 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Hermeneutics | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 4/27/2005 8:57 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Sahid,
You're welcome. You asked about Moses in, I suppose, the context of the Canaanite genocide - in particular, passages found in Exodus and Numbers (and Joshua) in which it is clearly and simply stated that it was God who commanded Moses (and Joshua) and the Israelites to commit total slaughter, and sometimes enslavement and (evidently) rape as well (or at least coerced marriage with presumably marital sexual relations eventually as well). In the case of the Midianites (Numbers 31), we even have Moses (evidently in God's name) reprimanding the Israelites for being too lenient.
Craig Hill, in his book In God's Time, talks about the "...but in Christ" moment. This is when we perceive WWJD/WWJS/WWJT (what would Jesus do/say/think), based on the testimony to him we've received from the New Testament authors, and use this to establish what God's best, timelessly, would be. And if it means we reinterpret past revelation to bring it into accordance with what we most clearly know about the character of God from the biblical witness to Jesus, we do so. "Yes, we understood it this way in the past, but in Christ we now see more fully."
And what we know about the heart of God from Jesus is that God is love and mercy in their most extreme. Yes, Jesus overthrows the tables of the moneychangers, and yes Jesus is pictured as returning at the eschaton in judgment, when some will be committed to hell. But what I, personally, cannot escape is the way Jesus lived his life and thus demonstrated the will of God as it relates, timelessly, to how we are to live our lives in this world: with love for our enemies and even for God's enemies. And murder, enslavement, and rape are not love. If Jesus comes in judgement at the end of days, that is because it is the end of days, when there remains no future for the finally impenitent; in this world, though, there is always a future and a hope of future repentance.
So consequently I, personally, cannot reconcile the truth about what God has always really desired and required of us in this world (which we know from reading the witness to how Jesus behaved in this world), with what the Pentateuch records God as willing against the Canaanites. Yes, I've read all the usual apologetic: how God is free to be God and not to be held to our standards; how slaughter was merciful for the infants as it would allow them to pass unjudged into his presence; how the captured women were not necessarily raped; how whatever God did then was peculiar to that situation and in no way establishes what we should do now; how everyone is doomed to die anyway, and how death is not the end anyway, so we shouldn't get too overwrought about the massacres to begin with. None of this works for me, for reasons I won't go into. I see nothing in Jesus to make me think there are, or have ever been, any situations, even "just war" situations, where the massacre of noncombatants (including elderly and children), and the capture of women for rape or something tantamount to rape, is not sin and is in fact completely aligned with God's best will.
So it is a "...but in Christ" moment, and yet another data point among the reasons why I cannot read the Bible as "flat". What do I think actually happened with the Canaanite genocide, then?
First you should know that what actually happened in history is primarily a historical question, best investigated using critical method (eg the science of archaeology), and results from that field are ambiguous as to how fast, violent and furious the Conquest actually was. Thus the genocide accounts may be somewhat embellished (ie, quasi-historical) in degree. Even so, though, there was undoubtedly some slaughter and mayhem - as at Jericho where there exist some destruction levels in the archaeological record that might coincide with the Conquest.
Second, you should know that regardless of how it is attributed, what the Israelites are recorded as actually doing in the genocide was not uncommon for the culture and time. Whether or not it reflected God's will, it certainly reflected the situation the Israelites were in.
So then. I believe that God did not command or instigate whatever slaughter, enslavement and rape of noncombatants may have occurred concomitantly with the Conquest. I believe the responsibility for the genocide fell on the Israelites alone, and God was repelled by it. Yet as always - for whatever the usual theodetical reasons over which people have debated for millenia - God allowed the genocide to happen. And as God always does, given that it happened, he worked it for the best: it became a display of judgment upon Canaanite religious practice (which seems to have been quite ugly in its own right), a means of separating Israel from her Canaanite surroundings so as to ward off syncretism, and so forth. To paraphrase that passage in the New Testament, what man intended for evil, God subverted into his plan.
