Son, instead.
"This does not sound rational nor does it speak of grace, but of vengeance. At least to me. Where is Grace in the S/PS theories?"
As I pointed out, Romans 5:6-10 teaches that Christ's dying for us -- our being justified by His blood and reconciled to God through His death -- isn't incompatible with God's love: it explicitly teaches that it's proof of God's love for us.
You haven't picked up this topic again, so it's not clear whether you now believe the Bible when it claims quite clearly, "God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us."
If you don't, and you're still using your reasoning to disregard this teaching, it's not clear how you're allowing Romans 5 to serve as a corrective.
All scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting.
And yet it does not appear that you're allowing scripture such as the deep theology in Romans and the historical account of even the Passover to rebuke you and correct what I suspect are some fundamentally mistaken beliefs.
[continued]
[continued]
Third, for all your talk about following Jesus' "Way" and example, letting reason trump scripture doesn't seem very Christlike.
I believe that Jesus' wisdom and even shrewdness is self-evident. Because He is God Incarnate, He is incapable of error, so He is also incapable of defying Reason.
The Bible records that He applied rational arguments to discern what scripture teaches: in the most striking example, He pointed to the verb tense in "I am the God of Abraham" to prove the immortality of the patriarchs.
But while He applied rational arguments to discern scripture's contents, the Bible NEVER records that Jesus used such arguments to undermine scripture's authority -- to conclude, as you have done, that some passages contain "less than perfect" revelation.
More than that, and even beyond the fact that He affirmed the permanent authority of scripture to the smallest penstroke and frequently appealed to scripture as authoritative when teaching others, we have the temptation in the wilderness.
Weakened by fasting, with no immediate obligation to instruct any bystanders, and confronted by what we is surely Satan's fiercest attacks and most subtle traps, Jesus Christ did not get into a philosophical argument. He did not use first principles to deduce why Satan's suggestions should be rebuked.
Jesus Christ appealed to scripture.
He appealed to Deuteronomy 8:3.
He repelled Satan's misapplication of Psalm 91 with Deuteronomy 6:16.
And He ended the temptation by citing Deuteronomy 6:13.
You've written, "Jesus respected the OT as the Scriptures, so I do, too."
But your approach of using reason to determine that some passages contain "less than perfect" revelation simply does not conform to the esteem Christ showed scripture.
Dan, briefly on another point or two, you write:
"The Bible is a fixed book with fixed words and those words need to be interpreted aright. If one reads the passage that says 'God sometimes commands the killing of children,' then one can come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches killing children is a good thing if God tells you to do it, but it's NOT a good thing to do. If you hear voices telling you to kill children, those voices are not from God."
I have no problem with the position that the Bible needs to be interpreted correctly, but I do not believe that a correct interpretation would ever undermine its veracity and authority -- by suggesting, for example, that a particular passage is a "less than perfect" revelation.
"One can love the Bible's teachings and yet not accept every teaching as representative of God's Will. It just is a reality that this can happen. I DO love the Bible, but I DON'T accept that every line is a perfect representation of God's Will." [source]
"God will NOT sometimes ask us to commit atrocities. So, in those passages, I think we have a less than perfect representation of God." [source]
I'm not sure why even what you do concede -- that the Bible is God-breathed and God-inspired -- would allow you to hold this position.
And I'll say, as I've said before, that your outrage at these difficult passages makes describing them as "less than perfect" a GROSS understatement. If what the Bible records as divine command is really an atrocity, it's not just that the passage isn't a perfect representation; you must think that the passage is a MIS-representation, and a pretty diabolical one at that.
Because Christ Himself affirmed scripture to the smallest penstroke and even appealed to a tiny verb tense to prove the soul's immortality, I see no basis for dismissing any passage as "less than perfect." If anything, that dismissal is disobedience to Christ's teaching rather than obedience.
But let's take your bold assertion and see how far you're willing to take it.
"If you hear voices telling you to kill children, those voices are not from God."
QUESTION: Among the historical figures in the Bible, the authors of the Bible, and the early church who discerned its authority, precisely who do you hold in contempt for what must be their insanity or evil for disagreeing with you on this point?
It seems to me that you think Abraham was mad for believing the command to sacrifice Isaac came from God. You must also think that Moses (or whoever authored Genesis) was mad for documenting such insanity.
(You must also think Moses was insane for telling the Israelites that God commanded total war.)
You must think that James and the author of Hebrews were evil for praising Abraham PRECISELY for having the faith to obey God's command to sacrifice Isaac, and you must think the early church was out of its gourd for accepting these epistles as canonical.
But do you stop there? The Gospels record that Jesus affirmed the law and the prophets to the smallest penstroke, and He quoted Moses frequently. Do you presume that Jesus actually taught that the difficult passages really are "less than perfect" revelation, and therefore do you blame the Evangelists for not recording such a crucial point that is, in light of His other affirmations of scripture, counter-intuitive?
Or do you blame Jesus Christ for not explicitly rebuking those difficult passages the way you do?
Again, you also write:
"We are striving to submit to God, not the Bible. To submit to the Bible is to place the Bible above God, to make a god of the Bible, and that would be wrong, according to the Bible!
"'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'"
This argument is flawed because (once again) it confuses metaphysics and epistemology.
I do submit to God alone.
I also believe that the Bible is the final authority about who God is and what He teaches, but that's no inconsistency because I believe God authored the Bible.
Since I believe the Bible is God's written revelation, I submit to God BY SUBMITTING TO THE BOOK HE AUTHORED. Your frankly absurd argument that I'm guilty of idolatry applies EQUALLY to whatever source (or combination of sources) you trust for divine revelation.
You surely expect your own children to submit to you in at least some qualified sense, but I seriously doubt that you expect them (somehow, PREPOSTEROUSLY) to submit to you while ignoring the many ways you communicate your will and instructions to them, from speech to emails to notes on the fridge.
The only way they can submit to you is to submit to the messages you communicate. Just so, I submit to God by submitting to the messages He communicates; I just happen to hold the Bible, (again) NOT as authoritative over God Himself, but as authoritative over all other modes of communication.
Finally, Dan, you write:
"At any rate, you don't have to guess incorrectly about why you suspect I don't accept God's 'authorship' of the Bible - I've already given you the answer. Just read the words I've already written and we won't have to have this dance, Bubba."
I have frequently tried to submit to your every request, even answering -- at length -- suspiciously timed hypothetical questions supposedly intended to ascertain my moral reasoning skills, just to see you find some other excuse to leave a thread and drop the substantive and possibly inconvenient subjects that were being discussed. I have even made sure to make clear to use keywords and key phrases like "it seems" when I go beyond quoting you to summarize your apparent position.
(Note the use of "apparent.")
But, in truth, I don't believe -- and have never believed -- that it's a reasonable request that no person ever go beyond what you have explicitly written to draw conclusions that you don't like.
I was hoping that you wouldn't return to this frequent and annoying request, but if you're going to do so, I insist that you practice what you preach.
If you have a problem with the mere fact that I made explicit a suspicion I have about you, you should apologize for airing your own suspicion about me, which you did first.
"I suspect you don't blankly read the Bible and conform to its teachings, period. Rather, you read the Bible seeking God's will, and when you find a passage that you suspect was for a specific people at a specific time, you reason that it does not apply to you, even though the Bible nowhere SAYS it doesn't apply to you. You step beyond the Bible to seek God's Will, rather than blindly conforming to the Bible's teachings."
I believe your suspicion is wrong on at least a couple points. As I explained earlier, the New Testament actually does address whether (and what parts of) the Old Testament law applies to us.
For that reason, I don't believe it's necessary to "step beyond" the Bible to discern which OT commands do not apply directly to my life -- and, let me be clear, I strive NEVER to do so. I believe it's often quite clear when a divine command in the Bible was limited in its scope, and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles make explicit which commands apply to the Christian church.
You don't have to guess incorrectly about how you suspect I discern which OT commands are universal in nature. You can just read the words I've already written or, if the answer isn't there, you should feel free to ask me a question about the subject.
But if you feel free to air your suspicions about what I do in interpreting Scripture, you give up the grounds to object when I air my suspicions about why you deny Scripture's divine authorship.
On that subject, you write, once again, that the Bible is silent about its divine authorship, writing, "the Bible makes no such claim and because God makes no such claim. The Bible was written by people inspired by God. Thus saith the Bible and the Lord."
First, just how do you know "God makes no such claim"? It's tough to prove a negative, and if you're treating what the Bible says as equivalent to what God says, you implicitly concede that the former was authored by the Latter.
More importantly, I believe the Bible -- and Christ Himself -- does affirm scripture's divine authorship, as (in Matthew 19) Christ attributed Gen 2:24 directly to God Himself.
But, anyway, I'm not sure it's reasonable to request that I never draw from what you write conclusions with which you would disagree -- or air suspicions beyond what your writing conclusively proves. Again, if you want to make that request, I insist that you do for me, what you demand from me.
This is truly laborious work, Bubba. Where to begin...?
You stated most recently...
If you have a problem with the mere fact that I made explicit a suspicion I have about you, you should apologize for airing your own suspicion about me, which you did first.
And referenced my comment...
"I suspect you don't blankly read the Bible and conform to its teachings, period. Rather, you read the Bible seeking God's will...
It was my (I thought) generous suspicion that you read the Bible seeking God's will. Was I wrong in my suspicion? Do you NOT read the Bible to try to discern God's will? If so, I apologize. I thought that was a generous and fair assessment of your position.
You, on the other hand, suspected more nefariously of me...
I suspect the reason you don't accept the Bible's divine authorship is that doing so would require submitting to all that it teaches.
In other words, I suspected something generous of your motives - that you were seeking God's will. Nothing insulting in that.
You, however, have suspected - in spite of my words - that I have more evil/selfish motives (suggesting I don't want to submit to what it teaches and - correct me if I'm wrong - therefore, that I don't want to submit to God's Will).
Bullshit.
I have no problems with suspicions, but you are famously bad at guessing my motives and reasonings, as I have frequently pointed out, so I would suggest you not try as often. But I DO appreciate you owning up that at least it was a suspicion on your part and not an outright accusation.
If I was mistaken on my part, and you DON'T seek God's will when you read the Bible, I apologize. Of course, I see that you are talking about the rest of that paragraph, where I further suspect that you strive to discern God's Will as it relates to a particular passage. My point in all of that was not necessarily the process, but that you are seeking God's Will. I apologize if that was not clear.
Now, how about if I cut to the chase on a lot of your other points in the multiple comments above. Let's get specific about some text and reasoning.
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied... But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. ~Jesus
1. OBJECTIVELY, you and I can agree that Jesus says in Luke, "Blessed are you who are poor... Woe to you who are rich." Objectively, that is the text on that page.
2. Now, I think that Jesus, when he is saying "blessed are the poor," means just what it says - blessed are the poor, those in need, those who hunger. And, when Jesus says, "woe to you are rich," I think he means just what the text says - woe to you who have much wealth, the rich. Not the rich in spirit, or the poor in spirit, but the rich and the poor. Just what it says.
I think this because of the context of the sermon and because of the greater context of Jesus' teachings. I see no reason to take it other than literally. This is my reasoning on this.
3. You, on the other hand (correct me if I'm mistaken), think that Jesus means blessed are the poor in spirit, woe to the rich in spirit, that Jesus is not speaking literally here, but metaphorically or symbolically. You think this because of the context of Matthew's SOTM and, I suppose, for other reasons (it does not make sense to you to be talking about actual poor, actual rich, for instance).
Now, given that, we OBJECTIVELY agree with what the words literally say, but we come to different conclusions after reasoning through it.
Questions: Tell me, am I being SUBJECTIVE in my reasoning or OBJECTIVE, and why? Are YOU being subjective or objective and why? Or, is there some other way of looking at it, other than in terms of subjective and objective?
For the record, I am not saying that NO objective conclusions can be drawn from the Bible. I'm speaking more of the many topics that are not objectively clear.
Some perhaps random related points...
You said:
I also believe that the Bible is the final authority about who God is and what He teaches, but that's no inconsistency because I believe God authored the Bible.
Questions: If I wrote a book of poetry, essays, instructions and stories for my children and gave it to them, does that make the BOOK the "final authority" about who I am or am I the final authority of who I am? Could they read the book and come to a conclusion about me that was mistaken?
You said...
The only way they can submit to you is to submit to the messages you communicate.
In my book example above, my children can strive to submit to me by considering EVERYTHING they know about me, not just my book. If, for instance, they know by my example that I hate driving cars and prefer walking, and I have a story in my book that talks about driving somewhere, they could still know based on my example that I am not endorsing driving as a good solution for transportation as a general rule.
They submit to me by considering everything they know about me, not just my book. Now, certainly they can find some messages in my book, but if they THINK they are hearing a message that is in my book that is contrary to my life/example, then they would wisely think, "well, maybe I'm wrongly interpreting the book..."
Bubba asked...
QUESTION: Among the historical figures in the Bible, the authors of the Bible, and the early church who discerned its authority, precisely who do you hold in contempt for what must be their insanity or evil for disagreeing with you on this point?
It seems to me that you think Abraham was mad for believing the command to sacrifice Isaac came from God. You must also think that Moses (or whoever authored Genesis) was mad for documenting such insanity.
I don't hold any of them in contempt. Interpretations of their stories that include the suggestion that God commands things against God's nature, THESE I hold as incorrect, based on what the Bible says and what my God-given reasoning dictates.
You and I objectively agree that the Bible has a story in which Samuel told Saul to kill all the Amalekites, including the children. That is factually in the Bible. But you hold that since it is in the Bible and has God commanding Saul (through Samuel) to kill children, that it must be literally so (but you don't hold Jesus' Luke 6 "blessed are the poor" to be literally so??), whereas I look at the rest of the Bible and see that killing innocents is wrong and I further conclude from the Bible that God does not command us to do wrong, therefore, I conclude this story can't be interpreted literally and be correct. It must be a parable or some other explanation, but it's not a literal representation of how God works, because that would conflict with the rest of the Bible and with our own God-given reasoning.
As I have said repeatedly.
