Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/23/2005 5:12 AM (GMT -6)

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Christians tend to hold that at least the Old and New Testaments are canonical. What does that mean? The entire Bible is riddled with contradictions, so what do we mean by canon? I often hear certain behavior justified by the WWJD criteria. But how can we know what Jesus would do? Would he forgive a sinner or drown him and his family in a flood? The Bible's answer is both.

I guess my question is what is the Bible good for? Whatever "-ism" I want to argue for can be proof text-ed from the Bible. Pacifists look to Jesus' earthly ministry. Others look at the apocalyptic books or the conquest story. Sure, Jesus has a very special place, but even he said that not one pen stroke of the law would be taken away.

In what way is the Bible authoritative? What is authoritative about infanticide? What is authoritaive about Jesus writing in the dirt with his finger? What is authoritative about a list of people to greet in Corinth? Once again my SBC roots have left me hanging. If canon doesn't mean "authoritative measurement" what does it mean? Is it even accurate to speak of the Bible as canon?

Dictionary.com said...

canon

This word is derived from a Hebrew and Greek word denoting a reed or cane. Hence
it means something straight, or something to keep straight; and hence also a
rule, or something ruled or measured. It came to be applied to the Scriptures,
to denote that they contained the authoritative rule of faith and practice, the
standard of doctrine and duty.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 4/23/2005 8:44 AM (GMT -6)

Staunch conservative or ulta liberalism. Ultra conservativism removes the chances of discovering what the text meant to its original readers. Ultra liberalism removes the chances of discovering what the text means to us today. Somewhere there is a center, so we feel, and that would be the target.

What would Jesus tell us were he to sit down with us and have a chat about what it means to "trust" in the written word, to take the word authoritatively, to consider it our rule (canon)? I'd like His comments, too, about what "WWJD" and "WWJS" (what would Jesus say) mean. Obviously, these questions are never going to be answered (again) while I am alive, if they were even answered the first time He was here. So what hermeutic do I use? (If I still didn't need to ask the question "What is it for the Spirit to teach me," I'd probably have my answer!)

Jesus did talk as if his existence itself was authoritative, as if his words themselves were authority and as if his actions were authoritative....authoritative toward what, in what or to whom? It was his Father to whom Jesus pointed in all things he did and said; knowing the Father as they would know Christ himself. This much is clear, and this much is our target, the heart that should govern our use of presuppositions. Our hermenuetics should, then, first consider what Scripture meant and how it was to be applied to the original writers and readers in their historical culture. It's meaning and application to us today should reflect, if possible, a narrow and literal or a broad and universal interpretation and application. Sometimes there will be no application. Accomplishing the distinguishment of these three is...well, there's a ton of books out there!

Anyway...

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?

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 4/23/2005 11:33 AM (GMT -6)

Sahid: Sure, Jesus has a very special place, but even he said that not one pen stroke of the law would be taken away.

Jeff: True. Christ told the scribes that they were right to tithe the mint and cummin, but they should not have left the weightier things undone - namely, mercy and judgement. What, then, is judgement? One such judgement is that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Another was that it is right to heal on the sabbath. In neither case was Christ arguing that they could completely disregard the sabbath law. He was saying they were to use judgement to know how to rightly apply it in all circumstances. And the bottom-line of the whole law was that the law was for their good to His glory. It was not to be used by the elite as a tool for their own self-interest. Viewed in this way, I suspect most (in not all) of the so-called contradictions between the law and Christ's explanation of it are resolved.

wjs

Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/23/2005 12:42:56 PM (GMT-5)

bryan mccarthy
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179

Posted 4/23/2005 8:05 PM (GMT -6)

Hi guys.

First I would like to say the following two comments are both very good:

Starkman: Staunch conservative or ulta liberalism. Ultra conservativism removes the chances of discovering what the text meant to its original readers. Ultra liberalism removes the chances of discovering what the text means to us today. Somewhere there is a center, so we feel, and that would be the target.

Jeff: In neither case was Christ arguing that they could completely disregard the sabbath law. He was saying they were to use judgement to know how to rightly apply it in all circumstances.

bryan: Okay, so you had this point:

Sahid: Sure, Jesus has a very special place, but even he said that not one pen stroke of the law would be taken away.

bryan: The best take on this particular issue (what is the relevance of the law today) is as follows; i'm not sure if it comes from a dispensational theology perspective (what you would probably be more familiar with as an SBC guy), covenant theology perspective, one of the other perspectives, or no perspective:

the royal law is the governing principle of all godly human behaviour. all the law and the prophets hang on this (or these, as the royal law consists of two commandments -- love god, love neighbor as self, to abbreviate). in other words the mosaic law is a "fleshing out" of this royal law which was always in place and will not pass away (so it is this royal law to which jesus is referring in the verse at hand). look at the ten commandments. notice how the first four serve as an example of and can be included in the first half of the royal law (love god with all your...) and how the remaining six serve as an example of and can be included in the second half of the royal law (love your neighbor as yourself). the rest of the laws work this way as well -- health laws: most help prevent the spread of disease and/or the proper maintenance of our own bodies ("...as yourself," not "...not yourself"). ceremonial laws -- worshipped god. and we have a different high priest now and he offers our gifts in an invisible way.