As for the Pentateuch's clear attribution of the genocide to God's direct command to Moses, I subsume that to Christ, and read it as a theological interpretation on the part of Israel provided ex post facto to both justify what they had done and recognize how God had had a hand in it, if only to turn it to good. scripture is the witness of the community of faith to their experience of God at the time, and attributing the genocide to God was their way, accommodated to the harshness of their time (in which total war of this sort was not uncommon), of testifying that God was their Lord who judged sin, used people and events as his instruments, required obedience, and set the Israelites apart from Canaanite religious practice so that his revelation might continue to break out into the world. But the plain meaning of the scripture - that God had commanded these things at his instigation alone - I simply believe is not accurate because it contradicts so much of what Jesus demonstrated God's timeless heart to be.
Best regards,
Scott
PS. I wasn't aware that a Counterpoints book had been published on this subject of the Canaanite genocide. I'll have to check it out. Its encouraging to see the word "genocide" finally being used by an evangelical publisher in regard to the slaughter of the Canaanites. The elephant in the room is finally called as such.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/27/2005 9:18 PM (GMT -6) | | ATW: Jef, Could you explain this idea of forgiveness further? Maybe a seperate thread is needed.
Jeff: In Acts, Peter says they murdered the Messiah IGNORANTLY. He then said they should REPENT, therefore. In other words, their ignorance at the time of the crucifixion was the grounds of Christs' forgiveness. Their subsequent refusal to repent after the scriptures were explained, witnesses of the ressurection testified, and signs and wonders confirmed the word of Christ's apostles, etc., resulted in their ultimate judgement. See the end of Stephen's speech in Acts 7. See also 1 Thess. 2:15-16. Also, Christ STANDING at the right hand of God prior to Stephen's stoning may indicate judgement, for Isaiah says the "Lord stands to judge His people." It seems that the stoning of Stephen was the straw that broke the camel's back - they were ignorant no longer.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 4/28/2005 2:37 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
So what's the difference between the scripture and anything else? I personally find Letters from a Skeptic to be more authoritative than certain Biblical accounts. Is there something other than age and popularity that makes the Bible "better" or is it purely subjective? ....
What's the difference between the Federalist Papers and the Republic, on the one hand, and anything else on the other? Because neither are inerrant supernatural dictation, does that mean they bear no more weight, significance, value - that is, no more of what I mean by "authority" - than any other human composition, say Das Kapital or Mein Kampf? No. Only the former are the heritage of a social and political ideology - liberal democracy - whose warrant is rooted in its broad and deep success in raising and transforming lives and the quality of life worldwide. We are convinced of that ideology because of how it outworks itself in our lives and the world, and so we embrace the foundational writings of the community from which it came. Things outside of that heritage may have a place (especially insofar as they uphold the liberal democratic ideology), but they are not the same as what the community over generations has ratified as foundational writings for itself.
So too can it be with how we regard the Bible. We can give rational credence to Christianity, but not necessarily because we start with the Bible, become convinced that it is demonstrably and miraculously inerrant in all its details, and then arrive at the Christian faith to which it testifies. Rather we can have rational warrant in Christianity because we start with such things as natural theology and philosophical theism, the remarkable perseverance of the Jewish people and religion over time, the general reliability and integrity of the Bible when seen in its proper historical and literary situation, and most of all the testimony of believers in Christ over time: their changed lives, the betterment those lives have effected upon the world, and the spread of this throughout the globe, even into our own lives. (Yes, Christiandom has brought much suffering into the world, but Christianity has also demonstrably bettered it - and no other system has been relatively as fruitful, in the net-net, in this regard. I really do believe that.) The convergence of such things - especially the experience of Christ in our own lives - then warrants the Christian faith. And after that, we then look to the Bible as authoritative scripture, because it is the written heritage of this tradition that we already follow for those other reasons.