Question: IF Pastor Bob came up to you - Bob being someone you respected as an absolutely trustworthy man of God - and told you that GOD had told him God wanted you to wipe out the people in Las Vegas - a town you know to be famously corrupt/evil; Pastor Bob told you that God said he wanted you to kill them all, even their children and puppies - would you even begin to assume that God was speaking to you through Bob? Remember, Saul did NOT follow through with Samuel's instructions completely and he got in great trouble for it. Would you even give a passing minute to the possibility that Bob might have given you a message from God? Or would you write it off IMMEDIATELY as a ridiculous notion, against the very nature of God?
One more, for now...
Your position that taking innocent human life is immoral even for God IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT, and it might be altogether wrong.
Oh, really? I agree with Jefferson and others that some truths ARE self-evident, including the right to life. I think further that the taking of innocent lives being immoral is self-evident.
I further believe that God does not command us to do that which is contrary to God's morality. God won't command us to rape puppies, I'd say, nor would God command us to slaughter babies, nor would God command us to cut open pregnant women and dash their babies heads against rocks. I think all these things are self-evidently wrong and immoral and that God would not command us to do these sorts of things.
Question: Do you disagree?
Since I have a bit of time, let me take a stab at this. YOu said...
Dan, if you're going to argue that biblical interpretation is subjective, you should at least be consistent about it.
And quoted me...
"To submit to the Bible is to place the Bible above God, to make a god of the Bible, and that would be wrong, according to the Bible!"
And continued...
Leaving aside (for a moment) the illogic of the claim, you shouldn't be telling me that idolatry is wrong "according to the Bible."
In order to be consistent, you should be telling me that it's wrong according to your SUBJECTIVE OPINION of the Bible
I apologize if I was less than clear. We can say objectively that the Bible says what it says. We can quote the Bible and say, "this is what the Bible says..." So, it is not inconsistent of me to point out that the Bible says "Thou shalt have no gods before me..." - it objectively says that.
What we DO with that (ie, how we interpret it) is where we get into subjectivity. For instance, with this passage...
1. I could say when the Bible says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," that means we ought to have no other gods before Jehovah God. That is, relatively objectively, what the passage says and I'm agreeing with its literal intent.
2. I could also say about that passage that it means that we ought to worship Jehovah God the first thing in the morning, so that we had no other gods BEFORE Jehovah, or I could say that, given the context of the whole Bible, it's okay to have other gods, but we ought to consider Jehovah God the "boss god..." or something like that.
In the first instance, I am taking the words fairly literally and thus, objectively. Objectively, the Bible DOES say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me..." It just does.
BUT, in the second case, I am taking the literal text and subjectively interpreting it. I'm giving my hunch on what the Bible MEANS when it says this literal thing. In so doing, I would have moved from objective to subjective. It is objective to say, the Bible says X, if X is in the Bible. It is subjective to say, "the Bible says Z," if Z is my interpretation of X.
Therefore, I am not being inconsistent in quoting the Bible and saying that's what the Bible says while at the same time, insisting upon acknowledging or subjective interpretations of the Bible.
Seems to me.
Dan,
I for one am not sure that your suspicion about how I interpret the Bible is wholly generous. Indeed, it was generous to suspect that I "read the Bible seeking God's will," but I did not object to that specific line. Instead, my objections were about two other claims, that the Bible doesn't make clear whether (and what parts of) the OT law applies to the NT church, and that therefore I "step beyond the Bible to seek God's Will."
The former claim about the Bible, I refute as inaccurate; the latter claim about my stepping beyond the Bible itself, I also refute as inaccurate, and I also wouldn't consider it to be all that generous.
I'll admit that I do not always limit my suspicions, conclusions, and outright accusations to those which are generous and commendatory. To repeat one such charge that I don't think has come up here, I believe that you're often guilty of hypocrisy, sometimes egregiously so, and I stand by that belief.
But let's not pretend the salvos always go in one direction. Even in this conversation, I think you've taken a pretty obvious shot at my integrity for the positions that I hold.
"Regarding the Bible and 'divine authorship' and whether or not the Bible talks about its 66 books: I think this is an important point because many folk out there are looking for consistency and honesty. If we can't be straightforward and admit that, no, in fact, the Bible does not talk about itself, we will sound less like we're being illogical and more like we're being honest about what the Bible does and does not say."
There's scant difference between this paragraph and saying outright, "Agree with me, or you're illogical and/or dishonest," where I think it's worse to be called dishonest than illogical.
Though I could stand to continue to improve in both areas, I've tried to be much more careful in avoiding unnecessary personal criticism, and I think I've become less sensitive to ad hominems pointing my direction. I bring up the paragraph above, not because I expect an apology for it (I don't), but as simple evidence that I'm not the only one here questioning the intellect and/or the character of the person at the other end of the Internet.
About Luke 6, I do believe that the Bible and Christ Himself address matters of literal material wealth and poverty.
For instance, what Christ said, in Luke 18:24-25 and elsewhere, about the difficulty of the wealthy entering God's kingdom, I take to reference material wealth. For one thing, there's no obvious biblical reason to conclude otherwise, and for another, the figurative interpretation actually makes less sense: it's not difficult for the "rich in spirit" to see God's kingdom, it's completely impossible because of their pride.
But I interpret the beatitudes in Luke 6 figuratively because I believe the passage is a parallel account to a passage that is explicitly about "the poor in spirit." That is my only reason for rejecting a literal interpretation of this one passage, but I think it's a very good reason.
Is my interpretation objective? Is yours? I believe they both are.
"The beatitudes in Luke 6 are meant to be taken literally."
"The beatitudes are meant to be taken figuratively."
Both of these statements are objective. In the general case of two mutually exclusive claims, one is probably at least more valid than the other, unless they're both equally invalid; in this case, I believe these are the only two options, so one is valid, and one is not.
"This table was constructed using strictly pre-modern tools."
"This table was constructed using at least one modern industrial tool."
These statements are certainly harder to evaluate than "this table has four legs," but they're both objective statements, and either one or the other is valid. I believe that even statements that are impossible to evaluate remain objective even if their validity is an open question.
[continued]
[continued]
As the last thing (for now) about objective claims versus subjective claims, I agree that a mere quote from the Bible is objective, and I obviously disagree that an interpretation of a passage is subjective. I think both the original citation and the subsequent interpretation are both objective claims.
To use the table analogy again, suppose the table has a number underneath its top: 111598.
"The table has a number printed on it, 111598."
"The table's printed number is a date of manufacture, November 15th, 1998."
"The tables printed number is a serial number."
The first claim is a plain fact, and the next two are speculative interpretations of the meaning of the number, but all three are objective claims. If one is lucky, the validity of the last two claims can be evaluated by calling the manufacturer.
(Or, an easier analogy: an Animal Farm citation is objective, but so too are the claim that the book is an allegory for the Russian Revolution and the claim that it's a factual historical account. Of the last two, one is quite obviously more valid than the other.)
But even supposing I'm wrong about this point, I still think you were being inconsistent. You write, "I am not being inconsistent in quoting the Bible and saying that's what the Bible says while at the same time, insisting upon acknowledging or subjective interpretations of the Bible."
But you did more than just "quoting the Bible and saying that's what the Bible says."
"To submit to the Bible is to place the Bible above God, to make a god of the Bible, and that would be wrong, according to the Bible!"
You did cite Exodus immediately after, but here you draw conclusions that are beyond what you quote, including the completely extra-biblical assertion that submitting to the Bible places the text above God.
(You introduce a possible paradox here, namely that submitting to the Bible is wrong "according to the Bible." It's close to saying outright that the Bible teaches not to submit to the Bible: if you heed that teaching, you're submitting to the Bible and are therefore immediately disobedient to its teaching.)
Do feel free to correct me, but I know of no passage in any real-world translation of any book of the Bible that condemns submission to the Bible as wrong.
That being the case, I suspect that your own position on what's subjective means that you should have made clear that the quote above is a "subjective interpretation."
More, on the more important matter of the supposed atrocities in the Old Testament, in a moment.
Okay, we've got some failure to communicate going on here and let me apologize for my part in not stating my position more clearly.
Misunderstanding 1:
you draw conclusions that are beyond what you quote, including the completely extra-biblical assertion that submitting to the Bible places the text above God.
(You introduce a possible paradox here, namely that submitting to the Bible is wrong "according to the Bible."
My misunderstood quote:
"To submit to the Bible is to place the Bible above God, to make a god of the Bible, and that would be wrong, according to the Bible!"
My "THAT" is referring to making a god of the Bible. THAT would be wrong, to make a god of the Bible, are we agreed? THAT is what I was referring to when I made the statement, not the whole preceding statement. My apologies for dangling participles, or whatever error I made.
Misunderstanding 2:
I said...
"Regarding the Bible and 'divine authorship' and whether or not the Bible talks about its 66 books: I think this is an important point because many folk out there are looking for consistency and honesty. If we can't be straightforward and admit that, no, in fact, the Bible does not talk about itself, we will sound less like we're being illogical and more like we're being honest about what the Bible does and does not say."
And you responded...
There's scant difference between this paragraph and saying outright, "Agree with me, or you're illogical and/or dishonest," where I think it's worse to be called dishonest than illogical.
I apologize if it sounded like I was calling you dishonest or illogical. I was striving to make a broader statement, that statement being, it is my opinion that when we can't/don't acknowledge that the Bible is not talking about itself anywhere within its pages, then I suspect that such an approach sounds intellectually dishonest and logically unsound to people out there, and thus, they tend to write the church off as irrelevant. I have spoken to people who have said as much.
I was not speaking of you, but of that approach to the Bible. And that is my opinion and why I think it important NOT to approach exegesis in that manner.
It's not to say "agree with me or you're illogical or dishonest," but rather, "Here's how such arguments sound to many people out there. If you have a compelling case to make as to why the Bible speaks about itself, you'll have to do a better job of making it, because as it is, it's not working..." or something along those lines.
Dan, about your hypothetical scenario with "Pastor Bob," I suspect that you would find outrageous anything less than immediate outrage at the suggestion. Almost certainly, to you, "writ[ing] it off IMMEDIATELY as a ridiculous notion, against the very nature of God" is the only correct answer and is self-evidently the only correct answer.
My answer is not that. I could write more, but it would suffice to say that it would take an Old-Testament demonstration of a supposed prophet's authority in order for me even to consider obeying a command similar to the difficult commands that the Old Testament records.
If your position is such a command is "against the very nature of God," then your notion of God may be many things -- certainly respectable in our world of post-modern secularism -- but there's one word that does not describe it.
"Biblical."
Your position isn't biblical, barring a plausible figurative interpretation of the numerous difficult passages you say CANNOT be taken literally, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
About the morality of taking human life, it's not at all self-evident that the right to life cannot be revoked even by the Creator who endowed us with that right.
I agree that it's true -- perhaps tautologically true -- that God would not command anything that is contrary to His moral law. But I'm not convinced that it is against His moral law for God Himself to take human life.
(As I've said in another thread, puppy rape is a complete digression because because the Bible doesn't even arguably teach that God ever commanded any such thing.)
I think it's clear that the Bible teaches the opposite, that it's God's prerogative to take human life. This lesson is not only found in numerous passages, it's found in passages whose historicity is absolutely central to Jewish faith and, subsequently, our own faith.
Namely, Abraham sacrificing Isaac and the Passover.
The former is not only praised by two New Testament writers, it's tightly coupled with the covenant God made with Abraham that was fulfilled in Christ (Rom 4, Gal 3). The latter is not only the central event celebrated by Judaism and the basis for Jewish scripture's repeated promises of God's faithfulness, it is -- according to Christ Himself -- the event through which we are to understand the Crucifixion, the central event of our faith.
God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and God wiped out the firstborn of Egypt. You can't get around these claims of the Bible.
[continued]
[continued]
"You and I objectively agree that the Bible has a story in which Samuel told Saul to kill all the Amalekites, including the children. That is factually in the Bible. But you hold that since it is in the Bible and has God commanding Saul (through Samuel) to kill children, that it must be literally so (but you don't hold Jesus' Luke 6 "blessed are the poor" to be literally so??), whereas I look at the rest of the Bible and see that killing innocents is wrong and I further conclude from the Bible that God does not command us to do wrong, therefore, I conclude this story can't be interpreted literally and be correct. It must be a parable or some other explanation, but it's not a literal representation of how God works, because that would conflict with the rest of the Bible and with our own God-given reasoning."
About these passages and Luke 6, I've already explained in this thread, "The difference is that one case involves the proclamation's historicity, and the other involves its content."
"Both commands literally happened as historical events, though obviously not in English.
"It's just that I think the OT command was intended to be taken literally, and Christ's command was intended to be taken figuratively...
"An Old Testament analogue of my approach to Christ's parables and hyperbole is found in Exodus 20:7.
"There, I believe God literally commanded not to take His name in vain, but we cannot literally 'take' His name -- Heb. nasa, to lift up or carry.
"The command was literally and historically given, but its content involved figurative language."
So far as I can tell, you never addressed this explanation to tell me where it falls short or is unclear.
(I also don't see where you responded to Mark's point, that the people's response points strongly to a literal interpretation of the divine command that was given.)
Anyway, you write about Saul and the Amalekites what I believe would be accurate about your take on other events, like Abraham and Isaac, the Passover, and the Deluge. You write, "...I conclude this story can't be interpreted literally and be correct. It must be a parable or some other explanation, but it's not a literal representation of how God works, because that would conflict with the rest of the Bible and with our own God-given reasoning."
You insist that there must be a figurative interpretation, but I have repeatedly, across numerous threads over the course of months if not years, strongly requested that you provide a figurative interpretation that A) is plausible and B) maintains the passage's veracity and authority.
You have NEVER provided such an interpretation.
I don't believe you can. I say that, not to disparage you personally, but because I don't believe such an interpretation exists.
I insist that you provide that interpretation. The reasoning for the existence of that interpretation is circular question-begging. The clear meaning of the Bible -- including, e.g., the praise in James and Hebrews for Abraham's obedience -- points strongly in the direction of a literal interpretation, and the burden rests on you to provide a plausible alternative.
A brief postscript:
"[T]o make a god of the Bible, would be wrong, according to the Bible!" is something I agree with, but it's AT BEST a paraphrase of the Bible and not a direct quote, but you'll get no more nit-picking about that from me.
About the impression that is made by claiming the Bible makes claims about itself, it's probably the case that those of us who make the claim could do a better job at explaining it. It's also the case that Christian doctrine will probably always be a stumbling block to the superficially sophisticated "Greeks."