the prophets hang on this royal law as well as they were always trying to get people to quit worshipping idols and other gods, putting their trust in these or in their own strength, their crops, and their riches. also, they spoke out against social injustice and ill-treatment and negligence of the poor, child-sacrifice etc. (the two commandments are all over the place here.)

and, actually, the wisdom literature does this as well, but it shows us how to keep the royal law via wisdom.

i would say that now that we have the spirit indwelling us (not to mention the fact that we still have the mosaic law, the prophets, the wisdom, and the history of israel's mistakes to learn from), the royal law can be stripped down to all of its naked glory becuz, through the spirit and armed with hindsight, we actually have the capability to peform it as it is.

i hope this answer isn't too long or saying things you already know; do you see what i'm drivin' at? when jesus said the law won't pass away, it seems to me that he may have been talking about the royal law. the only way to keep paul's and jesus' comments compatible is to posit that they were talking about different "laws." jesus -- the royal law; paul -- the pharisaical law or what the law had become.

Sahid: Whatever "-ism" I want to argue for can be proof text-ed from the Bible.

bryan: yeah, you're right. as a general rule, it's usually a good idea to stay away from "isms." (our own beloved eponymous website an exception?)

Sahid: What is authoritative about a list of people to greet in Corinth?

bryan: Details are always nice for authenticity, yeah?

let me know how all of this grabs you.

bryan

Post Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 4/23/2005 8:12:32 PM (GMT-5)

bryan mccarthy
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179

Posted 4/23/2005 8:17 PM (GMT -6)

One more, Sahid:

Sahid: What is authoritative about infanticide?

bryan: how do you feel about the answer, "since god made and gave the life, he has the right to take it away?"

bryan

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/24/2005 4:58 AM (GMT -6)

Tell me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is that the Shema is canon/authoritative and the rest of the Bible is only canonical if/because it echoes the Shema. If this is the case, I can't see how Genesis 1-2, Deuteronomy 2, or a list of people to greet can be canonical. Details attesting to authenticity are great, but are they canonical? If the Shema/Royal Law is the definition of canonicity, how are historical documents canonical? How is Ps. 137:9 an extension of the Royal Law? It seems to me that a lot of the Bible is in contradiction to the Royal Law, so shouldn't that exclude parts of the Bible from the canon?

Even if these problems could be resolved, we still have the problem of why the Shema is definitive for canon.

I'm beginning to think canonicity is in need of a replacement.

Sorry to be difficult.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/24/2005 5:01:25 AM (GMT-5)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 4/24/2005 8:46 AM (GMT -6)

I think it's all canonical. But I also think love requires attitudes from us that it doesn't from God. Remember Paul talking about how we ought to be because "we, too, were once...?" There are some things that make God unique, simply because He's God. Both you and Bryan have brought that point up. And I think seeking a full understand of it (as well as particular providential historical goals) is the only way we can resolve some of the difficulties you're raising. And I certainly don't have it all thought out yet. But I think the distinction between us and God is there for us to recognize and grapple with in trying to understand the difficulties you raise.

What gives me pause are the verses that say the beginning of knowledge and wisdom is the FEAR of the Lord. And remember, too, that the Psalmist said "teach me to number my days that I might apply myself to wisdom." Wisdom is not going to come over night. It takes a lifetime. And in the meantime, we are to be joyfully faithful with what we know and continue that prayerful seeking and learning. Sorry to provide no substantive answers, but hopefully you will find some comfort in knowing we're all in this together.

wjs

timlings
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130

Posted 4/24/2005 1:57 PM (GMT -6)

Sahid

Good questions there mate! I'll try and share some of my thoughts...

sahid said...
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Christians tend to hold that at least the Old and New Testaments are canonical. What does that mean?

Part of the idea of Jesus 'fulfilling' the OT is that he fills it up. Jesus is the full revelation of God, whereas the OT is only partial revelation. So Jesus comes along and makes sense of the OT and gives us a way of correctly interpreting it. Otherwise we might indeed get confused between forgiving a sinner or drowning him and his family in a flood. Because Jesus tells us to "In everything, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12) we can't therefore use the OT to justify mass genocide.

Sin is like cancer, and if God doesn't deal with it, it will eventually destroy the whole of humanity. Before Jesus, God had to take some quite drastic measures to stop this cancer (like the flood etc.) in the same way that a surgeon uses surgery. However, with Jesus, the 'cure' for cancer has come and so God doesn't need to 'cut' it out in the same way as before.

sahid said...
The entire Bible is riddled with contradictions, so what do we mean by canon?