I suspect what is most troubling about this view of scripture and apologetics is that it gives up the game of trying to prove our faith. So long as we can hold out hope that the one piece of incontrovertible material evidence of our faith that the world has today - the Bible - is demonstrably so remarkably consistent and inerrant as to be miraculous, we can have hope that our faith can be proven and thereby made easier and more palatable to a skeptical modern world (ourselves included). I suggest, though, that this idea of what scripture must be, in order for God to be God, is an idol of our creation. We simply haven't been given that kind of Bible, any more than we have been given that kind of world.
Enough from me for now - four postings in one day. Best regards,
Scott
PS. As for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - yes, scripture is inspired (God-breathed) but that doesn't really answer the question of what it means for something to be inspired (God-breathed). Answering that is what the rest of this has all been about, for the Bible never itself actually directly answers that question.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/29/2005 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | If there is a God, and if He is there and is not silent (to parody Schaefer), the Christian and the Jew, then, are led to believe that the Bible is the written means by which God has communicated to us (the world) His truth—those truths He has felt were important for us to know.
This wasn't done in the mind of God with the pretense of supporting every event as historically, scientifically and archeologically (and thus apologeticallY) grounded, every account without a grammatical error, every re-telling of the story with exactness of details to the facts as they exactly happened and in perfect conjunction with the existing account of the same story. Rather, God is seen to have "come down" and related to people (the Ancients in this case) where they were in their thinking back then. Further, He was relating to the whole human race on a larger scale within the context of heart-felt passion and desire for relationship, conveyed by means of heart-to-heart communication and not through perfectly accurate science, geology, archeology or any other ology...save one: theology.
We forget that the same Spirit who inspired all of this also inspires us today. The only distinction we should make is that the written word (Bible) stands as the grounding, the bottom-line authority (so it tells us) by which all other inspirations can be judged. This does NOT mean that if God has spoken through the modern day prophet that the prophet's words are no less inspired by the Spirit than is the Bible. It ONLY means that his words carry on, and build upon, the cleared ground and laid foundation already in place; the prophet's words do not become the new foundation or the new entrance into the structure of relationship with God. They can only complement what God has already layed (or is it "laid"???).
So, the Christian can approach the Bible as the communcation of God to us by written word (he has obviously communicated to us in other ways, vis., His Son), again, not by elevating the writing to some stratispheric apologetically-defended height of absolute perfection in all areas of knowledge the world knows, but rather, by raising it to the level where man relates most importantly with himself, with others and with God: the level of his heart.
Ultimately it is an act of faith one must exercise toward accepting the Bible as the written, revealing word of God. The act of faith declares that God has spoken about relationship (theologically) and that is what makes "His Word" authoritative. The quest of interpeting the scriptures, then, is to see how the authors have communicated theologically to say something about relationship with God. At times, they may have written within the context of God's particular dealings with Israel (which, to some, becomes rather boring...I mean, how many chronologies do we need, for pete's sake!), or they may have written eschatologically to a broader audience. Whatever the case be, we are to search for the main point and see if there is meant to be a broader application. That's the heart and soul for use of biblical hermeneutics: to extract an expositorial theology that will ultimately florish when we apply what we have extracted toward our relationship with God.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/29/2005 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
If there is a God, and if He is there and is not silent (to parody Schaefer), the Christian and the Jew, then, are led to believe that the Bible is the written means by which God has communicated to us (the world) His truth—those truths He has felt were important for us to know. I know you're not giving a syllogism or anything, but there is something missing. That God exists and is not silent does not logically lead to the Bible being his word. Maybe it's the Koran. Maybe some of it is in parts of the Bible, but not necessarily the whole Bible.
Starkman said...
Further, He was relating to the whole human race on a larger scale within the context of heart-felt passion and desire for relationship, conveyed by means of heart-to-heart communication and not through perfectly accurate science, geology, archeology or any other ology...save one: theology.
The early Jews were not even monotheists; they were henotheists. It's close but not perfectly theologically accurate. They expressed their henotheism in the Bible.