If that's the only thing you meant by the comment, fine. I'll continue to try not to be needlessly derogatory (note that qualifier) and I admit that I can continue to improve.
I think the issue that concerns me most is now -- as it has often been in other threads -- my request for an alternative figurative interpretation of the OT's difficult passages, specifically a plausible interpretation that maintains the passage's veracity and authority.
Now that family's here, I'm definitely gonna be out of pocket for a while, so let me leave (for a few days) by explaining why I bristle so much at the notion that one could safely conclude that passages must mean something other than the obvious interpretation, but without actually providing a plausible alternative.
I begin with an analogy. Suppose I gave a class a set of requirements (or, to use the term from computer science, constraints) about a polygon that I would like each student to construct.
1) The polygon must have AT LEAST six sides.
2) The polygon's sides must be of EQUAL length.
3) Each polygon's side must be AT LEAST 4 cm long.
4) The area of the polygon must be LESS THAN 40 square cm.
5) The polygon is purple.
First, notice that one could conclude that the polygon is over-constrained, that one cannot build an equilateral polygon (more precisely, a hexagon) of length 4 cm (or more) with an area less than 40 sq cm.
It's true that the area of a regular hexagon of length 4 cm is about 41.6 sq cm. (See the formula here or use a tool to calculate the value here.)
But the requirements don't specify a regular hexagon.
Take a regular hexagon and make it concave and you can easily bring the area down to less than 40 sq cm.
(If my quick-and-dirty figuring is right, you can create a concave hexagon that's essentially two equilateral parallelograms -- each is a rhombus -- with angles of 60 and 120. Each would have an area of 4 * 2(sqrt(3)) = 13.9, for a total area of 27.7 sq cm. This is 2/3 of the area of a regular hexagon, which stands to reason since the "missing piece" is a rhombus that's the same size of the other two.)
It's only unnecessary, external assumptions that a student might bring with him -- e.g., the polygon must be regular or at least convex -- that would cause him to think that the requirements cannot all fit together and be satisfied by a single polygon.
Now, if one were to examine all the polygons that were created according to all the constraints above, one would find similarities and differences.
Each might be made of different materials -- white paper, construction paper, cardboard, pipe cleaners -- and be a different shade, but they would all be some form of purple.
Each might have a different length for their sides, but the polygon would still be equilateral and each side would be no less than 4 cm.
Each might have a different area, but the area would be less than 40 sq cm.
In short, the results would vary, but ONLY to a point. The idea of satisfactory polygons -- ones that satisfy the constraints -- is meaningful if not precise in every detail.
If students felt free to start ignoring requirements, the sky's the limit.
If they no longer accounted for #1 and only #1 -- meaning that they tried to satisfy all other constraints -- you could have all sorts of equilateral polygons, including triangles of side 4 cm, whose area is 6.9 sq cm, trivially less than 40.
If they no longer accounted for #4 and only #4, you could have regular hexagons of side 4, no problem, or (following #3) arbitrarily and ridiculously large hexagons.
If they felt free not to account for ANY number of constraints, they could turn in practically anything, and the results could vary to an indefinite degree: each polygon could have any size, have any number of shapes, and be in any color (or colors). The idea of satisfactory polygons has lost most (perhaps all) real meaning.
[continued]
CORRECTION: I just noticed an error in one of the constraints. The first constraint should read as follows:
1) The polygon must have EXACTLY six sides.
I believe I typed it correctly the first time, before I put key words in all-caps.
[continued]
Now, in the example above, I used the term "satisfactory" to describe a polygon that fits all the constraints provided by the teacher.
I believe there's a similar term to describe a worldview that fits all the constraints provided by the Bible: that term is "biblical."
I believe that what the Bible teaches -- across more than sixty books, written by dozens of men over literally centuries -- can be treated, accurately and without disrespect, as a large set of constraints. Each teaching affirms some objective truth (or set of truths) and, since the law of non-contradiction holds, it precludes other truth claims.
For instance, if Genesis 1:1 teaches that the universe was created by God (and I think it clearly does), that precludes the possibility that the universe is eternal and uncreated: it constrains all worldviews that could be described as "biblical" to worldviews that deny an eternal physical universe.
By making theological, historical, and prophetic claims, the Bible provides constraints about God, the past, and the future. It also provides constraints about the universe, man, his moral condition, and the need and means of salvation. Finally, it provides constraints about man's duties, which is collectively the moral law, with arguably specific instances tailored to specific situations.
I believe that it is possible for a worldview to satisfy all the Bible's constraints. In other words, I do not believe that the Bible is "over-constrained." Because I believe the Bible is authored by God -- who is omniscient, consistent, and good -- I do not believe that any of its teachings ultimately contradict any of its other teachings.
As with the example above, I believe that apparent contradictions are the result of external assumptions that are not found in the Bible itself.
Dan, you seem to believe that the prohibition of taking human life applies to God as well as man, and that's why you have such trouble reconciling events like the Passover to the rest of scripture. But you're bringing an external assumption that the Bible itself doesn't require.
(Even ignoring this one dilemma, it's obviously not always true that man's law also applies to God. It's certainly sinful -- and even blasphemous -- for a mere man to consider himself to be a deity, but it's not sinful for God, because He is God. It's sin for a man to expect another man to worship him, but that expectation is completely right for God, again, because He is God.)
(Those two examples can be resolved with a more general law that one should be honest about who he is, and one should only expect what is due to him. That would apply to both God and man, and a similar generalization could prohibit man from taking human life while allowing God to do the same: something like, "take only what belongs to you." Since a man's life belongs to God and not to another man -- or even, ultimately, to himself -- God can take that life even if suicide remains morally impermissible.)
But IF I'M WRONG, and if it's the case that some of the Bible's teachings are contradictory, then the term "biblical" refers to no internally consistent worldview. In terms of consistent worldviews, "biblical" refers to an empty set. It's not enough for a worldview to satisfy some of the Bible's constraints, because...
[continued]
[continued]
I believe "biblical" can only refer to worldviews that satisfy all the Bible's constraints. It's not enough to say a worldview satisfies some constraints -- i.e., that it agrees with the Bible on some points.
An atheist could agree with the Bible's prohibition of theft, fraud, and murder, but that doesn't make his worldview biblical. A non-Christian Jew could believe in all of Jewish scripture, but his denial of Jesus' being the Christ precludes his worldview from being biblical, at least in the sense that we have always used it here -- in reference to the Bible, as defined as one of the canons of historical, orthodox Christianity.
If "biblical" can refer to a worldview that satisfies only some (or even most) of the Bible's constraints, then -- as with the analogy above -- the term loses most or all real meaning.
Instead, I believe the term only applies to worldviews that meet all the constraints. Notice that I say worldviews in the plural, because...
There are surely multiple worldviews that can all be accurately described as "biblical." The worldviews can disagree even about quite serious matters, such as when nuclear weapons are morally permissible, if ever. But if each of them satisfies all the Bible's constraints, they can all be honestly described as biblical worldviews.
It's just like those hexagons in the example above that are truly "satisfactory." The constraints aren't completely comprehensive -- and could be said to under-constrain the problem -- so the results can vary, but ONLY to a point.
The idea of a biblical worldview is, as I put the same idea in the earlier example, "meaningful if not precise in every detail."
What about disagreements over the meaning of the constraints -- in other words, different interpretations of what the Bible teaches?
That's the key to this whole argument...
I believe that, between truly biblical worldviews, disagreements over interpretations MUST be limited, at the very least, to interpretations that meet certain criteria. At the very least, these criteria are as follows:
I) Each interpretation affirms the text's authority.
II) Each interpretation affirms the text's veracity.
III) Each interpretation is plausible and reasonable.
An interpretation that does not meet these criteria is practically equivalent to discarding the passage altogether.
Consider that fifth constraint in the polygon problem.
5) The polygon is purple.
Two students could disagree about what "purple" means. One could think it means any color between what a consensus would call blue and what a consensus would call red; another could say that it must correspond to an RGB code where -- like purple (x800080) and violet (xEE82EE) -- the red and blue values are equal and significantly greater than the green.
But if they agree the constraint really did come from the teacher, and it came without error, and their interpretations are actually reasonable, they should be fine.
However, if some other student ignores this constraint out of sheer spite, his polygon will be -- at best -- "satisfactory" only by coincidence, if he just happens to paint his shape purple because that's his favorite color. It's likely that it won't be satisfactory because it probably won't meet this constraint.
[continued]
[continued]
Suppose a student doesn't ignore the constraint outright: suppose his interpretation denies the constraint's authority (see I).
He may think the constraint contains no errors and his interpretation is otherwise reasonable. He would just say, e.g., "I don't think the teacher wrote that. I think it was inserted by a student, so I don't have to pay it any attention."
For all practical purposes, he might as well ignore it outright. His polygon would be "satisfactory" only by coincidence. Agreeing that his blue-and-yellow polygon is nevertheless "satisfactory" -- as is every other polygon from a student who rejects the authority of one or more constraints -- would mean that "satisfactory" ceases to be meaningful.
The same is true if a student's interpretation denies only the constraint's veracity (see II.) -- e.g., "I agree the teacher wrote that, but it's a mistake and surely he must have meant yellow."
The same is true if a student's interpretation is not reasonable (see III.).
(E.g., "I agree it says 'purple', and 'purple' has six letters. 'Orange' has six letters, so orange and purple are equivalent, so my orange hexagon meets that constraint.")
Most germane to your last comment, Dan, the practical results are the same if he claims that, contrary to all obvious interpretations, he holds to some alternative interpretation which he cannot or will not describe in the slightest detail.
If the polygon ends up satisfying the constraints, it'll be by sheer coincidence. It's unlikely that this will be the case, because the student opposes the obvious interpretations for an alternative that must be contradictory, whatever it happens to be.
In all likelihood, the student's polygon will be, in regard to this one constraint at least, a defiant mismatch. If the teacher accepts this polygon as "satisfactory," the term ends up having no real meaning.
Let's look again at your theory about passages such as Saul's command to wipe out the Amalekites -- and, presumably, other passages that are even more crucial, such as Abraham and Isaac, and the Passover:
"...I conclude this story can't be interpreted literally and be correct. It must be a parable or some other explanation, but it's not a literal representation of how God works, because that would conflict with the rest of the Bible and with our own God-given reasoning."
You contend that the obvious interpretation of the passages -- that is, a literal interpretation of text that is obviously historical in its genre -- is wrong, and you appeal to a figurative alternative the contents of which you have NEVER revealed.
Until you actually produce that alternative, there's no way of evaluating whether it is as plausible as you think it must be.
If I can't evaluate this alternative, then it's entirely possible (and I suspect, likely) that your alternative is implausible and unreasonable, and ceasing to insist on strictly plausible interpretations of the Bible, means that "biblical" will no longer be a meaningful description.
In order for me to agree that your worldview is truly biblical -- which is what I believe you routinely imply with your claim to love the Bible and respect all its teachings -- I need to see that you not only account for these difficult passages, but you do so with a plausible interpretation.
[to be concluded]
[continued]
Further, if you can't explain this alternative interpretation, it's almost certainly the case that you don't account for this vague apparition in refining your worldview. Your own worldview does not account for this passage, because your interpretation isn't substantial enough to be useful for such accounting.
If you just a have a mental question mark over all those difficult passages -- including crucial passages like the Passover -- then you cannot account for them in your worldview.
One accounts for a passage by integrating his particular interpretation (objective, subjective, whatever: I believe the former) into the rest of what he believes, refining and making corrections until everything fits.
Regarding, say, Genesis 22, I believe God Almighty really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham really (literally and historically) did obey. That's something substantial enough to be accounted for: it's something that may require me to revise my beliefs because it's capable of challenging my existing beliefs.
About the same passage, you believe... something else. What it is, I don't know, and it doesn't appear that you know either. This ephemeral belief that the passage means something else (Lord knows what) could be ignored until the end of time, because it cannot possibly challenge any existing belief; there's not enough substance for it to do so.
In terms of a mental landscape, this belief about an interpretation about which you know next to nothing -- except that it isn't literal, and that it must exist -- is a ghost, invisible, without any weight, without a shadow.
I urge you to conjure this ghost so it has some real impact. Only after it is real enough to evaluate its rationale, can anyone trust that your beliefs are biblical in (as above) a truly meaningful sense.
Regarding these passages, I have asked -- repeatedly and quite some time -- for a plausible figurative interpretation that maintains the their authority and veracity. Short of the exception I outline below, such an interpretation is necessary to bring this rigmarole to a satisfactory conclusion, at least from my point of view. It allows me to evaluate whether it's really the case that your beliefs are biblical, in the sense that they conform to at least reasonable interpretations of all of the Bible's teachings.
If you cannot produce this interpretation, the only other thing that would bring this discussion to a truly satisfactory conclusion is the concession that your fellow Christians really do have reason to distrust the possibility that you're beliefs are genuinely biblical. That's not to question your salvation or even your conformity to a bare minimum of creedal orthodoxy: it's merely skepticism about whether your beliefs really do align with even a reasonable interpretation of all that the Bible teaches.
In the absence of both the interpretation and the concession, I'll default to the belief that -- at best -- your worldview's conformity to the Bible's teachings is an open question about which reasonable Christians can remain skeptical.
If there is something you would like to request -- anything, really -- in order to bring closure to this on your side, do let me know, and I'll do my best to oblige.
Either way, I think we might be close to wrapping up. I look forward to your reply, which I might not get to until early next week.
To be clear as a postscript -- because I apparently can't just shaddup about our disagreements -- the question about the difficult passages in the Old Testament isn't the only unresolved issue between us, Dan.
There's the question of whether you believe that the substitutionary atonement is merely a subjective description of Christ's death, or a real and objective explanation for what He accomplished on the cross, if even only one accomplishment out of several.
There's whether you believe the Resurrection is essential to Christianity; I've never been able to make heads or tails of what you've written before, e.g., that it's intrinsic but not indispensable.
And there's the question of whether you believe Christ is coming again, or whether you think the Bible's eschatology is too murky even for that.
(Notice that politics and even the morality of homosexual behavior isn't in this list of top concerns.)
The supposed "atrocities" in the Old Testament is not actually the most important disagreement between us, but it's probably been the most long-lived. If we can wrap up that issue to my personal satisfaction (see above), I'll happy drop these other three issues since closure on that issue is a great opportunity to get off this train. I won't presume to know that your beliefs regarding the three topics above are truly biblical, but I'd be content not knowing, since (after all this) I think that our conversations will only ever explain so much.