Can you name me some?

from

Tim

Post Edited (timlings) : 4/24/2005 2:00:00 PM (GMT-5)

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 4/24/2005 2:33 PM (GMT -6)

Sahid,

I don't think anyone will ever be able to answer your questions in the way that the mind can process and accept. What we know is that Jesus looked upon on the Old Testament as authoritative; the entire OT as we have it today. Further, the NT was compiled based on what the people believed was authoritative; namely, that an apostle, or someone in the-know along with the apostles (like Luke) wrote the document in question. The first century or so after Christ had its time of skepticism and questioning about what we now conclude to be, and have concluded for several hundreds of years, to be the authoritative canon for the church. But that nagging ultimate answer you, and many others, are looking for is never, ever, ever going to be answered in a rationally acceptable way that we would like it answered: namely, that God came down, appointed those sixty-six books, and that's that. Unfortunately, it wasn't that simple!

I, personally, consider it a climb up a tree that has no end in sight when we feel we have to apply every possible apologetic and have an apologetic for every single question about the veracity and historicity of the Bible if we are to believe the Bible as God's authoritative word. Oh, there's definitely the need for apologetics in some of these areas, but the final—once its all been said and done—and only answer I believe we Christians will ultimately have to settle for is that it is by faith that we concluded the Bible is God's word. Plain and simple. Faith that there is a God, that He has spoken, and that He has done so, namely for authoritative purposes, through His word. This, I believe, carries us until death departs our necessity for the use of faith.

Starkman

Post Edited (Starkman) : 4/24/2005 2:38:42 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/24/2005 5:04 PM (GMT -6)

Can you name me some?

Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." ¹⁴ Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."

-----

⁸ O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-⁹ he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

³⁸“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’^[g] ³⁹But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.

-----

Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

⁸ He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

-----

If the entire Bible is authoritative:

God threatens to do things that he doesn't end up doing and never changes his mind
Revenge by killing babies is good, but revenge is bad.
We should love mercy but not show it to Canaanites.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/24/2005 5:10:31 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/24/2005 5:24 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman said...
What we know is that Jesus looked upon on the Old Testament as authoritative

Well Jesus lived in the promised land and there were others living there who were corrupting faith in God just like in the time of Moses and Joshua. If he considered the Old Testament authoritative, why didn't he do what it said?

Starkman said...
I don't think anyone will ever be able to answer your questions in the way that the mind can process and accept.

Then why do we bother with the Bible? If parts of it are unintelligible, why bother keeping those parts around? How is the nonsensical authoritative?

timlings said...
Sin is like cancer, and if God doesn't deal with it, it will eventually destroy the whole of humanity. Before Jesus, God had to take some quite drastic measures to stop this cancer (like the flood etc.) in the same way that a surgeon uses surgery. However, with Jesus, the 'cure' for cancer has come and so God doesn't need to 'cut' it out in the same way as before.

So why keep the world waiting for the cure? Did God just want to see them suffer?

How is cutting out portions equivalent to fulfillment? "You have heard it said... but I say..." It's not like Jesus taught the people how to throw their stones with better accuracy or something. He took vast expanses of the Old Testament and declared them null and void (namely anything that was assosiated with stoning people or committing genocide).

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 4/24/2005 9:20 PM (GMT -6)

Sahid: Then why do we bother with the Bible?

Jeff: Everyone must try to be fully persuaded in their own mind. Some, like Meph, don't bother with significant portions of scripture for reasons of his own. If that approach is what you feel more fully persuaded with, then why ARE you still bothering with the bible?

wjs

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/24/2005 10:23 PM (GMT -6)

I'm bothering with the Bible because it is what I've been taught to do. It's hard to let go of things you've held on to for so long. Parts of it are amazing, but I don't think I can believe in all the Bible without some better hermeneutic than what I've been exposed to. But before I ditch the Bible I want to make sure I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 4/24/2005 11:42 PM (GMT -6)

God threatens to do things that he doesn't end up doing and never changes his mind
When the Bible says God will not change His mind (only two times that I know of), in context, God is simply saying that in this particular circumstance (specifically, regarding Balaam's attempt to curse Israel and Samuel's prayer that King Saul might be restored) His mind is absolutely made up, and He will NEVER change it ("will not repent"). There is no contradiction between the two categorically opposing statements, when the proper context is considered.

2. Revenge by killing babies is good, but revenge is bad.

Jesus New Law (the Sermon on the Mount) certainly repealed the "eye for an eye" principle completely. I tend to think that the OT imprecatory prayers oftentimes reflect the mindset of the writer more than the mind of the Holy Spirit. Just because something is stated in Scripture does not necessarily mean God meant it as a rule of faith and practice, and does not necessarily mean it is as authoritative, say, the New Testament, for example. (Ex: Solomon says "All is meaningless," something that is obviously untrue when compared with the rest of Scripture and if you just think about it.