Starkman said...
We forget that the same Spirit who inspired all of this also inspires us today. The only distinction we should make is that the written word (Bible) stands as the grounding, the bottom-line authority (so it tells us) by which all other inspirations can be judged. Where does it tells us this?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/29/2005 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/30/2005 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | Good article. I only got through the first half, but I'll come back to it. I like Wright a lot. The Meaning of Jesus is great too. I'm hoping to get to his three volume set soon.
I think I can agree with him, but he is stretching with the word "authoritative." His use only really fits half of the first definition: "arising from authority," and even then just barely. He calls the Bible God's word, but in places treats it more like the word of God's people. "Authoritative" first brings connotations that he (and I) would deny. There must be a better word. Maybe the one in Timothy, "useful." "God-breathed" works too, but it also has aquired connotations that I would deny. If I blow into a trumpet, the sound is "Zach-breathed," but it is not entirely my noise, i.e. it would have sounded different through another instrument. If God speaks to an ancient Near Eastern man who had been closely involved in ethnic mass infanticide, slavery, and murder, been abandoned (to some extent) by his family and his people, and who had committed murder himself, there is a good chance that the sound made will have some tones that do not originate from God. To call such a sound authoritative is going to be misleading to many. I suspect he's keeping a word he would rather drop for the sake of avoiding a "scandal."
Many of us have probably grown comfortable with the idea that the human writers must have affected the Bible by their style, language, and circumstances. Why couldn't we say that their sinfullness also worked its way in? Or were all the Biblical writers born of virgins? For all of the talk here about how sin spreads into unintended places, it doesn't seem like such a huge leap. To me it seems just like God to use imperfect human instruments to communicate his love. With such a hermeneutic (used very cautiously) we could forego stained interpretations and lists of how often the Biblical references are determined or open (see Erickson's book). When we turn the pieces this way, logic, esperience, and the Bible fit together much more tightly. Still, such a hermeneutic requires quite a bit of caution.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/30/2005 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Sahid:
I know you're not giving a syllogism or anything, but there is something missing. That God exists and is not silent does not logically lead to the Bible being his word. Maybe it's the Koran. Maybe some of it is in parts of the Bible, but not necessarily the whole Bible.
Starkman:
I said nothing about logically leading to the Bible being his word. What I said was that the Jew and the Christian, by the nature of their faith, are led to believe the Bible as the revealed word of God, not by logical deduction, but by faith; faith for the Christian stems from the message of the Bible, not logical deduction. If one chooses to accept the biblical message as authoritative, logical deduction (for some it helps pave the way to arrive at faith) ceases as the utility and faith takes its place. One doesn't logically have to conclude that the Bible is God's word. One only has to have faith that it is.
You would want to insist that the Satanic Bible could be Christian's idea of the revealed word of God, or that Hitler's Mein Kamph could be the revealed word of God to the Jew, do you???
Sahid:
The early Jews were not even monotheists; they were henotheists. It's close but not perfectly theologically accurate. They expressed their henotheism in the Bible.
Starkman:
Are you really arguing that to the Jew henotheist equates to equal self-existent deities? I mean...the first commandment; the plethora of passages in Isaiah that speak to this theme: Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last. Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
besides me there is no god (Is 44:6, 8).
Dude, the Torah does not speak of more than one self-existent "YHWH." The New Testament sure doesn't either. References to "as many as are lords and gods" or "Ye are gods" can, at the most, mean nothing more than very powerful (created) beings who have limited authority.
Sahid:
Where does it tells us this? [Starkman said...
We forget that the same Spirit who inspired all of this also inspires us today. The only distinction we should make is that the written word (Bible) stands as the grounding, the bottom-line authority (so it tells us) by which all other inspirations can be judged.]
Starkman:
Bind up the testimony; seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn (Is 8:20) to name just one. There's umpteen counts of God telling the Israelites that it is His word alone to which they are to adhere.