Or, if it's easier to tackle those three subjects -- 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 -- please do so. If I can come to understand what you truly believe about these three issues, that'll be more than enough, because these issues are so crucial to the Christian faith.
Your choice. I look forward to your next reply, and I hope you have a good weekend.
Bubba, you sure have given this a lot of thought, I'll say that.
You say...
I) Each interpretation affirms the text's authority.
II) Each interpretation affirms the text's veracity.
III) Each interpretation is plausible and reasonable.
An interpretation that does not meet these criteria is practically equivalent to discarding the passage altogether.
I think those three criteria are probably fairly good ones. The problem, from where I stand, is that your explanation (that God does indeed sometimes command people to do what is wrong for them to do) is that explanation is neither plausible or reasonable.
Do you think it reasonable that God might command people to kill children? Even if it is in God's purview and Will to kill babies (and I would hesitate to make that claim about God), you find it plausible and reasonable that God would command us to do so. I find that WHOLLY implausible and unreasonable.
Now, despite your protestations, I HAVE offered my reasoning - that the story is more like a parable whose significance is to show that God is with us, that God is taking care of us, that God cares about oppression and injustice, etc.
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.
So, you may think that my explanation does not meet your criteria. Fine. You're welcome to think that.
In the meantime, I don't think YOUR explanation comes close to meeting your own criteria.
Now what?
A couple of other notes.
When I suggested that your criteria may not be a bad one, on the second item - "Each interpretation affirms the text's veracity" - I should be clear that I was thinking that's not a bad criterion insofar as it affirms the veracity of the Truth being taught, not necessarily the actual facts.
As I have stated before, story-telling was done differently back then. I won't hold it against the Bible's authors if they told their stories in the conventions of the day and I won't try to read the text under modern expectations. That is, I won't read historical-sounding texts as if they were written as a history textbook might be today. Rather, I will acknowledge that the story-telling conventions back then did not tell stories in a linear fashion, for instance.
Additionally, I believe it is the case that the specific details weren't always the main point they were trying to get across, so I won't expect that the specific details need be correct. So, I see no biblical nor moral nor logical reason to presume that each line that sounds like a literal story must need be taken literally. It is rather a modern arrogance to presume they wrote history like we write history, or that they tell stories the way we tell stories. Cultures change, storytelling conventions are different from place to place and that's okay.
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.
You see, the problem with your explanation is exactly the plausibility/reasonable problem. Many people would look at your explanation (That God can command people to do what is otherwise wrong for them to do - it's God's prerogative to give or take life, so it's okay for god to tell people to kill on god's behalf; this world is god's so it's okay to tell people to steal land on god's behalf; all the things in the world belong to god, so it's okay for god to command puppy rape or cow fondling...) and find it untenable. There is nothing that might be off limits as long as someone makes a case that "god told me to..." That would be a world without morality, with no borders on what's right and wrong. Where, in fact, it is NOT self-evident that we have an innate and self-evident right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For these sorts of reasons, people find these sorts of explanations as implausible and irrational. It's what I was referring to earlier when I said it comes across as intellectually dishonest and illogical.
It simply is not plausible. To me (and many others).
You are, of course, free to disagree, but from where I sit, your explanation does not meet your criteria.
Looking back and retracking...
Bubba said...
If your position is such a command ["kill children"] is "against the very nature of God," then your notion of God may be many things -- certainly respectable in our world of post-modern secularism -- but there's one word that does not describe it.
"Biblical."
You realize, of course, that I think the exact same way about your position?
Bubba said...
I could write more, but it would suffice to say that it would take an Old-Testament demonstration of a supposed prophet's authority in order for me even to consider obeying a command similar to the difficult commands that the Old Testament records.
Okay, returning to my opinion that your position is unbiblical because your interpretation is not plausible nor reasonable...
Your position is not plausible because it is morally untenable. Allow me to demonstrate why...
1. You believe if someone had "a supposed prophet's authority," you might consider following a command from that person (who is saying it's from God) to kill children.
2. What IS a "prophet's authority?" That he/she perform miracles? That he/she proclaims God's Word? That he/she speaks for God as he/she is moved by the Spirit? You can provide your answer for this if you want. While I am waiting, I'll proceed with answers I have heard from others in your camp. A prophet is "proven" (or so I've heard) by the fact that what they say, comes true and/or by miracles.
3. If miracles and fortune-telling are a proof of a prophet's authority, then it may well be the case (according to you) that what they say comes from God.
4. Therefore, if such a "proven" prophet were to tell you that God commands you to kill children, you would at least consider it (or, removing it from you, you think that others ought to obey God if god commanded them to kill children through a "proven" prophet.
5. The problem with this, though, is that, according to your camp, the DEVIL is also able to perform miracles and, well, anyone could correctly say some things that come true. After all, pharoah's magicians also turned sticks to snakes, as did Moses by God's power.
6. Given that, the devil then could enable Pastor Bob to perform miracles and appear as "an angel of light" and then Pastor Bob would have the necessary credentials to be considered a prophet and then Pastor Bob could order the killing of babies and you would have to at least consider it. And it all might be of the devil!
7. In other words, you would have no way of knowing right from wrong. It would all be ambiguous and up to interpretation. Sort of like "liberals" are accused of being all the time. It's a morally untenable situation - not plausible or reasonable.
8. For my camp, though, there is none of that moral ambiguity. It is wrong to kill children. Period. I don't need to confirm if such an order is coming from a "demonstrated" prophet, I'd know it is wrong because it is against the nature of God.
Now, feel free to tell me if you have some other means of determining a prophet's status as reliable - something objective and reasonable and plausible. Preferably biblical.
fyi, I may be unable to respond much in the coming week - especially after Sunday.
Some thoughts on "biblical worldviews" and "biblical constraints."
I don't know that I would contend that I hold a biblical worldview. If I do, it's not my intention.
Rather, I strive to hold a CHRISTIAN worldview, since I'm a Christian. The Bible is one of my sources for information about Christianity and God, but I am not striving to conform myself to the Bible, but to God's Will. Now, inasmuch as the church agrees that the Bible contains God's revelation to us, I certainly study it seeking God's Will. BUT, it is God's Will which I am seeking to be conformed to, not the Bible. I'm sure you can agree with me on this, right?
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. [Romans 12 - that whole passage is instructive on how Paul thinks we are to go about renewing our minds, I think]
The problem with striving to hold specifically a biblical worldview is that it is too easy to interpret the Bible in too many different and conflicting ways. Is Jesus speaking literally of wealth and poverty in Luke 6 or figuratively?
Another problem with making holding a biblical worldview your goal is that it would be easy to confuse the book with God. We are worshiping God and nothing, not even the Bible, should come between us and striving to seek God. I am concerned that too many people come too close to worshiping the letter of the word, not the Spirit of Truth. We can too easily start worshiping the created thing, not the Creator.
You've written a good bit about constraints and it made for some thoughtful reading. It is, of course, extrabiblical to talk about the Bible having constraints upon itself or placing constraints upon God, but it might make some logical sense to think of it that way.
For instance, I think you can make the case that the Bible makes a constraint upon God that God will not ask us to do evil. If we're being asked to do something we know to be wrong, we can know it is not of God. That would be a biblical constraint, I believe.
With that in mind, I've tried wading through all you've written (not a complaint, just a reality - we have written a lot!) to find what you think the Bible's constraints are. I see you saying...
By making theological, historical, and prophetic claims, the Bible provides constraints about God, the past, and the future. It also provides constraints about the universe, man, his moral condition, and the need and means of salvation. Finally, it provides constraints about man's duties, which is collectively the moral law, with arguably specific instances tailored to specific situations...
I was wondering what specific constraints about God you think the Bible provides? About the universe? Humanity? Our moral condition? Salvation?
You also say...
I believe "biblical" can only refer to worldviews that satisfy all the Bible's constraints. It's not enough to say a worldview satisfies some constraints -- i.e., that it agrees with the Bible on some points.
I'm not sure I agree. Or, perhaps I mean, I'm not sure of what you even mean. I'd have to think on it some.
Perhaps you could define for me what it would look like if someone were to have a biblical worldview? Can you complete the sentence, "He has a biblical worldview that..."??
I would tend to think that one would not rightly talk about a biblical worldview, but a Christian worldview that leans anabaptist, or a Catholic Christian worldview... I'm just not sure what a biblical worldview means.
Dan, it looks like I missed replying in time before you have gotten out of pocket, and I'm still quite busy here.
I'll reply when I can this week, and will look for your reply the following week. If the discussion doesn't return to full speed until the end of the month, that's absolutely fine. I would much prefer that both of us are satisfied with how the discussion proceeds and concludes than wrap up prematurely, even if that means stop-and-go pacing.
Dan:
You write that it's extra-biblical to posit that each of the Bible's teachings constrains its overall message and the truth about God, man, and the universe. I'll concede that, while noting that any such high-level theory about what the Bible teaches is likewise extra-biblical, and while taking the position that my approach is probably more defensible than the alternative.
This approach isn't limited to the Bible. Take Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time.
Either that book is internally consistent or not.
If it's consistent, then each claim in the book DOES constrain its overall message into a coherent whole that permits some possibilities and precludes others.
If it's not consistent, then the claims over-constrain the message, and there's no coherent worldview that could account for every constraint simultaneously.
I believe that the argument that the Bible teaches its own internal consistency is stronger than the alternative: it's clear that God is constant and incapable of lying, and it teaches that all scripture is (at the very least) God-breathed. Its internal consistency follows from these claims, if not absolutely conclusively.
You ask:
"I was wondering what specific constraints about God you think the Bible provides? About the universe? Humanity? Our moral condition? Salvation?"
To begin to list these constraints would take this discussion off-course. A list that approached being comprehensive would also increasingly become controversial, because not all of the Bible's teachings are equally clear.
I did provide one example of a constraint, that Gen 1:1 constrains a biblical worldview to one that upholds a created universe, and it precludes worldviews that hold to an eternal, uncreated universe.
I won't begin even a list of major constraints, but here are a few more examples.
About God, the Bible doesn't use these technical terms from theology, but I believe that it does teach God's omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. It constrains biblical worldviews to those that affirm these divine traits, and it therefore precludes worldviews that suggest God is impotent, ignorant, and/or malevolent.
The Bible also teaches that God has repeatedly intervened in history, including (but certainly not limited to) making an everlasting covenant with Abraham; sending Moses to liberate the Israelite slaves from Egypt; promising the Messiah through Isaiah and other prophets; sending His own Son (God Incarnate) to fulfill that promise; and sending His Spirit on the day of Pentecost. These teachings constrain all biblical worldviews to an active Deity and preclude the "watch-maker" theology of deism, which argues for a Creator who has since left creation alone.
About the universe, the Bible is clear that God created everything good, but that the universe is now fallen, and this precludes the more simplistic ideas of the hedonist who thinks the universe is purely good and the gnostic who thinks the universe is evil and/or illusory.
About man, the Bible teaches that God made us in His image. Our moral condition is that we need salvation, and about our salvation, the Bible teaches that we are saved by faith apart from works. This precludes both the idea that salvation is not needed and the idea that it's attainable through human effort.
This is a short list, but look what's already excluded from those worldviews that can be properly described as biblical: deism, hedonism, gnosticism, the idea of a works-based salvation, and the denial of God's wisdom and power.
Dan, you write:
"Perhaps you could define for me what it would look like if someone were to have a biblical worldview? Can you complete the sentence, 'He has a biblical worldview that...'??
"I would tend to think that one would not rightly talk about a biblical worldview, but a Christian worldview that leans anabaptist, or a Catholic Christian worldview... I'm just not sure what a biblical worldview means."
I'm not sure why one couldn't rightly talk about a biblical worldview: if the Bible has a coherent message, then a worldview can be accurately described as "biblical" if it conforms to that message.
In short, a person has a biblical worldview if he believes all that the Bible teaches.
In order for the term to be meaningful, I think that one has to limit interpretations of the Bible to those that affirm the authority and veracity of every passage, and those interpretations that are reasonable. As with the classroom example from earlier, dropping any of these requirements results in the term losing all real meaning, because one could pick and choose what teachings believe OR cling to the most absurd interpretation to make the Bible say what one wants.
"I don't know that I would contend that I hold a biblical worldview. If I do, it's not my intention.
"Rather, I strive to hold a CHRISTIAN worldview, since I'm a Christian. The Bible is one of my sources for information about Christianity and God, but I am not striving to conform myself to the Bible, but to God's Will. Now, inasmuch as the church agrees that the Bible contains God's revelation to us, I certainly study it seeking God's Will. BUT, it is God's Will which I am seeking to be conformed to, not the Bible. I'm sure you can agree with me on this, right?"
I will say again that it's not necessarily the case that there's any conflict between God's will and the Bible, especially if the Bible really is God's written revelation. If God's will is authoritatively revealed through the Bible, then one conforms to His will by conforming to His written word.
For me, it's not a question of whether "the church agrees that the Bible contains God's revelation to us." It's not about the church, it's about Christ Himself, the prophets who promised His coming, and His hand-picked Apostles.
Look at what Christ taught about scripture, and about the law and the prophets; and look at how He frequently appealed to scripture as authoritative. It seems to me that obedience to Christ's own teaching and example requires deference to the scripture He routinely and consistently affirmed.
Short of literal idolatry, it's hard for me to see how a Christian can be guilty of holding scripture in too high esteem, if Christ Himself is the measuring stick.
Dan, about your concern for idolatry...
"The problem with striving to hold specifically a biblical worldview is that it is too easy to interpret the Bible in too many different and conflicting ways. Is Jesus speaking literally of wealth and poverty in Luke 6 or figuratively?
"Another problem with making holding a biblical worldview your goal is that it would be easy to confuse the book with God. We are worshiping God and nothing, not even the Bible, should come between us and striving to seek God. I am concerned that too many people come too close to worshiping the letter of the word, not the Spirit of Truth. We can too easily start worshiping the created thing, not the Creator."
...first, I actually don't think the Bible's all that unclear on any of its major teachings. The Bible is clear that we should care for the poor, and it's also clear that humble contrition is an absolute necessity for a right relationship with God. Whether Luke 6 is alluding to the materially impoverished or the spiritually humble, ISN'T a question that's going to dramatically change the character of its overall teachings.