In addition, I find the principle of progressive revelation to be helpful in this regard. No matter what the Old Testament might say in some places, for Christ's followers, Jesus' New Covenant Law of Love supercedes all.

3. We should love mercy but not show it to Canaanites

God told Moses in Exodus that "the sin of the Amorites is not yet full." It does not involve us in a contradiction for us to say that GOD is certainly within his rights as Moral Governor of All when He decides it is time for JUDGMENT instead of mercy for a person or a group of persons.

Hope this helps,

John

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

JohnE

http://revivaltheology.net

Post Edited (JEE) : 4/24/2005 11:52:27 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/25/2005 12:18 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks John. I don't know. "He is not a man that he should change his mind." If he wanted to make a general statement, could he make it any clearer? What about the rest of the verse? Is the statement that he doesn't lie also only applicable to that situation?

If he repealled "eye for an eye," then didn't a jot just pass from the Law? What's the difference between "annuls the least of these commandments" and repealing a commandment?

God judging the Canaanites is another matter. The people were the ones who killed the captured women, children, and puppy dogs. This seems inconsistent with the command to "show mercy."

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/25/2005 12:23:12 AM (GMT-5)

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 4/25/2005 12:45 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks John. I don't know. "He is not a man that he should change his mind." If he wanted to make a general statement, could he make it any clearer?

See, it is your assumption that this is a "general statement." If one takes these statements in their proper context, it will be obvious that God is NOT making a "general statement" in the cases in question, but is actually making a SPECIFIC reference to the situation at hand. The fact that God says He will NOT repent two times in Scripture does not somehow overrule the DOZENS of times in the same Scriptures where it says He actually DOES repent (change His mind).

By all means, check out the passages in which God says He won't change His mind, and it should be clear to you God is definitely NOT making a "general statement" meaning He will never change His mind ever. He is simply saying, "In this case, I've absolutely made up my mind, and I will not repent." Saying He will not lie is simply a Hebraic idiomatic way of saying "I am telling the truth!"

If he repealled "eye for an eye," then didn't a jot just pass from the Law? What's the difference between "annuls the least of these commandments" and repealing a commandment?

Obviously, Jesus and the Apostles repealed LOTS of the OT laws. The law that Jesus refers to as unchanging can only mean the moral law of God (loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself), which in fact is everlasting, transcending and unifying all God's covenants with mankind.

God judging the Canaanites is another matter. The people were the ones who killed the captured women, children, and puppy dogs. This seems inconsistent with the command to "show mercy."

To everything there is a time...Obviously, in God's mind these people were simply "done." They had passed the day of grace and mercy, and had now entered into God's judgment. In a sense it could have been a means of mercy killing, for the innocent children would not suffer under divine wrath (hell) and would not be doomed to simply repeat the cycle of depravity that had brought God's judgment down upon their parents' heads.

The women were deemed a potentially very sinful influence on Hebrew culture, and as responsible adults who certainly had willfully disobeyed the light of conscience (Romans 2) they could not plead innocence or that God had no right to execute them. As far as puppy dogs go, my guess is this was also for a practical purpose--perhaps the Hebrews couldn't afford to take care of them.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

JohnE

http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net

Post Edited (JEE) : 4/25/2005 1:01:23 AM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/25/2005 3:12 AM (GMT -6)

1. I've read it in context. The first part of the verse could very well be particular, but the second have seems general. I'm not arguing for or against God changing his mind. I'm firmly OV.

"The fact that God says He will NOT repent two times in Scripture does not somehow overrule the DOZENS of times in the same Scriptures where it says He actually DOES repent (change His mind)."

I know. I'm not saying that. I'm saying the very contradiction troubles me.

2. "One of the least of these commandments" refers to the Shema and Lev 19:18 exclusively? Sounds like a stretch to me. He goes on to list many more specific laws. "The Law and the Prophets" refers to two thirds of the OT, not just to a few verses and a couple ideas. The Law and the Prophets include divinely commanded genocide, the history of Judah and Israel, and visions of heaven. It seems pretty clear that this is the body of literature to which Jesus is referring.

3. To everything there is a time...Obviously, in God's mind these people were simply "done." They had passed the day of grace and mercy, and had now entered into God's judgment.

If Jesus is the means of interpreting the scripture, how does the teaching or life of Jesus condone a man killing another for any reason?

In a sense it could have been a means of mercy killing, for the innocent children would not suffer under divine wrath (hell) and would not be doomed to simply repeat the cycle of depravity that had brought God's judgment down upon their parents' heads.

Whatever happened to defending the innocent, pleading the case of the orphan, feeding the poor? Whatever happened to a man will die for his own sin? Had God not thought up those ideas yet? Does Jesus condone euthanasia? And I thought we came from an OV perspective. What's this about being doomed to repeat the cycle? With God all things are possible.

Being judged for potential sin? I have the potential to do pretty horrible things myself.