Jesus: "Sanctify them by your word; your word is truth" (Jn 17:17) and It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (Jn 6:63), which leads to....
Pauls teaching in I Corinthians: According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (I Cor 3:10-11), which is why...
Now these Jews [in Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so (Acts 17:11), which allows for...
If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged (I Cor 14:27-30).
One of my favorite passages on this subject: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. This holds weight to the author of Hebrews, because...
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs (Heb 1:1-4).
The Christian recognizes the authoritative nature of Christ's words. He recognizes that the apostles (and few others) passed along the theological truth of Christ's words, rather than word-for-word dictation (though some of that is probably included). Finally, the Christian recognizes what church history lost sight of, until the reformation, that it is this received word, which we call the Bible, that stands as authoritative among all other writings and speakers.
Got to run...
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 4/30/2005 3:23:44 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/1/2005 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Jef, when did I make experience the trump card? All I mean by experience is that God works in history through imperfect instruments.
Jef said...
Jeff: How does this "caution" work (once authorial intent is negated) and how does it ensure that both me and you come to the one and true meaning of texts? Our experiences are different, so what's the unifying factor? It doesn't insure anything. I'm not a foundationalist. I just believe in Jesus, because I have "experienced" him. He loved me and rescued me when no one else could. If Christianity is a third party phenomenon, then what's it worth? All we can do is submit to the Holy Spirit and pray that we would be open to his guidance. There is no guarantee that we will get it right though. There never was. People are constantly divided on these things, even faithful Christians. It's ok. The "unifying factor" is baptism. Although our interpretations may be different, there is one baptism in which we share. This is more unity than we could ever hope for, and ultimately it is the meaning.
Starkman said...
I said nothing about logically leading to the Bible being his word. What I said was that the Jew and the Christian, by the nature of their faith, are led to believe the Bible as the revealed word of God, not by logical deduction, but by faith; faith for the Christian stems from the message of the Bible, not logical deduction. If one chooses to accept the biblical message as authoritative, logical deduction (for some it helps pave the way to arrive at faith) ceases as the utility and faith takes its place. One doesn't logically have to conclude that the Bible is God's word. One only has to have faith that it is.
You would want to insist that the Satanic Bible could be Christian's idea of the revealed word of God, or that Hitler's Mein Kamph could be the revealed word of God to the Jew, do you??? I still disagree. Christians and Jews are not necessarily "led to believe the Bible as the revealed word of God." I know Christians and Jews who both are very intelligent and sincere who do not see it this way. Our faith is in Christ (or YHWH) not the book that he may or may not have "written." Personally, I believe that God did have a role in "writting" the entire Bible, but this belief is not necessitated by my being a Christian.
On henotheism, I'll concede the point. But theological accurancy is still a pretty fluid term. I could make it mean almost anything.
None of the script ure you sited says that the Bible "stands as the grounding, the bottom-line authority ... by which all other inspirations can be judged." Some talk about the word of God (which most certainly is not confined only to the Bible) and some speak specifically of the script ures by do not make any claim that they are "bottom-line authority."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/1/2005 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: All we can do is submit to the Holy Spirit and pray that we would be open to his guidance. There is no guarantee that we will get it right though. There never was.
Jeff: How do you know that the failure does not rest squarely on people, though. scripture may not be true, but, regardless, it might be true that God doesn't tempt us above what we're able - and it might be true that if we seek we'll find. How can we prove otherwise even if scripture is non-authoritative?
Sahid: People are constantly divided on these things, even faithful Christians. It's ok.
Jeff: Again, how can we know this? In other words, if two Christians read 1 Cor. (which Paul calls milk) and systematically disagree about it's meaning and live different manners of life, accordingly, how do we know they're both faithful? And faithful to what?
Sahid: The "unifying factor" is baptism. Although our interpretations may be different, there is one baptism in which we share. This is more unity than we could ever hope for, and ultimately it is the meaning.