Beyond that, I've written that there are multiple worldviews (plural) that can be rightly described as biblical: so long as a worldview is based on reasonable interpretations that affirm the entire Bible, I believe it qualifies.
About idolatry, I have known LITERALLY no one who could be accurately described as one who worships the Bible. I've seen many (myself included) who revere the Bible because we believe it has been authored by God, but no one who believes the Bible itself IS God.
I think you're worried about a possibility that is remote in the real world. And to whatever degree that there are risks, there are risks in the other direction, too. A Christian who starts picking and choosing what passages are trustworthy and which aren't (e.g., which contain only "less than perfect" revelation) could easily start dismissing passages he doesn't want to obey.
You seem acutely aware of the risks of esteeming the Bible too highly, but you don't write much about the risks of not esteeming it highly enough.
More later.
Dan, as a brief correction about what I wrote yesterday, whether Luke 6 refers to the spiritually poor or materially poor is NOT unimportant: if you're right, and Christ did teach that the kingdom of God belongs to the materially poor, that IS something that might not be taught elsewhere and that therefore MAY significantly change the character of the what the Bible teaches. It's just not as significant as, say, an interpretation of the Bible that denies the miraculous in general or the physical Resurrection in particular.
I stand by the general statement that reasonable interpretations of the Bible differ only by so much. It's like my example of the class assignment of making purple polygons: of those students who did follow the directions, their polygons are going to differ, but only to a certain degree.
About your further comments re: your "Pastor Bob" scenario, I first of all find it interesting that you write, "according to your camp, the DEVIL is also able to perform miracles."
I wonder where your "camp" disagrees on this position: the wholly biblical teaching that Satan and his servants are capable of seeming signs and miracles (Rev 13:14, 16:14), or the wholly biblical teaching that Satan exists in the first place? Once again, it seems that your beliefs do not wholly line up with the Bible you claim to love, and its teachings you claim to revere.
Anyway, you also write, "well, anyone could correctly say some things that come true," and that's not the biblical test of a prophet: the test is that EVERYTHING he says comes to pass, because his message comes from God. Deut 18:20-22 makes clear that a prophet deserved death for even one prophecy that fails to come to pass.
In addition to that passage, Deut 13:1-5 taught ancient Israel to reject prophets whose omens DO take place, if they lead them to other gods "whom you have not known."
A single false prophecy is enough to condemn a false prophet, but even consistently true prophecies isn't enough to confirm him as a true prophet of the living God.
I'm not sure how detailed an answer I need for what strikes me as a very unlikely scenario, Dan: for my own life, the best thing that I can do to prepare for the unexpected regarding my relationship with God is to grow in that relationship, in part by studying His written word, and (of course) by conforming to His will as I already understand it.
And, as it regards this discussion, I'm not sure how relevant this line is. It seems to me that you brought up this subject in order to create an argument from outrage that would lead me to reject the only obvious interpretation of the Bible that, indeed, God did literally and historically issue difficult commands such as telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
I'm not biting, so unless you want to note your disapproval at my moral reasoning skills for not doing so, I'm not sure of the point of continuing this line of thought.
[continued]
[continued]
I believe that, regardless of the details, the following is true about God.
God's moral law is not utterly different from our understanding of that law, but it may contain general teachings that we fallen humans are liable to reject. That is to say, God doesn't esteem cowardice and treachery where we value courage and faithfulness; if there were such a sheer difference between His law and our understanding of it, we couldn't be held morally accountable for our sins that breach His law. But God is all-knowing and holy, and we are not, so it's possible (and I think it IS the case) that there are aspects of the law that we couldn't deduce on our own and which we would initially reject as immoral: chastity and especially the duty of forgiveness are probably in this category for most people.
And, the reasonableness of God's revealed will for individuals is probably obvious in many cases, but not all. Just as a good farmer may need to cause pain in the short term to get his dog out of the bear trap -- pain that Rex doesn't understand -- the infinite God will sometimes do things His people does not comprehend, and that includes the instructions He gives.
One example is when Jesus told the servants at the wedding in Cana to fill those jugs with water: there's nothing immoral about that, but the command was at the time inexplicable.
God not only gives inexplicable commands, He sometimes gives seemingly imprudent commands, as when He instructed Moses to camp by the sea in Exodus 14:2. If there was even a chance of being pursued by the Egyptians, the Israelites were camped like sitting ducks, but Moses obeyed because he trusted God's provision.
And then there are the truly difficult commands: again, God did tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and even the New Testament writers praised Abraham for his obedience.
These events would make no sense if the point of life was conformity to an obviously reasonable and universally applicable set of rules: God's law or "Jesus' Way" or whatever.
But that's not the point in life. The point isn't merely conformity to God's way, but trust in God Himself.
We can and should trust that God is good and wise and loving, but humility requires us to accept that we won't always understand what is good about what He instructs. If the point is the relationship to Him -- a relationship of the created son's absolute dependence on the Creator and Father -- rather than merely conformity to His law, then this should be expected.
Again, more later.
Dan, perhaps one last thing I would say about the "Pastor Bob" scenario is this: we definitely have a duty to evaluate the teachings of any seemingly reputable individual who claims to speak on the behalf of God.
What I mean by that is, we should avoid both extremes of being too credulous or too cynical. We should test every spirit, even those whose message is, conveniently, exactly what we want to here, and even those whose message is so difficult that it's hard even to comprehend its morality.
Though I'm not precisely sure of the right approach, I think both extremes ought to be avoided. What I take to be your response to this hypothetical message -- that one should "write it off IMMEDIATELY as a ridiculous notion, against the very nature of God" -- is probably too knee-jerk.
(If you are going to immediately dismiss such messages, I frankly see no good reason for you to defend as a "man of God" a preacher who has, by all indications, built a reputation on hateful conspiracy-mongering, such as the slander that the U.S. government invented AIDS as an act of attempted genocide.)
We should test all spirits, but you suggest a dichotomy between God's will and scripture that I do not believe scripture itself justifies.
You write, "I am not striving to conform myself to the Bible, but to God's Will," implying that the former is not an authoritative revelation of the latter.
You cite Romans 12 and its goal of discerning God's will -- which is indeed our supreme goal -- but I don't believe ANY of the teachings of Christ, His prophets, or His Apostles diminish the role scripture plays in determining God's will.
The same Apostle who wrote about the renewal of our minds wrote that what he himself preached was the word of God and the will of God (I Thess 2:13, 4:1-8), and he wrote that all scripture is God-breathed.
Most crucially, as I've pointed out before, Christ clearly set God's word and man's tradition over and against each other, but Christ affirmed scripture to the smallest penstroke.
I certainly stand to be corrected and I welcome any proof to the contrary, but it appears that scripture does not justify the dichotomy you hold between God's will and the Bible. Indeed, God's will is the thing we should seek to discern and obey, but there's no reason to dismiss the Bible as anything less than the authoritative means through which we discern His will.
About interpreting the Bible, you mention the "conventions" in which scripture was written. I have no problem with looking at the conventions of a work's genre and contemporary culture. One can read a history in epic verse to determine who assassinated whom, without presuming that people actually did speak in melodramatic meter. And a historical passage -- such as Joshua 4:13 -- can be accurate about the size of an army without being precise to an exact head count.
But two details about your approach to scripture are interesting, because they are in direct contradiction to how Christ and His Apostles treated the writings of the prophets.
First you write, "I will acknowledge that the story-telling conventions back then did not tell stories in a linear fashion, for instance."
I noted earlier that you cited Romans 12 and what it wrote about discerning God's will.
I urge you to consider Romans 4:9-12.
"Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, 'Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.' How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised." [emphasis mine]
Paul appeals to the chronology of the Torah to argue for both the justification by faith apart from works and the unity in Christ of Jews and Gentiles.
Genesis records that Abraham's faith was reckoned as righteousness (15:6) and only later was he circumcised (17). Paul believes this chronology and grounds crucial Christian doctrine on its accuracy.
Second, you write, "I won't expect that the specific details need be correct."
Never mind that Jesus Christ Himself affirmed scripture to the smallest penstroke, in Matthew 5:17-20, within the Sermon on the Mount which you claim to esteem so highly.
Look a passage I've mentioned before, and the example Christ gave in interpreting Scripture in Matthew 22:31-32.
"And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is God not of the dead, but of the living."
("And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching." Mt 22:33)
Christ appears to take as correct the specific detail of the verb tense used in (e.g.) Exodus 3:6: "I AM" the God of Abraham, not "I was."
There is no instance where Christ or His Apostles treated scripture as accurate only in the broad strokes, where the "specific details" need not be correct.
As I wrote earlier in this thread, "even if the broad strokes of the stories [in Genesis] were handed down from the patriarchs to Moses, it seems clear that Christ and the Apostles believed that the Holy Spirit ensured the authority of the what Moses wrote down, again, down even to verb tenses and to the chronology -- and, ergo, the historicity -- of individual events."
Look at how the New Testament treats the Old Testament, and I don't believe you will find any precedent for your approach. Instead, you will find good reason to abandon your contradictory approach.
Last but certainly not least, Dan, you disagree strongly about what is plausible, but I'm not sure we're discussing quite the same thing.
I wrote that I believe that, between truly biblical worldviews, disagreements over interpretations MUST be limited, at the very least, to interpretations that meet certain criteria, including this criterion:
III) Each interpretation is plausible and reasonable.
I should make myself clear, what I mean, is that each interpretation must be a plausible and reasonable INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT, not necessarily a plausible and reasonable claim about God, man, or the universe.
Two non-biblical examples should make clear what I mean.
I believe that, in his book The God Delusion, the militant and frankly petulant atheist Richard Dawkins wrote the following:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
I believe this statement could be accurately summarized thus: "Jehovah is evil."
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 this passage. It is, essentially, what he wrote.
A well-meaning Christian could believe that Dawkins doesn't really mean what he said, but that Christian's intentions are misplaced.
We are under no obligation to re-interpret any writing to make its meaning fit what we think is right. On the contrary, I think the only way to take writing seriously is to limit ourselves to plausible interpretations of its meaning.
We turn from the petulance of Dawkins to the anguish of C.S. Lewis after the death of his wife, in a brief moment of doubt recorded in a journal that was published as A Grief Observed.
"What chokes every prayer and every hope is the memory of all the prayers H. and I offered and all the false hopes we had. Not hopes raised merely by our own wishful thinking; hopes encouraged, even forced upon us, by false diagnoses, by X-ray photographs, by strange remissions, by one temporary recovery that might have ranked as a miracle. Step by step we were 'led up the garden path.' Time after time, when He seemed most generous He was really preparing the next torture."
Lewis soon after dismissed as "filth and nonsense" the idea that God is a "Cosmic Sadist," but that is the meaning of that paragraph, particularly the last sentence.
"God is sadistic" is NOT a reasonable or plausible description of God: at both ends of this dark night, even Lewis would surely agree.
But "God is sadistic" is INDEED a plausible interpretation of the passage above.
We should not re-interpret a passage to make its meaning fit what we think is right. Again, I think taking the passage seriously requires that we stick to plausible interpretations of the text, EVEN when those plausible interpretations involve implausible claims.
[continued]
[continued]
Now, let's turn back to the Bible, and to the following specific claim.
"God literally and historically commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac."
I think that actually is a plausible statement of how God really has acted in history, and I think it's clear that you do not.
("Do you think it reasonable that God might command people to kill children? Even if it is in God's purview and Will to kill babies (and I would hesitate to make that claim about God), you find it plausible and reasonable that God would command us to do so. I find that WHOLLY implausible and unreasonable.")
But the question isn't, is the above a plausible and reasonable statement about God?
It's this: Is the above a plausible and reasonable interpretation of what the Bible teaches?
I think it is; I would probably even go so far as to say that it's the only plausible and reasonable interpretation of the text, that the alternative interpretations (e.g., that it's a parable or allegory) are unsustainable in terms of what the Bible ITSELF teaches.
If you disagree, I ask you to present, not what you think is a plausible description of God, but rather a plausible interpretation of the Bible.
There could be quite benign and even noble motives behind an effort to re-interpret the Bible to make its teachings fit what one believes about God.
But the effort isn't right, and if it were successful, the term "biblical" would no longer have any real meaning, because the term would correspond to the thousand different things that people think the book OUGHT TO teach, rather than what it actually does teach.
If you can offer a genuinely plausible alternative interpretation of these difficult OT passages -- such as God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac -- I strongly urge you to do so.
But if you cannot do that, I wish that you would be more honest about the deep chasm between your own beliefs (however reasonable they may be) and what the Bible clearly teaches.
Don't tell us that you love the Bible when, at most, you love parts of the Bible. Don't tell us that you deeply respect its teachings, when there are numerous, sometimes crucial clear teachings you reject as erroneous. And don't tell us, as you did two years ago, that you actually attend a church "where the Bible is feverishly taught as God's Word to be heeded."
I look forward to your replies, and I'll check this thread intermittently this weekend and next week.
Two comments on two of the things you have written and then a question. You said...
I'm not sure why one couldn't rightly talk about a biblical worldview: if the Bible has a coherent message, then a worldview can be accurately described as "biblical" if it conforms to that message.
In short, a person has a biblical worldview if he believes all that the Bible teaches.
We have been through all this. No one believes all the Bible teaches literally. We both believe all the Truths that we think the Bible teaches. If you are merely saying that someone who believes all the truths that the Bible teaches has a biblical worldview, then I have a biblical worldview. And you would assert that you, too, have a biblical worldview. And yet we don't believe all the same things.
THAT is why I suggested it would probably be more accurate to say that "He has an anabaptist worldview," or, "She has a catholic worldview..." The Bible can be and HAS BEEN read to believe all manner of ideas, some contradictory. The Bible is too open to interpretation to say "He has a biblical worldview" and for that to mean anything. Seems to me.
Bubba said...
There is no instance where Christ or His Apostles treated scripture as accurate only in the broad strokes, where the "specific details" need not be correct.
I would disagree. This is a problem that Jesus deals with throughout his ministry.
And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain.
The Pharisees were saying to Him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?"
And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"
Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
"So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
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.
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.
The scriptures, RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD, are to be heeded, forever and ever, amen. When we start coming closer to ungraciously demanding adherence to literal lines, we get in trouble.
With all the rest you have written, what do you want me to do with it?
1. We both agree that the Bible is not meant to be taken each line literally, but rather, we have to reason our way through it to discern what parts are literal truths, what parts are symbolic, what parts are parable, what parts are history, what it means that it is "historic," what was the context, what parts are allegory or metaphor, what truths are to be taken literally and which lines not. We AGREE on all that, it's just WHICH lines ought to be taken as literal truth and which ones are symbolic of something else that we disagree on, this is where we disagree.
2. You think that the best way to respect the Bible's teachings and follow God's will is to take lines like "Kill all the children," to be represent a literal speaking of God's will to the people at the time. I think the best way to follow God's will and honor the Bible is NOT to take such lines literally.
YOu think the best way to to respect the Bible's teachings and follow God's will is to take lines like "Blessed are the poor, woe to you who are rich," as symbolic. I think the best way to follow God's will and honor the Bible is to take such lines literally.
QUESTION: We both agree that we need to strive to follow God's Will and respect the Bible's teachings, rightly understood. We just don't always agree on which lines are symbolic and which ones are literal. Is this not the case?
IF this is the case, now what? I have listened to your reasoning on all manner of points and I find your positions lacking Christian and biblical and logical soundness. You think the same of me on some of my points. What do we do with that disagreement? Is there something more than just disagreement there?
As usual, Dan, I have a lot I would like to write in response, but first let me focus on what strikes me as statements that seem very difficult to reconcile.
One the one hand, you ask me a question about the Bible's teachings, "rightly understood," and you make this claim:
"The scriptures, RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD, are to be heeded, forever and ever, amen."
Amen, indeed, but -- on the other hand -- you make claims that undermine the notion of the Bible's being "rightly understood."
To wit:
"The Bible can be and HAS BEEN read to believe all manner of ideas, some contradictory. The Bible is too open to interpretation to say 'He has a biblical worldview' and for that to mean anything. Seems to me."
Well, which is it, Dan?
Is the Bible "too open to interpretation" for the word "biblical" to mean anything, or is it actually sensible to say that we should -- and implicitly CAN -- follow the Bible's teachings, "rightly understood"?
If the Bible's teachings can be "rightly understood," at least to some degree however approximate, what in the world is wrong in labeling that understanding (or group of similar but distinct understandings) as "biblical"?
Well, which is it, Dan?
What I mean is the Bible, when we understand God's will within it (ie, the Bible, rightly understood, rightly divided, etc), then it is to be heeded.
When we (as "we" are all wont to do, given our flawed humanity and imperfect reasoning) discern something within the pages of the Bible that is NOT God's Will, then it is not rightly understood.
Does that make sense?
Is the Bible "too open to interpretation" for the word "biblical" to mean anything, or is it actually sensible to say that we should -- and implicitly CAN -- follow the Bible's teachings, "rightly understood"?
What I said and what I mean is that you and I and Mormons and Muslims and charismatics and catholics all read the Bible and come to different conclusions on different things and we all think our position is biblical. In that sense, "biblical" means nothing at all, or perhaps it means everything.
When Bob says "I hold a biblical worldview" he means that he believes in peacemaking, nor warmaking, in living a simple life, not in extravagance or striving to make as much money as possible.
On the other hand, when Sally says, "I hold a biblical worldview" she means the opposite. So what does it MEAN that they hold a biblical worldview?
Rather, it might be better, more accurate, more meaningful to say that Bob holds an anabaptist view of biblical teachings and Sally holds some other view of biblical teachings. THAT is a more meaningful and clear way to state their views on the Bible, it seems to me. Do you disagree?
Dan, how many Muslims do you know, who actually claim to have a biblical worldview?
It's interesting that you mention Muslims, Mormons, and Catholics. The first two groups pay lip service to the Bible, but they ultimately believe that the book AS IT NOW EXISTS has been corrupted, and so they defer to other texts -- the Koran and the Book of Mormon, respectively. Roman Catholics nominally affirm the authority of Scripture, but I believe that they ultimately defer to the church, specifically the papacy's interpretation of Scripture, its supposedly infallible decrees, and the catechism.
Muslims, Mormons, and Catholics don't really affirm sola scriptura, do they? Their respective faiths are informed primarily by other authorities, so it's not accurate to say that they "all read the Bible and come to different conclusions on different things and [they] all think [their] position is biblical."
I reiterate my belief that, between truly biblical worldviews, disagreements over interpretations MUST be limited, at the very least, to interpretations that meet these three criteria:
I) Each interpretation affirms the text's authority.
II) Each interpretation affirms the text's veracity.
III) Each interpretation is plausible and reasonable.
Mormons and Muslims deny I and II, and Catholics subordinate the Bible's authority (I) to the papacy's interpretation.
If we were to limit the discussion to people whose interpretations meet these criteria above -- criteria which one would admit are WHOLLY REASONABLE in any mundane setting, such as reading and following instructions in class -- there would probably still be disagreements, but they would be minor compared to the common ground that the groups shared.
Dan, early on in this discussion I asked you to give a fairly comprehensive list of the Bible's essential teachings, AND YOU PROVIDED AN ANSWER.
At that point, you didn't claim that the Bible is "too open to interpretation" to discern its essential teachings. Instead, across three different comments, you provided nearly a thousand words outlining its teachings that are essential and (implicitly) clear.
It's only later that you wrote, "I'm just not sure what a biblical worldview means."
I still see nothing wrong with my brief answer: a person has a biblical worldview if he believes all that the Bible teaches.
If one's "view of biblical teachings" rejects some of what the Bible teaches -- e.g., as error, as less-than-perfect revelation -- then his view is not ITSELF biblical.
Okay, then, as a result of striving to find/live by God's Will, I have a biblical worldview. Muslims probably don't. I don't know about Mormons.
Catholics would probably assert they have a biblical worldview.
Now what?
Beyond that, I don't think that, according to your criteria, you don't have a biblical worldview, since your explanations of some passages are neither plausible nor reasonable.
Now that we've sorted out who does and doesn't have a biblical worldview, now what?
Catholics subordinate the Bible's authority (I) to the papacy's interpretation.
Well, additionally, we each subordinate the Bible's authority (I) to our own interpretation, so I guess NONE of us have a biblical worldview, by your criteria.
Regarding this...
criteria which one would admit are WHOLLY REASONABLE in any mundane setting, such as reading and following instructions in class
Perhaps reasonable, but still open to interpretation. What does it mean to affirm the text's authority? I take that to mean that the good teachings found within its pages are good teachings, authoritative for the Christian. I don't take it to mean that stories that contain bad teachings (that is, not a bad teaching itself, but a story containing bad teaching - the stories of Israel being told by god to kill children are not instructions for people to kill children, generally, but a story in which that instruction is given to Israel and that instruction is not consistent with biblical teaching or God's Law writ upon our hearts) are authoritative to suggest that this teaching in the story is a good teaching. In fact, it conflicts with the good teachings that ARE authoritative. Or, if there is a command that is not valid or good (based upon other biblical teachings and common sense and God's Law writ upon our hearts), at least today, these are not authoritative.
You probably agree with me that instructions about how best to sell your daughter into slavery are not authoritative to us today, for example.
And "affirms the text's veracity..." what does that mean? Does it mean that when Jesus said, "blessed are the poor, woe to you who are rich..." that Jesus verifiably said and meant that? You don't think so. You think it means Jesus said that, but meant something else. Is that affirming the text's veracity? I don't think so.
On the other hand, when the Bible shows examples of god appearing to give instructions to shed innocent blood, it conflicts with other much clearer and consistent instructions NOT to shed blood. So, is it affirming the veracity to say, "Yeah, God sometimes commands killing children," and if so, then is that NOT affirming the veracity of the text that says, "Don't shed innocent blood..."? Common sense says that such a position undermines the text's veracity.
Which leads us to plausible and reasonable. I simply find your positions implausible and unreasonable, biblically, morally and logically speaking. You probably find mine to be the same.
So, again, now what?
Dan, about the claim that I subordinate the Bible's authority to my interpretation of it, I will reiterate what I've already written on August 13th.
--
If my interpretation of what the Bible says is my final authority regarding truth, I would never seriously study the Bible again, beyond some rote ritual: I wouldn't have to, because my final authority is what I already believe about the Bible, to hell with whether there are serious disagreements between my beliefs and what the text actually teaches.
No, my final authority is what I already said it is. It's not my interpretation of the Bible, it's the Bible itself.
I have -- and hope always to have -- a practice of studying the Bible in order to evaluate what I believe against what it teaches, and to adjust my beliefs accordingly. There have been a few times in my life where I've made some pretty major changes to my belief system based on what I have read in the Bible.
Indeed, I change my beliefs according to what I BELIEVE the Bible teaches, and my beliefs only reflect my best understanding of what it teaches.
But because I constantly return to the text itself and seek constantly to improve that understanding, the final authority to which I appeal isn't my understanding: it's the Bible itself, it is the text against which my understanding is constantly being compared.
--
That last line is crucial: since my understanding of the Bible is constantly being compared against the text and revised to more closely match the meaning of the text, my understanding is subordinated to the text itself.
On the other hand, I do not believe Catholics constantly test papal interpretation against the actual text, checking to see if the church's view matches up. Instead, they TRUST that the papal interpretation is correct.
That's what the entire argument about sola scriptura was about: whether we ultimately trust in the text or defer to some supposedly authoritative interpretation.
About what these strange and mysterious terms mean, "authority" and "veracity," I think their meaning is obvious from the context in which I've used them.
In the classroom example, when I write about the instructions being authoritative, I mean that they actually come from the teacher, even if (hypothetically) they're not intended for everyone. All of the Bible is authoritative in the sense that it all comes FROM GOD, even though some commands were intended for the Israelites under the old covenant and not Christians under the new -- and some commands were intended for specific individuals in specific circumstances.
About the text's veracity, I simply mean -- in both the classroom example and the Bible -- that it contains no errors.
I do affirm the veracity of every passage of all four Gospel accounts; it is just that I believe Christ sometimes used figurative language.
"Does it mean that when Jesus said, 'blessed are the poor, woe to you who are rich...' that Jesus verifiably said and meant that? You don't think so. You think it means Jesus said that, but meant something else. Is that affirming the text's veracity? I don't think so."
By that logic, YOU don't affirm the veracity of the entire Sermon on the Mount, unless you affirm that, when Jesus taught that we're salt and light, He literally meant bioluminescent sodium chloride.
But that's a ridiculous standard for the term.
About that particular passage, I've repeatedly explained how I interpret the passage and why I believe Christ here is speaking figuratively: the passage is an obvious parallel to the Sermon on the Mount, where Christ EXPLICITLY teaches that the "poor in spirit" are blessed.
You haven't explained why this conclusion is so implausible. More importantly, you haven't provided your OWN interpretation of the difficult passages in the OT, much less a BIBLICAL justification for your alternative interpretation.
Dan, you repeatedly claim, "your explanations of some passages are neither plausible nor reasonable."
"I simply find your positions implausible and unreasonable, biblically, morally and logically speaking. You probably find mine to be the same."
I probably would IF I KNEW WHAT YOUR POSITION WAS.
I know you reject the plain meaning of, say, Genesis 22, that God really did -- literally and historically -- command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. You say that we must reject a literal interpretation, but what is the figurative interpretation you uphold? You even suggest that passages like these are parables, but what's the underlying meaning of the parable?
Most importantly, what BIBLICAL teaching requires a figurative interpretation? What's the justification FROM THE TEXT that requires your position?
You've never made this clear, and I explain my problem with your not doing so, across a couple comments on August 13th.
--
You contend that the obvious interpretation of the passages -- that is, a literal interpretation of text that is obviously historical in its genre -- is wrong, and you appeal to a figurative alternative the contents of which you have NEVER revealed.
Until you actually produce that alternative, there's no way of evaluating whether it is as plausible as you think it must be.
If I can't evaluate this alternative, then it's entirely possible (and I suspect, likely) that your alternative is implausible and unreasonable, and ceasing to insist on strictly plausible interpretations of the Bible, means that "biblical" will no longer be a meaningful description.
In order for me to agree that your worldview is truly biblical -- which is what I believe you routinely imply with your claim to love the Bible and respect all its teachings -- I need to see that you not only account for these difficult passages, but you do so with a plausible interpretation...
One accounts for a passage by integrating his particular interpretation (objective, subjective, whatever: I believe the former) into the rest of what he believes, refining and making corrections until everything fits.
Regarding, say, Genesis 22, I believe God Almighty really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham really (literally and historically) did obey. That's something substantial enough to be accounted for: it's something that may require me to revise my beliefs because it's capable of challenging my existing beliefs.
About the same passage, you believe... something else. What it is, I don't know, and it doesn't appear that you know either. This ephemeral belief that the passage means something else (Lord knows what) could be ignored until the end of time, because it cannot possibly challenge any existing belief; there's not enough substance for it to do so.
In terms of a mental landscape, this belief about an interpretation about which you know next to nothing -- except that it isn't literal, and that it must exist -- is a ghost, invisible, without any weight, without a shadow.
I urge you to conjure this ghost so it has some real impact. Only after it is real enough to evaluate its rationale, can anyone trust that your beliefs are biblical in (as above) a truly meaningful sense.
--
I repeat that request. I urge you to go into detail presenting your alternative interpretation of Genesis 22 and why the Bible supports that interpretation.
Uh-huh, you don't think I've answered what those passages might mean, I think I've answered that question multiple times. Now what?
You think your explaining away of Jesus' literal teachings affirms the text's veracity and authority, I think it undermines the text's veracity and authority. Now what?
You think the Bible is your ultimate authority, I think it is abundantly clear that it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the Bible's teaching that is your ultimate authority. It has to be. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT MEANS, YOU AIN'T GOT NOTHING. AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING
When you revise your understanding from something old to something new, based on what YOU THINK a better understanding is, you have revised to YOUR NEW UNDERSTANDING. It remains your understanding of the text, though. Not the text itself.
Now what?
Let's suppose there is an ancient text of Truths called the burble. It's 100 pages long and in those 100 pages, on a full 90 pages, the burble teaches that we ought not kill children. It teaches it consistently and repeatedly in all manner of words, phrasing and stories - don't kill children, don't shed innocent blood, don't harm the little ones, it it an atrocity to harm children, you will pay if you harm the innocent ones, over and over for 90 of the burble's 100 pages it affirms this Truth.
However, on ten pages, there are stories or commands that suggest sometimes it is okay to kill children.
It would be my contention that the burble's worldview is that it is wrong to kill children. Those other ten pages, I might say that I don't know what they mean, or I might try to explain them away somehow as a hard to decipher allegory or parable, but clearly, it does not mean that it's okay sometimes to kill children, because that position is an anti-burblical view.
I don't have to offer an exact explanation of those ten pages to say that sometimes killing children is a burblical view. Clearly, if those 90 pages mean anything, it is NOT a burblical view.
In the Bible, we have some consistent themes, one of which is that it's wrong to kill children and/or innocents. Not only does the Bible tell us this, but our own logic and God's Word writ upon our hearts tells us this, too. In biblical exegesis, one of the parameters for interpreting the Bible is to try to understand the rare and obscure based upon the clear and consistent.
The Bible consistently teaches against killing innocents. In some places, there are stories and commands to kill innocents. I don't have to be able to explain to your satisfaction those obscure stories. The teaching of the Bible is clear on the point and I think our own GOD-GIVEN logic and God's Law written upon our hearts confirm this.
You would have us say, "Well, there are all these clear teachings, but we have a handful of obscure teachings that seem to teach something contrary to the clear teachings and our own conscience. Therefore, let us revise the clear teaching to include the obscure and contrary teaching." (That is, although the Bible is clear that it's wrong to kill innocents, because we have this obscure teaching in a few places, let's revise the clear teaching to say, "GENERALLY, it's wrong to kill innocents, but there may be some exceptions...").
That is a backwards way to do exegesis, it seems to me. It is contrary to logic and morality, it seems to me.
I've offered explanations of these OT passages. They are allegories about how God is with us, that God is opposed to oppression or, in the case of Genesis 22, that it is similar to Jesus' hyperbole about hating our families.
Jesus teaches that "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." Obviously, from the WHOLE of the Bible, the clear teachings of the Bible, we are to love our families, not hate them. Obviously, we don't need to make room in our biblical worldview for the notion that sometimes it is appropriate to hate our parents. Jesus must be using hyperbole to make a point. Or some other explanation, other than "Sometimes, it is appropriate to hate our families..." I don't need to be able to offer a fully comprehensive explanation of Jesus' words here to say that the "biblical worldview" (and more importantly, the Christian worldview) has to include the possibility of hating our family. It suffices to say that the "biblical view" is that we are to love our families. Period.
Similarly with Isaac/Abraham, it can be an illustration (not literal, but figurative) way of showing how we are prepared to do anything to follow God. "Even kill my kids, if God told me to!" That would be a hyperbolic exclamation, not a literal one, because God is not in the business of telling us to kill children. Because God is quite clear that doing so is wrong.
So, I repeat: You think it most affirms the Bible to say that these passages offer literal instances of God commanding people to kill children. I think that does NOT affirm the Bible and, in fact, it undermines the teachings of the Bible and, more importantly, it undermines God's Will.
Now what?
Dan, your (very) recent repetition of the question "now what?" is built on summaries of the situation that I do not fully accept. I either do not understand the claims that lead up to your "now what", or in some cases I reject them outright.
I will not answer that open-ended question unless I'm satisfied with how you introduce it.
For instance, you write:
"You think your explaining away of Jesus' literal teachings affirms the text's veracity and authority, I think it undermines the text's veracity and authority. Now what?"
First, I don't think I'm "explaining away" anything, since I actually have an alternative interpretation that puts the verse inline with the Sermon on the Mount that (you claim) you revere so very highly. And you're presuming that this one teaching -- singular, not plural, and certainly not all or even most of His teachings -- must be interpreted literally.
But I don't think you really believe that figurative interpretation "undermines the text's veracity and authority."
If you DID, you would make the same claim about the obvious figurative meaning of the Sermon on the Mount's claim that we're salt and light.
You would make the same claim about the mainstream position (which you hold) about Christ's command to hate your family, that such a position "undermines the text's veracity and authority."
And you would make the same claim about your bizarre belief that the story of Abraham and Isaac is one giant allegory, that it "undermines the text's veracity and authority."
I actually think you do undermine the text's veracity and authority, not when you assert that it must have some figurative meaning, but when you speculate that the text contains errors -- as a "less than perfect revelation" -- or contains a record of man's experience of God rather than God's revelation to man. But, by your own logic, asserting that Genesis 22 is figurative undermines its authority and veracity; if that's your position, you should admit as much.
"You think the Bible is your ultimate authority, I think it is abundantly clear that it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the Bible's teaching that is your ultimate authority. It has to be. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT MEANS, YOU AIN'T GOT NOTHING. AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING
"When you revise your understanding from something old to something new, based on what YOU THINK a better understanding is, you have revised to YOUR NEW UNDERSTANDING. It remains your understanding of the text, though. Not the text itself."
I'll reiterate that even that new understanding remains subject to the text: I continue to bring my understanding back to the actual book, over and over, again and again, in order to revise the former to better fit the latter. If my understanding of the Bible was my supreme source of revelation about God, in the way you seem to suggest it, I wouldn't continue to revise that understanding by continue to study scripture.
You seem to have a real problem differentiating between metaphysics and epistemology.
[continued]
Dan, your (very) recent repetition of the question "now what?" is built on summaries of the situation that I do not fully accept.
I understand that you may not fully accept it. Nonetheless, I do. I believe my summaries are correct. You disagree. Now what?
Bubba said...
First, I don't think I'm "explaining away" anything, since I actually have an alternative interpretation that puts the verse inline with the Sermon on the Mount that (you claim) you revere so very highly. And you're presuming that this one teaching -- singular, not plural, and certainly not all or even most of His teachings -- must be interpreted literally.
But I don't think you really believe that figurative interpretation "undermines the text's veracity and authority."
I have not said that one must take all the teachings of Jesus literally. I have said that there is nothing in context that suggests THIS text should not be taken literally (ie, to mean that he was addressing the literal rich and literal poor). I think your explanation undermines the authority and veracity of this text/teaching. You disagree.
Now what?
[continued]
I worship God alone, and I seek His will alone. I believe the Bible is the authoritative revelation of God's character and will.
But that doesn't imply idolatry of the Bible, since I don't treat the Bible as a deity itself, but only as God's written revelation.
And, obviously, I come to understand what the Bible teaches, not through osmosis or some miraculous transfer of its contents into my brain, but by using my eyes to read the letters on the page, and using my knowledge of grammar, syntax, etc., to interpret the symbols.
But that doesn't mean that I subordinate the Bible to my understanding, because my understanding is permanently subject to revision by further study.
My understanding of the Bible is merely (and trivially) the means by which I understand the Bible: it DOES NOT replace the Bible as the supreme source of authoritative revelation about God. Likewise, the Bible itself is merely the primary means by which I understand God: it DOES NOT replace God as the Object of my worship, Whose will I should always seek.
But if your ridiculous approach is accurate about me, IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO YOU. About a particular moral position, you write:
"Not only does the Bible tell us this, but our own logic and God's Word writ upon our hearts tells us this, too."
You imply that you're supposed to follow logic and "God's Word writ upon your heart." I thought you're supposed to follow God alone; by not following God alone -- by your logic -- you're guilty of idolatry.
And, anyway, you don't really follow logic and God's word writ upon your heart: you only follow YOUR UNDERSTANDING of these things. You ought to be more honest about that.
The biggest issue is my request that you go into detail presenting your alternative interpretation of Genesis 22 and why the Bible supports that interpretation.
On the one hand, you act like you've already done so, without linking to that earlier explanation...
"Uh-huh, you don't think I've answered what those passages might mean, I think I've answered that question multiple times. Now what?"
...but you also act as if an explanation is unnecessary, writing, "I don't have to be able to explain to your satisfaction those obscure stories."
(Or, in your hypothetical about a different book: "I don't have to offer an exact explanation of those ten pages to say that sometimes killing children is a burblical view. Clearly, if those 90 pages mean anything, it is NOT a burblical view.")
If you have already provided a thorough alternative interpretation for Genesis 22, or if you could do so now for the first time, you would have no reason to insist that such thoroughness is unnecessary.
I explain again why it's necessary to be thorough: until you have an explanation, you're dismissing the passage altogether. You do not account for it, and it cannot have any real impact on what you believe.
[continued]
[continued]
Your comparison to other, more mainstream invocations of figurative interpretations falls apart because, in those instances, THERE ARE detailed alternatives.
When Christ taught that the poor are blessed, I don't just believe that it's some vague figurative claim, I believe that He's referencing the spiritually poor who He mentioned in Matthew 5: those who are spiritually bankrupt before God AND WHO KNOW IT, and who therefore rely wholly on God's mercy.
When Christ taught that we are to hate our family and even ourselves, it's not just that we dismiss the passage as non-literal, we have a detailed (and plausible) alternative interpretation that still affirms the passage's authority and veracity: our devotion to Christ should be so complete that the way we treat other claims on our devotion will sometimes be indistinguishable from actual hate.
Your figurative take on the difficult passages in the Old Testament simply is not similarly substantive.
"I've offered explanations of these OT passages. They are allegories about how God is with us, that God is opposed to oppression or, in the case of Genesis 22, that it is similar to Jesus' hyperbole about hating our families."
How, specifically, are these passages allegories? You don't provide details even to the degree that Christ explains, very briefly, some of His own parables (e.g., in Mark 4:13-20).
Your invoking the Bible's prohibition of shedding innocent blood is question-begging, Dan, and there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that ANY of its writers thought these difficult passages were allegorical, metaphorical, or figurative in any way.
On the contrary, Genesis presents itself as historical. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 both present Abraham and Isaac as historical, as direct ancestors of Jesus Christ. In Galatians 3, Paul treats as historical the covenant God made with Abraham, and which He fulfilled in Christ his "seed." And in his famous eleventh chapter, the author of Hebrews treats the sacrifice of Abraham as a historical event for which he is to be commended for his faithful obedience.
The clear teaching of the Bible is that God really did -- literally and historically -- command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
If that's wholly incompatible with other teachings of the Bible, then the book doesn't have an internally consistent message, but there are no grounds for this vague appeal to allegory.
If you can defend this alternative interpretation of allegory, do so: explain the allegory, and tell me where the Bible suggests that Genesis 22 is allegorical.
If you can't defend it, admit it, and don't appeal to a preposterous notion that you don't have to.
How 'bout this, Bubba: I will own up to the point that saying "Genesis 22 (for example) is an allegory, not a factually correct historical representation of events" is possibly a poor way of explaining what appears to be given as history. It's not an especially satisfying explanation.
BUT, even if that is the case, the alternative you have provided (God sometimes commands people to kill children) is a million times worse and unsatisfying and ugly as hell. Your solution is to say that God sometimes goes around commanding people to commit atrocities and THAT is entirely more damaging to the Bible and to God's name than my saying "It's allegory" or even, "I dunno what it means..."
So, short of you providing some plausible, reasonable explanation, I have to reject your position as being disrespectful to biblical teachings and, more importantly, to the teachings of Christ and to God's Holy Name.
Dan:
The Bible is clear in its assertion that God literally and historically commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
Whether you find that claim agreeable or not -- and you clearly don't -- this claim is indeed a plausible and reasonable interpretation of the text, just as "Jehovah is evil" is a plausible and reasonable interpretation of Dawkins' book.
I would go further. I believe it's the ONLY plausible and reasonable interpretation of the text, and your struggles in justifying a figurative alternative -- allegorical or otherwise -- is evidence of that.
The Bible says what it says, and it says that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
"So, short of you providing some plausible, reasonable explanation, I have to reject your position as being disrespectful to biblical teachings and, more importantly, to the teachings of Christ and to God's Holy Name."
I don't see how the claim above is "disrespectful to biblical teachings," since Hebrews 11 and James 2 not only praise Abraham for his faith in general, but for his faith in this SPECIFIC event.
I don't see how the claim is disrespectful to Christ's teachings, since Christ Himself affirmed the authority of Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke. He even invoked one of the events that you find so troubling -- THE PASSOVER, the central event of Judaism -- to teach about His own death.
And I don't see how the claim is disrespectful to God's holy name, since I don't believe (as you do) that these events are atrocities: I affirm that God is perfectly righteous and wholly sovereign, and I believe these events are compatible with His holy character even if we struggle to comprehend them. I trust that the difficulty is in our limited understanding.
I've made this point before, but it's worth making again: I believe the Bible's central claims are also its most contentious claims.
Compared to your vague allegory, you write that the plain and only obviously plausible interpretation of Genesis 22 is "a million times worse and unsatisfying and ugly as hell."
In terms of what's difficult to understand, even this is nothing compared to the central claims.
God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son -- which God belayed -- is nothing compared to His actual decision to sacrifice His own Son, the only truly innocent man in history who nevertheless died for our sins.
God's decision to end human life in the Deluge, during the Passover, and through commands to ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation is nothing compared to the eternal judgment that Christ Himself repeatedly warned about, judgment that Christ Himself will carry out.
Christ died for our sins, and without His intervention we all face a literally eternal damnation.
Compared to these claims, what you denigrate as Old Testament atrocities are minor. As I pointed out earlier this year, "because the central claims of Christianity are even more difficult to comprehend in terms of logic and morality, your decision to question inerrancy in order to dismiss the more peripheral claims, opens a door to dismiss the more important, more difficult stuff.
"If you ever applied your standards consistently across all the Bible's claims, you would almost certainly reject the central claims for the same reasons you reject the more difficult OT passages."
It's not clear that you haven't already begun to reject these claims.
Regardless, it is a very clear teaching of the Bible that God actually did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
If you wish to reject this teaching as horrific and "ugly as hell," you're free to do so. I just wish you wouldn't muddy the waters by claiming that you love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings when, at most, you love parts of the Bible and deeply respect some of its teachings.
Bubba said...
Whether you find that claim agreeable or not -- and you clearly don't -- this claim is indeed a plausible and reasonable interpretation of the text
Let's be clear, this is not about me. It has nothing to do with whether or not I find a passage objectionable personally. It has to do with whether or not that teaching is consistent with the Bible or our understanding of God.
Your explanation is an offense to the nature of God and the Bible as we understand it. It is an offense against morality, reason and faith. At least according to me and many others.
You disagree with my/our conclusion.
That you don't see how it is offensive or that you don't think that commanding the slaughter of children is an atrocity or that you don't think I can hold this position and still LOVE the Bible does not change the fact that this is how we (my "tribe" and I) understand it.
You obviously have a different understanding.
I'll stick with my understanding over yours, if that's okay with you. Would you have me do something else? That is, would you have me abandon what I think the clear teachings of the Bible and God are merely because you have a different opinion, and instead follow your understanding?
I think not.
So, now what?
So, what now? Allow me to tell you how I'd answer that question. We disagree on some non-essential doctrine. We can certainly continue to strive to find ways to make our case to the other, but in the meantime, we have gone around most of these issues repeatedly.
And so, now, we let God's grace - that of God which saves us and is patient and tender towards us despite our ignorance and mistakes - we let God's grace rule between us. We speak with words of love, as brothers, not bitter words as we would towards an enemy. We acknowledge that we think the other is wrong, but love the other nonetheless.
We do as we have been told...
Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up, as indeed you do.
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.
We urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, cheer the fainthearted, support the weak, be patient with all...
Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.
Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person...
Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.
See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled...
What now? We, as best we can by the grace of God, exercise the wide, wide love of God and patiently deal with our mistaken brother, realizing that it is only by Grace we are saved and, as God is patient with us and does not dismiss us from God's presence because of mere errors, so too, we ought not dismiss one another.
It's not our place.
Disagree, when we think the other is wrong, but do so with humility and grace and love.
That's what I think we should be doing now.
That's a noble sentiment, Dan: I truly mean that.
I absolutely agree that each of us has a duty to "patiently deal with our mistaken brother," but there's a flip-side to that coin. We also have a duty to patiently submit to the correction of others.
I'm not sure how consistently you adhere to the duty you mention, of dealing patiently with those who are mistaken. To bring up just the most recent example, in discussing whether libraries should stock books that oppose homosexual behavior as immoral, you very quickly made comparisons to praise for Charles Manson, the defense of genocide, and KKK propaganda -- hardly charitable comparisons.
Regardless, I definitely don't see much evidence of a commitment to the complimentary duty of patiently submitting to correction from others.
Your call for Christian charity in correcting others is in stark contrast to the frank petulance you display in response to the possibility of your being corrected by others.
"I'll stick with my understanding over yours, if that's okay with you. Would you have me do something else? That is, would you have me abandon what I think the clear teachings of the Bible and God are merely because you have a different opinion, and instead follow your understanding?
"I think not."
In this comment I see no humility, no grace, and no love.
I sincerely hope that I never make a comment like that in response to another man's arguments, much less do so repeatedly as you have done.
Instead, I hope that I always take arguments seriously, especially when it comes to matters of faith, morality, and the Bible.
If someone argues for a position with which I disagree, I will strive (as I have always striven) to take his argument seriously. I will try not to misrepresent his argument, and I will try not to impose upon his argument standards that I don't accept for myself.
If I can provide a genuine rebuttal, I will do so. That is to say, I will present a counter-argument that actually is sound to the best of my knowledge -- either an explanation of the flaws in his position, a stronger case for an alternative position, or preferably both.
But on the other hand, if I cannot provide a genuine rebuttal, I sincerely hope that that would give me pause, that it would force me to reevaluate my beliefs in light of the unspeakable possibility that (gasp!) the other guy could be right.
[continued]
[continued]
In my own life, I can think of one very clear example where I was confronted with an argument I could not rebut.
Before I really began studying the Bible in earnest, I believed in personal non-aggression, but not personal non-retaliation. I wouldn't attack anyone, but I did believe in defending myself. I was opposed to throwing the first punch, but I saw no problem throwing the last punch.
I thought the position was quite reasonable -- and it is reasonable, if only in terms of worldly wisdom. What is true in foreign policy is also true in the life of the individual: weakness is provocative.
In reading his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, I was confronted with an argument from John Stott that my position was contrary to what the Bible teaches, at least regarding individuals if not governments.
About the command not to retaliate and its four illustrations, all found in Mt 5:38-42, Stott wrote the following, which immediately struck me as both harsh and indisputable.
"Let it be said at once, albeit to our great discomfort, that there will be occasions when we cannot dodge this demand but must obey it literally. It may seem fantastic that we should be exprected to offer our left cheek to someone who has already struck our right, especially when we recal that 'the striking on the right cheek, the blow with the back of the hand, is still today in the East the insulting blow' and that Jesus probably had in mind not an ordinary insult but 'a quite specific insulting blow: the blow given to the disciples of Jesus as heretics' [Joachim Jeremias]. Yet this is the standard which Jesus asks, and it is the standard which he himself fulfilled...
"...before we become too eager to evade the challenge of his teaching and behaviour as mere unpractical idealism, we must remember that Jesus called his disciples to what Bonhoeffer termed a 'visible participation in his cross.' This is how Peter put it: 'Christ... suffered for you leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps... When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.' [I Pet 2:21-23] In Spurgeon's arresting phrase, we 'are to be as the anvil when bad men are the hammers.'"
Stott immediately clarifies that we are to be anvils, but not doormats: Jesus' illustrations and personal example depict not weakness, but rather "the strong man whose control of himself and love for others are so powerful that he rejects absolutely every conceivable form of retaliation." And Stott appeals to Romans 13 to argue against the idea that the command applies to the state in addition to the individual.
But the point is, Stott provides an argument that the Bible really requires personal non-retaliation, and his argument is compelling in the fullest sense of the word.
I still don't like the command, and only in my best moments do I begin to understand its morality, but I do submit to the command.
In the face of overwhelming rhetorical force, I've laid down my arms and surrendered to the other man's persuasive argument.
If I were to refuse to take his argument seriously, by suggesting that Stott would have me "abandon" my position "merely because [he has] a different opinion" -- with no regard for the strength of his "opinion" compared to mine -- I would prove myself to be stubborn and hard-hearted to the point of being quite unteachable.
[continued]
[continued]
So where are we?
My position is that it's quite clear that the Bible -- both Old Testament and New -- really does teach that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and that Abraham was right to obey.
--
"After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, 'Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' He said, 'Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.'
"So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away. Then Abraham said to his young men, 'Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you.' Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. Isaac said to his father Abraham, 'Father!' And he said, 'Here I am, my son.' He said, 'The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?' Abraham said, 'God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.' So the two of them walked on together. When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son.
"But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, 'Abraham, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' He said, 'Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.' And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place 'The Lord will provide'; as it is said to this day, 'On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.'" - Genesis 22:1-11
"By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom he had been told, 'It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.' He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead -- and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back." - Hebrews 11:17-19
"Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." - James 2:20-23
--
Your position is that I'm very wrong, that my position is "ugly as hell" and an offense to morality, reason, faith, the nature of God, and even (somehow) the teachings of the Bible itself.
(If you think this description of where I stand is compatible with our duty to disagree charitably, I hope I never see you complain about equally harsh descriptions about your beliefs.)
The problem is, you don't have much of an argument for your position. Your only appeal to other passages of Scripture is a question-begging appeal to the prohibition of shedding innocent blood.
You insist that Genesis 22 cannot be interpreted literally, but you do not point to a single passage of Scripture that treats the story as a parable or allegory, because no such passage exists.
More, you have no details about the figurative interpretation that would replace the literal interpretation, much less plausible details. You yourself admit that yours is "not an especially satisfying explanation."
[continued]
[continued]
If you have anything more to add in defense of your position, I urge you not to hold back.
I would like to see the full argument for your position that Genesis 22 -- one of many passages with which you have difficulty, including, of all things, the Passover -- must not be interpreted literally, and I would like to know the details of your alternative interpretation, to see whether it still affirms the passage's authority and to see whether it is remotely plausible.
You seem to believe that you've already provided your argument: "you don't think I've answered what those passages might mean, I think I've answered that question multiple times."
I'd like to make sure, because if all your cards really are on the table, I think we can draw some final conclusions about our arguments.
Assuming that your argument has already been laid out fully, I don't believe there is any real question about who has the more plausible interpretation of what the Bible teaches, and who has the stronger argument for that interpretation.
It's really no contest, Dan.
Since yesterday, you've appealed to numbers, to a vague "tribe" who agrees with you, when mere numbers have never and will never determine truth.
(I doubt you really want to go down the path of seeing which of our two views has been more widely held by Christians across the centuries, but I haven't appealed to majority opinion, and I won't, because I don't have to. It suffices to say that my position is more obviously in line with the writings I quoted above, from James and the canonical author of Hebrews.)
You've insisted on your right to stick to your understanding of God's will in the face of the "opinion" of others, which punts the question of just how plausible your understanding really is.
And now you make a very noble-sounding appeal to the truth that we ought to criticize each other in a spirit of humble charity, which has nothing to do with the actual substance of our arguments.
None of this is good evidence that you really believe you have the stronger argument.
Instead, it's all evidence to the contrary.
I suspect that you are unwilling to contemplate the possibility, not simply that I have a stronger argument, but that the Bible actually does teach what it clearly teaches.
I have very little doubt that you would reject this suspicion, and that you would be tempted to accuse me of deceit and megalomania.
That gets us right back to the duty that we all have, to patiently submit to the correction of others, and the prerequisite duty of being willing to admit the real possibility that one is in need of correction.
I've seen you admit to this possibility in the abstract, and you will gladly confess that you were deeply mistaken when you held to theological and political conservatism, but that's hardly evidence that you're genuinely willing to consider the possibility in the real world, here and now.
I'm glad to hear that you do at times change your opinion, when you have been convinced of the soundness of the argument. As I have noted, I have done so, too. There was no one at all (I doubt) who was MORE opposed to the crazy notion of gay marriage than I was. And yet, given evidence, prayer and time, I did change my position.
When I say, "Should I change my position simply because you disagree with me," I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm saying that you have presented your arguments, I've listened to them and I've found them wanting. I do not sense that of God in your arguments, I do not hear the Holy Spirit urging me to heed your correction, I do not see any logic or morality in your position (on the issues we're discussing).
So, what I was saying was, GIVEN ALL OF THAT, should I change my position merely because you think I ought to? And, "I think not" IS the right answer to that question.
IF after I have presented my arguments and you have found them lacking, you should absolutely not change your position merely to align with me because I think you should. You have an obligation to strive to discern God's will as best you can and if you don't hear God's wisdom in my words, then if told, "You should change your position because Dan has said so..." your answer should likewise be, "I think not."
There's nothing wrong with that position, don't you agree?
Bubba said...
Since yesterday, you've appealed to numbers, to a vague "tribe" who agrees with you, when mere numbers have never and will never determine truth.
Let's be clear, I have made no appeal to numbers. I merely mentioned that people of my tribe disagree with your position. In truth, many in my tribe have COME from your position and changed to OUR position on some of these points. We HAVE listened to the Spirit's calling and been willing to change our position when we thought we were wrong.
But that is not an appeal to numbers, any more than my position has been determined by what I find most "agreeable," as you previously misstated.
You also said...
Your position is that I'm very wrong, that my position is "ugly as hell" and an offense to morality, reason, faith, the nature of God, and even (somehow) the teachings of the Bible itself.
(If you think this description of where I stand is compatible with our duty to disagree charitably...
Understand: charitable disagreements can be strong and pack a punch. Jesus and the prophets certainly packed a punch when they disagreed with others.
I don't have problem with strong words to describe your opposition to what you think is wrong. What I'm trying to say is we ought to disagree in ways that, 1. don't twist the positions of others and, 2. don't make unfair presumptions of the others and, 3. don't demonize the others.
If you think my position is ugly as hell, say so (and, come now, listen to your position - you are saying that the God of Love and Justice sometimes commands people to kill children - you can't see how butt-ugly-awful that sounds?). But 1. Say that about my actual position, 2. don't presume I'm not a Christian because my non-essential position, and 3. Don't suggest I'm in league with the devil because of it.
Beyond that, yes, I do believe I've answered most of your questions to my satisfaction, if not yours.
Dan, you write, "come now, listen to your position - you are saying that the God of Love and Justice sometimes commands people to kill children - you can't see how butt-ugly-awful that sounds?"
It's really the tip of the iceberg. I not only believe that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, He also sent His own Son to die for our sins.
I not only believe that -- through the Deluge, the Passover, the armies of ancient Israel, and innumerable other means -- God has ended the earthly lives of countless human beings He's created, I also believe that Christ Himself will judge all of us and, yes, condemn many of us to eternal damnation.
These beliefs are just as clearly taught in Scripture. They are more central to Christian faith -- arguably essential -- and they are far more literally dreadful (first definition) than the claims you think are so very offensive to morality, reason, and faith. I do suspect that your Christian faith wouldn't survive if you ever applied your sense of morality to all that the Bible teaches.
I don't think you've answered my questions satisfactorily. On the one hand, you did make clear that you don't actually have a detailed alternative interpretation of any of these supposed Old Testament atrocities -- much less a plausible interpretation that's rooted in biblical teachings -- 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.
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.
If you're still willing to tackle those subjects, I'd appreciate it.
As it is, I don't believe I have any other questions to ask you.
If there are significant areas where you still believe I grossly misunderstand you, please feel free to correct me. I think this conversation demonstrates that I misunderstand you, only very rarely.
Or if you have any other questions you'd like me to field, let me know, and I'll be happy to answer them.
At some point, probably by the end of next week, I might address a couple areas where I think you make implausible claims about the Bible -- such as the parable of the dishonest steward -- but otherwise I don't have much else to say.
Since it looks like we're wrapping up, I want to state that I WILL make myself absolutely clear when a particular comment will probably be my last, and I will do so only after you are explicitly finished with whatever further requests you have of me, or the end of next week, whichever comes first.
Until then, it suffices to say that, in response to your questions about "what now?" I don't really think we're at a complete impasse.
I believe there's a sheer chasm between many of the things you claim to believe and what the Bible clearly teaches, and you strongly disagree, however:
In addition to this thread, there are the recent threads at Marshall's that led to this dialogue -- here, here, and here -- and the numerous prior conversations that have been cited and hyperlinked from within these four discussions.
We've written an awful lot in conversation, and I believe the content of our discussions speaks for itself, leaving no real question about who more thoroughly understands the Bible and conforms his beliefs to what it clearly teaches.
I'm quite happy to let that record stand.
Post a Comment