What sin had these women committed? Many of these wives were probably still in their early teens. Was their sin that they were born in the wrong culture? Were they morally responsible for being sold to bad husbands? Are we postulating a women's lib. movement circa 3000 BC? Seems more likely to me that any societal/structural evil in the Canaanite culture would be almost fully the responsibility of the men and only a minority of them. Practices that the Bible accuses them of like sacrificing children would most likely be decisions that men would make. I could be wrong. Women have always held some and often conciderable influence. Still, it doesn't seem Christ-like instruction to me.

As far as puppy dogs go, my guess is this was also for a practical purpose--perhaps the Hebrews couldn't afford to take care of them.

Although this is the least important of issues here, it is the one I'm most sure of. God can feed puppies. Trust me. I believe this as strongly as I believe anything. He can feed 5000 with a basketfull of bread. He can bring quail and manna. He can part the sea. (He can't drive out the wild beasts that would overtake the land if the Canaanites were driven out all at once, but that's a detail we'd all like to forget.) The people of Israel who looted the wealth of Egypt had all the resources they needed, and God is strong.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

timlings
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130

Posted 4/25/2005 8:33 AM (GMT -6)

Sahid

Thanks for your reply.

The thing about God changing his mind does appear to be contradictory. However, the whole idea of Biblical hermeneutics is that we start with the premise that the Bible isn't contradictory but rather coherent. A good hermeneutic is therefore one that resolves these contradictions.

In the passage with Moses interceding for the Israelites shows that God can and does change his mind. Therefore when we come to the passage with Samuel and Saul, God can't be saying that he absolutely never changes his mind, as that would make God a liar and a contradiction. You could make it say that, but that would mean having a confusing and ultimately meaningless hermeneutic. Instead I propose that God is saying in this instance that he's not going to change his mind on this one. After all, he's already changed his mind in the passage by saying that he's rejected Saul as King (even though he originally did choose him).

With the "dashing babies' heads" passage, remember that Jesus fulfilled the OT. The OT is partial revelation (i.e. it doesn't give us the whole picture) but Jesus is the full revelation of God. So we take our norm for behaviour with what Jesus clearly says rather than a psalmist who is just expressing their anger/frustration.

With the mercy thing, it seems like scripture says that loving mercy should be our norm for behaviour. But that doesn't mean there aren't situations where showing someone mercy would be a wrong thing to do. Does mercy have its limits? The Cananites had spent 400 years being terribly evil and so God was probably completely within his rights to not show them mercy any more.

sahid said...
So why keep the world waiting for the cure? Did God just want to see them suffer?

God sent Jesus as soon as he could. But to have a full-scale landing attack into enemy occupied territory does take some planning (like with the D-day landings in Europe in WWII). It wasn't if God abandoned the world either - that's why there was Israel there, to act as a channel of God's blessing into the world.

sahid said...
How is cutting out portions equivalent to fulfillment? "You have heard it said... but I say..." It's not like Jesus taught the people how to throw their stones with better accuracy or something. He took vast expanses of the Old Testament and declared them null and void (namely anything that was assosiated with stoning people or committing genocide).

How is taking the OT command (do not commit adultery) and internalising it (don't even lust after a woman) the same as cutting our portions? He doesn't contradict it but rather makes it deeper and further reaching.

Anyway, good to dialogue with you.

from

Tim

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 4/25/2005 10:06 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Sahid,

1. I've read it in context. The first part of the verse could very well be particular, but the second have seems general. I'm not arguing for or against God changing his mind. I'm firmly OV.

"The fact that God says He will NOT repent two times in Scripture does not somehow overrule the DOZENS of times in the same Scriptures where it says He actually DOES repent (change His mind)."

I know. I'm not saying that. I'm saying the very contradiction troubles me.

What contradiction? There is no contradiction if we keep in mind God is speaking specifically and not generally.

On these two commands (the moral law) hang ALL the law and prophets, according to Jesus.

3. To everything there is a time...Obviously, in God's mind these people were simply "done." They had passed the day of grace and mercy, and had now entered into God's judgment.

If Jesus is the means of interpreting the scripture, how does the teaching or life of Jesus condone a man killing another for any reason?

Jesus is depicted in the New Testament Gospels, Letters and Revelation as meting out RIGHTEOUS judgment when appropriate. In Romans 13, Paul says that the secular government is a minister unto God for GOOD--to EXECUTE wrath upon the evildoer.

So I'm anticipating here...you see a moral problem with God executing people?

Whatever happened to defending the innocent, pleading the case of the orphan, feeding the poor?

God was working on building His kingdom through Israel at the time. He states specifically several times how the Israelites were to keep themselves separate from the influences of their heathen neighbors. Would you have preferred that the Hebrews just let the women and children starve to death after their men were all killed in battle?

Whatever happened to a man will die for his own sin?

Even Jesus refers to NATIONS (people groups) being judged as a whole, in addition to everyone dying for his own sin.