Jeff: So if baptism is all the unity we can hope for, why does this forum exist? Why are we even having a dialogue? Surely there's some common beliefs that we should be unified on other than just believing that we've been baptised, eh? Otherwise, we've been wasting a lot of time on this forum that could have been put to MUCH BETTER (or at least, FUNNER) use.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 5/1/2005 9:46:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/2/2005 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: How do you know that the failure does not rest squarely on people, though. scripture may not be true, but, regardless, it might be true that God doesn't tempt us above what we're able - and it might be true that if we seek we'll find. How can we prove otherwise even if scripture is non-authoritative?
Sahid: I agree one hundred percent. We can't "prove otherwise." And I don't pretend to.
Jeff: Again, how can we know this? In other words, if two Christians read 1 Cor. (which Paul calls milk) and systematically disagree about it's meaning and live different manners of life, accordingly, how do we know they're both faithful? And faithful to what?
Sahid: I just thank God that it's not our position to judge the faithfulness of others. To answer your questions, we don't know who is faithful, and Jesus is who we are to be faithful to.
Jeff: So if baptism is all the unity we can hope for, why does this forum exist? Why are we even having a dialogue? Surely there's some common beliefs that we should be unified on other than just believing that we've been baptised, eh? Otherwise, we've been wasting a lot of time on this forum that could have been put to MUCH BETTER (or at least, FUNNER) use.
Sahid: I have a very high view of baptism. I'm a baptist. Baptism is more than a bath. It creates a community of love where all are accepted without all being made the same. Baptism implies the Shema and the command to love our neighbors as ourself. It is a demonstration of dependence, reliance, and love for God. It is also a social event that confesses that we are all on the same level (a very high level) before God. In this sense the entire word of God is embodied in baptism. Baptism teaches us about everything from the trinity to social ethics.
Tim: But in terms of the writers, I think it's still possible for fallen humans to make something that isn't fallen. The Bible is fully human, but that doesn't mean it's got sin in how it was written (i.e. intending to deceive people). We see it all over the place: fallible humans can do maths that is correct. We can make precision scientific statements. We can play beautiful and note-perfect music. We can truthfully talk about things. Can't we extend that to the writers of the Bible?
Sahid: I agree. It is possible for humans to do amazing things, even "perfect" things. All I'm saying is that we don't have to lump the entire Bible together into one human action. Maybe some parts are perfect in ways that other parts are not.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/2/2005 7:08:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 5/3/2005 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Scott. You have some good insights and provide for a very good discussion.
Personally I agree that the scriptures cannot be read as a flat document. I also agree that the scriptures have a human element to them, God did not drop the book from the sky without regard to time, place and culture.
I know that in the last couple hundred years christians moved far beyond how christians/jews have historically viewed the scriptures. The advent of fundamentalist inerrancy and infallability was in reaction to various forces acting to discredit any usefulness, reliability, and accuracy. I am just concerned that the extent you are moving away from the scriptures as the word of God is far more than historical christianity and the ancients ever went. You seem to be implying that not only do fundamentalists have too high a view of scriptures, but also that people of faith for thousands of years have had too high a view.
Another uneasy feeling comes from the apparent subjectivity to which such a low view brings us. Specifically, regarding the picture of God as revealed in Jesus and as loving.
Let me say upfront, I think Jesus is clearly the best, most complete picture of God we have. I think God is above all, all loving Father, rather than an angry judge. I think it is fair to use Jesus as central to our hermenutic and to use him to help interprete Old Testament passages like the Conquest.
It just strikes me as going too far by using Jesus to completely discredit any and all references to God as angry, harsh, and using force. Sort of using Jesus as a get out of jail free card for anything and everything which we can't understand and reconcile to our view of God in Jesus. It allows one to subjectively pick and choose which parts of scripture we don't like (or don't fully understand) and shove it under the rug. Essentially discredit all the hard passages rather than dealing with and reconcilling (as best we humanly can) the hard passages.
Let me play the devil's advocate (pardon the expression). What if someone decided (subjectively) that the most central picture of God is as judge and executioner? That his wrath and justice and holiness most completely defined who God is (including in Jesus). That Jesus was an accurate picture but was only one minor part of the fuller and more complete God we see in the Old Testament. Then this person could interprete all passages through this lense. They could pick and choose passages which did not square with their view and consequently disregard them as inaccurate human creations. They could claim that God showing mercy to the Isrealites again and again was fabricated by writers who did not fully understand God or did not want to accept the truth of a harsh angry God. They could claim the same for the gospel accounts of Jesus showing mercy and love and forgiveness, saying the authors got it wrong, that the real account we have to look to are the cursing of the fig tree, the olivet discourse and the condemnation of the religous leaders.
Let me know your thoughts? And thanks again for the interesting discussion.
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/4/2005 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | |
MattBrown said...
I know that in the last couple hundred years christians moved far beyond how christians/jews have historically viewed the scriptures. The advent of fundamentalist inerrancy and infallability was in reaction to various forces acting to discredit any usefulness, reliability, and accuracy. I am just concerned that the extent you are moving away from the scriptures as the word of God is far more than historical christianity and the ancients ever went. You seem to be implying that not only do fundamentalists have too high a view of scriptures, but also that people of faith for thousands of years have had too high a view. While I was looking through resources about Christian non-violence I looked at many of the early fathers. I was surprised in two ways. First, they often completely ignored Old Testament passages that protrayed God as warrior when addressing the matters of Christians in military service or other violence. Second, despite a common affinity towards ramblingly long explainations of their rationale and surprisingly various use of Old and New Testament matterials, they never gave any reason for ignoring the God as warrior idea in relation to matters of Christian violence. This was, of course, very frustrating. Among the early church fathers non-violence was strongly supported, but the best argument against it was ignored. Same thing with my rabbi friend. She just wrote off portions of the Old Testament, and she only even mentioned those portions because I pressed her. I got the impression that the fathers were acting in a similar way. I'm sure they had considered the problematic parts of the Bible, but they seemed happy to ignore them as much as possible. I was shocked at (what I considered) their low view of scripture (albeit by silence).
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/4/2005 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings in Christ.
Have any of you read any books by David W. Bercot? He promotes the idea that when seeking to understand the scripture all Christians should take into serious consideration the writings of the early Christian writers between the time of the New Testament and the Council of Nicea (the Ante-Nicene Christian writers) - especially those of the 2nd century.
I've recently read a couple of his books:
"Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look At Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity".
"Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding scripture."
But his crowning achievement is a topical index of the early Christian writings titled "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs." This only costs $20 and I believe it to be an invaluable addition to every Christian's collection.
Bercot's argument is that, since the early Christian writers were so close to the apostles (not only in time, but in culture and language [plus, a few actually personally knew one or more apostles]), that their writings should take priority over all later Christian writings as a source of commentary on the scripture. He doesn't say that the early Christian writers were inspired, nor that their writings are authoritative, but simply that they can help us understand how the earliest Christians understood the scripture and apostolic teaching, and that this is far preferable as a source of teaching than classic Christian writings after Nicea (such as Luther, Calvin, Augustine).
I've taken his challenge seriously, and I'm prayerfully re-examining my life and my beliefs in light of the early Christian writers. I already knew that they strongly taught Freewill-Theism and Premillennialism, both of which I strongly believe scripture teaches; but what's genuinely challenging is when they are expressing a belief that I would normally have disregarded offhandedly if it had come from any contemporary Christian. But I feel I'm learning a lot which will help me grow as a Christian and know God and His word better.
Bercot's books are mostly published by this company: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/
If any of you have read anything by him (or, if you haven't yet, after you've read something), please share your thoughts.
the grace of Christ be with you | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/4/2005 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Matt,
Good questions, though I don't find the "high view/low view" terminology helpful. "Low view", especially, in my experience, is a loaded and one-sided code word most often used to denigrate views of scripture one considers insufficiently respectful. After all, what believer has ever used the words "low view" to describe their regard for the Bible? Rather, it is used against them by those of different opinion. All believers who spend a great deal of time thinking about the nature of the Bible, regardless of what they think, have a "high view" of scripture, if only because one's time investments show where one's heart lies. I would even say that I have a "high view" of scripture, because I seek to understand and respect it for what it is rather than what I might wish it to be, and because I turn to it for the first and, in some way, final word in understanding my faith. Anyway, I prefer to eschew terminology that cannot be accepted by all sides in a debate.
As a modern who is used to critical discourse, I would naturally be most happy if scripture was everywhere consistent. But it isn't. Believing all of scripture to be useful for teaching, I am quite willing to harmonize inconsistent passages when doing so does not seem, to me, to do too much injustice to any one passage. But what is harmonization? It is coming up with a reading consistent with multiple passages which one can reasonably think that all the passages' authors would have generally agreed with. The more a harmonization diverges from the plain meaning, in context, of any one passage, the less possible it becomes to claim that the author of the passage would have agreed with the harmonization. For if they would have agreed with it, why then would they have written so unclearly?
So when harmonization stretches the plain meaning of one passage or another too much to the breaking point, as I believe it does when trying to reconcile passages that emphasize the love and patience of God with passages that depict his direct life-cutting-short imposition of suffering and judgement - such as most vividly in the Canaanite genocide accounts - I am open to other ways of understanding such passages. And these include accommodation and subordination. The latter, in particular, is not, I think, too far from what the early church and the apostles themselves engaged in, when re-interpreting the Old Testament so as to understand Jesus' life as recapitulating it (as in Matthew's treatment of the flight from Egypt, the virgin/young woman who gives birth to a son named Immanuel, and etc). They subordinated their understanding of the Old Testament to what they considered the supreme revelation of God in Christ. As for accommodation, we see Jesus himself revealing an accommodation in the Mosaic law on divorce (Deuteronomy 24) in Matthew 19.
Why subordinate problematic scripture to love, or Christ, though? Why not subordinate everything to law, or judgement, or Moses, or the God of Genesis 6-8, or some other biblical principle or persona? Because as Christians we are followers of Christ who is the whole destination of our tradition and our canon of scripture. Our canon and tradition follow a trajectory that culminates in Christ. We would not be "Christ-ones", by definition, otherwise. Our confession is that Christ is the Word, the connection between man and God, that he is the incarnation of God in a way that nothing else - not Moses, not the written scripture - ever has been. And this isn't an arbitrary confession, either, since it is the witness of our New Testament and seems to be alluded to progressively throughout the Old Testament for those who have eyes and ears to see and hear (beginning in Genesis 3:16 and culminating in the later prophets).
So this is why I am open to subordinating problematic passages to Christ, understanding them as culturally-accommodated approximations to truth which is only fully revealed in the person and life of Jesus. Why love and mercy, then, rather than harshness and judgement? Because the simple fact is that Jesus, as the gospel testimony to him has been handed down to us, is far more about love, patience, mercy and grace, than he is about harshness and judgement. This is simply a quantitative matter of comparison of passages within the gospels, as well as a qualitative matter of the gospels' basic focus and theme. But in addition, this same love, grace and mercy are also progressively witnessed to in the Old Testament, as the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish experience arced on a trajectory from the tribal and legal God of the earliest Hebrew traditions to the universal and moral God of the later prophets. Both the Old Testament and the New, then, converge over time on the love of God overall. And that is why I think it is more reasonable to understand problematic passages primarily in the light of the love of Christ rather than the judgement of God (without denying the final reality of the latter for some), for to do otherwise would be to read the Bible backwards.
Best regards,
Scott
Post Edited (scott_jorgenson) : 5/4/2005 12:11:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:07 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|