And I thought we came from an OV perspective.

I certainly do, but I don't see how the OV is relevant to this discussion.

What's this about being doomed to repeat the cycle?

Children strongly tend to repeat the sins of those who rear them. (This is how I understand the whole "generational curse" thing--it is simply observably the case that cultures (and the families that make up those cultures) TEND to perpetuate themselves, especially so with regard to sinful activities.

With God all things are possible.

Being judged for potential sin? I have the potential to do pretty horrible things myself.

Sorry. Didn't mean to say (and didn't say) "potential sin." What I said was marrying these wives would have no doubt brought about a morally corrupting influence into the nation of Israel, like when Solomon later brought idolatry into the Temple due to his foreign non-Jewish wives.

As far as puppy dogs go, my guess is this was also for a practical purpose--perhaps the Hebrews couldn't afford to take care of them.

So I'm guessing you also would see a moral problem with the levitical laws sanctioning animal sacrifice too, correct?

Sincere blessings to you, Sahid. I'm not saying any of this is easy to reconcile with the God revealed in Jesus Christ. I'm only saying that these are not absolute contradictions necessarily. I have no doubt you will not find my answers satisfactory, icon_bandit

but at least I tried. I'm not getting the impression that you're looking for a sound hermeneutic as much as just looking for logical problems in the Scriptures. Which is fine, but I don't see that as something that could ever yield a sound hermeneutic in and of itself.

John

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

JohnE

http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net

Post Edited (JEE) : 4/25/2005 10:12:56 AM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/25/2005 3:09 PM (GMT -6)

Last things first, I am looking for logical problems, unapologetically and openly. Many people, my friends, throw out Jesus with the logical problems of the Bible. I don't think this is the best or rationsl thing to do, but it happens a lot. So I'm trying to remove an unneccessary stumbling stone. If they are broken, let it be on Jesus, not on a bad hermeneutic. I compare what I'm doing to repairing a leaking ship. I don't think it is wise to do anything but search diligently for holes, before they cause irreparable damage.

1. Your reasoning is circular.

The Bible is canon
If the something is canon, it is not contradictory
The Bible is not contradictory
If the Bible is not contradictory, Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict
Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict
If Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict, the verses in Samuel must be particular
The verses in Samuel are particular (all other problems may be handled similarly)
If the Samuel (and all other problem) verses are particular, there are no contradictions in the Bible
If there are no contradictions, we may consider a document canon
We may concider the Bible canon

The only way I see of fixing this logical tangle is to admit that canonicity is not logical; it is an arational belief that we have (and, I would mention, not a belief dependent upon belief in Jesus i.e. not necessarily "Chirstian").

Hypothetically, let's say there are two passages obviously contradictory. By your reasoning there is no way to disprove canonicity. Not even a voice from heaven could shake it. If there is no way to disprove canonicity, what meaning can the word have? I could use this rationale to prove anything canonical.

2. On these two commands (the moral law) hang ALL the law and prophets, according to Jesus.

Agreed. So what? All my shirts hang on one bar in my closet. Warning someone not to mess with my shirts does not say anything about the bar they are hanging on. Dietary laws "hang" on the Shema. Getting rid of them does not affect our loyalty to the Shema (I hope). But these individual laws of the OT Law and Prophets are what Jesus is talking about.

3. Romans 13 is nice, but I've been told more than once to interpret scripture in terms of Jesus. I don't have a problem with God executing judgement (or even with him doing it through people). What I have a problem with is saying its ok to ever kill another person. According to Jesus' teaching and life, that is wrong. So, we have to interpret Romans 13 in terms of Jesus too. Right?

Even so, Romans 13, doesn't come close to condoning me killing another person. I don't have a problem with God executing guilty Canaatites. I have a problem with God condoning Israel's vigilantism and genocide, specifically because God commands Israel to defend the poor, weak, and ophans. Eugenics and racial cleansing are to be replaced by love and care. Showing mercy does not appear to be a particular instruction in Micah. It only looks like that when we come to the Bible with the (not "Christian") assumption that it contains no contradictions.

Would you have preferred that the Hebrews just let the women and children starve to death after their men were all killed in battle?

No I would have prefered that Israel defend the widow, feed the orphan, etc. It doesn't make sense to talk about the poor, weak, resourceless Israelites. They have the wealth of Egypt and the God of the universe to help them.

Even Jesus refers to NATIONS (people groups) being judged as a whole, in addition to everyone dying for his own sin.

To have both is a contradiction (unless we rule out all contradictions before coming to the evidence).

. said...

What's this about being doomed to repeat the cycle?

With God all things are possible.

Fine, God kills people for what they might do. Sounds just to me. Regardless, the issue is the inconsistency. The Israelites were to care for the foreigner.

So I'm guessing you also would see a moral problem with the levitical laws sanctioning animal sacrifice too, correct?

That's not the issue! The issue is that you've assumed that God (and his people) is to weak to feed dogs!

I think the conversation has taken a left turn somewhere. I'm not arguing one way or the other on which side of the contradictions is correct. I'm saying the contradiction is there. I'm not saying animal sacrifice is good or bad. I'm saying that claiming God to be mighty and unable to feed dogs makes no sense! Which one is particular here: God's might or his refusal to feed animals?

So God was unable to send Jesus earlier? Someone had tied his hands from saving the people he loved? Who?

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 4/25/2005 3:30 PM (GMT -6)

1. Your reasoning is circular.

The Bible is canon
If the something is canon, it is not contradictory
The Bible is not contradictory
If the Bible is not contradictory, Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict
Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict
If Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict, the verses in Samuel must be particular
The verses in Samuel are particular (all other problems may be handled similarly)
If the Samuel (and all other problem) verses are particular, there are no contradictions in the Bible
If there are no contradictions, we may consider a document canon
We may concider the Bible canon

First, when and where have I ever brought the question of canonicity into my responses in this thread?

That said, I definitely do NOT begin with the assumption that "Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict." Instead, what I have been trying to say is simply that they DO NOT contradict, not that they could not because they're "canonical."

Hmmmm...I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you derive these ideas from my posts in this thread. All I have attempted to do is answer what you claim are "contradictions" in the Bible.

2. On these two commands (the moral law) hang ALL the law and prophets, according to Jesus.

And on that point, I must respectfully disagree. Jesus revealed the HEART of the law, He did not simply reassert it.

Suit yourself, I guess. I don't see it that way, though I respect the strict pacifist position like the Anabaptists have historically held to. I just don't think that view takes into account ALL of the Biblical teachings concerning nonviolence vs. righteous violence. For instance, I honestly can't imagine Jesus standing idly by while little children were being tortured, maimed, raped, or murdered. Love requires violent action sometimes.

Even so, Romans 13, doesn't come close to condoning me killing another person.

Perhaps for you it doesn't, but apparently to Paul's mind, there was a real GODLY function to human governments, including punishing evildoers when necessary.

I don't have a problem with God executing guilty Canaatites. I have a problem with God condoning Israel's vigilantism and genocide, specifically because God commands Israel to defend the poor, weak, and ophans. Eugenics and racial cleansing are to be replaced by love and care. Showing mercy does not appear to be a particular instruction in Micah. It only looks like that when we come to the Bible with the (not "Christian") assumption that it contains no contradictions.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it appears to me that you really have issues with the idea that God could EVER justifiably kill someone or justifiably commission someone (like the Israelites) to execute his wrath upon evildoers.

Even Jesus refers to NATIONS (people groups) being judged as a whole, in addition to everyone dying for his own sin.

To have both is a contradiction (unless we rule out all contradictions before coming to the evidence).

In the closing chapters of Matthew, Jesus reveals that BOTH nations AND individuals will be held accountable for their actions.

. said...

What's this about being doomed to repeat the cycle?

With God all things are possible.

Fine, God kills people for what they might do. Sounds just to me. Regardless, the issue is the inconsistency. The Israelites were to care for the foreigner.

No, God righteously kills people when He sees fit to do so. I'm guessing you would also deny the idea that the wages of sin is death.

So I'm guessing you also would see a moral problem with the levitical laws sanctioning animal sacrifice too, correct?

That's not the issue! The issue is that you've assumed that God (and his people) is to weak to feed dogs!

I've never assumed that God is too weak to feed dogs. I'm suggesting that perhaps God wanted all the possessions of the evildoers given to Him as a kind of sacrifice. This sort of thing is not all that uncommon in Old Testament thought.

Which one is particular here: God's might or his refusal to feed animals?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! God's REFUSAL to feed animals is quite a different thing from saying God is too weak to feed them.

John

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

JohnE

http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net

Post Edited (JEE) : 4/25/2005 3:44:26 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/25/2005 4:14 PM (GMT -6)

It looks like contradictions in the Bible only exist in the minds of those who read it a certain way. Is it entirely subjective? I guess that's ok. I suppose I'm stuck then, because these passages do look contradictory to me. I'll grant that there is a particular context but that doesn't make the general statements particular. It all comes down to an arational assumption.

What did Jesus reveal about the Law that had not already been asserted?

As to pacifism, I do not technically espouse it. Jesus' nonviolent example was not one of standing idly by. Those who affirm non-violence do not necessarily hold to "pacifism." Andre Trocme, MLK, and Gandhi are good examples of active non-violence.

There was a godly function in what Assyria did to Israel, but God didn't condone what they did.

I do not have issues with God executing people. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I am talking about the culpability of those God chooses to use in that execution. Habakkuk.

That Jesus states something does not make it less of a contradiction. We need a better hermeneutic.

I would not deny that the wages of sin is death. I would deny that those who execute God's judgement are participating in an action devoid of sin. Habakkuk again.

I think the prophets make it clear that God desires justice and mercy more than the blood of animals. You said, "perhaps the Hebrews couldn't afford to take care of them." I'm wondering how they pulled off the Exodus and the Conquest if they didn't have someone fighting for them who was strong enough to feed dogs. That Israel couldn't afford to take care of the children and animals of Canaan makes light of the power of God on which they depended.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 4/25/2005 4:36 PM (GMT -6)

Hmmm... I've HONESTLY and sincerely tried to answer the "contradiction" you claim is found in the Bible concerning God repenting many times in Scripture but then saying He will NOT repent two times in Scripture. I have honestly and sincerely tried to demonstrate to you that there is no contradiction at all, that the passages in question are referring to specific situations. God is saying "I will not change my mind with regard to rejecting Saul as king," and "I will not repent concerning my decision to BLESS Israel, no matter how much Balaam tries to get me to CURSE Israel."

He is NOT saying, "I won't EVER repent under any circumstances." Which WOULD be a general principle and would create a contradiction in terms if that's what He were saying. I'm really having a hard time understanding why you don't see this point, Sahid.

I do not have issues with God executing people. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I am talking about the culpability of those God chooses to use in that execution. Habakkuk.

So you would deny altogether the possibility that God could specifically tell His people to execute His wrath (like the Exodus narrative says he did), right?

That Jesus states something does not make it less of a contradiction. We need a better hermeneutic.

It is not a contradiction at all. Precisely HOW is it a contradiction for both individuals AND nations to be held responsible for their actions, both individually and corporately?

I said "perhaps," and then I later offered a different possibility, that God wanted this to happen as a sacrifice. If it makes you feel better, forget I ever said the whole "perhaps the Hebrews couldn't afford to take care of them." I hereby retract that first idea, 'kay?

John

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

JohnE

http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net

Post Edited (JEE) : 4/25/2005 4:50:00 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 4/25/2005 5:06 PM (GMT -6)

What is the point I don't understand? I think he is saying "I won't ever repent under any circumstances." "He is not a man that he should lie or change his mind." Changing his mind is put on the same level as lying. If the changing his mind is particular, then so is the lying. I wouldn't expect that that's a road you want to go down.

So you would deny altogether the possibility that God could specifically tell His people to execute His wrath (like the Exodus narrative says he did), right?

No. God, as the Bible presents him, is inconsistent. He could do anything. He might die for you; he might kill you and your family before you learn to crawl. I'm not denying any possibilities.

It is not a contradiction at all. Precisely HOW is it a contradiction for both individuals AND nations to be held responsible for their actions, both individually and corporately?

If the judgement of a nation involves the judgement of its individuals, then it is likely inconsistent with justice for individuals. Babies are not guilty. Once I was alive apart from the law... Unless you become like one of these... Babies do not deserve life, but neither do they deserve to be killed. The wages of sin is death, but babies are sinful through no fault of their own.

If God commanded the killing all of the animal of Canaan because he wanted a sacrifice, then I'd refer to one of the central themes of the prophets. I desire justice not the blood of animals.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

timlings
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130

Posted 4/25/2005 5:29 PM (GMT -6)

Ok Sahid

sahid said...
1. Your reasoning is circular.

The Bible is canon
If the something is canon, it is not contradictory
The Bible is not contradictory
If the Bible is not contradictory, Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict
Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict
If Exodus and Samuel cannot contradict, the verses in Samuel must be particular
The verses in Samuel are particular (all other problems may be handled similarly)
If the Samuel (and all other problem) verses are particular, there are no contradictions in the Bible
If there are no contradictions, we may consider a document canon
We may concider the Bible canon

The OT is cannon because of the Jews. Over the history of the Jewish people they grew a collection of writings that they believed were inspired. The foundation of this was the Pentateuch, the Law on which all Israelite society was built. The prophets then got added to all this because they saw all the prophecies about the exile etc coming true in a scarily accurate manner. In these scriptures there was a promise of a coming Messiah to deliver Israel.

Into this time Jesus came, claiming to be that promised Messiah. Seeing his life, death and resurrection, Jews and Gentiles decided to follow him - the church. Writings with apostolic authority (i.e. written by people who had seen the risen Jesus or 'okayed' by such people) immediately began circulating and were very soon accepted by the church as Scripture. As Jesus held all of the Jewish OT in high regard, the early church also kept all that too.

The cannon was set in stone at a later date, but this was to protect what was already accepted as the Scriptures from heretics, not to try and decide what to put in.

I do agree that it seems to be a bit of a fix that we try and approach Scripture, assuming there are no contradictions. But if it is the word of God, and internally it claims to be such, that's not so surprising. "To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless." (Psalm 119:96) It's not so incredulous to believe that the word of God might be internally coherent.

I've got a sneaking feeling that this isn't really what the issue is about at all.

Anyway

from

Tim

79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:35 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual