I saw this in my inbox today and just had to present it here. In other discussions regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the move to eliminate the restrictions on homosexuals in the military, I had expressed concern about those who must deal with the change should it occur, they being the officers in command positions. The linked piece contains a letter from a retired Navy Captain with 30 years in the military. He lists his credentials and relates his experiences and in doing so, touches on some of the points I tried to make albeit with more eloquence and authority. He also relates problems already experienced with regard to homosexuals already in the Navy, to answer points made by some that they are rare. They apparently are only rare as compared to non-homosexuals who comprise a larger percentage of the service.
Many of the points and concerns raised by the captain are dismissed as inconsequential in the larger picture by those for whom homosexuality is a cause on par with racism, which of course it is not. They only want it to be seen as such because it helps the cause. But the captain makes a great case and as he says himself, shows that he has really considered the question, rather than what appears to be merely a bow to politically correct inanity so typical of the pro-homo activists and their enablers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
503 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 503 Newer› Newest»Bubba...
If your church puts more time and energy celebrating nature and political activism than it does telling the lost about the gift of forgiveness and eternal life through Christ's death and resurrection, that's worrying.
? Why? That is, what distinction are you making? You and I agree that Christians are to be disciples and make disciples, helping one another grow in the ways of Jesus. As Jesus said, "teaching them to observe ALL things I have taught you..."
As part of that, I would hope that we could agree that celebrating God's creation IS part of worshiping God and part of our Christian practice. "Consider the lilies of the field," Jesus commanded us. "Look at the sparrows and learn from them," (paraphrased) Jesus tells us.
"All of creation speaks of God's works," the psalmist declares.
I would assume that you probably agree with me that loving, observing, relishing in God's creation IS part of our Christian life, would you not?
So, then if that's the case, you are merely worried that we are putting "more time and energy" celebrating God's creation than we ought to be? And tell me, Bubba, HOW MUCH ought we celebrate God's creation? What percentage of our time and energy "ought" to be spent on worshiping God and honoring God's creation? Ten percent? Twenty? How much is too much and on what do you base that?
I suspect that you will gladly admit that there is no formula, no biblical prescription for how much time should be spent celebrating God's creation, is that not the case? And, if that is the case, AND since you don't really KNOW how much time I or anyone at Jeff St spends celebrating God's creation, don't you think it wisest to allow for some grace on the matter?
Same for "political activism." Or, what we at Jeff St call, "speaking with a prophetic voice."
I would assume that you agree that there is a time to speak out against oppression, to speak God's truth to the powers that be, to stand up for justice and for the least of these?
The Bible tells us that God 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.
THIS is at least one place where the Bible fairly clearly tells us what our mission is to be:
1. Act with justice (stand up against oppression, stand up with and for the marginalized and the endangered)
2. Love mercy (do acts of charity, share with those in need, do acts of kindness)
3. Walk humbly with God (worship God, spend time with God, praise God)
Are we agreed that the Bible clearly says there is a time for each of these? Are we also agreed that the Bible does not dictate an amount ("well... about 33% of your free time should be spent in each of these... or maybe 20% on loving mercy but 50% on worshiping God and...")? Clearly, each of these facets of following God are important and just as clearly, the Bible does not designate a certain amount or percentage of our time that should be spent.
Yes?
So, since you don't know how much time we spend on what you call "political activism" and what we call "prophetic justice," and since the Bible does not tell us an amount of time, don't you think it is reasonable that we ought to allow for some grace for each other on that front? I don't see how you could possibly estimate that we are spending "too much time" on either worshiping God's creation or on acting prophetically for justice.
Or look at it this way, Bubba, the Bible CLEARLY expects us to work for justice, just as we are to spend time in worship. How much time do YOU spend on working for justice? I rarely hear you speak of it.
Would it be fair of me to conclude that you (and by extension, your church) spends "too much time and energy" on preaching and too little time in acting on behalf of justice?
No, it wouldn't. I don't know you. I don't know how much time you or your church spends acting out for justice and so, as far as I'm concerned, Christian grace dictates that I give you the benefit of doubt.
Does that not seem reasonable?
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
...The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they [ie, the heavens/skies' "voice"] pour forth speech;
night after night they [ie, the heavens/skies' "voice"] display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
Their voice [ie, the heavens/skies' "voice"] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
...It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.
Your love, O LORD, reaches to the heavens,
your faithfulness to the skies.
Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,
your justice like the great deep.
O LORD, you preserve both man and beast...
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want,
God maketh me to lie down beside still waters...
[God speaking...] "I know every bird in the mountains,
and the creatures of the field are mine.
If I were hungry I would not tell you,
for the world is mine, and all that is in it..."
You are resplendent with light,
more majestic than mountains rich with game...
Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth,
burst into jubilant song with music;
make music to the LORD with the harp,
with the harp and the sound of singing...
Let the sea resound, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it.
Let the rivers clap their hands,
Let the mountains sing together for joy; 9 let them sing before the LORD,
for he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
and the peoples with equity.
Shout for joy, O heavens; rejoice, O earth; burst into song, O mountains! For the LORD comforts his people and will have compassion on his afflicted ones...
I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land.
I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel...
Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?
"Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!
As I'm sure you all know, Jesus, the Psalmist and the prophets ALL waxed poetic about God's creation. What beautiful and rich imagery! What a marvelous way to pray and consider God and God's love for us and God's ways!
Hallelujah! Yes? You agree with me, here, don't you?
Please don't say you want to take away natural imagery and poetry celebrating God's creation from Christian worship.
I am confident that you don't. You're just concerned that "too much time and energy" might be spent upon such behavior. But I'm also confident you'll agree with me that there is no biblical measure as to how much is too much, yes?
Isn't this language above inspiring? Awe-some? Does it not make you praise the Lord?! It sure does me.
Hallelujah, brothers! Can I get an Amen?
Dan:
"Yes, doctrine DOES matter. It matters whether or not you think God does evil or if God is a God of good and love. It matters if you think Jesus advocates stuff he never advocated or opposed stuff he never opposed. Doctrine, in many important ways, matters. You and I agree upon that much."
What are you alluding to in that line about whether God does evil? Is this a reference to the Old Testament claims that God took human life through supernatural means and even human agency? None of us has ever took the position that God's doing so is evil, and surely you can't take that position either, since you apparently don't know whether God has the moral right to do precisely that.
About teaching that Jesus "advocates stuff he never advocated or opposed stuff he never opposed," I affirm that Jesus taught that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife. It's right there in Matthew 19, clear as crystal, and the consequences of that teaching are obvious and inexorable.
But about other doctrines, Dan, you seem much more ambivalent.
The Bible is clear, for instance, that Jesus was raised bodily, but you've argued that one could deny this doctrine and remain in the faith.
The Bible is also clear about why Jesus died and what His death accomplished.
"And we believe Jesus died for our sins. We believe that is one legitimate way to consider the atonement. The Bible speaks of atonement in various ways and Jeff St affirms all of them, I believe I'm safe in saying."
I would ask you to answer the sort of question you raised when I asserted that the church's central mission is preaching Christ crucified: just where does the Bible teach that "Christ died for our sins" is just a "legitimate way to consider the atonement" instead of THE SIMPLE TRUTH? It's clear that you believe that Christ's death didn't actually cause our salvation -- that we're saved by God's grace BUT NOT Christ's death, that we would have been saved even if Jesus had died of old age, and that His death isn't the means of salvation but only "a representation of God's grace".
If your beliefs are typical for your congregation, then claiming that y'all affirm that Christ died for our sins is a bullshit smokescreen.
Of course celebrating God's creation is a part of worship, but while such celebration can supplement proclaiming God's greatest gift (see Jn 3:16), it should NEVER serve as a substitute.
My problem isn't the presence of celebrating nature or even political activism, per se, but the over-emphasis.
As with the subject of military enlistment policies, there are no magic numbers.
"So, then if that's the case, you are merely worried that we are putting 'more time and energy' celebrating God's creation than we ought to be? And tell me, Bubba, HOW MUCH ought we celebrate God's creation? What percentage of our time and energy 'ought' to be spent on worshiping God and honoring God's creation? Ten percent? Twenty? How much is too much and on what do you base that?"
It's not something that can be defined by numbers, but, going by what little I know (which is mostly from your own writing) I don't think your church is anywhere close to some gray area where reasonable people could disagree about the emphasis.
Look at what you posted in this thread in an effort to prove that your congregation's celebration of Easter is what it ought to be.
What you posted focused at length on nature and politics, with a couple verses about the color green, a poem about springtime, a quote from MLK, and an excerpt of a sermon arguing (against Scripture) that Jesus was engaging in non-violent political resistance.
With all the qualifications that make the claim meaningless, you nevertheless claim, "we believe Jesus died for our sins."
Well, where in the world is that belief reflected in anything that you quoted from your congregation's Easter services, the setting where this ought to be emphasized most, even if nowhere else?
It's not there. It can't be found.
You even quoted I Peter 2 long enough to mention Christ suffered as an example to us, but you stopped IMMEDIATELY before the verse that tells us that Christ bore our sins on the cross.
Even a very understated appreciation for nature would be too much for a group that claims to be a Christian church, if an appreciation for Christ's dying for our sins DOESN'T SHOW UP AT ALL.
Bubba...
He gave me eyes to see and a mind to reason, and all the evidence points to your being a psuedo-Christian except your insistence to the contrary
Well, there IS also my confession to all the basics of Christianity. There IS the fact that I believe in the essentials of orthodox Christianity.
Once again:
1. I believe in God the Creator
2. I believe in Jesus, the son of God
3. I believe that we are sinners in need of salvation
4. I believe that we can't be saved by good works
5. I believe that we can only be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus
6. I believe that the good news is that God WANTS to save us by God's grace, if we will just repent of our sins and accept God's grace
7. I believe that if we confess our sins and turn our hearts towards God, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and save us!
8. I believe in the triune nature of God (although I don't really believe that believing that is essential to salvation, I know others do and I do, in fact, believe it)
9. I even believe in the virgin birth (although, again, I don't think that biblically, one can make the case that this is essential for salvation)
10. I believe Jesus came to earth in the form of a man - 100% God and 100% man
11. I believe Jesus taught us how to live and God's Way
12. I believe that Jesus so upset the powers that be, that the religious and political elite crucified Jesus (the death of political prisoners)
13. I believe, however, that in a real sense, Jesus died because of all of us, because all of us are sinners
14. I believe that three days after his crucifixion, Jesus rose bodily from the grave, hung out for a while, met many people and then ascended into heaven
15. I believe in the church, the Body of Christ, the community of faith, the realm of God - God's hands and feet here on earth
16. I believe we are to be the realm of God here and now and I believe we will be the realm of God perfected forever in God's presence
These are the essential tenets of orthodox Christianity. I believe them. I HAVE confessed of my sins and I HAVE accepted God's grace. I DO strive, by God's grace, to walk in Jesus' steps and follow his ways.
So, if someone walks like a Christian and talks like a Christian and holds to the essential tenets of Christianity, why would one presume that they are not a Christian?
About acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God, three thoughts come to mind.
1) Honesty is a matter of justice. If you don't believe that Christ actually did die for our sins, it's probably not a good thing if you cannot be plain in saying so.
2) Indeed, mercy is to "share with those in need," but there is no greater need than the forgiveness of sin, and all are destitute unless we tell them how Jesus died for their sins. You say that everything is evangelism.
"Speaking in defense of the poor IS sharing the good news. Creating a video praising God's creation IS sharing the good news."
It is not, and you do the lost no favors by pretending that political activism and celebrating nature are good substitutes for actually telling people that Jesus died for their sins.
3) About humility before God, if God came down incarnate in human flesh and affirmed to the smallest penstroke historical books that attribute to Him acts where He takes human life, one should probably at least consider the possibility that the books' accounts are historically accurate.
The larger point is that, while we should love mercy and justice and walk humbly with God, we're INCAPABLE of doing so on our own. While our obedience is what matters more than sacrifices, NONE OF US can obey God to a degree that satisfies a perfectly righteous and truly holy God.
It's the problem of sin -- not just individual sinful acts, but our sinful natures -- and the good news of Christianity isn't the rules that we can't obey on our own, but the solution to that fundamental sin problem.
By all appearances, that solution, the true heart of the gospel, seems completely neglected by you and your congregation.
You're missing the point of the gospel, and questions about how much time one ought to be spending on reciting paeans to spring are beside the point.
What are you alluding to in that line about whether God does evil?
The point was that doctrine matters. I'm saying that one such doctrine has to do with the nature of God. If one claims that God causes or encourages evil, that is contrary to sound Christian doctrine. THAT is what I'm saying.
You agree, yes?
Bubba...
I would ask you to answer the sort of question you raised when I asserted that the church's central mission is preaching Christ crucified: just where does the Bible teach that "Christ died for our sins" is just a "legitimate way to consider the atonement" instead of THE SIMPLE TRUTH?
It IS the simple truth. The Bible affirms that Jesus died for our sins. I agree with that. My church agrees with that.
I'm just saying that it is not the ONLY way that the atonement is spoken of in the Bible. SINCE I HIGHLY VALUE the Bible's teaching and take them seriously, I won't dismiss one biblical truth to affirm another.
As I noted with Craig on another doctrine, all of this has been discussed before by people who have studied it a lot more than I have. There are disagreements within the body of Christ about how best to define atonement, how best to explain it.
I'm part of the anabaptist faith tradition and we TEND (although anabaptists are all over the place, not unlike other traditions) to keep it simple - as you noted, we tend to believe simply that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.
That is what I care about. I have some ideas about atonement, but in truth, many Christian folk over millenia have debated how best to define that and I'm simply not that interested in it, Bubba.
I wonder why it matters so much to you that you can't let it go that I (along with many other Christians) simply believe we are saved by God's grace?
cont'd...
Here's what I believe (from an anabaptist website)...
Anabaptists cannot be identified by any unifying creeds. So great was their insistence on the primacy of Scripture that, because of their human origin, they refused to subscribe to any creed...
Through the lens of modern epistemology we recognize that Scripture, though the absolute Word of God, is subject to varied interpretations because no one can read a text except through the grid of their own presuppositions.
Anabaptists may not have articulated this principle, but it did in fact influence their hermeneutics. The high value they placed on the “priesthood of all believers” was extended to the interpretation of Scripture, allowing for variations among them...
Most Anabaptists agreed with the other Reformers that Christ’s work was sufficient for the salvation of all humankind and that salvation is by grace alone...
The Anselmian “satisfaction” or substitutionary model of the atonement, emphatically articulated by the Magisterial Reformers, was not wrong in the Anabaptist’s view for they agreed with most of it. In their direct references to the atonement, they affirm biblical themes and use the general language of substitution. But to them, that model was inadequate or insufficient. It concentrated chiefly on Christ’s death and had been reduced to a passive or forensic doctrine which concerned only a change in humanity’s legal status before God...
To the Anabaptists, however, atonement meant much, much more. According to Pilgram Marpeck it was far more than a legal transaction in the heavenly court. It meant “at-one-ment” with God and referred to all the ways in which God and humans have been reconciled through the work of Jesus Christ. It points not only to Christ’s death, but to all the various phases of his activity on behalf of humanity including his ministry, his death, and his resurrection...
The issue for Anabaptists was how Christ’s work is mediated to humanity and how humanity apprehends that work. In what way does the atonement bring God and humanity back together again? To them Christ was not only redeemer, he was also example...
It seems clear that different Anabaptist writers used the language of all three models [satisfaction, moral example, christus victor]...
directionjournal
That comes fairly close to representing my position, as much as I have one. For the most part, I simply don't have that large of an opinion. I believe that we are saved by God's grace.
We are saved by Jesus' life, death and resurrection, insofar as all of that is part of God's grace.
I suppose you still find that crazy and heretical, but if so, then you reject most of anabaptism with me and my church.
Dan,
"The point was that doctrine matters. I'm saying that one such doctrine has to do with the nature of God. If one claims that God causes or encourages evil, that is contrary to sound Christian doctrine. THAT is what I'm saying."
I agree. The denial of God's existence is also contrary to sound Christian doctrine, but you don't know whether an atheist can become a Christian while retaining that atheistic denial.
Of course doctrine matters, and I suspect that the details of your beliefs deviate significantly from Christian doctrine and the Bible's clear teachings.
About your list of essential Christian tenets, a couple things stick out.
"9. I even believe in the virgin birth (although, again, I don't think that biblically, one can make the case that this is essential for salvation)"
It appears that you have vacillated on this issue, and I believe that what you've written earlier isn't that belief in the Virgin Birth isn't necessary for salvation (I agree), but that the Virgin Birth isn't even taught in the Bible.
From 2006:
"I don't have a problem with the virgin birth. I just don't have a problem with Mary NOT having been a virgin.
"In short, I don't think it's a biblical principle at all - and certainly not 'incontrovertible.' It's a moot point."
From 2009:
"The virgin birth, the trinity, to a lesser degree, substitutionary atonement, these are tenets that we have derived from biblical teachings, but they are not direct biblical teachings."
In the latter discussion I document how your writing hasn't been consistent on the subject.
"12. I believe that Jesus so upset the powers that be, that the religious and political elite crucified Jesus (the death of political prisoners)"
The Bible is clear -- and all four gospel accounts agree -- that Pilate found Jesus to be COMPLETELY innocent. Nothing in the Bible justifies the claim that Jesus died as a political prisoner.
Instead, in Mark, Jesus taught that He gave His life as a ransom for many. In Matthew, He taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins.
In Luke, the angel declared the birth, not of a teacher or king or leader, but of the Savior. And in John, John the Baptist declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
As your pastor apparently did in the sermon you excerpted, you're replacing the Bible's clear teachings about Jesus' death with a political narrative that more closely fits your progressivism.
[continued]
[continued]
"13. I believe, however, that in a real sense, Jesus died because of all of us, because all of us are sinners"
What real sense would that be, Dan?
I was born nearly two thousand years after Jesus died. How does the fact that I'm a sinner have any causal relationship with His death, EXCEPT that in His death He paid (in my case, pre-paid) the penalty for my sin?
What you write would be reassuring, except I have no idea what you mean by it, and everything else you've written suggests that the "real sense" is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the plain sense of that statement.
"14. I believe that three days after his crucifixion, Jesus rose bodily from the grave, hung out for a while, met many people and then ascended into heaven"
I would be reassured by your listing this as one of the "essential tenets of orthodox Christianity," but what you've written earlier contradicts this, when it's comprehensible.
About the doctrine of the bodily resurrection, you've written that it is "an essential component of historic Christianity. It is how we have always understood the life and death of Christ."
But to say that it's essential to HISTORIC Christianity doesn't imply that it must always be included from here on out. To say that it's how we "have always understood" it, doesn't imply that we must continue doing so.
In affirming that the doctrine is essential, you've made the bizarre distinction that the doctrine is inherent but not indispensable.
"I believe the Resurrection happened, but I would not quit believing in Jesus if I discovered he did not rise from the dead."
All of this goes back to this comment:
"I think the difference is that my faith is not shaken by evidence that the creation story must have been somewhat mythical in nature because I and my company are not of the sort that insist upon a literal interpretation of the Creation or even the Resurrection story. I believe in faith the resurrection story, but it is not the sum total of my belief. IF someone could somehow prove that Jesus was never resurrected, it would not mean the end of my following the teachings of Jesus."
You crowed about how you and your "company" didn't insist on "a literal interpretation of... even the Resurrection story," but now you add the bodily Resurrection to your list of essential Christian doctrines.
That's quite a change of position.
You're simply not clear and consistent about the Bible's teachings regarding the Christ's birth; about the results of Christ's death; and about whether Christ's bodily resurrection is essential to the faith.
And these aren't unimportant issues.
About Christ's death, Dan, you now write that you wonder what my problem is.
Indeed, there have been disagreements through the centuries about the atonement, but not all disagreements are equal.
There have been disagreements about who or what was satisfied by Christ's death -- either Satan, God's law, God's honor, God's justice, the world's moral order, or (my view, and John Stott's) God Himself.
But all these disagreements are rooted on the common ground that Christ's death DID satisfy SOMETHING, and that that satisfaction was necessary before forgiveness was possible.
Where we seem to disagree is whether Christ's death was necessary for our forgiveness.
"'If Christ had lived to 70 and died of old age, do you believe that would have been sufficient to provide the "ransom for many" that Christ said he was?'
"If that's the way it was, why not? It is NOT just the crucifixion or death or resurrection that saves us. It is God's grace. It is God's grace lived out in Jesus' life and teachings and community and death and resurrection." [link]
Protestants disagree about the method of baptism -- sprinkling vs. immersion, indoor pool vs. natural river, etc. -- but these disagreements are minor compared to the dispute over whether baptism saves.
Just because Christians have argued over the meaning of Christ's death, it doesn't follow that all disagreements are within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
I believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.
I believe that Jesus came giving his life sacrificially to save us by God's grace. But we ought not mistake - we ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE, THAT is what saves us.
The death, the crucifixion, that is the acting out of God's grace, but it would be wrong to say that we are saved by Jesus' death, through faith in Jesus. It would be a mistake to say that God can't save us by God's grace unless God FIRST kills Jesus.
You appear to believe, contrary to orthodoxy as I understand it, that God's grace is NOT sufficient to save us. You appear to believe that we are saved by God's grace BUT ONLY if Jesus gets killed as a sacrifice (which is a denial of God's grace - if killing off Jesus is what saves us, then it's not really grace that you're relying upon, but vengeance).
It sounds to me like you're dangerously close to rejecting God's grace in favor of God's bloodlust, which would be a different system of salvation than orthodox Christianity, at least as understood by anabaptists.
That's all I have time for now.
I've read what you excerpted from DirectionJournal.org, and I've skimmed sections of the page online to see the context of what you quote, and -- at least from what I've read -- I don't think I have a problem with the Anabaptist view.
But, even though you say it's what you believe and that it "comes fairly close to representing [your] position," I still don't know whether your view REALLY lines up with what you quote and cite.
What you quote presents Christ as example AND redeemer.
"To them Christ was not only redeemer, he was also example..."
But you seem to believe that Christ was an example but NOT the redeemer.
The site states that Christ's death accomplished something MORE than our forgiveness (and I agree), but not something OTHER than our forgiveness.
"Most Anabaptists agreed with the other Reformers that Christ’s work was sufficient for the salvation of all humankind and that salvation is by grace alone..."
That claim of sufficiency implies a causal connection between that work and our forgiveness, and I urge you to look at some of the things that are quoted in support of this claim.
"The Suffering of Christ is sufficient for the sins of all men..."
"He has set before us the selfsame one as a mercy seat through faith in his blood..."
"Through the merits of Thy blood we receive the remission of our sins according to the riches of Thy grace. Yea through this blood on the Cross He reconciled all upon earth and in heaven above. Therefore, dear Lord, I confess that I have or know no remedy for my sins, no works nor merits, neither baptism nor the Lord’s supper (although all sincere Christians use these as a sign of Thy Word and hold them in respect), but the precious blood of Thy beloved Son alone which is bestowed upon me by Thee and has graciously redeemed me, a poor sinner, through mere grace and love, from my former walk."
In contrast to all this you ask:
"I wonder why it matters so much to you that you can't let it go that I (along with many other Christians) simply believe we are saved by God's grace?"
I believe we are saved by God's grace and Christ's death.
It seems that you believe we are saved by God's grace **BUT NOT** Christ's death.
If that is what you believe, you do so in opposition even to the Anabaptists you quote, and the difference between your position and mine is SUBSTANTIAL.
If that's not what you believe, you could have corrected the record long ago, by affirming that, of course, Christ's death caused our forgiveness -- that Christ's death isn't just a demonstration of God's saving grace, but the actual means through which grace saves us.
And if that's not what you believe, you confound our understanding with your quoting I Peter 2 and stopping IMMEDIATELY BEFORE Peter teaches that Christ bore our sins on the cross.
Bubba...
That claim of sufficiency implies a causal connection between that work and our forgiveness
I think you are missing the fullness of "that work," as described in the Bible and as believed by anabaptists. I point again to that same article...
It meant “at-one-ment” with God and referred to all the ways in which God and humans have been reconciled through the work of Jesus Christ. It points not only to Christ’s death, but to all the various phases of his activity on behalf of humanity including his ministry, his death, and his resurrection.
I believe, once again, that we are saved by GRACE ALONE through faith in Jesus alone. NOT Grace + God-Human blood sacrifice (or it wouldn't be grace alone). By your confession, it appears that you believe that God's Sweet Grace is not sufficient, but that it requires a blood sacrifice to save us, too.
(I believe we are saved by God's grace and Christ's death.)
If so, I disagree.
The difference is that we believe that Jesus' sacrificial life, teachings, way, death and resurrection ALL are part of God's GRACE for us, the grace by which we are saved. Jesus' death, is not the Thing which saves us, but Grace is. Jesus' life and death are an acting out of God's grace.
It is, as I've quoted someone before, wrongly understood to be a courtroom sacrifice with an innocent person taking the fall for a guilty person, but the sacrifice of a blood donor, or a heart donor, if you prefer.
THAT, I believe, is the better metaphor for understanding Jesus' sacrifice.
In the hospital image, it is of grace and love, a gift of life for life.
In the courtroom (or torture chamber, more literally) metaphor, it is a spilling of blood in vengeance, not in grace.
So, is that what you truly mean to say, that we are NOT saved by grace alone, but by grace AND a blood sacrifice?
There we go, Dan.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, for finally being clear.
I do understand you, Dan, and it does appear that your disagreement is not only with me but with the Anabaptists you quote as supposedly reflecting your views.
"The death, the crucifixion, that is the acting out of God's grace, but it would be wrong to say that we are saved by Jesus' death, through faith in Jesus. It would be a mistake to say that God can't save us by God's grace unless God FIRST kills Jesus.
"You appear to believe, contrary to orthodoxy as I understand it, that God's grace is NOT sufficient to save us. You appear to believe that we are saved by God's grace BUT ONLY if Jesus gets killed as a sacrifice (which is a denial of God's grace - if killing off Jesus is what saves us, then it's not really grace that you're relying upon, but vengeance).
"It sounds to me like you're dangerously close to rejecting God's grace in favor of God's bloodlust, which would be a different system of salvation than orthodox Christianity, at least as understood by anabaptists."
It seems to me that the Anabaptists you quoted believe as I do, as indicated by their references to Christ's blood.
More importantly, I cannot emphasize enough how strongly I dispute the conclusion that my beliefs undermine the sufficiency of God's grace, and how strongly I dispute the claim that my position contradicts orthodoxy.
First, our faith is also a necessary component of salvation, but that fact doesn't undermine the sufficiency of God's grace. If our faith doesn't undermine it, neither does Christ's death.
Think of the contrasts found in the Bible. God's grace is contrasted with His law, not Christ's death; faith is contrasted with our works, not CHRIST'S work on the cross.
And in the Bible we see no reluctance in setting God's grace and Christ's death side-by-side in regards to our salvation.
"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." - Gal 2:21
Justification by God's law (or, logically, our works) nullifies both God's grace **AND** Christ's death, because BOTH are responsible for our salvation.
God's grace is the source of our justification, Christ's death is the ground of our justification, and our faith is the means of our justification, and ALL THREE are found linked together in Romans 3:24-25, which I've frequently quoted in these conversations.
Paul writes that we are "now justified by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith."
[continued]
[continued]
It's not a denial of God's grace to say that Christ had to die before we could be forgiven: it's a denial of His HOLY JUSTICE to say that God could forgive WITHOUT Christ's death, because the penalty of sin would never be addressed.
It's not vengeance, it's justice that my sin requires death, and it **IS** unfathomable grace -- infinite mercy -- that God died in my place.
Now we see what I've long since known was there, the gulf between your beliefs and mine.
I believe that Christ's death is necessary for our salvation, our forgiveness and justification.
You now make clear your belief, "it would be wrong to say that we are saved by Jesus' death."
You not only disagree with my position, you reject it as essentially barbaric.
Well, I believe your position flies in the face of the Bible's clear teachings, and it places you outside of Christian orthodoxy.
If you don't believe Christ bore our sins on the cross, you shouldn't claim to revere all that it teaches, because it teaches exactly that.
If you don't believe Christ shed His blood for our forgiveness, you shouldn't claim to follow everything Christ taught, because Christ taught precisely that in the Upper Room.
And if you believe that we're saved by God's grace APART FROM Christ's death, you should find another term to describe your theology, because Christianity is already taken to describe a theology that teaches just that.
And, again on the subject of acting justly, justice entails honesty. You shouldn't claim to believe that Christ died for our sins "in a sense" when your beliefs are really the EXACT OPPOSITE of what most people mean by the phrase.
It's clear you believe that we're saved by God's grace BUT NOT CHRIST'S DEATH...
("...it would be wrong to say that we are saved by Jesus' death...")
...so you ought to say exactly that. Don't just stop at saying we're saved by God's grace and leave hanging the question of whether you mean "God's grace AND Christ's death" or "God's grace BUT NOT Christ's death."
Make a habit of saying what you really mean.
But THANK YOU for doing so now.
What'd that take? Only 2-3 years?
Here's what I believe:
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell. On the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Amen."
This is Christianity in a nutshell, the essentials according to Paul, and a creed by which even any nominal Christian would proudly identify. Indeed, the creed that should unify all Christians. It seems cowardly not to identify by some fixed ideology/philosopy/theology. It seems very wishy-washy.
Marshall, how many times must I affirm the creed? I believe that creed you just cited. My church believes that Creed.
AND, there is nothing in there stating that we are saved by God's grace AND by Jesus' death.
Is what I wrote about what I believe NOT just a rephrasing of that creed you just quoted?
Do you, too, Marshall, believe that God's Grace is insufficient to save us?
Bubba...
I believe that Christ's death is necessary for our salvation, our forgiveness and justification.
You now make clear your belief, "it would be wrong to say that we are saved by Jesus' death."
IF you are stating, "Dan, you don't believe that we are saved by God's grace AND by Jesus' death - rather, you believe that we are saved by Grace alone," then, yes, you are getting what I believe.
I believe we are saved by Grace alone through faith alone. Basic Christian stuff, that.
It is what I've been saying for three years to you all. WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE ALONE. THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS ALONE.
If you have a problem with that, then you rightly have a problem with something I actually believe.
I printed the "Apostle's Creed" as a shot to anabaptists, who state that they refuse to subscribe to any creed. Well this one pretty much sums up Christianity, but even Paul, who laid it out, does not stop there, constantly referring to Christ's death as having been necessary for our salvation. I would put it this way, more or less:
We are saved by Grace because Christ lived for the purpose of giving up His life on our behalf to save us from the punishment we deserve for our sins. We are saved by Grace because Jesus suffered and died a horrible death for us. We are forgiven our sins because Jesus suffered and died a horrible death for us. We are reconciled with God because Jesus suffered and died a horrible death for us. The Good News of the Gospel is that Jesus came to die for us so that we don't have to endure the punishment we deserve for our sins.
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
as well as Grace, is there for us because Christ suffered terrible torture and died a horrible death on our behalf.
About creeds -- such as the Apostles Creed, and the Nicene Creed.
While the contents of both creeds are correct and orthodox, they're not comprehensive and I doubt either were intended to be comprehensive. They were intended to address specific heresies, not all possible heresies.
I can think of one important teaching that both creeds overlook, a teaching that Dan would surely affirm as important: the two great commandments to love God and love your neighbor.
(Note here also the absence of anything about the dangers of wealth.)
And I think some very crucial doctrines are found in what appears to be an extremely early creed, recorded in I Cor 15:3-8.
"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
Again: Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.
Notice that, unlike the Apostles Creed, we're told why Christ died: "for our sins." What Paul writes elsewhere makes clear what he means by that.
And note also the authority given to Scripture. Paul tells us that the scriptures dictated what was to happen, that Christ died and was raised both "in accordance with the scriptures."
Dan, you sometimes raise such a fuss about sticking to what the Bible explicitly teaches, I must wonder, why don't you dismiss these creeds as mere hunches?
You write:
"AND, there is nothing in there stating that we are saved by God's grace AND by Jesus' death."
That's a good point, because the creed focuses only on salvation by gra--oh, wait, it doesn't.
Neither creed mentions grace or faith.
If these creeds are the gold standards by which we measure orthodoxy, then we must conclude that salvation by works is JUST as orthodox as salvation by grace.
More later, possibly as late as tomorrow.
On creeds:
1. Marshall is correct that the anabaptists (and traditional baptists) reject all creeds save the Bible, which they believe each believer has the obligation to determine for themselves.
2. This does not mean that we anabaptists and baptists are unable or unwilling to say that yes, we can affirm what this creed says.
3. I cite the creed because it is a fairly universal measure of orthodoxy and one which I can agree with, showing that I am within the realm of orthodoxy, at least as far as those creeds go (which tends to be good enough for most of my fellow Christians).
Bubba...
you sometimes raise such a fuss about sticking to what the Bible explicitly teaches
To be clear: What I raise a fuss about is not saying that the Bible "clearly" teaches X when X is not supportable in the Bible.
If someone reads passage that suggest or hint at X and then say they believe X because that's what it seems to them the Bible is suggesting, I'm okay with that.
If someone thinks X and says that they think X is right because it is a logical conclusion and not contradicted by the Bible, I'm okay with that.
What I object to is someone saying X is the one and only way of understanding a position and anyone who disagrees clearly disrespects the Bible and is not a Christian, even when X is not in the Bible directly, but is only someone's derived point based on A, B and C that are in the Bible.
I respect and take the Bible too seriously to make claims about it that it does not make for itself.
I'd hope that you could respect that, even if you disagree with me that X (whatever it may be) isn't in the Bible.
Bubba...
And I think some very crucial doctrines are found in what appears to be an extremely early creed, recorded in I Cor 15:3-8.
How about the "what appears to be" early creed found in Acts 15? You may recall the story - there was much debate about what to do with the gentile believers, what requirements were there to be for them, do they need to be circumcised or what exactly.
Peter got up and said...
"Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. God made no distinction between us and them, for God purified their hearts by faith.
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
...It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
That was it, for these people who, by faith, had been saved by God's grace. No other hoops to jump through, no insisting that they explain HOW they were saved by grace through faith in just the right way, no adding to Grace other things that are needed. Just grace alone through faith alone.
And then, for the sake of harmony within the community, there were some additional requests about cultural practices, but I think it is clear in context that this was not a requirement for salvation, just a cultural accommodation.
Marshall, could you please clear up something from me? Do you think God's grace is sufficient for salvation, or do you think that it's Grace AND Jesus' torturous death that saves us, not grace alone?
It sounds like you're saying the same (or similar) thing as I'm saying: That we are saved by grace alone through faith alone (the orthodox equation) and that Jesus life and death are all part of that acting out of grace.
Is grace alone sufficient or not?
Also (and I know you're busy, so at your convenience), did you have any thoughts about what your consistent rule might be re: the military?
That is, is your rule IF someone from a group might likely misbehave, then it is your position that we ought to ban everyone from that group?
If a gay guy ought to be banned from the military because of the likelihood that some portion of them will misbehave sexually, then is it your opinion that straight guys also ought to be banned because of the likelihood that some portion of them will misbehave sexually?
Ultimately, I think our disagreements come back down to the whole WHEN do we take something literally (or fairly literally) and when do we recognize a passage as having used imagery, rather than literal ideas?
We ALL agree that, when studying the Bible, it is important to discern when a passage is using imagery and when it is better understood more literally. You think that it would be ridiculous to take Jesus' words about chopping off your hand literally, because Jesus was obviously using hyperbole there, it's not a literal command.
Further, you would in no way dream of saying to someone who takes that passage as imagery, "You don't take the Bible seriously, you aren't serious about following God, you are probably not even a Christian because you don't take that passage literally!"
You wouldn't do that because you, yourself don't take it literally.
So, just to be clear, we ALL agree that it is vital, when studying the Bible, to discern when something is to be taken fairly literally and when not. Right?
More coming...
So, with that in mind, let us consider the whole problem of sin as regarding humanity and God.
The Bible says...
But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear...
And that is typically the sort of language that modern evangelicals use to describe the "sin problem."
Again, in the NT, we read...
[Paul, speaking to Gentiles] remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
There it is, that blood that "brings us near" out of separation from Christ. Continuing on...
For he [Jesus] himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Okay, we've move away from the blood language to just "through him [Jesus]" "by one Spirit..."
Continuing...
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit....
"Consequently," that is, "As a consequence of coming to God through Jesus" we are now fellow citizens with God's people. We are no longer "separated."
In another Pauline passage, we read...
So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.
You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness...
The Gentiles (or those outside of Christ) are "separated from the life of God" because of their ignorance, their sin. The Sin Problem. Separation. There it is again.
But the believers Paul is speaking to (Ephesians) "did not come to know Christ that way." Rather, they "heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus." They were taught to put off the old self, the former way of life and become new creations.
cont'd...
In all of this discussion of the Sin Problem, we have all manner of words used throughout the Bible. I think the problem of modern evangelicals is that they are having a hard time distinguishing between literalism and imagery.
We aren't literally separated from God. The Bible (and logic) make clear that nothing can separate us from God, and that if we were in the very pits of sheol, that God is there. There is no place that God is not.
Evangelicals (or at least those I was familiar with growing up - Evangelism Explosion, etc) like to decribe it something like... "God is SO holy and pure, that God can't stand to be in the presence of sin, and that's our Sin Problem. How do we solve it? By covering our ugly, unbearable sin with Christ's blood, which hides the sin from God, purifying us and making us acceptable to be in God's presence..." or words to that effect.
But that's problematic from both a logical and biblical point of view. God is omnipresent, most Christians would argue, and omnipotent, to boot. God is an all powerful God. God can do anything that's not contrary to God's nature. If God wants to be in the presence of sin, mere sin couldn't keep God away. Sin ain't the boss of God.
No, the imagery of being separated from God due to sin is just that: Imagery.
So what IS the sin problem, biblically and logically speaking? The problem is, as is easily observable in our real world, broken relationship. When we sin, when we choose the wrong, we break relationships. With those we sin against, with our community, with Creation, and ultimately, with God.
It seems to me that modern Evangelicals have overly mystified the Sin Problem. We have made it too close to voodoo and magic and too far removed from the real problem of simple broken relationships.
cont'd...
"God can't be in the presence of sin!" We say, as if God were limited by mere sin. "If sin comes in the room, God is compelled to leave. It's like the opposite ends of magnets - they repel one another, sin pushes God away. BUT," we exclaim, "We have a solution. We can HIDE our sin by Jesus' magic blood! It covers the sin up so God can't see it. That's why Jesus HAD to be killed!"
No, the problem is a broken relationship. Sin breaks that relationship with God and others. A sinful life and world is a life separated from God and others (by the sinner's choosing), and that makes for a hellish existence.
And, as in any broken relationship, that broken-ness, that separation can be miraculously healed by grace. God's grace. Grace, forgiveness, repentance, these are the true miracles of God's good news.
Our forgiveness is not literally "paid for" by a "blood sacrifice." A "ransom" has not literally been "paid" - how does that even make sense? God is holding my salvation hostage? And a ransom must be paid? And so, God pays a ransom to God? No, it's just general imagery, not a literal representation of how salvation works.
God does not require a blood sacrifice in order to forgive. God is God. God can forgive ANY WAY and ANY TIME God wants. What sort of God would God be if sin were more powerful than God's forgiveness? Taking all of this admitted imagery too literally minimizes God and God's power and God's grace. I can't see how you would get around that.
I believe that if you take these passages that speak of "blood sacrifice" too literally, then you are getting away from the purpose of the imagery used. You are like the person who thinks Jesus' command to chop off your hand literally, it seems to me.
No, I believe THIS is the more literally correct verse:
If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Those type of passages, those are the ones that are to be taken literally.
IF we confess, THEN God will forgive.
IF you have anything against your brother, forgive him, and then God can forgive you.
It is by GRACE that we are saved, through faith in Jesus.
This is what I believe.
If you have a problem with that, then I'm sorry, but it is what I believe. It is what the Bible teaches. I am a Christian, saved by God's grace. That I don't agree with you exactly on how best to interpret the imagery of "blood sacrifices," that does not make me not a Christian. I HAVE confessed, God HAS forgiven. I AM saved by Grace, through faith in Jesus. I AM walking, by God's grace, in the steps of Jesus.
I am a Christian. Jeff St is a marvelous Christian congregation. Stop in sometime and see for yourself.
It's just not as difficult as we try to make it.
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you....
Regarding Grace, I'm sorry it's still not clear. I'll try this:
Grace is poured out because of Christ's death on the cross. That is, the graciousness of God in forgiving us for our sins due to Christ's death serving His sense of justice regarding our sinfulness. This is why we accept Christ as our Savior. I mean, why do we need a savior at all and how did He save? We need saving because nothing we can do can save us. He saved us by dying in our place. Justice being served, He then rose from the dead and eventually all the saved will be raised as well because of that justice being served by His death on the cross. This is God's saving grace being manifested through Jesus. We can only say that we are saved by Christ's life on earth because who can die that has not first lived? His life was only necessary so He could die for us. Without His death, we are not saved. It is a literal payment, a literal substitution, a literal sacrifice on our behalf, just as animals were substitutes in the OT, though they were not perfect payments, perfect substitutions, perfect sacrifices. Sin is death. God's justice demanded death for sin. Sometimes the sinner himself, other times a substitute. The blood of the sacrifice literally washed away the sin, but neither form of sacrificial victim could do that perfectly, could do that in a manner that perfectly satisified God's justice. This is where Jesus comes in and our everlasting destination, be it life or death, is a matter of accepting Him as our Savior. Without His death, we are not saved and, BTW, still under the Law.
Sooo... I'm not wrong to say that we are saved by Grace alone through faith alone?
Regarding military law, I thought I was clear here as well.
Currently the UMCJ prohibits homosexual behavior by soldiers, just as it prohibits sodomy and other sexual acts. One who labels himself a homo has stated an intention by virtue of the fact that the term implies the type of sexual behavior such a person will practice.
But heterosexuality is a normal condition, what we were meant for, yet by itself isn't prohibited in every situation by the UMCJ. Only certain manifestations.
To put it another way, heterosexuals don't need to label themselves because it is the norm that the average person is hetero. It's not something that conjurs a particular image to which anyone could reasonably object by its status. But "homosexuality" indicates a perversion of the norm. The sexual practices of such a person is already prohibited as are other sexual practices. It's simply that it is not commonplace for anyone to label himself a "sodomist" for example and in doing so lobby for "rights" to accomodate specifically sodomists. If a sodomist tries to enlist and proclaims himself to be a sodomist, he likely would not be accepted because his particular "orientation", or rather the behavior of one so oriented, is prohibited under the UMCJ. And here, it doesn't matter the sex of the sodomist's partner.
Now why these and other practices are restricted and worthy of court martial upon exposure is likely due to long standing ideas of character and proper behavior. Despite the fact that some have been exposed for breeching these codes, be they homo or hetero, it does not behoove the military to adjust their standards simply because some people have convinced theirselves and others that their particular preferred behavior is morally benign.
Now as to the question of why this particular bad behavior should be prohibited, or more precisely, why one cannot be open about his desire or propensity for engaging in this bad behavior I have explained in a variety of ways including the link I provided in my post.
So to wrap up this comment, since I have to split, it's not that some heteros misbehave. It's that "hetero" in not an indication of a prohibited behavior. "Homosexual" IS an indication of prohibited behavior. This is because homosexual behavior is prohibited. So it is perfectly acceptable to barr a professing homo from military service. And as you likely still don't get the logic of it, keep in mind that hetero behavior is restricted to only certain contexts and not all manifestations of hetero behavior are allowed.
So to wrap up this comment, since I have to split, it's not that some heteros misbehave. It's that "hetero" in not an indication of a prohibited behavior.
Sooo... you would ban all homosexuals because some might misbehave, but you would not ban all heterosexuals even though it's just as likely that some of them will misbehave?
Again, we're back to the definition of bigotry and this is why the military will end this practice. It's not dissimilar from the bigotry against black soldiers a few generations back: It's not sustainable under our constitution or concept of liberty.
You can't ban a whole group of people because you suspect you might have misbehavior from some portion of them and if you are inconsistent in your ruling, only choosing ONE group to apply this ban to but not other groups, well, it's just ugly bigotry and our nation is striving to move beyond that and we will.
It's incompatible with justice and liberty.
I'm sorry you'll be sad to see injustice and bigotry ending, but it WILL be. You'll just have to get used to that.
And, of course, homosexual is not an indication of a prohibited behavior, no matter how many times you whine that it is. It's an indication of an naturally occurring normal orientation.
You'd ban based on bigotry, not behavior. I say (and the military is beginning to say) let's judge people by their own actions, not on bigoted views based on fear and prejudice.
Dan:
Before addressing your more recent comments, I want to go back to that Anabaptist website.
You write that you think I'm missing the fullness of Christ's work, that the article attributes atonement "not only to Christ’s death, but to all the various phases of his activity on behalf of humanity including his ministry, his death, and his resurrection."
My central claim is that there is a causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation, that His death causes our salvation:
Christ's DEATH >> our SALVATION
(Here, I'm using notation to make things clear: cause >> effect.)
The article states that the satisfaction model isn't wrong, just insufficient, that "atonement meant much, much more," not something altogether different.
"The issue for Anabaptists was how Christ’s work is mediated to humanity and how humanity apprehends that work. In what way does the atonement bring God and humanity back together again? To them Christ was not only redeemer, he was also example...
"It seems clear that different Anabaptist writers used the language of all three models [satisfaction, moral example, christus victor]..."
NONE OF THIS undermines the causal chain above: it adds to the effects of Christ's death rather than replaces the effects.
Christ's DEATH >> our SALVATION & example
I have no problem with the suggestion that Christ's death caused more than our salvation, so long as that still means that it DID cause our salvation. I not only find the formulation above well within biblical orthodoxy, I agree with it.
And, I have no immediate issue with extending what Christ died to save us to beyond His actual passing away. For instance, I believe Paul suggests that our regenerate and eternal life is linked to Christ's resurrection.
"Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." -- Rom 6:4
It's possible that this passage only makes an analogy, but I don't see any problem with the idea that we have eternal life because Christ was raised.
We needed to be saved from both sin and death. We are justified by Christ's death, and it's possible that we have eternal life because Christ was raised. If salvation includes both forgiveness AND eternal life -- and I believe it does -- I don't object to attributing salvation both to Christ's death AND to His Resurrection:
Christ's DEATH & resurrection >> our salvation
In fact, I routinely allude to this formulation when (even repeatedly in this thread) I talk about the free gift of forgiveness and eternal life through Christ's death and resurrection.
[continued]
[continued]
In light of Isaiah 53, I have no problem extending the causes backwards a few hours, too, to include Christ's scourging, betrayal, and possibly even the anguish in Gethsemane.
Christ's suffering & DEATH & resurrection >> our SALVATION
Extending the cause of our salvation to Christ's entire life... that's another story.
It's certainly true, tautologically, that Christ could not have died unless He first lived, and it's also true that He had to live a sinless life in order to die for OUR sins (II Cor 5:21). Succumbing to the temptation in the wilderness would have made His mission a failure.
But saying that His entire life directly caused our salvation and wasn't just a necessary precondition for His saving death is problematic, in part because it runs the risk of de-emphasizing the necessity of His death.
The Gospels are clear that Christ's death was His central mission, the culmination of His entire life, His "hour" in John's terminology.
Christ's prayers in Gethsemane and the Father's apparent response make clear that His death on the cross was absolutely necessary, that it was not possible for the cup to pass -- all contrary to your position that we would still have been saved if Jesus had lived to old age and died of natural causes.
But, while it's problematic and I wouldn't agree with this formulation...
Christ's birth & ministry & teachings & suffering & DEATH & resurrection >> our SALVATION
...it still leaves the central claim intact.
Christ's DEATH >> our SALVATION
Your position does no such thing.
"The death, the crucifixion, that is the acting out of God's grace, but it would be wrong to say that we are saved by Jesus' death, through faith in Jesus. It would be a mistake to say that God can't save us by God's grace unless God FIRST kills Jesus."
Your formulation denies that Christ's death saves us. You seem to believe that Christ's death is just a representation (or manifestation or "acting out") of God's saving grace, in the same way that evangelical Protestants believe that our baptism is a representation of our saving faith.
Your position appears to differ significantly from the Anabaptists you cite, to the degree that I think it's possible to accept them into Christian orthodoxy without meaning that we must do the same for you as well.
"No, the imagery of being separated from God due to sin is just that: Imagery."
How does this fit with the ultimate outworking of our sinfulnes?. Ultimately we will be called to account for our lives and there will be one of two results. Eternal concious life with God, or eternal cancious life of punishment. If as you propose, our seperation is only imagery, then logically it would historic follow that eternal sepeartion (punsihment) is imagery as well, That Jesus taught that some would go to hell, and that it would be unpleasant would seem problematic for this view.
Bubba, this is not the only significant doctrinal disagreement Dan has with historic Anabaptist doctrine. He also strongly disagrees with their views on marriage. I'm pretty sure there was some other stuff as well, but it's been a while. I also question how one can affirm the Trinity while denying that the OT commandments (some of which cause Dan problems) are from anyone but the Trinity which, of course, includes Christ. Again logic would seem to dictate that it is impossible to seperate Chhrist from the OT commandments.
Marshall,
It seems as though the bigger question is not whether grace saves us, it is how can one logically seperate Gods grace from Christs death.
Dan,
Perhaps in stead of the "imagery" of Christs blood and death, you would prefer that we substitute say, a lactating breast.
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4272
Continuing with an earlier comment, Dan, you write:
"I believe, once again, that we are saved by GRACE ALONE through faith in Jesus alone. NOT Grace + God-Human blood sacrifice (or it wouldn't be grace alone). By your confession, it appears that you believe that God's Sweet Grace is not sufficient, but that it requires a blood sacrifice to save us, too."
By this logic, I don't see why you keep emphasizing grace alone AND faith alone.
If "grace alone" precludes Christ's death, why does it not also preclude our faith?
If you think we're saved by faith, I can turn your comment back on you: it appears that you believe that God's Sweet Grace is not sufficient, but that it requires human faith to save us, too.
"Grace alone" doesn't preclude faith, and "faith alone" doesn't preclude grace, AND NEITHER preclude salvation through Christ's death.
Biblically, "grace alone" precludes salvation by law, and "faith alone" precludes salvation by works -- OUR works, not God's work through Christ.
Justification is by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone.
Those different prepositions imply different aspects of salvation: grace is its source (what motivated salvation), and faith is its means (how we appropriate it), but Christ and specifically His death are its ground (how God provided it).
Grace is why God saves us; Christ and His death is how God saves us; and faith is how we receive salvation.
This is no recent invention. Rather it's at the heart of the Reformation. The Reformers didn't stop at sola gratia and sola fide, they affirmed five "solas," including solus Christus or solo Christo, the claim that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man.
I believe you would be hard pressed to find any statement of Luther or Calvin or any other reformer that denies our justification through Christ's death: the Reformers didn't see the conflict you think is there.
More importantly, that conflict between God's grace and Christ's death is contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture.
Once again, Gal 2:21 teaches that justification by the law nullfies both God's grace **AND** Christ's death, implying that both are essential in our justification.
And, more explicitly, Paul teaches in Rom 3:24-25 that we are justified "by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith."
God's grace & Christ's death & our faith >> our salvation
The Bible teaches this.
If you deny that Christ's death saves us, I wonder why -- other than vestigial Christian reflex -- you refer to faith in Christ.
"WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE ALONE. THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS ALONE."
If we are saved by GOD'S grace, why does salvation require faith in JESUS specifically? Why the focus on the second Person of the Trinity if He didn't actually do anything specific to save us?
Why not say that we are saved by God's grace alone, through faith in GOD alone?
Is it enough that Christ exists for us to be saved? His mere existence, is that what we affirm in order to appropriate God's salvation?
(The demons Jesus exorcised seemed to know who He is.)
Or shall we affirm what the New Testament and Christ Himself tell us, that Jesus died "for our sins," that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, that He laid down His life for His friends or for His sheep, that He gave His life as a ransom, and that He is the Lamb whose blood redeemed us?
Bubba...
If "grace alone" precludes Christ's death, why does it not also preclude our faith?
Easy enough: God's grace alone is what provides the gift of salvation to us. However, we still have to accept that gift.
OUR part is the faith. God's part is the Grace.
You're denying that we are saved by grace alone. You want to make it God's grace AND something else, in this case, God's grace AND Jesus' torture and death (but not his life).
I don't think that's biblically or logically tenable.
Bubba...
Why not say that we are saved by God's grace alone, through faith in GOD alone?
This may be obvious from my previous answer, but the fact is, God won't force anyone to accept the gift of salvation. God won't save anyone who does not want to be saved.
So, again, we have to accept that gift.
Using the imagery of grace as gift: If someone offers you a present, but you refuse to take it, then at the end of the day, you don't have a present. IF you accept it, then you DO have a present.
God's grace and God's grace alone is that present to us. It is a gift of God, lest anyone boast. Free to all who accept it. But we do have to accept it. That is the faith part.
Again, I think this is boilerplate orthodox Christianity.
Bubba...
Is it enough that Christ exists for us to be saved? His mere existence, is that what we affirm in order to appropriate God's salvation?
See my previous answer. I'm not speaking of universalism - that God saves everyone whether they want to be saved or not.
I'm speaking of basic orthodox Christianity. We are saved by grace ALONE (God's part) through faith ALONE (our part). That is the whole equation, it seems to me.
Do you have any source for orthodox Christians that confirms that salvation = GRACE + [something else - Jesus' torture, Jesus' death, Jesus' resurrection, a pony?]?
Bubba...
Or shall we affirm what the New Testament and Christ Himself tell us, that Jesus died "for our sins," that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, that He laid down His life for His friends or for His sheep, that He gave His life as a ransom, and that He is the Lamb whose blood redeemed us?
I have no problem affirming any of that imagery. Just don't mistake it for a literal meaning. We aren't literally purchased with literal blood. When soldiers "die for their country," they are literally purchasing freedom with literal blood. When a teacher or a mother "pours out her life for her children," she is not doing so literally. These are all images that speak of giving one's whole self for another. That speak of completely loving another/others.
May I ask again, just to confirm we're all on the same page: We DO agree that it is vital in studying the Bible to understand when a passage is speaking literally and when it's speaking using imagery? And that we strive not to confuse the two?
Beyond that:
And are we agreed that there's no reason to cast aspersions at another who, in serious Bible study, decides that one passage is best understood as being literal and another passage is best understood as imagery? That, if we believe they are mistaken on that point, we can disagree, but it can be an in-house disagreement?
Or, if not, WHICH instances of biblical exegesis are REQUIRED understanding and which ones aren't? And on what basis would you make that decision, since the Bible does not make the distinction? And, if it's just because it's "obvious" (to you) and naught else, how much weight ought your opinion hold?
Bubba...
I believe you would be hard pressed to find any statement of Luther or Calvin or any other reformer that denies our justification through Christ's death
I'm not as familiar with Luther, but I'll have to say that citing Calvin is not very credible to this anabaptist. You want to look at some ideas that ACTUALLY approach heresy, look to Calvin.
TULIP? No thank you, that's some dangerously off biblical exegesis.
Craig...
"No, the imagery of being separated from God due to sin is just that: Imagery."
How does this fit with the ultimate outworking of our sinfulnes?.
I'm sorry, allow me to clarify: The separation is a real thing, but it is a spiritual separation. We can choose to separate ourselves from God spiritually and consign ourselves to a hellish existence if we so choose. We have freedom of choice and God won't force us to do otherwise.
Right?
I was just trying to make the point of rightly distinguishing between imagery and literal and should have explained better.
Perhaps in stead of the "imagery" of Christs blood and death, you would prefer that we substitute say, a lactating breast.
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4272
Good article, reasonable, well researched, apparently.
I affirm all the biblical imagery as valid in their own way.
Moving forward to comments made since I posted yesterday...
Dan, in principle I don't object to your writing, "I respect and take the Bible too seriously to make claims about it that it does not make for itself."
But I think you're very inconsistent in practice, because your own conclusions cannot possibly meet the ridiculous standards you require for conclusions with which you disagree.
About Acts 15, it doesn't actually appear that Peter is reciting some early creed: he wasn't passing on what he received (as Paul does in I Cor 15) and he isn't apparently reminding the listeners of some creedal statement which they already heard or affirmed.
Indeed, you can find explanations of how we are saved that omit Christ's death, but you can also find explanations that mention God's grace and Christ's death BUT NOT FAITH, as in Titus 2:11-14
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds."
Faith is also omitted as a mechanism of salvation in Titus 3:3-7.
"For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, despicable, hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
The comprehensive picture of salvation includes God's grace, Christ's death, AND our faith (see Rom 3), but there's no logical requirement that EVERY mention of salvation must allude to ALL THREE of these aspects.
I don't see any reference to Christ's death in Peter's speech in Acts 15, but it's still true that, by that time, Peter had begun preaching that the Jewish leaders had put Christ to death by hanging him on a TREE (Acts 5:30, 10:39), probably alluding to the curse placed on men who were killed by being hung from a tree (Deut 21:22-23), which Paul would later expound upon:
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' -— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." - Gal 3:13-14
The New Testament doesn't always go into detail about the mechanism of salvation, but when it does, it does consistently and repeatedly point to Christ's death.
[continued]
[continued]
"That was it, for these people who, by faith, had been saved by God's grace. No other hoops to jump through, no insisting that they explain HOW they were saved by grace through faith in just the right way, no adding to Grace other things that are needed. Just grace alone through faith alone."
Christ's death isn't a hoop for us to jump through, but the requirement that CHRIST endured for our sakes.
Myself, I'm not insisting that salvation requires understanding how we are saved through Christ's death, but the Bible is clear about that mechanism.
And, again, Romans 3 shows that our being justified by Christ's death is compatible with salvation by grace and faith.
"And then, for the sake of harmony within the community, there were some additional requests about cultural practices, but I think it is clear in context that this was not a requirement for salvation, just a cultural accommodation."
That's nonsense on stilts, but consistent with your claim from way back that the substitutionary atonement was something that "meant something" only to the first-century Jews.
The most detailed explanation of salvation is found in Paul's letter to the Romans, an epistle clearly addressing a mixed audience of Jewish and Gentile Christians (see 11:13-21).
That brings us full-circle.
"I respect and take the Bible too seriously to make claims about it that it does not make for itself."
You say this, and yet you denigrate the Bible's emphatic claim that Christ actually did die for our sins, alluding to it as a mere "cultural accommodation" when the Bible altogether precludes that, um, hunch.
Calvinism and Anabaptism...
Calvinism and Mennonitism, although agreed in rejecting the Roman Catholic doctrines of the church, the hierarchy, and the sacraments, and in accepting the Bible as the only source of doctrine, differ significantly both in doctrines and in polity. In the past there have been many conflicts between Calvinists and Mennonites.
Calvinists, formerly very staunch in their opinion that Calvinism is the only true form of Christianity, often despised and even persecuted non-Calvinists, although with the exception of Michael Servetus they did not put their antagonists to death...
The main controversial issues from the side of Calvinism (see also Calvin) were: rejection of infant baptism, non-swearing of oaths, refusal to bear arms, refusal to serve in governmental offices, and the practice of avoidance.
Occasionally the Mennonites were also charged with false doctrines such as unorthodoxy in regard to the Trinity, and denial of the deity of Christ and the atonement.
Nothing's new under the sun...
Bubba...
You say this, and yet you denigrate the Bible's emphatic claim that Christ actually did die for our sins, alluding to it as a mere "cultural accommodation"
I think you've misread something. My reference to "cultural accomodation" was (clearly, I thought) in reference to just what the passage says...
...Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
THESE are the "cultural" accommodations to which I was referring. fyi.
Of course, sexual immorality goes beyond a cultural accommodation, but more specifically, I was speaking of meat from strangled animals, blood and food "polluted by idols."
Do you think these are universal rules or cultural ones?
Dan, you bring up the subject of imagery, and you list a few different passages from the New Testament.
I must say that I wish you would provide references -- book, chapter and verse -- for what you quote, to help us find the passage in context. It's something that I do consistently, it's something that takes very little time for the writer but saves the reader a little footwork for passages he recalls but can't quite place.
It seems your point is less about the specific content and more about imagery and other figurative language.
I'm willing to grant that figurative language is used in the claim that Christ's blood covers our sins, that the saints will have "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev 7:14)
But the literal meaning of this figurative language is obvious.
Christ's death >> the forgiveness of our sins
Just because a phrase is figurative, it doesn't mean that its literal meaning can be whatever you want.
"Our forgiveness is not literally 'paid for' by a 'blood sacrifice.' A 'ransom' has not literally been 'paid' - how does that even make sense? God is holding my salvation hostage? And a ransom must be paid? And so, God pays a ransom to God? No, it's just general imagery, not a literal representation of how salvation works."
Granted, but the imagery points unavoidably to salvation being caused by Christ's death.
Your theory that we are saved by God's grace BUT NOT Christ's death contradicts the literal meaning of all this figurative language.
Once again, where we disagree isn't over literalism versus a figurative interpretation.
We affirm the literal truth behind the figurative language, and you don't.
Dan, you seem to emphasize God's omnipotence to the exclusion of His perfect holiness and righteousness.
"God does not require a blood sacrifice in order to forgive. God is God. God can forgive ANY WAY and ANY TIME God wants."
Because God is almighty, indeed He can forgive us however He pleases.
But because God is perfectly just, He WILL NOT forgive us in a way that trivializes our sins against Him, in a way that does not address the penalty that our sins justly deserve.
You have **NEVER** accounted for what happens to the consequences of sin, if God forgives us "just" by forgiving us.
You close your line of thought about how we are saved by urging Christian charity, quoting Ephesians 4:29-32, NIV.
"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you...."
Remembering that chapter divisions were added later, I would remind you of THE NEXT TWO VERSES, Ephesians 5:1-2, NIV.
"Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
Was Christ's death literally fragrant? No.
But even in enjoining us to speak charitably, Paul reiterates that Christ died for us, that we are saved by His death.
Once again, where we disagree isn't over literalism versus a figurative interpretation.
We affirm the literal truth behind the figurative language, and you don't.
! Well, I suppose, if you grant that you all have perfect knowledge in all things, you may well be right.
But otherwise, THAT is what is at question here. You're begging the question.
We now agree that "we are paid for by Jesus' blood" is imagery. The question then is, what is the meaning behind the imagery?
I DO affirm the literal truth behind the imagery, that truth being, we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.
Why do you not affirm the literal truth behind the imagery, Bubba? After all, I have already stated clearly what that truth is, right?
Oh, we disagree on how best to interpret that imagery, would that not be a better way of putting it?
That we agree we are saved by grace, that we agree that "saved by Jesus' blood" is True, but imagery and the question is, how does the imagery of Jesus' blood relate to us being saved by God's grace?
You insist the One True Way of seeing the imagery is that Jesus was a sacrifice (not literal, but sort of... or something like that, right?). I'm saying I'm okay with seeing it in many ways. I'm saying it's not something that affects my daily Christian walk.
In my daily Christian walk, I realize that I am a sinner (orthodox) saved by God's grace (orthodox) Alone (orthodox) through faith in Jesus (orthodox). In my daily walk, I am striving to be and make disciples, teaching them to observe all things which Christ taught us. In my daily walk, I am striving to follow in Jesus' steps, I am striving to do for and with the least of these, to be a peacemaker, to live simply, etc, etc, all those things that Jesus our savior taught us about how to live.
In my daily walk, HOW I define or explain Jesus' death is not an issue. In my daily walk with Christ, what I believe about atonement or the trinity or the virgin birth is not an issue.
As noted before, I think there's some value in talking about these particulars of faith, but not really so much except how it helps us better in our daily walk with Christ. If I could perfectly explain (to your satisfaction) what it meant that Jesus died for us, but have not love, I am just a clanging gong, to paraphrase Paul. If I can perfectly explain (to your satisfaction) the Atonement, but send away the poor, saying "be warm, well-fed and have a good understanding of the atonement," it means NOTHING.
It's not that I don't think there's something to these endless, picayune, angels dancing on needle head kind of theological discussions, but it's nothing to divide over. Seems to me.
If you wish to divide from me because I can't explain the atonement to your satisfaction, I will, nonetheless, remain a Christian because I am saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. I HAVE (and DO) confess my sins and God IS faithful and just to forgive them.
That's what I know.
No unlimited number of Bubbas or Marshalls can separate me from the love of God and I take great comfort in that.
Dan, I appreciate your commenting at length, and I appreciate your reading my lengthy replies.
I might not have the opportunity to keep up from this afternoon until Monday, at the earliest, so let me quickly address the other few things that are on my mind.
First, going back a bit, you mentioned hospital imagery to support your claim that Christ's death was only "an acting out of God's grace."
"It is, as I've quoted someone before, wrongly understood to be a courtroom sacrifice with an innocent person taking the fall for a guilty person, but the sacrifice of a blood donor, or a heart donor, if you prefer.
"THAT, I believe, is the better metaphor for understanding Jesus' sacrifice.
"In the hospital image, it is of grace and love, a gift of life for life."
Never mind the fact that, to say the least, the hospital image has less biblical basis than the courtroom imagery of being justified before the divine Judge.
If you're dying of a heart defect, a heart transplant is no mere "acting out" of saving love: it's what actually saves you.
If you're dying of a blood disease, the blood transfusion is no mere manifestation of saving love: it's what actually saves you.
And if you're not in need of a blood donor or a heart donor, the very costly donation is superfluous. While we honor a man who lays down his life in order to save his beloved, we rightly look down on a man who commits suicide as a rash gesture of love.
Look again at the prayers in Gethsemane and the Father's implicit response. Christ prayed for the cup to pass, and evidently it could not pass because it was necessary as the actual means of our salvation rather than a mere sign of it.
(And why was Christ in anguish when so many of His followers would be almost joyful in facing martyrdom? He dreaded death because He bore our sins on the cross; the martyrs faced death defiantly for the very same reason, Christ bore their sins on the cross.)
I mention Luther and Calvin because of their close association to the doctrines of sola gratia and sola fides, regardless of whether (and where) I disagree with either of them.
Starting with the Reformation and going forward to today, there's been a strong emphasis on "grace alone" and "faith alone," but it HAS NEVER required abandoning the doctrine that we're saved by Christ's death.
If no one (or a negligible minority) believed that those two solas meant that Christ didn't die for our sins, then maybe you misunderstand the doctrines you affirm.
I misunderstood what you meant about "cultural accommodation," and I appreciate your immediate clarification.
About whether we're universally prohibited from eating food offered to idols, etc., I defer to I Cor 10:23-24, in that all things are permissible, but not all things are edifying, and we should seek the well being of others. Out of devotion to God, I personally would not knowingly eat anything sacrificed to an idol (see Paul's guidelines in 10:25-29), but I think reasonable people could disagree and remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.
[continued]
[continued]
About why "grace alone" doesn't preclude "faith alone," you write:
"Easy enough: God's grace alone is what provides the gift of salvation to us. However, we still have to accept that gift.
"OUR part is the faith. God's part is the Grace.
"You're denying that we are saved by grace alone. You want to make it God's grace AND something else, in this case, God's grace AND Jesus' torture and death (but not his life).
"I don't think that's biblically or logically tenable."
For at least the third time in this thread: GALATIANS 2:21 AND ROMANS 3:24-25.
These passages have no trouble asserting that we are saved both by God's grace AND by Christ's death.
The Bible doesn't set God's grace and Christ's death against each other; God's grace is set against GOD'S LAW.
I believe the best way to express it is that grace is the source, Christ's death the ground, and faith the means of our salvation, but I think I can put it in your terms, too.
1) "God's grace alone is what provides the gift of salvation to us."
Fine. We still have to accept the gift, so:
2) Our faith alone is what receives the gift of salvation.
Presumably you have no problem with this formulation, but I think you miss where the cross fits into the picture.
3) Christ's death **IS* the gift of salvation.
Nothing supports your claim that His death is a mere representation / manifestation / acting-out of God's grace.
If it were just a symbol, the Father would have allowed Jesus to act out a different symbol. Gethsemane tells us of the necessity of the cross -- and, indeed, of its cost: no craven coward, Christ nevertheless dreaded the cross because it was no mere physical death. It involved enduring the penalty of our sins.
And you didn't really answer the question I was getting at: if we're saved by GOD'S grace, why must we have faith in CHRIST specifically and not GOD?
If the triune God saves us because of His grace, and our salvation has nothing to do with the specific work of Christ, why must our faith be in the SECOND PERSON of the Trinity specifically?
That our faith must be in Christ is because of solus Christus: Christ alone is the sole mediator between God and man.
He is the mediator, not only because He IS both God and man, but because He died as both God and man -- He died as man, because only the death of a sinless man could allow a truly just God to forgive sinners and do so RIGHTEOUSLY and not just mercifully; He died as God, because only God could live the life of a sinful man.
[continued]
Bubba...
Nothing supports your claim that His death is a mere representation / manifestation / acting-out of God's grace.
If it were just a symbol, the Father would have allowed Jesus to act out a different symbol.
Those are fine opinions, if you want to hold them. The Bible does not say that and God has never told me that, so ultimately, I have managed to come to another opinion than you on the matter.
Am I unsaved because I don't see it the same way as you?
[continued]
Finally, on the subject of imagery and figurative language, you write:
"We now agree that 'we are paid for by Jesus' blood' is imagery. The question then is, what is the meaning behind the imagery?
"I DO affirm the literal truth behind the imagery, that truth being, we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus."
Again, I wonder, if we're saved by GOD's grace, why must our faith be in JESUS.
But the more salient point is what you affirm CANNOT POSSIBLY be the literal truth behind that figurative language.
"We're paid for by Jesus' blood." "Our sins are covered by Jesus' blood."
These sort of statements assert, using figurative language, a causal connection between our salvation -- our rescue, our forgiveness -- and Christ's death.
FIGURATIVE REFERENCES TO JESUS' BLOOD ARE CLEARLY ALLUSIONS TO HIS DEATH, and so no reasonable interpretation to those references can omit His death, as your interpretation does.
"Oh, we disagree on how best to interpret that imagery, would that not be a better way of putting it?"
No, because not all disagreements are comparable. Some disagreements are between two reasonable positions, but this one is not, because your interpretation is absurd.
You deny that Christ's death is what made our salvation possible. No wonder the question of what all this imagery means isn't something that affects your supposedly Christian walk.
No wonder your congregation spends more energy celebrating nature than Christ's death: you don't think His death actually resulted in your salvation.
No wonder you denigrate as a mere tradition Christ's command to commemorate His death: to accept that that observance came from the Lord undermines your theology.
Indeed, without love we are nothing, but that same Apostle pronounced a curse on those who preached a different gospel: doctrine matters.
It's not that we disagree on HOW Christ's death saves us. You deny THAT Christ's death saves us.
It's not that you "can't explain the atonement to [my] satisfaction;" you deny the reality of the Christ's atoning death.
You insist that you and your congregation are Christian: "I am a Christian. Jeff St is a marvelous Christian congregation."
I think it's more accurate to say that y'all are post-Christian. To use what someone else wrote about one of your friend's blogs, your church appears to be "what's left in the church when all the Christians leave."
You're pruning away the difficult and inconvenient but ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL doctrines of the faith: the authority of Scripture, the necessity of the bodily resurrection, and here God's holy wrath and the causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation.
Much of what you still affirm resembles the Christian faith, but you deny so much that cannot be denied, I cannot in good conscience say that what you believe is still identifiably Christian.
The anguish in Gethsemane, the cry of dereliction on the cross: these things are only accounted for if Christ really did die for our sins.
You haven't addressed passages -- e.g., Romans 3 and Galatians 2 -- that completely obliterate your claim that God's grace and Christ's death are incompatible in what accounts for our salvation.
"Am I unsaved because I don't see it the same way as you?"
I'm in no position to make that judgment, and I've never suggested that I know whether you're saved or not.
But your beliefs so brazenly contradict the Bible's clear teachings that I cannot, in good conscience, extend to you the hand of Christian fellowship.
Bubba...
because not all disagreements are comparable. Some disagreements are between two reasonable positions, but this one is not, because your interpretation is absurd.
So, what do you do when an apparently reasonable and fairly intelligent person holds a position which YOU (not the Bible, not God, but Bubba) feel is absurd?
For my part, I think it absurd to think that the language in Genesis is meant to be taken literally. The author is "obviously" using the language of myth, not science or history. It is just quite absurd to think it is meant to be taken literally.
What do I do with such a person who would disagree with me and NOT think it absurd? Well, I disagree with them. That's all.
There's no harm no foul done to my or their Christian faith if they merely think that Genesis 1 is a literally factual story. Okay, so I think their position is absurd. They remain my Christian brother/sister (if one with an absurd hunch about how to interpret Genesis 1). I can move on with a smile and God's grace.
Are there some topics where an absurd position is more spiritually dangerous? Perhaps.
For instance, someone who would say that the obviously epic storytelling found in Kings and Samuel and other places is, in their best guess, a factually correct history AND that same person has the hunch, therefore, that the passage wherein God commands the slaughter of a whole people - including the children and infants - is a factually correct representation of God AND that same person thinks that this establishes "clearly" that God's will is for us sometimes to slaughter our enemies, down to and including their infants, THAT is a more spiritually dangerous position to hold.
Dangerous why? Because they are using rather obscure and difficult to comprehend passages to contradict the clear teachings of Jesus and the rest of the Bible to love our enemies and against shedding innocent blood.
For a Christian to contradict so basic and obvious teaching of Christ, that strikes me as more dangerous. Still, even then, if it remains theoretical, ("God may well want us to do that and if I hear God telling me to do that, I will... but I'm not hearing God tell me to do that...") I wouldn't say such a person is not a Christian, just that they hold some feelings contrary to sound doctrine and worrisome.
And that's a fairly extreme example.
I guess, if someone were claiming (contrary to "obvious" biblical teaching) that God is a God of hate and that we ought to love only our friends, but hate our enemies, take advantage of them and their children when they get the chance, etc... then, yes, that person has adopted an absurd position that moves beyond the pale of Christianity.
But merely disagreeing on the "mechanism" of HOW we are saved, or even honestly saying, "I don't know HOW we are saved, beyond that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus," I don't see how that comes in anyway close to being a dangerous position to hold, even from your point of view.
OK, Marshall, I've put up another open invite post - and I'm gonna be a bit more vigilant. I really am interested in reading what you have to say. The post title is "Another Open Invitation Thingy" or something like that, and the question involves taxes.
Heck, one more thought while it's on my mind.
Dan, in discussing figurative language, you use figurative language, as I will highlight in bold.
"We now agree that 'we are paid for by Jesus' blood' is imagery. The question then is, what is the meaning behind the imagery?
"I DO affirm the literal truth behind the imagery, that truth being, we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.
"Why do you not affirm the literal truth behind the imagery, Bubba? After all, I have already stated clearly what that truth is, right?
"Oh, we disagree on how best to interpret that imagery, would that not be a better way of putting it?"
You write that there is a literal truth "BEHIND" the imagery.
Let's ignore what that imagery is and what you claim is the literal meaning.
You're using the word "behind" figuratively. Clearly you're using it figuratively, because it's not as if you can physically lift or remove the imagery and see the literal meaning.
There's a literal meaning "behind" the imagery, but not the way that every TV show has a safe behind a painting.
There's no doubt what "behind" means in your usage. It means that the literal meaning is the reality, and the imagery is just a symbol or representation of that reality.
It doesn't mean that the literal meaning supports (another figurative term) the imagery, as in, "I'm behind your campaign 100 percent."
It doesn't mean that the literal meaning is late, that it occurs temporally after the imagery, as in, "I'm running behind my schedule."
We know this because mature and mentally capable human beings are adept at interpreting figurative language.
You have no problem using figurative language yourself, and you have no problem grasping figurative language from others.
(Note that's another figurative term; you don't really "grasp" it with your hands.)
Going by how you respond, you seem to have no trouble handling (figuratively, not literally) figurative language from our writing and the writing of others.
There's only one notable exception.
THE HOLY BIBLE.
Specifically, passages of the Bible whose plain meaning you reject, as in the account of the Passover.
I think that speaks for itself (though not literally; facts aren't capable of vocal communication).
In Acts 5:28, the high priest told Peter and the other apostles, "you are determined to bring this man's blood on us."
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REAL DOUBT that we agree on what this phrase means: the high priest believed (correctly) that the Apostles were blaming the council for Jesus' death. His blood was an allusion to His death.
(Surely, they weren't trying to throw Jesus' literal blood onto the council, the way some extremists throw red paint on women who wear fur coats.)
Allusions to Jesus' blood do not suddenly become more contentious, just because they are made in the context of salvation.
"You want to bring this man's blood on us" obviously means, "You want to blame us for his death."
JUST AS OBVIOUSLY, the claim that we're justified, sanctified, and freed from our sins "by His blood" (Rom 5:9, Heb 13:12, Rev 1:5) means that we're justified, etc., BECAUSE OF HIS DEATH.
"Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son."
Acts 20:28 above is no more difficult to understand than Acts 5:28: both are clear allusions to Christ's death, and this passage tells us that Christ's death is responsible for God obtaining His church.
[continued]
[continued]
It's clear where you get into trouble. It's in your writing, "the question is, how does the imagery of Jesus' blood relate to us being saved by God's grace?"
No, no, no ,no, NO.
That's the wrong question. You're ASSUMING that the passage in question relates to salvation by grace when there's no reason to make that assumption. (We're saved by grace, yes, but not every Bible passage about salvation must mention grace, anymore than any single passage about God must be retrofitted in light of His triune Personhood.)
The question is simply, what does this imagery mean?
The answer is obvious: WE ARE SAVED BY CHRIST'S DEATH.
Since the Bible clearly teaches both, that claim has to be reconciled with the claim that we're saved by God's grace: you're trying to obliterate that claim in light of the claim that we're saved by God's grace.
You do so even though logic doesn't require it, the Bible doesn't require it, and the Bible tells us that we're saved by both side-by-side, as in Romans 3 and Galatians 2.
You're not reading any literal meaning FROM these passages about Christ's blood. You're imposing an alternative meaning -- really THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the text's clear meaning -- because of an assumption that you bring to the text.
That's not an act of interpretation by any reasonable definition; it's an act of violence against the text's plain meaning.
Doing this and demanding that we agree to disagree over interpreting figurative language really is (though not literally) grasping at straws.
The text says what it says, the literal interpretation "behind" its figurative meaning is obvious, and you obviously defy that clear meaning.
I don't think we really disagree over what these passages say. I suspect that we both know the obvious truth, that these passages attribute our salvation to Christ's death.
I believe it. You don't, and you chalk this up to a different interpretation, but your alternative interpretation is ridiculous on its face.
Everyone, y'all have a good weekend.
There's only one notable exception.
THE HOLY BIBLE.
Specifically, passages of the Bible whose plain meaning you reject, as in the account of the Passover.
Once again, I reject no "plain meaning." I disagree with your hunch about some "plain" meanings. I have a different hunch.
You appear to have the hunch that Genesis was written with the intention of being literally factual. I think it obvious that it is not a literally factual set of stories, but a collection of mythologies.
You're begging the question. The question is WHEN do we take something literally and when do we not. If your answer is, "Well, it's obvious that passage X is to be taken literally (or close to literally...)" that's not an answer to the question WHEN do we take a passage literally? That's presuming the answer.
Bubba...
The answer is obvious: WE ARE SAVED BY CHRIST'S DEATH.
I understand that's what you think. I also understand that, beyond that, you think it means God required a "perfect sacrifice" in order to forgive us. That God is not able to "simply forgive us" - that God is limited by the power of sin.
Oh, you don't really think that, but that SEEMS OBVIOUS to me to be the implication.
The answer is obvious TO YOU. Can you answer something, Bubba: Do you understand that not everything that is "obvious" to you is obvious to everyone? Do you understand that you are not the sole arbiter of what is obvious to everyone?
I *really* have to go, but:
1) I don't believe that the first two chapters of Genesis require a literal interpretation, in part because so much occurred before the possibility of a human eyewitness.
That said, I believe that the credence Christ Himself gave those early chapters (e.g., in Matthew 19) is contrary to the approach you tend to display.
2) Um, the Passover is not in Genesis.
It's in Exodus 12, and if that passage is part of "a collection of mythologies," then you're gonna have real trouble affirming the theological importance of the covenant with Abraham (Romans 4) and Jesus' socializing with Moses during the Transfiguration.
We're not discussing issues of genre, a major question about Genesis. We're not discussing figurative language that can fly over some people's heads (not literally), like hyperbole and irony.
We're talking about clearly physical imagery involving Christ's blood, where the OBVIOUS AND ONLY literal interpretation is that it is an allusion to Christ's death.
This is true in Acts 5:28, just as it is true in Acts 20:28.
I understand you disagree about what's obvious, but I reiterate that if figurative language was so difficult to understand, your trouble with it would be apparent from its MULTITUDES of use in our writing AND IN YOURS.
I still think you're being deliberately obtuse. Your interpretation of these passages is absurd, and rather than justify that interpretation -- BECAUSE YOU CAN'T -- you act like a petulant teenager and dismiss my position as just someone else's opinion.
Argue for THIS interpretation of yours if you really think it's arguable; don't punt the issue by generalizing about how we ought to agree to disagree.
About the difficulties in interpretation, I wonder:
How do you interpret the reference to Jesus' blood in Acts 5:28?
I bet this question's not remotely difficult.
First of all, I really need to know whay kind of jobs you guys have so that I can work toward similar employment that allows for so much blogging. I don't even work and I can't find this kinda time!
Secondly, thanks Geoffrey. I'll be over there fairly soon and I urge any conservative reader to visit there as well and add your thoughts.
Now, beginning with Dan's last, there are serious issues of honest blogging protocol that are breeched once again.
"So, what do you do when an apparently reasonable and fairly intelligent person holds a position which YOU (not the Bible, not God, but Bubba) feel is absurd?"
Find me a reasonable and intelligent person and I'll let you know! :D Relax. It's just a joke.
"For my part, I think it absurd to think that the language in Genesis is meant to be taken literally."
The imagery of Genesis, assuming it really is mere imagery, is not equal in importance. How Creation took place isn't as important as the fact that it did take place. But how we are exposed to God's Grace IS important in that if Jesus didn't die, we would not be privileged to receive that Grace. His death made Grace possible for us by taking the hit for our sins.
"...that the passage wherein God commands the slaughter of a whole people - including the children and infants - is a factually correct representation of God AND that same person thinks that this establishes "clearly" that God's will is for us sometimes to slaughter our enemies, down to and including their infants..."
I really resent when you do this. Not the emboldened section. No one has ever said that God's will is for US to slaughter anyone, much less babies. But that the OT shows that it WAS God's will that the tribes of Israel do this to achieve God's purpose. This suggests that God could make a similar request someday, but not that He would. More specifically, it indicates something about His nature that isn't diminished only because more verses exist telling what is evil for us to do, if indeed more verses do exist. Quantity of repetition has nothing to do with the importance of an Godly command. So Bubba's request that you provide an alternative meaning of those OT passages is legitimate and a response would be helpful.
Also, you seem to insist that the laws of behavior God implements for us bind Him to the same behavior. Nothing in the Bible indicates this at all. And He certainly isn't bound by Dan Trabue's notions of what constitutes a good and loving God. If He does something to us that seems unjust, we must assume that we lack understanding enough to reconcile it in our minds.
But as Bubba said, the language used to speak of Christ's death may be imagery, but the death and what it did for us is not. I personally don't think "ransom" or "paying our debt" and such is all that flowery considering it matches so well what was accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection. In addition, as imagery it doesn't even compare to chopping off one's arm or descriptions of Creation.
Also, I echo Bubba's request for chapter and verse notation since you have a history of leaving off relevant pieces that comprise proper context. Hopefully it's an oversight on your part and not a conscious effort to inhibit our ability to rebut.
As to citations, I thought I was dealing with folk familiar enough with the Bible to recognize general direct quotes of the size I've been quoting. I'm sorry. I'll include them if it helps you.
Marshall...
you seem to insist that the laws of behavior God implements for us bind Him to the same behavior. Nothing in the Bible indicates this at all.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Let me clarify what I mean: I think the Bible is quite clear that God won't tempt us to sin. That God is not the author of evil.
To me, I think it is obvious that this means there are some things God won't ask us to do. God won't ask us to sin. God won't ask us to rape a child. God won't ask us to kill an innocent neighbor. Things of this sort.
Do you disagree?
Dan,
Are you seriously suggesting that Calvin's theology is heresy, seriously?
You have no problem with substituting the image of a lactating breast, for the image of a crucified/risen Christ?
"consign ourselves to a hellish existence if we so choose."
Could you please provide some support from scripture to substantiate this noting of a "hellish existence" as opposed to an actual hell.
"...the clear teachings of Jesus and the rest of the Bible to love our enemies and against shedding innocent blood..." are teachings for US to follow, not rules by which God is bound to follow. It's presumptuous to assume He must do what He tells us to do or in not doing so He is a being unworthy of our concern or worship. It is not against His nature to wipe out entire peoples because He's done it on more than one occasion. I would stand with you in insisting to anyone that this fact does not justify anyone shedding innocent blood, but that's because we don't have the right to do so without direct commands from God to do so. There are no such commands in the Bible and anyone who thinks the OT constitutes such commands is as wrong as some fool thinking that God ever made an exception allowing homo marriage.
But who was ever more innocent than Jesus? He was without sin. Without blemish. This is because He is God and because of His perfection, He was the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins. This is no imagery, it is the fact of the matter, because of all those sacrifices made in the OT for the forgiveness of sin was not imagery either. They were actual deaths offered up to pay for the sin committed by the offerer. It is literal because of what God required.
You also keep referring to what God is or is not capable of doing, such as forgiving us simply because He can. That, also, has never been an issue and you waste time and keystrokes continually bringing it up. It isn't about what God CAN do, or about what He is LIKELY to do. We're only speaking of what He did do. And what He did do was require a sacrifice for the atonement of sin. So because He's fully capable of doing anything He wants, it's pointless, moot actually, to deal with such speculation instead of focussing on what He actually did according to Scripture.
Marshall...
I really resent when you do this. Not the emboldened section. No one has ever said that God's will is for US to slaughter anyone, much less babies.
I was providing a hypothetical situation for which a person's view (one which I think is absurd) would start to worry me. Someone who thinks that God might command you to kill a baby based on that passage, that person would worry me.
On the other hand, I don't see what your concern is over my "absurd" (to you) position that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone.
Perhaps you could demonstrate what is so dangerous to my Christian faith if that is my position and I'm not as confident as you are that passages that suggest that God "required" Jesus' sacrifice as the one and only possible way of forgiving us can only mean what you think it means.
Marshall...
So Bubba's request that you provide an alternative meaning of those OT passages is legitimate and a response would be helpful.
I HAVE explained before. Multiple times. I think the most likely explanation is that these passages are written in the epic style, common to other literature from the time. Other literature cites God or gods doing fantastic or horrible things in defense of a people.
But, just as I don't think Gilgamesh, if it was based on a real person, really factually descended into hell, I don't think it likely that God actually told people to kill infants. I think this is abundantly clear because
1. the Bible condemns shedding innocent blood
2. God does not tempt us to commit evil
3. Shedding innocent blood IS evil
4. Therefore, God could not have logically, biblically commanded to do what God has said God wouldn't do.
So, if it can't mean it literally, I think it more reasonable and likely that it was written in the epic style common to the day in such a way as to give hope and comfort to an oppressed people.
Look, you know I'm a pacifist, generally opposed to violence. Nonetheless, I STILL CHEER when John Wayne in True Grit takes those reins between his teeth, rifles in each hand and confronts the bad guys saying, "Fill your hands, you summbitch!" There's something comforting and reassuring in such fiction.
It doesn't make good theology, but it can be a powerful tool for encouragement - as a story, not as a rule for living.
Craig...
Are you seriously suggesting that Calvin's theology is heresy, seriously?
It is deeply problematic theology, yes. It represents some serious bad exegesis, at least by my way of understanding the Bible.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But I don't think so. I think Calvin is wrong.
Craig...
You have no problem with substituting the image of a lactating breast, for the image of a crucified/risen Christ?
Substituting? Maybe not. But good imagery is good imagery. IF I can learn something of God's nature by considering God as a nurturing mother, what is the problem with that?
God speaking...
"For a long time I have kept silent,
I have been quiet and held myself back.
But now, like a woman in childbirth,
I cry out, I gasp and pant."
[Isaiah 42:14]
Was Isaiah wrong for portraying God as a woman in childbirth? Or can we learn something from that image?
Clearly, God has no penis or vagina. Referring to God as Father or Mother is imagery, once again. But we use imagery to learn Truths.
So, I have no problem learning from imagery - whether that is imagery of God as a nursing mother (for surely, God tends to us and our needs better than the most tender mother - what better imagery is there for that notion?) or that imagery is of God's blood purchasing our forgiveness.
I DO think it is okay to find some imagery more helpful than others. We don't have to all be instructed to the same degree by the same imagery and stories. If you don't like the image of God as nursing mother, don't reference it.
whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
[Phillipians 4:8]
Craig...
Could you please provide some support from scripture to substantiate this noting of a "hellish existence" as opposed to an actual hell.
sigh.
How about looking here.
It is MY OPINION that the language of sheol, hell, hades, judgment... which are all over the place in the Bible, generally are, again, using imagery to suggest at how horrible separation from God would be. You think burning forever alive and feeling the pain in a fiery hades is awful? I think separation from the God and author of love is worse.
If it means something to you to take it as literal, I don't really care. It's just my opinion that those varied passages are "obviously" [as ever, TO ME] speaking allegorically.
I don't see how it affects your every day faith if you prefer to think of it as literal.
Now that I've answered your questions, perhaps you could confirm for me a question I've been asking: Do you agree that part of Bible study is striving to discern what to take literally and what to take as imagery?
Do you agree that we need not beat each other up if they take passage A as literal and you take it as imagery? Or vice versa? That, in an effort to discern God's will in the Bible, if you come to different conclusions on what is "obviously" imagery or not, that this is okay, part of human nature that we don't all agree?
And, do you agree that, as long as there's nothing truly heretical or anti-Christ in what they say, that live and let live is a reasonable way to live?
Finally, do you agree that you are a fallible person fully capable of being wrong about the literal (or not) nature of any given passage in the Bible?
"I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Let me clarify what I mean: I think the Bible is quite clear that God won't tempt us to sin. That God is not the author of evil."
I don't think God commanding an act equates to Him "tempting us to sin". First of all, whatever God commands cannot be charged to us as a sin because He's the boss. In fact that's a good analogy. Your boss sets rules for you (assuming you work---can't tell between your "living simply" and the constant blogging all day long) that he expects you to follow. A breech of these rules is met with some sort of disciplinary action and an insistence it not occur again. But then an unexpected situation occurs and the boss, in an effort to prevent a loss of revenue, orders you to do something the rules prohibit. It needs to be done in his judgement so he gives his approval for the action. His approval means that your taking the action won't be held against you. In other words, you haven't sinned by doing what is otherwise forbidden.
This is why the Hebrews were not sinning when they wiped out entire towns including babies, assuming babies were put to death. It's really only an assumption, isn't it?
To be more precise, nothing God would tell us to do, should He contact any of us directly, would be evil if it served His purpose, even if it is evil if it served ours to do the exact same thing by our own volition.
Then again with the "rape the child" crap? What in the Bible compares to this unnecessary and boneheaded example? It really irritates when you purposely throw this kind of crap out there like some bait for a trap. The point is whether or not it is outside God's nature to command the death of innocents. The Bible indicates that He has, but not that He is likely to ever do so again, but we can't say it's not in His nature just because of other passages that tell US how to live, including those prohibiting the shedding of innocent blood. The difference is what is prohibited for us and what is in or outside the nature of God. It is not legitimate to suppose that because He mandates behaviors for us, that He is necessarily bound to obey those mandates Himself.
Craig,
You said,
"It seems as though the bigger question is not whether grace saves us, it is how can one logically seperate Gods grace from Christs death."
I agree with this statement. Dan might wonder if that's the same as not separating Grace from Christ's life. I would suggest the answer is "no".
Marshall...
This is why the Hebrews were not sinning when they wiped out entire towns including babies, assuming babies were put to death. It's really only an assumption, isn't it?
Well, yes, IF you assume those passages aren't to be taken literally. But, if you think they represent a literal reality, then the Bible SAYS that they were to kill infants.
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys..."
1 Sam 15:3
Marshall...
First of all, whatever God commands cannot be charged to us as a sin because He's the boss.
So, in your view, there's NOTHING that God might not command? Nothing that would be beyond the pale? If you were utterly and wholly convinced that you heard God telling you to rape babies and smash their heads in, you would and you don't think you'd be wrong?
I'm saying some things are self-evident. It IS always wrong to rape babies and smash their heads in and God would NOT tell us to do what is wrong. And God telling us to do something evil would not make it not evil.
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone
James 1:13
God does not tempt anyone. Why would James have written that? After all, if you were sure that God was telling you to do something - even something normally evil - then it would NOT be evil (according to you).
Therefore, why would James have had to write this? Either someone was NOT being "tempted" by God to do evil or, if God was telling someone to do something, it wouldn't be evil (according to you) - so what would be the point of writing this?
James was making it clear that if someone was wanting to do wrong, that it was not God trying to get them to do wrong, because God does not do that. It is against God's nature to tempt folk to do evil acts.
Again, this is basic orthodox Christianity.
Marshall agreed with Craig's statement...
"It seems as though the bigger question is not whether grace saves us, it is how can one logically separate Gods grace from Christs death."
And I do, too. I think.
Christ's life and death ARE ALL of a part of God's grace. They are the acting out of God's grace. It is all of one cloth.
So this is why I think it appropriate to claim merely, "We are saved by Grace alone, through faith alone," without suggesting that God's grace alone is insufficient.
Marshall...
Then again with the "rape the child" crap? What in the Bible compares to this unnecessary and boneheaded example?
Ummm, the claim that God commands the killing of infants?
In the same way that raping babies is clearly and beyond all doubt wrong, SO TOO is killing infants.
These are self-evident bits of evil. However, I know for most people the rape of a child is so abhorrent that it is perhaps easier for folk to see the ridiculous-ness of claiming that God might command something of that nature. That's why I use that example. To help make it clear that there are things that God won't do.
Do you disagree? Do you think there is NOTHING that we mere humans would normally call evil that God might not command?
Marshall...
It is not against His nature to wipe out entire peoples because He's done it on more than one occasion.
This is begging the question, Marshall. The question is, "Can we know that this bible passage can't be taken literally, and ought, therefore to be taken as imagery of some sort?"
You can't answer that question with the claim, "Well yes, we should take it literally because slaughtering people is in there several times!"
We KNOW that these passages are in the Bible. The question is, "Are they best understood as literal history?"
You're begging the question. Try again.
So, returning to the question: What's the harm?
That is, what's the harm if I believe we are saved by Grace alone through faith alone? And what if that's all I believe. I've read the Bible carefully and prayerfully and that's my ultimate conclusion.
Now, on a day to day basis and as far as salvation...
1. I still believe that I'm a sinner in need of salvation
2. I still believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus
3. I repent of my sins and ask Jesus to be Lord of my life, just as you would
4. God is still faithful to forgive my sins
5. I still believe in Bible study and prayer and striving by God's grace to walk in Jesus steps
6. On a day-to-day basis, I still strive to disciple and be discipled, I still teach all things Jesus taught us
On a regular, day to day basis, how is my faith any different than yours? What is the harm that I don't know what the "mechanism" of salvation is (I can't find any mention of "mechanism of salvation" in the Bible and so I think it safest to assume that we are simply saved by Grace, because that much is clear in the Bible)?
I think perhaps you all are making much ado about very little, on a practical, spiritual, biblical day-to-day Christianity basis.
Back to the thread:
"Sooo... you would ban all homosexuals because some might misbehave, but you would not ban all heterosexuals even though it's just as likely that some of them will misbehave?"
Again you ignore the stark difference between homo and hetero which is that heterosexual act in a manner that is normal. It is a clinical or scientific term used to describe the normal sexual "orientation" of homo sapiens. "Homosexual" is a term used for an abberation, an abnormal orientation for a homo sapien. The sexual practices of the homosexual are prohibited under the UMCJ as are the sexual practices of the pedophile or rapist, which are each groups of people who may or may not act on their desires. If someone said they have a strong desire to have sex with 6 yr olds, they might label themselves pedophiles as proudly as the homo labels himself homo. But if either can control their "naturally occuring orientation", why would anyone look differently at either one. I'm confident that you would not feel toward a pedophile the way you feel toward homosexuals, especially if it was your small child to whom they were most attracted, whether he is able to control himself or not. You would discriminate and treat him differently. You would do the same to a person who describes himself as overly aggressive believing he has the right to punch you in the face if he feels annoyed by you, even if he never has done so.
There's nothing "ugly" about discrimination, just as there is nothing "evil" about violence. A person of culture is said to have discriminating tastes. Is that evil? Of course not. Discriminating against black people is just because they are black is evil because there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being black. Race is morally neutral. Race is not a behavior. Homosexuality IS a behavior that IS immoral despite what seems to be a growing tolerance by a culture constantly inundated with activists and enablers trying to insist otherwise. Yet unanimous agreement worldwide would not change the fact that it is immoral behavior because God has never said otherwise.
Now, one might whine, "That might be good for Art's theocracy, but not for America!" and they'd be wrong. It would be bad for either my theocracy (whatever that's supposed to mean) and it is bad for America. And the extent to which acceptance might impact the military is, to me, inconsequential, but is very much so for the military. I gave a host of reasons why it would be a bad idea to change current policy to appease these morally lost souls, and I won't go into them again now.
Instead, what I would like is some kind of hard, incontrovertable argument in support of this hope to change the policy that isn't based on the many and sundry lies upon which that argument is now based. The last lie Dan used in support is that homosexuality is a naturally occurring orientation. This is wrong even based on research used to support by activists. Something very much unnatural happened along the way between the conception of a person and his eventual coming out that caused the abnormal condition. Two healthy parents in ideal circumstances won't produce a homosexual, if one insists that certain research proves anything about being "born that way". Many legitimate and objective researchers believe circumstances after birth contribute to an eventual belief in one's sexual orientation being apart from the norm.
more---
Then of course, out of the same statement is a second lie suggesting that because it is "naturally occurring", if indeed it is (never proven), then that justifies the demand that we accept and tolerate the behavior of these people if they decide to reject God's clear prohibition and His and nature's clear intent. But of course there is little about any of us and our character that cannot be said to be naturally occurring. Some people, because of testosterone levels, are overly aggressive, even violent. We don't tolerate that just because of any biological abnormalities.
These are but two of the many lies used to put it over on the rest of us who know better.
The degree to which open homosexuals would impact military readiness, effectiveness and cohesion might be debatable. But that it will have an impact isn't. Why put the military through it at all? To prove what? That even the military isn't immune from the fascism of political correctness? To avoid bogus and self-serving charges of "ugly" bigotry and discrimination?
I'm glad the military is discriminating. Setting high expectations and holding to those expectations is what makes our military the best in the world. How dare anyone mess with that just because a few people want to do deviant things with their genetalia and demand that the rest of us pretend with them that it is normal? Better than that would be to simply demonstrate that one really wants to avail himself the privilege of serving our country by sacrificing for it. Keep your homosexuality to yourself just as we'd expect all sinners to control their urges for the sake of a better military.
I will have to postpone further responses to Dan's latest. It's almost tip-off and my daughter needs the computer. But I will respond as I see Dan is yet again making with the bullshit, "God commanding the rape of babies" argument.
Because I'm going to try to be respectful of Marshall, and because I don't want to rehash any more than we have, I will just say that while Calvin is not God, and his words are not scripture, and I am quite sure that he interpreted things incorrectly. I have never heard anyone simply write off someone who is as influential in reformed theology as a heretic so blithely. I, as earlier, am not convinced that you have spent enough time studying Calvin to be able to render such a harsh judgment. Having said that, the subject should be closed.
"Do you agree that part of Bible study is striving to discern what to take literally and what to take as imagery?"
Dan,
I've answered this multiple times. It is so obvious that it should go without saying, which is why you seem compelled to keep saying it.
Yes, the various types of literature contained in the Bible should be interpreted in light of the type of literature. No one is disputing this. Where the conversation breaks down is when someone suggests that a section of the Bible that seems to be intended as history, should be interpreted as metaphor. Now, it would be one thing if there was a metaphorical interpretation that was supported by the text as well as the context. But I haven't seen that. I have seen the theory that one repentance of a paragraph should be interpreted as literal and the next as metaphor with no apparent reason for the distinction. If one is to interpret Biblical texts it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Just because someone interprets a text in some novel way, doesn't automatically make it a valid interpretation.
Further, I think that there is a false dichotomy between literal and figurative. It is entirely possible that a figurative passage may be literal in a number of ways.
I further agree that just because someone has a bad interpretation of a certain passage of scripture it automatically condemns them to anything but bad interpretation. I do think that while there may not be too much of an issue with someone in isolation engaging in bad interpretation, once they start to move beyond individual interpretation it becomes more concerning. For example bad interpretation by one in a position of teaching is much more of a concern, than one who does not teach. Bad interpretation in one who teaches children is more concerning than in one who teaches adults. So there are degrees of harm. Where we seem to come to a problem is, if one is interpreting something wrongly then we should try to point out errors and help them interpret more correctly. Surely, you agree that it would be not loving to allow someone to persist in error.
Yes, I agree that we are all fallible and could be wrong. Speaking for myself, I am not so committed to my preconceptions that I won't change my interpretation if need be. It happens fairly regularly.
"Now, on a day to day basis and as far as salvation...
1. I still believe that I'm a sinner in need of salvation
2. I still believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus
3. I repent of my sins and ask Jesus to be Lord of my life, just as you would
4. God is still faithful to forgive my sins
5. I still believe in Bible study and prayer and striving by God's grace to walk in Jesus steps
6. On a day-to-day basis, I still strive to disciple and be discipled, I still teach all things Jesus taught us"
Great, until you lose your salvation, or decide you don't want it or whatever. Sorry, you now have grace+faith+a choice+a continuing series of choices=salvation.
Dan,
I still don't see that you've done any more or less than taken passages you don't like and decided they are some literary device to say that the stories told didn't happen or didn't happen in the way described. That makes the authors liars. No where in the rest of the Bible does it ever refer to these stories as falsified in any way in order to correct the impressions that they leave upon the reader or those who hear the tales from their teachers. There is no reference to any of these stories to suggest they are not told accurately and there are no passages that seek to reveal their true meaning. This is mighty strange in light of Jesus clarifying other aspects of God's will, such as lustful thought equated with adultery, or hate equated with murder. As we know there were righteous people througout the OT, it would seem that the Law wasn't misunderstood by everyone, yet Jesus saw fit to teach on those subjects. In the meantime, stories that suggest something negative (by your hunch) is never addressed at all. How many people must have lived all their lives believing God would destroy an entire population when, golly, He would never do anything like that! And considering a major Jewish holy day revolves around the destruction of every first born in Egypt not protected by the blood of a lamb, it seems incredibly illogical. Is God or Christ illogical? Jesus Himself celebrated Passover every year, and there was never any mention that the story was merely a metaphor for something else?
So you say that it was just a literal technique to tell tall tales about He that created all things. What is the message of these tales if they are mere metaphors? Metaphors for what and to what can you point that gives any credence to this truly wild hunch? You can't point to verses that tell US how to live, for God is not us nor is He required to BE like us. Not only that, but any verses that speak of a loving God are only describing the other side of His nature. He Himself refers to Himself as a jealous God. Is jealousy a quality we should adopt for ourselves in order to fulfill His wish that we be holy because He is holy? He is a vengeful God as evidenced by His proclamation that vengence is His. This clearly shows that what is good for the Almighty Goose is not good for we mortal gander. There are references to His wrath, and that would be the wrath from which we are saved by the death of Christ on the cross. Yet, we are warned against anger, are we not? There you have two, for sure, possibly three qualities or attributes clearly mentioned in Scripture as a part of His nature, none of which are to be adopted by us in our efforts to be holy.
But still you insist that God would not take lives that YOU believe are innocent or that they are innocent by human standards, that God would not choose any means at His disposal to take those lives, including the use of His chosen people as His agent of death. And still you try to frame this dispute in terms of what He might do now, or what He might ask of someone today. Such speculation is fun and interesting to debate, but it doesn't have anything to do with what the Bible says He DID do. And if what it says He did do didn't happen, then the author was lying because there is no alternative for what you think is imagery. Further, just because it may have been common that ancient peoples enhanced their history with bullshit doesn't mean that the authors of the Bible OT books did the same. I find it hard to believe that a people who had direct contact with the Almighty would feel the need to enhance any story about Him. I find it even harder to believe that a people who had direct contact with the Almighty would even DARE to add bullshit to any story told about Him. And with so much bullshit in the Bible, how are we to separate the bullshit supernatural stuff from the real superntural stuff. Or is your position that there is no supernatural tale in the Bible that really happened?
I'll be away from my computer for a while, so briefly...
I still don't see that you've done any more or less than taken passages you don't like and decided they are some literary device to say that the stories told didn't happen or didn't happen in the way described.
Bubba, you cited in an earlier conversation that it was okay to consider Jesus' "chop off your hand" or the "four corners" passages as metaphors solely on the strength that they were "obviously" so to you. And I agree. They ARE obviously so.
You have established the criteria of "obvious"-ness as a legitimate biblical criteria. I am following your lead and stating that these passages in Genesis, for instance, are obviously metaphorical. Read them (have you read them lately?).
Don't they read just like other mythological stories? They do, in fact. Further, this was the norm of early storytelling.
I don't see any reason to NOT assume they are metaphor, told in mythic language.
That makes the authors liars.
? Why? Does Jesus "obviously" using hyperbole make him a liar?
No, it doesn't. Those Genesis stories are powerful, beautiful, wonderful and absolutely true. They're just not factual.
Are you not getting the distinction?
Regardless, why is it okay for you to set aside passages as "obviously" metaphor without calling the Bible a lie but not me?
Dan,
It's one thing to identify something that is obviously a figure of speech as what it is. However, you are going beyond that. Where this becomes problematic is that you continue to draw this strange distinction between false and not factual, and you have given not alternative metaphorical interpretation for these passages. "God wouldn't behave like that" is not interpretation. Maybe some actual interpretation might help this discussion along.
“Beware of manufacturing a god of your own: A god who is all mercy but not just, A god who is all love but not holy, A god who has a heaven for everybody but a hell for none. Such a god is an idol of your own. The hands of your own fancy and sentimentality have made him. He is not the God of the Bible.”
Bishop J.C. Ryle, DD
Yes, we ought to absolutely beware making a god of our own. One that is love but not holy.
A holy god would not command people to rape or kill babies. You know why biblically that can not be so? Because God is a God of JUSTICE. It is unjust for people to shed innocent blood, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.
So, good biblical exegesis requires that we what?
Interpret the individual through the whole.
Interpret the obscure and unclear through the clear and obvious.
(If raping or killing babies is not obviously wrong, I don't know what is. We don't even need the Bible to tell us that - God's law on our hearts yells that out to us.)
Interpret the individual through the words of Jesus.
If we have a passage that SEEMS to be contrary to other passages and to clear biblical ideals, then we can know that we must be not understanding that passage. It's okay to say, "I don't know what that passage means, but it can NOT mean what it literally says because that would be a conflict of Scripture."
I believe you all have agreed to this before.
It's one thing to identify something that is obviously a figure of speech as what it is. However, you are going beyond that.
Says you. To YOU, what I think is obvious is not obvious.
Who gets to decide, then?
Got a minute or two.
Marshall:
"First of all, I really need to know whay kind of jobs you guys have so that I can work toward similar employment that allows for so much blogging. I don't even work and I can't find this kinda time!"
I'm an engineer whose work schedule has tended to be a little flexible, and who has conversed at length with Dan both while I've been gainfully employed and when I've been between projects.
The reality is, I have DEFINITELY been spending more time with this nonsense that I should be doing. If I focused on my real priorities, I would never get around to trying to address all the bull that Dan shovels, even if I had a trust fund and a butler.
I'm working on that, and I'm quite glad that things had almost wrapped up between him and me. I hope to get back to that state of affairs shortly and finish what I need to say in this conversation.
Dan:
Like Marshall, I resent your repeating the claim that we believe God has commanded us to slaughter children. My objection isn't just with who was given the command, but the content of the command: "slaughter" is demagoguery.
You wrote that we believe "that God's will is for us sometimes to slaughter our enemies, down to and including their infants."
That you were accurate that God commanded Israel to annihilate entire groups, including infants, is an improvement of sorts, because God DID NOT target infants specifically.
That improvement is short-lived, because you're right back to "killing infants" and even bringing up raping infants.
Look, if you're going to object when we compare homosexuality to bestiality EVEN THOUGH THE BIBLE REPEATEDLY CONDEMNS BOTH SIDE-BY-SIDE (see Lev 18:22, then 23; and Lev 20:13, then 15-16), then you should treat others as you would like to be treated and not bring up comparisons that are not only offensive, but COMPLETELY unjustifiable.
As an aside on the subject of the Golden Rule, this sort of snark is completely unnecessary:
"As to citations, I thought I was dealing with folk familiar enough with the Bible to recognize general direct quotes of the size I've been quoting. I'm sorry. I'll include them if it helps you."
My request was completely reasonable and offered with genuine civility. It's doubtful any of has memorized Scripture to the degree that we can IMMEDIATELY place any quotation, chapter and verse. You yourself have a habit of ripping passages out of context, as you have done with Psalms, I Peter, and (I almost forgot) Romans on the principle of overcoming evil with good vs. the government's use of force which Paul condones IMMEDIATELY after.
It wasn't at all necessary to address that request by insulting us, you jackass.
Now, returning to the subject of the difficult passages in the Old Testament, you write, "I think the Bible is quite clear that God won't tempt us to sin. That God is not the author of evil."
Agreed.
You also then IMMEDIATELY claim, "I think it is obvious that this means there are some things God won't ask us to do," and you give examples.
"God won't ask us to kill an innocent neighbor."
I've already asked whether you believe God has the moral right to take human life whenever and however He chooses, including through human agency. YOU WROTE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, so -- if you're consistent -- you cannot possibly say that it's "obvious" that those difficult commands the OT attributes to God, didn't actually come from God and was meant literally and historically.
[cont]
[cont]
Dan, your approach to the Old Testament -- that it's like Aesop, or (now) that the difficult passages are like an epic myth like Gilgamesh -- simply does not accord with how the New Testament treats those passages. Not only do the NT writers treat OT history as historical, where even the details of the OT account are theologically important, they EVEN praise them for obeying divine commands that you reject as obviously evil, such as Abraham's obedient willingness to sacrifice his own son (Heb 11:17-19).
And it's not just the writers of NT canon who affirm the historicity of the Old Testament. JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF does so as well, referring to Sodom as a mere WARM-UP for the judgment to come (see Mt 10 and 11).
1. the Bible condemns shedding innocent blood
2. God does not tempt us to commit evil
3. Shedding innocent blood IS evil
4. Therefore, God could not have logically, biblically commanded to do what God has said God wouldn't do.
The Bible doesn't actually support this argument, and it even condemns the shedding of innocent blood ALONGSIDE condemning Israel for NOT obeying God's commands to annihilate His enemies (see Psalm 106, where you've cited the former but ignored the latter).
But if you really believe this, the answer to my question regarding whether God has the prerogative to take human life would have been an immediate, firm and emphatic NO.
I repeat that you couldn't bring yourself to provide that answer.
In part because of your arguments on this subject, it's laughable for you to condemn Calvin for bad exegesis.
With both the OT records of God taking human life and the NT claims that we're saved by Christ's death, you impose onto the text assumptions that the Bible DOESN'T actually require, to draw conclusions that the text CANNOT POSSIBLY support.
You write that we should...
"Interpret the obscure and unclear through the clear and obvious."
Agreed, and what's clear and obvious is that the command to annihilate God's enemies and the command not to shed innocent blood ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE, because the Bible condemns Israel for disobeying both, SIDE-BY-SIDE.
"They did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, but they mingled with the nations and learned to do as they did.
"They served their idols, which became a snare to them.
"They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
"Thus they became unclean by their acts, and prostituted themselves in their doings." - Ps 106:34-39
One could EASILY conclude that the Israelites wrongly shed innocent blood BECAUSE they FIRST disobeyed God and didn't wipe out His enemies: they were then influenced by their evil pagan practices of child sacrifice.
And, what's clear and obvious is that salvation by God's grace and salvation by Christ's death ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE, because the New Testament teaches both, again SIDE-BY-SIDE.
We are "now justified by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith." - Rom 3:24-25
[cont]
[cont]
You also write that we should "Interpret the individual [passage] through the words of Jesus," but your take on things takes no account of Christ's warnings that allude to Sodom as a historical act of God, or Christ's teaching that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.
Nowhere does the Bible teach that God cannot do what He forbids us to do. It's obviously the case that it's wrong for us to demand others to worship us as deities, but SURELY it's not wrong for God to demand worship as God.
And nowhere does the Bible teach that salvation by God's grace precludes salvation in Christ's death. (Note the different prepositions; both have different roles in salvation, grace is the source, and the cross is the ground.)
"Grace alone" isn't actually found in the Bible; the phrase "alone" was added by the Reformers whose theology you dismiss as heretical, and it was intended to convey that we're saved by grace APART FROM THE LAW, not by grace apart from Christ's death.
(Likewise, "faith alone" means faith apart from our works not Christ's work; and sola scriptura affirms the authority of Scripture apart from the papacy, not the preaching authority of the OT prophets and Christ's hand-picked Apostles while they were still on earth.)
You're using an extra-biblical phrase to mean something IT NEVER MEANT, to force onto the text interpretations that they simply DO NOT SUPPORT.
You ask, what's the harm? What does all this do to affect our day-to-day life of devotion?
For one thing, condoning your mutilation of the Bible's clear meaning undermines the idea that the Bible is perspicuous -- that it even HAS a clear meaning, which is dangerous in the long run.
It's arguable that a person with your view doesn't have a full grasp of God's holy wrath and the requirements of His perfect righteousness. Because you don't believe Christ's death saves us, you're inclined to trivialize it while celebrating other things, like springtime and butterflies.
But -- and I think we've actually discussed this before -- whether your unsupportable interpretations cause any day-to-day harm ought to be an irrelevant point.
You claim to love the Bible and deeply respect all its teachings. Considering how frequently the OT contains divine actions you reject as evil, and how frequently the NT attributes salvation to Christ's death, we're not discussing obscure matters.
As a matter of principle, you should care about which one(s) of us has completely butchered the plain meaning of the text, because, given the disparity between them, it's simply not possible that we both have reasonable interpretations.
I close by repeating my last question.
How do you interpret the reference to Jesus' blood in Acts 5:28?
Dan's writings tire me, so I have gone to skimming but it just seems to me that he either works diligently to discredit God's Holy inspired Word or he has deliberately chosen to place human will above God's Will. mom2
Bubba objected in error, saying...
Like Marshall, I resent your repeating the claim that we believe God has commanded us to slaughter children.
If you will note, I have not claimed anything about you (or Marshall). What I said...
For instance, someone who would say that the obviously epic storytelling found in Kings and Samuel and other places is, in their best guess, a factually correct history...
I'm clearly giving a hypothetical example, not speaking of anyone here specifically. I'm sorry if I was not clear in my example, but it was not you I was speaking of, but a hypothetical "someone," who I have invented in order to make my point (which I felt was pretty clear - sorry if it wasn't).
Bubba...
That you were accurate that God commanded Israel to annihilate entire groups, including infants, is an improvement of sorts, because God DID NOT target infants specifically.
I disagree, although we're probably down to semantics, here. In the story I cited, God QUITE SPECIFICALLY included infants in the "hit list" of those to be slaughtered (and I AM sorry that you object to the word "slaughter," but it is the definitionally correct term. Someone who goes in and wipes out a whole people, down to and specifically including the infants, IS conducting a slaughter.
There is nothing wrong with that word if it fits the situation.
Slaughter: killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre)
As to your claim "God DID NOT target infants specifically," we have seen that in the text, God DOES do so. I would guess what you're getting at is that God did not command the specific slaughter of ONLY infants, that God was commanding the slaughter of everyone in that kingdom, the men, women, children and the infants, all specifically chosen.
You are correct that God did not command ONLY the slaughter of infants, but in the text, God DOES specifically command the slaughter of innocents.
In case you have forgotten...
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys..."
1 Sam 15:3
So, to summarize this point that you all keep getting wrong...
1. I have not said this is what Bubba and Marshall believe here. I was providing a hypothetical situation.
2. God DOES specifically command the killing of infants.
3. The wholesale killing of a great number of human beings IS definitionally a "slaughter."
It wasn't at all necessary to address that request by insulting us, you jackass.
You are, of course, correct. It was a bit of snark put there merely * because I found it amusing. I apologize.
(*or at least mostly because I found it amusing - there WAS a bit of point to it: Namely, that I fear you all are simply just not that familiar with the Bible and are more familiar with what you've been taught the Bible says, rather than what it actually says - and I was using this as a way of pointing that out, however rudely. Again, apologies.)
Bubba quoted Dan and replied...
You also then IMMEDIATELY claim, "I think it is obvious that this means there are some things God won't ask us to do," and you give examples.
"God won't ask us to kill an innocent neighbor."
I've already asked whether you believe God has the moral right to take human life whenever and however He chooses, including through human agency. YOU WROTE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW,
My whole answer, I believe, was that I don't know BEYOND the fact that God won't do what is contrary to God's nature. Tempting us to do evil is contrary to God's nature.
As to you asking me if God has the right to kill people, you have not asked me about "through human agency" - your question was...
If you do agree, does God have the moral right to take what He gave us, whenever and however He chooses?
Nothing there about "human agency."
I don't believe God will tempt us (or command us) to do something that is evil. God has told us that shedding innocent blood is evil, therefore, I don't think God will tempt us to do that which God has forbidden as morally wrong.
Do you?
Your answer is, it appears, IF God said to do it, it wouldn't be morally wrong, even if it normally would be wrong. I'd ask for some biblical support for such a view. If you can't find it, then I'd ask you to reconsider your hunch.
I keep bringing up the child rape - legitimately - because I'm trying to get from you all a direct answer: IS there ANYTHING that God might command us to do that you would think wrong? Or, put another way, do you think that God would possibly command us to commit an obvious evil such as raping a baby? After all, our bodies are God's to do with what God will, according to you. IF God has a purpose for it and our bodies are God's to do with as God pleases, and God commanded it, it appears that you would go along with it.
Until you address this legitimate question, I believe it to be an unanswered question and a HUGE moral, logical and biblical hole in your reasoning that I see no answer to. Thus, the question and topic remains on the table as reminder of the holes in your position.
Bubba...
your approach to the Old Testament -- that it's like Aesop, or (now) that the difficult passages are like an epic myth like Gilgamesh -- simply does not accord with how the New Testament treats those passages. Not only do the NT writers treat OT history as historical
Says you. Do you get to decide this for everyone?
As Craig noted earlier in this rambling ol' thread, Jeff St quite loudly and proudly had our children sing a song about a six day creation. We sometimes even sing songs about the blood of Christ, shed for our sins.
We as a church sing about symbolic things all the time because we are okay with the notion that sometimes some truths are told in imagery and that's a good and beautiful and true thing.
How do you know that the NT writers aren't treating the OT stories thusly?
Because it's "obvious"? TO WHOM? Who gets to decide what is "obvious" and what isn't?
That, too, remains an unanswered question and another big hold in your position.
For my part, I don't know that the NT writers considered the creation story a mythical tale. They were a mostly pre-scientific people. They may have had no reason for taking it as anything but a factually true story.
But at the same time, there is nothing IN THE BIBLE to suggest that they would get hung up on its factual accuracy. The points generally are the TRUTHS of the Bible, not the facts.
Earlier people told stories in mythical and epic genres because it was a way of explaining things to them as best they could understand them. God is an all powerful and all knowing God. God could easily have had the Bible written in terms that makes sense in terms of modern science, but why would stories back then have been written in such a way?
If myth-telling was the norm for the peoples of the day because that is where they were, why would God not also want stories told in that form? Does God not generally meet people where they are, in terms of understanding?
Bubba...
Nowhere does the Bible teach that God cannot do what He forbids us to do.
It would help if you'd quit arguing with yourself on a point that no one is disagreeing. God CAN do whatever God wants that is not out of God's nature.
We are all agreed upon this point, are we not?
Therefore, that is a bogus argument to even bring up (again and again and again) because we have already agreed to the point. God can do WHATEVER God wants (that is not outside of God's nature).
The question, then, is WILL God command us to do something that is evil?
I say, No.
You appear to say, "IF God commands it, it's not evil." Which is just bad logic and biblical exegesis.
The correct biblical answer is, NO, God will not tempt us to do evil. Period. There need not really be any long discussion on the point because it is patently obvious, not only from the Bible, from our own reasoning. Some things ARE self-evident.
Bubba...
condoning your mutilation of the Bible's clear meaning undermines the idea that the Bible is perspicuous
"Clear" TO WHOM? It appears that YOU read a passage, YOU think, "Ah, this point is clear TO ME," and then, YOU decide, "therefore, this point MUST be just as clear to everyone and therefore, MY understanding must be God's will and, therefore, anyone who disagrees with what I think is obviously clear, disagrees with God."
You aren't the God of us all, Bubba. Sometimes, Christians of good faith will - as unbelievable as it may sound - disagree with the holy mind of Bubba.
We remain stuck on "Obvious."
Who is the arbiter of all things "obvious" as it relates to the Bible?
As a matter of principle, you should care about which one(s) of us has completely butchered the plain meaning of the text, because, given the disparity between them, it's simply not possible that we both have reasonable interpretations.
1. I am concerned. I DO think you butcher the plain meaning of text too often.
2. I don't think you hold a reasonable interpretation on a few items.
But what of it? I am no more the arbiter of all that the Bible says than you are. I won't force you to agree with me. I won't condemn you for failing to agree with me.
I'll disagree with you and love you as a mistaken brother in Christ. Sometimes SERIOUSLY mistaken, in my opinion, but a mistaken brother in Christ.
And I'll thank God for grace and pray that none of us abuse that grace too much.
Craig...
Where this becomes problematic is that you continue to draw this strange distinction between false and not factual
I don't know what you mean? Do you not agree that a fable can be wholly and utterly wonderfully true and yet not factual?
What strange distinction?
Craig...
and you have given not alternative metaphorical interpretation for these passages.
Perhaps you have missed my repeated writings on this over the years (and in this very thread).
Genesis: A myth that conveys the very great truth that God is the Creator and that God created this world as Good, among other great truths.
The epic stories later in the OT: epic stories not unlike any other epic stories providing a roughly historical tale intended to give comfort and courage to an oppressed people.
Hopefully, you will see the "alternative explanation" this time.
Craig...
"God wouldn't behave like that" is not interpretation. Maybe some actual interpretation might help this discussion along.
Perhaps not an entire explanation, but it IS exegesis. If we read a passage, we strive to discern its meaning and God's teachings from it. As part of that, especially on more difficult passages, we interpret the obscure and difficult through the clear and obvious.
If we know from scripture that God does not tempt us to do evil, and then, for instance, someone reads the story of Judas and they think, well, God must have WANTED Judas to betray Jesus, it was part of God's will, God must have told Judas to betray Jesus...
Well, we can know that this is not a sound exegesis, because we know, from the Bible that God does not behave like that. It may not be a complete interpretation, but it is PART of interpretation to interpret the obscure through the more obvious and clear.
I would hope that we could agree on this?
"IS there ANYTHING that God might command us to do that you would think wrong?"
Based on how this question is worded, a single answer would be insufficient in clarifying my belief. Initially, I would answer, "No". The reason I say this is that if a command comes from God, it isn't possible for it to be wrong. If a directive comes from God, it is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do.
But this is a far different question than, "...do you think that God would possibly command us to commit an obvious evil such as raping a baby?" The first mistake is that this presupposes that to rape a baby and to kill a baby indicates an identical nature if the two acts are perpetrated by two different people, one killing and the other raping. Similar, maybe (for a human), but not identical because the acts aren't identical.
And of course the second mistake is that there is no logical reason one could devise that would justify such an act, so why would God make such a command. There is not Scriptural support for the possibility, but there is indeed precedent for killing babies.
Now for us, there are two additional considerations. The first is that God has said that for us to murder is wrong. But He never said anything about taking life to be wrong for Himself. If you're going to insist on Biblical support for an idea or belief, you have none for this premise. The closest passage that I can imagine is when after the Flood He promised to never wipe out the whole world and start over again. But still, He didn't say it was wrong for Him to do so, as far as I can remember.
The second consideration is that all we know of God's nature is what has been revealed to us in Scripture. But that isn't the whole story as the Bible clearly tells us when it says His ways aren't our ways, or that we cannot know the mind of God. So to ask what might He command us to do is an extremely open question as we can have no way of knowing why He would command us to do anything, or what that might be, until He does, should He ever decide or have need to.
more---
Finally, for now, Bubba asked what I thought about Acts 5:28 ("How do you interpret the reference to Jesus' blood in Acts 5:28?"), in which the religious leaders were persecuting the apostles for preaching about Jesus...
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." Acts 5:27-28
I think they are speaking of Jesus' blood symbolically. What they are indicating is "the disciples are determined to make us guilty of Jesus' death." Specifically, of Jesus' death upon a cross, which was the means that the Romans used to kill political prisoners, for a bit more context.
Why?
Marshall...
But He never said anything about taking life to be wrong for Himself. If you're going to insist on Biblical support for an idea or belief, you have none for this premise.
For the umpteenth time, I'm not talking about what God can do for God's Self. As I have always said, God is God and as such can do anything EXCEPT that which is not in God's character.
Are we agreed upon that point? If so, then there is no need to ever bring it up again, as you're wasting typing ribbon since WE ALL AGREE upon that notion.
So to ask what might He command us to do is an extremely open question as we can have no way of knowing why He would command us to do anything
Are we agreed that God won't do anything contrary to God's nature? For instance, do you agree that it is contrary to God's nature to tempt us to do evil? And, if so, are you agreed that we can safely say that God won't tempt us to do evil?
Is there any more appropriate use of "I don't know" when considering what God might ask of us?
Regarding the idea of God tempting us to do evil, there too, you make assumptions the verse doesn't support. What does it mean to tempt someone to do evil? I would say that the most logical response is that it means to entice someone to commit an evil act for the sake of having them commit an evil act, or rather, for evil's sake. Evil is the opposite of God's purpose, I would say, as opposed to good, which aligns with God's purpose. Why would God entice anyone to act against His will? This surely is against His nature. But that is not to say that the taking of a life is automatically against His will or purpose, even if we can't wrap our mings around that purpose. That is to say, it would be against His nature to say for example, "Hey Dan. Just for fun, go over there and grab that woman's breast and yell 'ahOOOOGah!'" But that would be different than Him saying, "I've grown tired of waiting for this guy to repent and walk the straight and narrow. Therefor, I command you to take his sorry life." (No. I don't believe God runs from sin. I do knonw, though, that He will not tolerate it in His presence which is why we He sent His Son to die as the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins. Sorry for the tangent, but I didn't want to forget that point again.)
Again, we can't pretend that God is bound by the rules He laid out for us. We can't assume that because it is a sin for us to murder, that it is beyond God to take a life by whatever means He decides, be by His own act or through the actions of any human being.
Next, is the goofy idea that because the Greeks or other groups of people had epic stories filled with bullshit that never truly happened, then that means that we must look upon OT stories as being written in the same way. This is a liberty taken by Dan by his own volition, but not based on anything that proves the OT stories were indeed written in this way. Here, of course, I'm referring specifically to the stories of God destroying populations or the first born of Egypt or the world by Flood or commands to put sinners, like anyone who engages in homosexual behavior in any context or form, to death. I go back to my previous comments on the subject and demand a little more than your hunch, Dan, that this was the case. To look to other examples, like Greek or Roman mythology, and compare those to the One True God of Abraham, is really quite remarkable in its inanity. Do you really mean to suggest that because the Greeks were writing about gods that didn't exist means that the OT writers embellished stories regarding the REAL God of all things? How can you possibly question the degree to which WE know the Bible and then say something as stupid as that? And again, how can you think that a people that had direct contact with God throughout the OT not have been corrected and made to fix such glaring errors and falsehoods about a Supreme Being that prohibits the bearing of false witness against our neighbors? Wouldn't it make sense that it would be worse to lie about God? Your arguments against the historical accuracy of the OT military campaigns just don't wash.
Plainly, by the word "more---" at the end of my comment, I was not finished with my explanation. You had questions that were still in the process of being answered.
"more---"
"continued---"
"continuing---"
"not done yet---"
"explanation continues in next comment because there's a limit on characters that denies my ability to complete my answer here---"
all mean "hold up until I've completed my answer". Just FYI.
Marshall...
That is to say, it would be against His nature to say for example, "Hey Dan. Just for fun, go over there and grab that woman's breast and yell 'ahOOOOGah!'" But that would be different than Him saying, "I've grown tired of waiting for this guy to repent and walk the straight and narrow. Therefor, I command you to take his sorry life."
But by your reasoning, God may very well have a plan for the sexual assault you describe above, because by assaulting the woman, for instance, as you describe, she may realize her vulnerability and repent and turn to God.
Crazy? Yes. Just as crazy almost as suggesting that God might possibly command you to rape a baby or kill one.
But by your reasoning, there is nothing that you can safely say, "This would NEVER happen - THIS might be God's will. Raping babies might very well be God's will..."
According to that sort of logic.
Or lack thereof.
I would disagree. I think some things are self-evident and obvious.
Marshall...
I go back to my previous comments on the subject and demand a little more than your hunch, Dan, that this was the case.
I can't do so. No more so than YOU can do so. You have your hunch, I have mine.
Why should I buy into yours?
Marshall...
To look to other examples, like Greek or Roman mythology, and compare those to the One True God of Abraham, is really quite remarkable in its inanity. Do you really mean to suggest that because the Greeks were writing about gods that didn't exist means that the OT writers embellished stories regarding the REAL God of all things?
I really mean to suggest that stories were written in certain ways in older days. They did not write in English, for instance, nor did they write using scientifically accurate terminology as we might do today, and they tended to write in mythic or epic language. In I believe every case of early writings, we would find this.
I would ask you to provide SOME reason why we would think that the early Israelis would have written in some other format other than what was common for the day.
To consider it embellishing is a modern twist on storytelling that is being imposed upon earlier writers. It is modernistic chauvinism, presuming that ancient peoples would tell a story in a modern manner.
What possible evidence do you have to convince anyone that these stories were told in some way different than the norm of the day?
None that I have seen thus far, beyond "it's obvious to me, Marshall."
Nothing personal, but I don't trust your isolated genius to rightly divide God's word based on your gut feeling of what is obvious and what isn't.
I value the Word of God too much to treat it so capriciously.
Marshall...
How can you possibly question the degree to which WE know the Bible and then say something as stupid as that?
Ummm, because you have NO biblical evidence to support your hunches and they fly in the face of what we DO know about the Bible and basic logic?
Marshall...
And again, how can you think that a people that had direct contact with God throughout the OT not have been corrected and made to fix such glaring errors and falsehoods about a Supreme Being that prohibits the bearing of false witness against our neighbors?
Again, you are demonstrating modern chauvinism (that's not the right term that I'm looking for - there is a more precise term, but I'm not able to produce it right now. I hope you understand what I'm intending by "modern chauvinism.").
I am not the one saying there are errors or falsehoods in these stories. ANY more than there is an error or falsehood in Jesus' use of hyperbole or parable.
Are you accusing Jesus of lying because he used hyperbole or parables? Do you think that introduces falsehoods?
No, obviously not. That's just the storytelling technique that Jesus employed.
So, because the storytellers in the OT employed imagery at times does not in the least mean that they used falsehoods that NEEDED to be corrected. They told TRUE stories that just weren't wholly factual, as was the norm for the day.
We ARE agreed, aren't we, that IF God wants to tell a story or write a Bible that uses parable or hyperbole or myth or epic language, that God is fully able to do so? That God or the authors are not introducing falsehoods by doing so?
all mean "hold up until I've completed my answer". Just FYI.
Okay. I just assumed it meant, more coming.
Parables, by definition, are fictional stories created to deliver a message, to teach. They are by definition, NOT TRUE as a historical report of things that had come to pass.
Hyperbole is a rhetorical flourish to make a point, normally recognizable by the listener or reader as such. Less people walk away believing the outrageous language used as hyperbole before asking for clarification. "Do you REALLY mean chop off your arm...?"
"Does He really mean chop off my arm...?"
The OT stories were meant as a history of not only the tribes of Israel, but their relationship to God, THE God, the God that actually exists. The God who knew Moses "face to face" and who instructed them to eat differently than the rest of the world, to wear their hair differently than the rest of the world, to make their clothes differently from the rest of the world, to live and act in a manner that clearly separates them from the rest of the world so that they will be known and easily recognized as God's chosen people. But you expect me to believe that He would say, "Despite how I want you to live differently than the rest of the world, I insist that when you record our history together, that you do it like the rest of the world and add bullshit that never happened, including falsehoods about Myself." I get it. That makes perfect sense and it's well within His nature.
And let's not forget the link provided by Craig regarding the workings of oral tradition. Think about that. As they are handing down the history orally, surely someone would ask, "Really? He told our great-grandfather to do that?" and they'd reply, "No. It's just common story telling technique like you'd find in other towns and countries these days. But make sure you tell it like that and not how it really happened." There's just no way any of this makes the least bit of sense, even for ancient people.
Because if it is true, then where is the truth and where is the literary license in the stories? You're saying that they took it upon themselves to "slaughter" an entire city then justified it by saying "God made me do it?" I'm sure THAT sat well with God. Or perhaps they DIDN'T "slaughter" even the children and infants, but spruced up the story with that lie and THEN said, "God made me do it."
Or perhaps it was just a coincidence that first born of those people in Egypt who did not smear lambs blood on their doors just all happened to drop dead on the same night? Or perhaps you're saying the Passover event was a total fabrication and Christ later celebrates something that never happened? Heck, He corrected their misunderstanding of God's commandments and we're to believe He goes along with their misunderstanding of what lead to their release from Egypt? That perfectly aligns with His nature!
I thought you said you did serious and prayerful study of the Bible. How did that study reconcile these questions? Where does my line of reasoning go wrong?
Marshall...
I don't believe God runs from sin. I do knonw, though, that He will not tolerate it in His presence which is why we He sent His Son to die as the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins.
Do you have a biblical reason for thinking God can't "tolerate sin in his presence?"
If not (and I'm pretty sure you can't), do you mind if I chalk that off to your opinion and cultural upbringing, not biblical exegesis?
Once again, I take the Bible too seriously to just accept some guy on the internet's hunch about something the Bible doesn't say.
And regarding your choice of the word "slaughter". It appears you used the online Merriam-Webster to look that up as it seems to be an exact offering of its SECOND definition. The first is what the word truly means (which is usually why a first definition is listed first) which is to kill and butcher an animal, as in, taking a cow to slaughter to be used for food (I love dead cow). The word was then applied to battles and multiple killings as (wait for it) "hyperbole" as in, "We didn't just kill 'em. We SLAUHTERED them!" Are you suggesting that when they killed all the people of the towns as God directed that they butchered the bodies for use as food later?
You pick your words to make your point, but your choices are dishonest in what they convey, including the "rape of babies" gambit. It's as if you might say, "You murdered my dog!" when in fact that damned thing ran out in front of my car before I could react. It's dishonest and you do it routinely in defense of your positions. Shame on you for that.
Marshall...
Parables, by definition, are fictional stories created to deliver a message, to teach. They are by definition, NOT TRUE as a historical report of things that had come to pass.
Y'all seem to be having some difficulty distinguishing between true and factual. Parables, by definition, fictional, yes, but NOT "not true." That is, being "not true" is not part of the definition of "parable."
Parable: a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle
Nothing there about it being not true. Indeed, it IS true, if you accept the moral or religious principle.
The story of the good samaritan is fiction, but the message is TRUE.
Understand the difference?
Marshall...
The OT stories were meant as a history of not only the tribes of Israel, but their relationship to God
Yes, of course they are. BUT, are they meant to be written in a literally factual manner of a modern history or were they stories told in the manner of the time period - mythically and as epics?
Again, you can't just say, "Well, the parables were MEANT to be fictional, but the OT stories were MEANT to be factual because, well, it's obvious..."
It's only obvious to you, but that does not mean I ought to accept what YOU think is obvious.
Is there ANY BIBLICAL reason at all to accept your hunch that they weren't stories told in the style of the day? ANY REASON AT ALL beyond "it's obvious to me"?
"Do you have a biblical reason for thinking God can't "tolerate sin in his presence?""
This question is just too stupid, but I'm leaving to pack my face with dead cow now, so I'll have to respond to it later. Jeez, talk about self-evident!
Marshall...
The first is what the word truly means (which is usually why a first definition is listed first) which is to kill and butcher an animal
?
Marshall, do you know how dictionaries work? The first definition in a dictionary is what the word "truly means"??
Marshall quoted me and responded...
Do you have a biblical reason for thinking God can't "tolerate sin in his presence?""
This question is just too stupid, but I'm leaving to pack my face with dead cow now, so I'll have to respond to it later. Jeez, talk about self-evident!
Okay, Marshall, this is about the fourth or fifth time (at least) that I've asked for some biblical support for your position (positions for which there is no direct or even especially close biblical support) where you've responded in that kind of manner.
Consider if the shoe were on the other foot. Consider if someone were asking (demanding, lest you not be a Christian!) you to agree with them that the Bible says God wants us to rape babies, eat puppy brains from their still living bodies and three other crazy ideas. Each time you respond by, "What? Where does the Bible say that??!" and each time they respond, "That's so stupid, it doesn't even need an answer!"
How seriously would you take such a crazy person?
Marshall...
And let's not forget the link provided by Craig regarding the workings of oral tradition. Think about that.
No one is SAYING that the oral tradition failed. I think it likely that the stories were first told pretty similarly to how they're recorded. That's not the point.
The point is, WHY would we expect the stories to be told in a manner that was unheard of at the time, by all accounts that I've seen thus far?
Your modernist chauvinism is showing, brother.
How did that study reconcile these questions? Where does my line of reasoning go wrong?
1. Because you are presuming that ancient people would have told stories in a modern historic style, not the genre of the day.
2. Because you fail to appreciate the difference between fiction and true.
For starters. I'm out of time. Off to church for a youth night event!
(and my verification word right now is WHOLLY, for what it's worth...)
Dan,
Since you apparently didn't pay attention when I answered this on another thread I will repeat. No, I do not believe something can be true and non factual at the same time. I believe that fiction can point to Truth (parable) I believe that fiction can contain elements of Truth or truth (James Michener novels), but I do not see how two words that have entirely opposite meanings can mean the same thing.
"Genesis: A myth that conveys the very great truth that God is the Creator and that God created this world as Good, among other great truths.
The epic stories later in the OT: epic stories not unlike any other epic stories providing a roughly historical tale intended to give comfort and courage to an oppressed people."
This is explanation, not interpretation. Interpretation usually goes deeper than "It means something different". Again, lets see some interpretation. Explain why God would tell a fictional story, about something you believe that he wouldn't do to make the Israelites feel better? Are you arguing that God lied, that Moses (or whoever) just made stuff up? Come on, interpret.
"Perhaps not an entire explanation, but it IS exegesis"
If it is exegesis, then it is an incredibly minimal level of exegesis. But we are not talking about explanation, but interpretation which implies more than "God wouldn't do that". So, once again, pick one passage and interpret it. Go deep, expound using your Reason, reference commentaries, etc. go for it.
"If we know from scripture that God does not tempt us to do evil, and then, for instance, someone reads the story of Judas and they think, well, God must have WANTED Judas to betray Jesus, it was part of God's will, God must have told Judas to betray Jesus..."
IF this is exegesis (and it may meet some minimal definition) then is is not impressive. To make the unwarranted leap from "God wanted Judas..." to "God told Judas..." shows a lack of respect for the text. Nowhere does it say that God "wanted" or told Judas to betray Jesus. It does say (I believe) that God (Jesus) knew that Judas would betray Jesus. To make the leap from knowledge to "wanted or told" is simply not supported by anything. So,if this is your great example of your interpretive skill, I'm not impressed.
So, what I would hope to see from you is something beyond isegesis. I'm hopeful, but it could happen.
"As I have always said, God is God and as such can do anything"
Including giving his people commands which they disobey at their peril.
"Parable: a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle"
Maybe you are unfamiliar with the definition of the term "fictitious".
1.
created, taken, or assumed for the sake of concealment; not genuine; false: fictitious names.
2.
of, pertaining to, or consisting of fiction; imaginatively produced or set forth; created by the imagination: a fictitious hero.
Synonyms
1. spurious, fake. 2. fictional.
Please explain where the concept of "fictitious truth" or "true fiction" or whatever comes from.
Shoot, even the definition you gave says "to make a point" not true, True, or factual.
"Okay, Marshall, this is about the fourth or fifth time (at least) that I've asked for some biblical support for your position (positions for which there is no direct or even especially close biblical support) where you've responded in that kind of manner."
But where, until now, have I failed to provide support despite your being incapable of understanding it or your outright dismissal of it simply because you didn't like it? I haven't. I always provide something. I can't help if it's over your head or requires a more elementary explanation.
Perhaps you weren't satisified with my explanation for why the Bible itself is proof of "Christ crucified" is the primary message of the entire book? Too bad if that's the case. Once again, this is something that is self-evident. I use THAT term (self-evident) because you've used it regarding what is sinful, as if that settled the issue of the "raping babies" ploy. But it is NOT self-evident that God would never use a human to carry out a command that included killing babies, since the Bible clearly shows that He did.
It is NOT self-evident that the OT authors would write in the same style as other ancient authors, particularly in recording actual history as opposed to mythical history of peoples. You simply need it to be so to make your case, but that doesn't make it so, and you have provided nothing to support that hunch. I, on the other hand, have presented an argument you have yet to address, regarding how different the Hebrews were to behave compared to the rest of the world. Why then must we believe that that didn't extend to being truthful and accurate in the recording of their history, and to do so without embellishment? Again, they were mandated to never bear false witness against their neighbors, and here we're expected to accept that they not only did so against their fellow Jew, but against God Himself. This is the same God Almighty that mandated stoning someone to death just for cursing his parents. No age is given for who could be so punished, but even so, how can you say something is against God's nature in light of this and other seemingly "petty" sins?
To get to the question that provoked the pouty statement above, this issue of God not tolerating sin in his presence is also self-evident. I'm sure you're familiar with the scapegoat and it's purpose. It was to carry away from the community the sins of the community. But that wasn't enough. The guy who was appointed to lead the goat away to release it in the desert was to ceremonially wash himself. Everyone was to avoid anything connected with sin, including dead animals and blood from anyone or anything. Coming into contact would require a ceremonial washing. (This is because sin is death. The wages of sin is death.) Heck, Adam and Eve were driven from Eden after merely eating a piece of forbidden fruit. To insist that the Bible then needs to state explicitly and literally "GOD WILL NOT TOLERATE SIN IN HIS PRESENCE" is insulting to the ear. And since heaven is out of the question for anyone who has not accepted Christ, who was sent for the forgiveness of sins, how much documentation is needed? Or, does He have to paint you a picture?
more---
I have had the opportunity to use a dictionary once or twice in my life. Do you believe that lists of definitions are arranged randomly? That there is no reason one definition comes before another? For some words, the original meaning may be so obsolete, having never been used in its original sense for ages that a more common meaning might take precedence. But I don't think that "slaughter" falls into that category. For example, despite the efforts of perverts, "homosexual" as a definition for "gay" is still fourth behind three other definitions. Perhaps in another decade it'll move up to the #3 spot overtaking "licentious".
Plus, "slaughter" suggests something more than just killing a mess of people, despite what the online dictionary says, it suggests making a mess of them in doing so. Were the Jews sent to kill all the people of the town or hack them into little bits of bloody ground beef? When you choose words like "slaughter", it is a dishonest rendering of the text that you yourself have offered. It merely uses words like "attack" and "put to death". "Slaughter" isn't used. Again, despite the dictionary definition, it conjures an image and I have little doubt it an image you intend to conjure so as to help make your case.
I want to speak on OT authors again because I forgot a point I wanted to make. You want evidence to support the contention that OT stories about battles are accurately recorded rather than written in a particular ancient style like Greek mythology. Considering they were unique compared to other cultures of the time in every other outward respect, what evidence do YOU have to prove that they didn't record their histories in a different manner as well? If you have a source for this type of info, please don't waste my time if it's just some Jesus Seminar type of moron. I'd much prefer a real scholar. Thanks in advance.
Craig...
Since you apparently didn't pay attention when I answered this on another thread I will repeat. No, I do not believe something can be true and non factual at the same time.
Paid attention, have a different opinion. I believe it is possible to tell a fictional story or a story using non-factual imagery that is speaking Truth.
If you prefer to think of it as "contain[ing] elements of Truth or truth," that's fine with me. I don't disagree with stating it that way.
It may be just semantics, but I prefer to think that a fictional story can be a story that is telling a Truth. If you don't like thinking of it like that, that's okay with me, but I think it's fine either way.
Marshall, about dictionaries...
Do you believe that lists of definitions are arranged randomly? That there is no reason one definition comes before another?
No, I do not believe that definitions tend to be random. Rather, sometimes there are more than one definition because, according to Library.thinkquest.org...
Words sometimes have more than one definition.
Amazing, huh? Beyond that, http://en.allexperts.com tells us...
When looking for a definition, may I suggest you use a college dictionary with a good reputation. (I find Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary... fits my own requirements.) A collegiate dictionary will often list more than one definition for a word like "store." Then you can decide which meaning fits the word you looked up.
So, typically, words with more than one meaning are defined with the most common usage first. Of course, sometimes, that would be hard to determine. Nonetheless, it would be fairly safe to assume that generally the first definition would be the most common BUT other definitions would STILL be accurate definitions.
The first listing in a dictionary, then is not, as you claim, "what the word truly means." Rather, it is PERHAPS the more common meaning, but the other definitions are ALSO what the word "truly means," too. To say otherwise indicates a need to return to elementary school or at least get some advice from a librarian.
In the case of slaughter, BOTH definitions are what the word "truly means." I'd suggest that the first one (about butchering meat) IS the most common, but that does not indicate that the other meaning of the word....
What in the world am I doing? I must have misunderstood you, Marshall. Surely you don't mean that the definition which I referenced is not what the word "slaughter" truly means? You must have meant simply that it is not the most common use of the word? If so, we agree, but it is irrelevant to my point.
So, moving on...
Marshall...
Perhaps you weren't satisified with my explanation for why the Bible itself is proof of "Christ crucified" is the primary message of the entire book? Too bad if that's the case. Once again, this is something that is self-evident.
You know what? This is just silly.
You will keep referring to your hunch as self-evident or obvious and that ends the case (for you).
I mean, playing by those rules, all I have to do is make the claim, "Well, what I believe IS the message of the Bible from front to back" and apparently debate is over. No need for me to offer any biblical support for my position.
After all, I just claimed that it was the "obvious" message of the whole Bible. I win.
That is not a reasonable way to conduct Bible study or to have a conversation to me.
We are obviously having a difficult time communicating and I appear unable to accurately convey my position to y'all in a way that makes sense to you.
(With the exception of my thinking that we are saved by God's grace alone through faith in Jesus alone - you all seem to understand correctly that this is my position, which it is.)
Beyond that, we have a failure to communicate and I go back and forth on the value of continuing to try to communicate past this failure. So, allow me to sum things up from my position and I think that's about as far as I can go, at least today...
You all would like me (ie, demand me to believe or I'm a heretic) to believe...
1. That I have to accept your hunch that some parts of the Bible are "obviously" intended to be taken literally;
2. That the Bible "obviously" claims that the "primary mission" of the church is to "preach Christ crucified;"
3. That God can not tolerate sin in God's presence;
4. That if God says to do something that is normally evil, then it would not be morally wrong in that instance;
and a few other things which I'm forgetting right now. I think your position lacks on these items lacks ANY direct Biblical support (as evidenced by a lack of proof from you to support it) and only marginal indirect support that requires your reasoning to reach - reasoning which I find lacking.
So, unless you can provide more (ie, ANY) biblical support for your positions here or, lacking that, some reasonable logical support, I can't agree with it. I just can't.
I must obey God rather than y'all. I don't believe you have successfully supported your case for these issues and I, as a Christian, am obliged to strive to find God's will. I'm not buying your case.
Beyond that, y'all have criticized me and my church as not Christian, heretical and as being liars. Of course, all of this is not supported.
I am a Christian, saved by Grace, in a community of Grace unparalleled in my experience with churches (which extends fairly far and wide for nearly half a century). You all may not feel like we're Christians or you may feel like we're heretical or liars, but those are all just your feelings and hunches.
In fact, we ARE Christians, saved by God's good grace, through faith in Jesus and neither height nor depth nor Marshall nor Bubba can separate us from the love of our God. We are amazingly orthodox on the basics of Christianity and you are doubtful because I don't use the right words to describe what you call "the mechanics" of salvation (another notion that is missing from the Bible).
So, if you don't trust us as part of the Body of Christ, well, that's just your bad luck. You would be hard pressed to meet a sweeter, more faithful, more decent local church.
I would warn you against calling unholy what God has called holy. IF you are mistaken about our church (and I assure you, you are), then you are calling unholy what is holy - a part of the Body of Christ - and the Bible has harsh words for those who do so.
I hope you'll understand that I simply can't accept what Bubba or Marshall think is "obvious" more than what I think is obvious. Especially when there is such a dearth of biblical support for your hunches.
Craig, if you'd like to start a post about Calvinism's TULIP at your place, I'd be glad to discuss that further there.
May God grant us wisdom and grace. Amen.
Dan,
I'm fully aware that many words have multiple meanings. I'm aware that most definitions are arranged in order of most common usage or an original usage that has not yet been usurped by current colloguialism. The original definition of a word is INDEED what the word truly means. This does not suggest that the word means nothing else. It means it is it's meaning as it was intended to be used and from then has been altered. This isn't some goofy notion the warrants an insulting comment suggesting a return to elementary school. At worst, it's common sense.
Are you suggesting that words are coined or created with multiple meanings, or if that's even true at all, that it is commonplace? I would doubt that heavily and wager against its likelihood. Additional or alternative definitions come later as a word is misused enough or misappropriated, as in "gay". Originally it just referred to an emotion like happiness. Then it was applied to something else, as in the vibrancy of a color, then to something else and then to homos until all four are listed as legitimate definitions (as far as the dictionary people are concerned).
With the word "slaughter", I wouldn't think your first grade teacher should be required to understand that it came to define the killing of muliple people for the manner in which the people were killed. That is, somewhere in the past, the scene of a mass killing reminded someone of what happens in the slaughtering of animals at a butcher shop, in that the people weren't just killed, they were butchered. Even THAT word, "butchered" is hyperbole as they weren't really "butchered" which means (basically) to cut up animals for use as food.
So my point is that you selected a word for the imagery it evokes, that of an incredibly sadistic killing, rather than an accurate rendering of the Biblical text you were using. You did this to make your point about just how darned awful it was to kill all those people and their babies, as if afraid that the mention of killing babies isn't awful enough. Doing this also implies some kind of sadistic intent on the part of God, the Hebrews or the authors telling the story that isn't implied by the text itself. You dare insist you don't add what isn't in the Bible yet you employ this technique routinely. And you think YOU'RE frustrated debating with ME?
Now, on to that frustration---
Calling the Bible in it's entirety my proof for my argument isn't a dodge in the least. But what can I do? Reprint it here? All I can do is give a synopsis to show what I mean and then you can try to rebut. I don't do "hunches" despite your desperate claims to the contrary. The problem is that you won't consider the explanations and you dismiss the Biblical support if it means you have to change your position because you have no counter argument. Indeed, you claim our every piece of Biblical support to be hunches as well. At the same time, your arguments, at best, are no better than ours in terms of interpretation or understanding. But at least we never dispute the meaning of words, such as "shall" and claim that it's your "hunch" that it only refers, in the context used, as a future tense word. We don't take verses to use as proof of our position when the verse right after it contradicts our argument, only to be followed by either silence or the favorite stand-by of "your hunch". What do you say that henceforth we all assume our positions are only hunches based on our best interpretations and then just focus on really responding and never again use "your hunch" as an opposing argument. Instead, do this: "I have no response for that at this time" then, copy and paste to a Microsoft Word file to save for a later time when you can work out a counter or a concession. The other side can do the same under the heading "Comment for which (fill in name here) couldn't respond" so it can be brought up again if necessary. Even if you don't want to do this, I think I will. Yes, unlike some, I DO want to persuade because, as in this case, you are wrong in your opinion. But equally important to me is that I want to be convinced if indeed I am wrong (which I'm not) so that I don't continue with the wrong belief. I don't care if it's religion, politics or why Mary Ann is hotter than Ginger.
"I think your position lacks on these items lacks ANY direct Biblical support (as evidenced by a lack of proof from you to support it) and only marginal indirect support that requires your reasoning to reach - reasoning which I find lacking"
This is from Dan whose entire case for why God blesses gay marriage is that it isn't mentioned in the Bible. Who has gone to great lengths to defend his position without one iota of Biblical support. I guess Dan is the only one who can credibly use the argument from silence.
"Craig, if you'd like to start a post about Calvinism's TULIP at your place, I'd be glad to discuss that further there."
Let me see if I've got this straight. Your starting position is that Calvin and his 5 points are such bad exigesis that it constitutes heresy. You have previously dismissed sources in other comments for simply sounding too Calvinist. You seem to have an innaccurate view of what Calvin actually proposed. But you somehow think I would want to start a thread so you can expound on the topic. No thanks, I see no upside to starting such a dialogue.
I hope that isn't dissapointing to you but why put forth the effort when it is clear that you have minimal desore to try to look objectively at the topic. I am quite sure that back when you were a gay hating, homophibic, Regan loving, intolerant conservative, that you were also a Calvinist, but through some process have done a 180, and have no desire to go back.
Back to your concept of non factual truth.
The word factual is synomyous with the word true. (that means they have the same meaning)
An antonyms of the word factual is untruthful.
So, in the common Eglish use of the words, how can the word non factual and the word true both mean the same thing. Doesn't seem to work.
I would suggest an alternative to the Calvin topic. Why don't you do a post on what the metaphorical or figurative meaning is for one of these passages you find so troubling. I would especilly be interested in why God would use stories where He is metaphorically doing things that he wouldn't do in reality (ie killing). Why would God use stories that portray Him in suuch an innaccurate way to convey His truth. That would, I think, be an interesting and realtively worthy post and discussion.
As to the argument itself, I will go over it again as I have in the past and as I have earier in this thread. I didn't just hit you with the Bible and say "it's self-evident". I was referring to my earlier comment. Considering the plethora of comments, probably not a good idea. So here I go again and it could get lengthy, but I'll try not to let it:
In the beginning there was only God. He created the universe and everything in it (by whatever means you want to believe---doesn't matter which for this discussion). In some manner, the Bible says because of Adam and Eve, sin was introduced into the world and man was then separated from God. (Even you speak of sin as a separation from God using that lame "at-one-ment" angle.) God allowed things to roll, but man never returned to Him with the exception of Noah so he wiped everyone out (except for Noah) and stared over (through Noah). Still, few were obedient enough, few acted in a manner pleasing to God, that reconciliation seemed unlikely. Few "got it". Abraham came along and was considered righteous because he was willing to whack his own son simply because God commanded him to. (He must have been crazy! How could he know for sure it was God? He must have been imagining things!) This so impressed God that He made a covenant with Abe making him father of God's chosen. Reconciliation was beginning.
Still it was slow going, with few people really getting with the program as God began to guide them more and more until Moses came along. He was eventually made the main man on earth, a direct liaison to God and through Moses God imparted to His people how He preferred they live in order to be holy and righteous before Him. This included how to deal with sin. It included clarifying what sin was, what constituted a sin. And because sin is death sacrifices were put into place to atone for the sins of the people. The blood was used to "wash away" the sin and ceremonial bathing was instuted to further cleanse one of sinfulness that God will not tolerate. Parallels to Jesus are beginning to be seen here a Moses was hidden from execution as a baby and he was God's main guide for the people to show them how to live and become holy and worthy of God's blessings, as well as to earn their inheritance in heaven after death. But that was still just a beginning and nothing the people could do, by their works or by their atonement rituals, was good enough to truly purify them and absolve them of their sins. A Messiah was needed.
After Moses, and once the people arrived and inhabited the Promised Land, prophets were sent to remind the people of the covenant between them and God made during Moses' time. They alternately rebelled and repented and all throughout these generations, the symbolism of sacrificing animals and death as punishment for sin was practiced. The sacrifices were symbolic, but the sacrifices happened and they were literally the means of atoning for sin and reconciling with God. It was required for all the people and the unrepentent were cast out if not put to death because God won't tolerate sin in His presence.
And the prophets had begun to predict the coming of the Lord in the form of Jesus and there are over 300 of them in the OT because He was the key to true reconcilation and atonement because only He could be perfect enough to be the worthy sacrifice that would seal the deal, as it were.
more---
Eventually it came to pass that Jesus was born. John the Baptist proclaimed His purpose, "The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." Hyperbole? Christ was not really lamb, but He would die as a sacrifice as would a lamb, to take away our sins. Jesus would Himself speak of His purpose and finally He did die on the cross. He went willingly to fulfill His destiny, His purpose. His resurrection from the dead, while an actual event, was also symbolic of His triumph over sin, which is death, and of what our future will bring if we accept Him as our Savior. Later, after His Ascension, His Apostles spread the Good News. Christ crucified was the unique focus of their teachings and epistles. All else that was taught, whether by them or by Christ during His ministry, is secondary to that one simple, saving and marvelous Truth. Other religions, and even atheists, teach being nice guys, charitable, helping the poor, humility, not dumping the car ashtray on the street at stoplights (Man! I hate that!). But only Christianity teaches about how we are reconciled to God, how we can atone perfectly for our sins and be one with Him and find everlasting life. Christ had to die for us to be saved. This is what the Bible teaches from start to finish. It doesn't matter what God could do. It only matters what He did. It only matters that we understand that in order to fully understand what it means to be Christian. It starts with the Cross.
So I ask you again and I don't mean this is a snarky way: How can anyone who claims to study and revere the Bible NOT believe that this is the most important and the overarching theme? Where have I gone wrong in my reasoning?
one more thing for the night---
Since so much of these latest comments occur during times I can't keep up, I'll often miss or get easily sidetracked, but I wanted to quickly comment on verses you used (speaking to Dan still) supporting your arguments about stewardship.
"As I'm sure you all know, Jesus, the Psalmist and the prophets ALL waxed poetic about God's creation."
Yet none of it, at least nothing you've presented, is a call for even stewardship, much less environmentalism and certainly not as part of a church service as if you were a bunch of druids.
You said spoke of working for justice. Working for justice is not something any good Christian needs to have preached to them in church. They know this by their own study and by reading or listening to the Gospels. But more importantly is what you mean by that. I fear you mean the usual communist idea of justice, not the REAL definition. :) Justice at it's most basic definition is merely "fairness". Somehow I am compelled to believe you see justice as having something to do with poverty. I wouldn't put it past you to also believe it has something to do with rights for homosexuals, like in the nonsensical push for homosexual "rights" in the military. What is happening now is nothing one can call unfair. What is happening now is merely one small group of people demanding that the military accept them on the group's terms and not the military's. This is the most heinous aspect of the argument. No one has that "right". It is not inumerated anywhere in our Constitution. I cannot insist they accept me now, at 55 yrs old, even if I could out perform every 20yr old in boot camp (though they might take me if I could, but it would be totally their discretion). Are they ugly bigots for denying my class of citizens defined by advanced age, just because some don't behave/perform as well? If I want to blow weed all day and I show up to the recruiter after toking some tasty herb, would they be ugly bigots for denying me even if I could prove I could be faced and still outperform everyone else? Is that injustice?
Well it's certainly discrimination, isn't it? They'd definitely be discriminating against a whole class of people, old stoners, just because MAYBE some of them can't toke and walk straight.
Now this example might seem as wild as, say, raping babies, but at least there's a legitimate link to the issue, and that would performance. In my examples, my hypothetical me is more than capable despite age and inebriation, but would likely be told, "Thanks, but no thanks" if I showed up stoned and without a falsified birth certificate. Not fair, I say. Where's the justice?
NO ONE, but the military should have any say in determining what constitutes a good soldier. NO ONE should dictate to them the parameters by which they do their job but themselves (except for perhaps money levels---if there ain't any, they can't demand more).
Yet at the same time, all can serve (there are waivers for older people, as I understand it--even though there may still be limitations against the extremely old) but on their terms and as long as one can perform to the minimum levels they set.
So again, like all arguments for the homo activists, this isn't about justice, about what's fair. It's about special privileges.
OOH! I just noticed Craig's comment slipped in between mine. I think that would be great discussion in which he offered to partake. I'd really enjoy seeing that one, but at Craig's or Dan's. I've been putting off an idea to handle things on this topic.
But I'll add to the fiction/non-fiction question.
Parables ARE fiction. The stories are not true. Nothing about them is true. I don't even think they are true with the names changed to protect the innocent. I think Jesus just made them up on the spot (more or less---one might have come to him while having breakfast), but they are not true. The message or moral of the parables ARE true. I think we all understand this.
This is apart from hyperbole or metaphors that Jesus or Bible characters might have used at one time or another. I discussed this in greater detail. But if Jesus said his uncle was as big as a house, few would expect to see a guy big enough to contain kitchen, bedroom and bath. And when He says to it's better to cut off your hand or arm if it sins, he follows up with saying (words to the effect) that it would be better to do so and go to heaven rather than to keep the arm and with it sin. That follow up makes it pretty obvious to all but the most mentally challenged that He never intends that anyone really cut off his arm. Especially when it is far easier to simply not commit the sin in question.
That leaves the argument of writing style of the OT writers regarding wars of anihilation. That I've already covered well and am awaiting some kind of third party source to defend Dan's contention. It must defend the idea that OT stories are indeed written, not just in the same style, because for all I know, everyone else copied God's chosen because that's where all the real miracles were happening, but that the style somehow confirms the events depicted didn't actually happen as written. Which is really the argument after all.
Just one thing, because Marshall seems WAY off on some bunny chase...
So I ask you again and I don't mean this is a snarky way: How can anyone who claims to study and revere the Bible NOT believe that this is the most important and the overarching theme?
1. You seem to be presenting a case that God loves the world and wants to see it saved is the most important, overarching theme. I think I can agree with that.
2. What I was objecting to was at least Bubba's contention (I thought yours, but perhaps you've been arguing something all along) that the "Primary mission" of the church is "preaching Christ crucified."
THAT is what I have said is absent from the Bible. Not that God loves us and wants to see us saved.
3. However, if you are trying to make this case...
All else that was taught, whether by them or by Christ during His ministry, is secondary to that one simple, saving and marvelous Truth.
Then THAT is getting back closer to what Bubba had said.
If you are saying that ALL that Jesus taught (Jesus, our savior by whom we are saved and in whose steps we're to be following) is SECONDARY to framing the story of God's love in the way that Paul does a dozen or so times, well, there is no biblical support for that.
I can agree that the story of God's love for humanity and God reaching out to us in a variety of ways, eventually and ultimately by coming here to live with and for us... THAT is the overarching theme of the Bible. No problem.
JUMPING from that to ...AND the primary mission of the church is to preach Christ crucified, that Jesus was a sacrificial lamb (not literally, but sort of) as Paul describes it maybe ten or so times, well, no, that is NOT the overarching theme of the Bible or the "primary mission" of the church, not according to the Bible.
So, depending on which of those you're arguing (theme of the Bible or "primary mission" of the church), we agree or disagree.
This is why some anabaptists and others of my tradition feel that a good part of the evangelical world is more Pauline than Jesusian (or "Christ-ian" if you prefer): The apparent emphases on Paul's teachings as primary and more substantial than Jesus' own!
Do your sermons tend to quote more from Paul or from Jesus? Do they look more like Paul's sermons or Jesus'?
Something worth considering, we tend to think.
It's one thing to conclude that the main theme of the Bible is God's love for humanity and God reaching out to us, ultimately through Jesus' life and death and resurrection.
THAT'S biblical. What it appears at least some do is take THAT much and then say... "AND therefore, since the theme of the Bible is God's love for and reaching out to us, THEN we must preach Christ crucified."
There's a leap in logic from one point to the next that is not biblically supported. It's a human presumption, based upon the notion that we know best how to express that love for God and that's preaching Christ crucified.
But the "best" way to express that theme (according to some) is not the mission of the church, not according to the Bible.
1. God does the saving, not us.
2. Our preaching is no good if our lives are not of Christ and God's love.
3. Our preaching is no good if it doesn't tend to look like the WHOLE teaching of the Bible. If it doesn't look like Jesus coming to preach good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, healing for the sick, it's no good. If our preaching is not like Jesus' parables, showing how doing unto the least of these is part and parcel of God's "overarching theme," it's no good.
4. As the saying goes, "Preach the gospel. Use words if you must."
5. As the Westminster Confession goes: The chief end of humanity is to glorify God.
6. As God says: "what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)
7. As James notes: "If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" (James 2:16)
There are MANY ways to preach the good news. The Bible does not limit it to a "primary mission" of preaching "Christ crucified." In fact, it pretty much teaches against such tunnel vision.
Do your sermons and lives look more like Jesus' or Paul's? As a Christian, I think it only makes sense that they would tend to look more like, you know, the sermons of our Savior than one of his followers.
Craig said...
Your starting position is that Calvin and his 5 points are such bad exigesis that it constitutes heresy. You have previously dismissed sources in other comments for simply sounding too Calvinist. You seem to have an innaccurate view of what Calvin actually proposed. But you somehow think I would want to start a thread so you can expound on the topic. No thanks
Okay. I just thought I'd offer. You come across as at least a little closer to understanding (if not agreeing with) my actual positions and so I thought I'd offer. I can think of few things more dull than talking about Calvinism, so I certainly don't mind not having that discussion, I was just offering as a favor to you, since you seemed to want to discuss it.
To clarify (maybe you and I DO have a problem communicating, too), I did not say Calvinism was heresy I said... "You want to look at some ideas that ACTUALLY approach heresy, look to Calvin." and "It is deeply problematic theology, yes. It represents some serious bad exegesis."
You will note that I stop short of calling it heresy, just that it approaches being heretical and that it is deeply problematic.
I don't believe I have a bad idea of what Calvin proposed. I have read all about TULIP (and yes, I grew up with it and believing most of it, although there was some disagreement on various aspects of it even within my traditional So Bapt church). Still, perhaps you are right, and perhaps I might be misunderstanding what they mean by their words.
I have problems with most of the notions within TULIP based on standard English understandings of words, but if they are defining words in different ways, then it is possible I am misunderstanding.
Which is why I offered.
Anyway, I am also glad not to talk about Calvinism, just a friendly offer.
I thought this post was supposed to be about DADT and this retired officer's "mature & reasoned objection." What happened?
Well, in an attempt to get back on track, I would say that although I honor the captain's service and respect his opinion, by my reckoning he retired from active duty in 1979. That would be, let me see, umm, 31 years ago.
Just sayin'.
Could be the Navy and the sailors and officers born since his retirement have a different perspective and much less bias against gays than the captain.
Well, hello Jim! Tangents are never a problem here at Marshall Art's. Neither is getting back to the origina thread.
You could be right about the captain being of a different era. That hardly makes his opinion less valid, or indeed, truthful and logical. If experience is dismissed, I think we've all got a problem.
As to the people born since his retirement, they have the unfortunate luck to have been born in a time of diminished morality, a time marred by the defining of deviancy down.
I just read a brief article about Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) and his opinion of homosex. He was raised by theatre people and was exposed to all manner of people found therewith. When he had first heard kids mocking homos, he was perplexed. Now he says he hates intolerant people. This of course is intolerant itself as it discriminates based on an opposing opinion that is better supported by fact and reality. Most people like myself are quite tolerant of people saying our position is wrong; we just prefer some facts to back it up. We get none.
But the real point of the Potter story is that he was raised amongst them and never guided morally as to how to view the behavior of these people. The acceptance of these people by his parents and their peers influenced his perspective in the morally wrong direction. Thankfully he hasn't tried the action himself, so he says, but what are the odds that he'd reject an offer to play a homo character ala "Brokeback Mountain"? He would then be engaging in, not only an unnecessary sex scene, but a homo sex scene. Whether or not he'd enjoy the contact, he'd be engaging in it willingly for both money, and worse, to further project to millions the notion that such behavior is a beautiful thing. This will further influence others and for those who think a tolerant atmosphere of objectionable behavior wouldn't lead to some people engaging in the behavior where they ordinarily wouldn't, such level of naivete would be record breaking.
Dan,
There is no leap of logic in my line of reasoning and you certainly haven't pointed out how their might be. I never said that there is nothing else to learn or be taught in the Bible. My point is that there is nothing so important as Christ crucified and I would appreciate that you stop reframing our words that are correct to your altered version which is not so as to indicate agreement where little if any exists. We say "saved by grace through Christ crucified..." and you repeat back "saved by grace through Christ's life and death." Sorry. Not the same at all since we are NOT saved by virtue of His life, except that He needed to be born and live in order to one day die for us. It is the death part that is the primary purpose of His life and THAT is the overarching theme to which I so plainly and clearly referred. Again, try to convince me, no, try to convince any Biblical scholar, that we are saved without His death and resurrection. I dare you. You won't get far. All that touchy-feely stuff which you put out as equal in importance to His D&R are not foreign to other faiths and ideologies. One doesn't need Christianity to get any of that stuff. Indeed, atheists thump their chests in their insistance that they are all those things without any belief in any god whatsoever. What separates us from them and the others, is Jesus. He is the way and only through Him do with find salvation and heaven and that is not because He healed some blind guy. It's because He died as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins allowing us to be worthy of being in the presence of God. All those wonderful acts of charity are proofs of our acceptance of that most basic and elemental fact.
more coming----
Gotta go. I'll give the "more coming---" later.
Dan,
While, I agree that it would be unprodutive to continue the discussion of Calvin, I do await some example of your great exegesis, as I proposed.
I am doing some work on both your concept of "non factual truth" (that just sounds oxymoronic), and one this concept that the oral tradition of the OT is by definition inaccurate. I would hope that you actually have some more profound reason for your opinion than; "Well, Gilgamesh was written/communicated in a certain style, therefore all stories of antiquity must have been written/communicated in the same or a substantially similar style". But I guess we'll see. I'll be pretty much constantly working for the rest of the weekend so maybe I'll have something by next week some time.
I also hope you can find time to respond to/answer the numerous points/questions in this thread.
this concept that the oral tradition of the OT is by definition inaccurate.
If you'll read what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't say that some of the OT stories were, by definition, inaccurate. I said that they seem obviously to be written in the style of the day - myth and epic.
We have NO records (that I know of and you all have produced nothing) of people writing history in an historically accurate style - as we would today - from that time period. It seems like the ball's in your court.
What in the world evidence are you producing that would begin to suggest that the Creation story, for instance, represents a literally factual history? Anything at all?
If you have no evidence, on what basis would I begin to accept your hunch about it?
And I have repeatedly provided my exegesis. I don't know that you would see it now if I repeated it now if you have not seen it before now.
Dan,
I addressed what appear to be problems with your exegesis, and what might make for a more compelling sense of your exegetical ability. Simply stating "God doesn't work like that" is not exegesis.
Again, had you read more carefully, I am working on a post that will address some of those issues. Normal etiquette would suggest, that you actually wait for the post before you dismiss the contents of said post.
"We have NO records (that I know of and you all have produced nothing) of people writing history in an historically accurate style - as we would today - from that time period. It seems like the ball's in your court."
We also have NO records that demonstrate conclusively that no one (prior to whatever arbitrary date you choose) did NOT write in what you would consider a "historically accurate style". Since you have not provided any thing beyond "Well Gilgamesh was written in XYZ literary style, therefore all stories of antiquity must be written in the same or similar style". It would seem that the ball is in your court as well as that statement is not proof in any sense of the word.
Finally, I would appreciate your clarifying what your standard of acceptable "proof" would be. In your comment you seem to be saying that only a "record" would be acceptable. On the surface this would seem to be a standard of proof that is unreachable (you certainly can't do it. You can't even demonstrate that what we have as the Gilgamesh Epic is accurately transmitted.
You ask for evidence that the Genesis story is "factual", I could reasonably ask you to produce "evidence" that it is "not factual". This is not the issue. The issue is can you defend your contention that all stories of antiquity MUST be written in some sort of "epic/mythical" style. Or is there reason to believe that some of the stories of antiquity were written in a different style. It is impossible to fulfill your unreasonable demand for "evidence" that a particular story is factual. It is reasonable to provide evidence that your underlying presupposition (that ALL stories of antiquity are non factual) is untenable.
I guess what I would like is some idea of what (short of a "record") would be "acceptable" to you. If you are going to establish an unreasonable bar, and therefore short circuit any kind of dialogue then I will move on. If you are prepared to actually consider another position then I will continue my work.
If you are going to set the bar as high as you seem to be, then it is clearly your turn to put up some evidence that meets your standards.
I'm still hoping for a response on some earlier questions/comments.
"So, depending on which of those you're arguing (theme of the Bible or "primary mission" of the church), we agree or disagree."
The theme dictates the primary mission. The main message dictates the primary mission. Once again, the main message was God created us, we were separated by sin, God provides a means by which are reconciled. That means is the crucifixion of Christ, the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.
If we remove the Crucifixion event, what does Christ teach that is different from any other religion or atheist ideology? How many religions teach something different than "do not murder, lie, steal, mess with other people's wives, help others, be a nice guy, etc...?" Do you think any of that gets us there without Christ's death on the cross? Of course you do. Sorry. We covered that already.
Does this primary and most important teaching mean the rest is totally irrelevant? Heck no. No one is even coming close to saying that. But even if we were to agree that preaching clean air and daffodils was an integral part of the Christian message, to spend even a nano-second on that topic during Easter, or the entire Easter season for that matter, is beyond ridiculous, beyond inanity, beyond frivolity, beyond what any Christian preacher should be doing. The touchy-feely goodness you experience by the practice is meaningless and worthless. It would be less inappropriate during Christmas season.
Easter weekend commemorates the most seminal and pivotal event in human history. Jeff St is going to waste it talking about litter. You can't imagine how galling it is to have one's understanding of Scripture questioned or critiqued by a member of a church like this, particularly a member who thinks such preaching on Easter is a good idea. If you can't focus on the greatest gift to mankind on the weekend that commemorates its giving, then your drivel about the environment is overemphasizing nature.
And BTW, your offerings of what you think are nature related verses have nothing to do with stewardship. I began to speak of a few comments ago when I said this:
"Yet none of it, at least nothing you've presented, is a call for even stewardship, much less environmentalism and certainly not as part of a church service as if you were a bunch of druids."
I don't see anything in any of it that uses nature references for an intent apart from stewardship. Here, you are clearly overlaying your own intentions and meanings on verses that you cannot prove are projected by the verses themselves. "Adding" to the Bible, yet again. Something you claim never to do but frankly, do quite a bit. The simple mention of nature, or anything of nature, is not by its mere mention a mandate for anything. Somewhere in one of those pasted verses should have some definitive mandate to do somthing, but they don't even hint at stewardshipt in any way. You see this in these verses but you can't see the single most important message of the Bible itself and claim I'm making some incredible leap of logic to insist what that message is. And you call that serious study.
Marshall...
Jeff St is going to waste it talking about litter. You can't imagine how galling it is to have one's understanding of Scripture questioned or critiqued by a member of a church like this
Why would I respond to someone who is a bald-faced liar? You have NO idea what we talk about on Easter because you have not been there. Never. And so you just pull some lie out of your the thinking end of your body (hint: it's not your head) and demonize a body of Christ by slandering us with your lie.
Grow up in your faith, man. It's time to leave your grade school faith and discussion style behind (with apologies to at least MY grade school friends, who know better than Marshall does).
Talk about gall.
Do your mother and pastor know you spread lies like a cow spreads manure? You need to have some talks with someone mature in the faith and, if they are condoning your false witness, then someone ACTUALLY mature in the faith.
Craig...
Simply stating "God doesn't work like that" is not exegesis.
Similarly, you stating Simply stating "God doesn't work like that" is not exegesis is not exegesis. Nor is it reasonable.
In orthodox circles, it IS exegesis to compare scripture to scripture. At least as I understand it. I'm no theologian, just a guy that reads the Bible and has read it a bunch over the years.
Why is it comparing scripture to scripture NOT exegesis?
Exegesis: : an explanation or critical interpretation of a text
We have two scriptures - one which condemns shedding innocent blood and a second in which God appears to command shedding innocent blood. What do we in Christian Bible study do when we have an apparent conflict? We compare scripture to scripture (ie, do critical interpretation and explanation of a text), we strive to understand context, we compare the obscure and difficult to the obvious and easily seen.
What is that if NOT exegesis?
Craig, I've looked thru this big ol' ramblin' scattershot of brainfodder (TWICE) and not really found any questions that remain unanswered. Every question that I've seen you ask, I've answered. The closest to an unanswered question that I can find is...
This is explanation, not interpretation. Interpretation usually goes deeper than "It means something different". Again, lets see some interpretation. Explain why God would tell a fictional story, about something you believe that he wouldn't do to make the Israelites feel better? Are you arguing that God lied, that Moses (or whoever) just made stuff up? Come on, interpret.
1. How are you defining "Interpret?"
Merriam W defines interpretation as "explanation," or, "to explain or tell the meaning of."
2. I HAVE done this.
In the Genesis Creation story, for instance and as I have repeatedly noted, the Bible stories (which were oral stories before they were recorded) appear obviously to be told in such a way as to explain creation and our place in this world to pre-scientific, pre-literate, pre-historic peoples. Not unlike OTHER creation mythologies.
3. Why would God use mythological language to explain the cosmos to pre-scientific, pre-literate, pre-historic peoples? Because that's where they were. God could easily have explained to them about molecules and atoms and light years and so forth, EXCEPT that it would mean nothing to them. Why would God do that?
4. That IS an explanation, an interpretation. That IS telling the meaning of.
My question to you is: What reason would we have for thinking it is anything else?
5. No, I'm not saying God lied. I'm saying that people were inspired to tell stories (and on that question, I think you're speaking more specifically of the slaughter stories) in the style of the day to give them comfort and courage.
6. Do I think Moses "made stuff up?" No, I think he was part of a people who told stories, passed down from generation to generation, to explain their place in the cosmos in ways that made sense to them.
My question to you is: What reason would we have for thinking it is anything else?
What part of this does not seem like an answer or an explanation or interpretation to you?
Dan,
You've posted three separate comments beginning 4:45PM. Please withhold additional comments until I've addressed all three. Thanks in advance.
Here they come:
Beginning with that 4:45 comment:
"Why would I respond to someone who is a bald-faced liar? You have NO idea what we talk about on Easter because you have not been there. Never."
First of all, as I recall, you've posted snippets of your Easter service, did you not? So for me to respond to the only testimony you've provided hardly justifies any desperate accusation of bald-faced lying. Thus, you bear false witness--something you so very often rail against. If you're going to offer ANY sense of your services, you should at least have the decency to suggest I not critique them as they are somehow not typical or a true representation. But then, if that's the case, why post it at all. Still further, whatever is posted is the only thing upon which I AM commenting, so to accuse me of not knowing enough about the full service is totally irrelevant as well as a strawman attack. Totally bad form. So which is it? Did your Easter service speak of stewardship (in whatever form it might take in your church), or did it not? What did YOUR elementary school teach about talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Next:
"We have two scriptures - one which condemns shedding innocent blood and a second in which God appears to command shedding innocent blood."
Your problem here is that any act is automatically evil. Pay attention here. Evil is what God says it is. Wouldn't you agree with this? That is, how do we know what is or isn't good or evil without some hint from the Almight? Regarding the shedding of what you are referring to as innocent blood, all we know is that it is wrong for US to do it. This much is certain, for as you say, there is Biblical support for this. What is lacking, is support for the notion that God cannot take, by any means of His choosing, ANY life, innocent or otherwis. You'll surely fall back on your "God won't tempt us" angle. But it's not a temptation to which we refer, but a direct command. AND, as I suggested, it is serving a purpose of God's. Now, as to what He is capable of doing or asking of us, I'm done with that speculation, because the only thing that matters is what WAS done by Him as faithfully recorded in those OT stories. He made such commands on more than one occasion and you have nothing that bears out your notion that because it is evil for us to perpetrate an act God forbade us to perpetrate, then it goes without saying that it is also evil if God commands us to perpetrate that act.
Of course, as regards innocent babies, you willingly support laws protecting women and their doctors who for selfish reasons (99% of the time) put their own babies to death. Either killing innocent babies is always evil or it isn't. Which is it? And in THIS case, I'm only referring to what WE are allowed to do and not bringing God into the mix. What did your elementary school teach about hypocrisy?
So as far as comparing Scripture to Scripture in order to understand, you are clearly comparing Scriptural apples to oranges again. Humans taking upon themselves an action normally regarded as sinful is NOT the same as God commanding humans to do what would be sinful without His command.
next---
Now I could spend time talking about how I have no problem with Creation stories. While I find fascinating all the scientific explanations for the origin of all things, until proof is confirmed, I don't really think it matters. Young earth doesn't strike me as without question, absolutely beyond possible. This might support wild assertions about right-wingers being anti-science, but it's really the only area where I don't think the truth can be properly explained. That is, even if all the science is true, it doesn't rule out God's part in it. I question the accuracy of any man-made method for the purpose to judge anything about a universe that is so infinitely vast and supposedly billions of years old. Even carbon dating strikes me as taking for granted that it must be accurate. I have no problem allowing that though carbon dating might accurately judge the age of something 100-200 yrs or so, that the accuracy might easily diminish the older an object is.
But that's just me. The only reason I bring this up has to do with Genesis stories and whether or not the manner in which the beginning is described can be said to be the same "epic style" as the retelling of OT battles. That is, if indeed literary liberties were taken to make the story more palatable for stupid ancient people incapable of being made to understand complex science even if God or His prophets are doing the teaching, where do we see such liberties being taken in the later histories revolving around battles? Again, it seems rather apples and oranges to me.
But what strikes me as the hardest to understand is when the miraculous is to be taken as factual and when it isn't. When is God speaking to His people fact and when it is supposedly just said to make the people feel good? It's very arbitrary and I can't help but notice how it so easily aligns with left wing ideologies. No left winger can deal with the wrathful side of God's nature. No left winger can deal with the idea that if God decides a whole city is stained by the sinful behavior of most of its inhabitants that He might just destroy the entire town.
You gagged when I said that God cannot tolerate sin in His presence. How do you explain the scapegoat? Once lead from the city, it is not allowed to return to the city. The guy who leads it must bathe as a result of having been the one that lead it out of town. If the sins were transfer to the scapegoat, why does that dude need to bathe? It wasn't because of the trip to the desert, it was because he was with the goat that bore the sins of the people. Unless God said otherewise, the Hebrews weren't allowed to bring booty back form destroying the towns of sinful people (where even the animals were killed). Why is that? Because even the inanimate objects, like the animals in the town, were corrupted by sin like being exposed to radioactivity. This could explain why even the babies were not considered "innocent" by God and put to death with everyone and everything else. AND, it is consistent, as I have just shown, with the rituals of the chosen people regarding sin. You see? I'm comparing Scripture to Scripture in a more apples to apples manner. What's more, I don't need to compare ANYTHING to what other peoples of the time period did to reconcile the issue. That is, I did not compare outside data with a people totally under God's wing and treat it as if it was some story of unicorns or centaurs.
As to writing history in a style that made sense to the people, what makes no sense about wiping out an enemy to ancient people? I think it shouldn't be out of the question to assume that ancient people were, by and large, NOT adverse to a level of savagery we now find abhorent. So, why would there be a need to dress up any story regarding wiping out an enemy with God's sanction as opposed to without it in a time when totally annihilating an enemy was SOP? Are you suggesting that "just war theory" was the norm for the chosen people, yet they would never understand a more detailed explanation for creation than the Genesis version?
Ya know, we are far more "scientific" in how we teach our kids the origins of the universe. How is that possible yet it ancient adults would be totally baffled? Of course, left wingers always question the intelligence of those who don't buy in to their theories and proposals or have better ideas and explanations. You need stupid ancient people to make a lot of your theology work. You need stupid contemporaries as well.
Marshall...
First of all, as I recall, you've posted snippets of your Easter service, did you not?
Then perhaps your failure to comprehend is due to an inability to understand the language.
Snippet: a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
That I have offered a snippet, a snatch, a brief excerpt from a sermon, by definition means that I have not offered the whole sermon or service.
You appear to be letting your political agenda blind you to common decency, much less Christian behavior. We do, indeed, celebrate Christ's resurrection on Easter (what a moronically ridiculous thing for me to even have to say, but when in Rome...).
So, setting aside your agenda, you have, indeed, spoke a diabolical falsehood about a people you don't even know. Shame on you.
You can choose to repent and, you know, do the Christian thing and apologize, or you can stick to your political agenda. It matters not to me. I'm just worried about your pathetic soul (although, sadly to admit, at this point, I'm not too worried about it).
Marshall, do you even attend church?
We never hear you mention it (or rarely - I can't think of any times you have, off hand) or prayer times or Bible study of any sort.
Yes, you did say Christ is risen. Happy Easter last year, but beyond that, you hardly mention your church or Jesus and you mostly talk about your political agenda.
Is it safe to assume, then, that IF you go to church, it's just one big GOP party, where you all worship Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich? Do you have the bones of Reagan buried in your church building and a bit of the wood from his coffin? You must, given how that's the stuff you talk about here.
What other conclusion could someone draw?
Seriously, ask your pastor (if you have one) or some Christian elder if your behavior is in the least Christ-like. Get some help.
Once again, Dan, as you apparently don't read closely the comments of your opponents, I commented ONLY based on the comments that YOU CHOOSE to make. It is your own illogical jumping to conclusions that suggest I'm assuming anything beyond those conclusions. You've only mentioned the reason for the season after being called out for not mentioning it initially in favor of highlighting other non-resurrection issues preached and celebrated during your Easter services. You wouldn't want me to pretend I know anything more than what you've revealed, do you? What's so immorally diabolic there?
"That I have offered a snippet, a snatch, a brief excerpt from a sermon, by definition means that I have not offered the whole sermon or service."
The above was clearly covered in my response. What's clearly going on with you is that you're feeling the heat of having your feet held to the fire. When I speak of something you've never said or reach a conclusion NOT based on your words, then you're lame accusations that I'm bearing false witness might make sense and not be a case of you bearing false witness itself.
Now as to drawing conclusions based on comments left at this or other blogs, it's true that I HAVEN'T mentioned my church much. So to draw any conclusions about something I don't mention would indeed be akin to slander and false witness. My comments haven't mentioned our services or what is preached there, only my better understanding of Scripture and YOUR comments about YOUR church services. See the distinction here? (But who told you about the bones of Reagan?)
But if you've ever paid attention, you would know that I am a regular church goer who spent six years as a member of the Board of Elders, four of them as Chairman, and at least five of those years (perhaps all, I don't recall) as President of the Church Council. You would also know that I oppose many of the positions taken by the larger UCC denomination as counter-biblical as I do yours, and have recently been splitting time between this church where I have many friends, and another Biblically sound congregation attended by a neighbor who also left their previous church for similar reasons. In neither church would I be accused of wrong doing by the conclusions and positions I present here and at other blogs (though the snark they might not see as all that Christian). You just don't like the feeling of your back to the wall as you defend against better logic. You'll note that your last comments mirror the charge I levelled in a previous post regarding what happens when lefty visitors run up against that which they cannot return volley. Happens every time.
Y'know it's OK to say, "I don't have an answer for that." It won't provoke the happy dance on my part if you need to set aside an issue that stumps you until you can think it over. I guarantee you that I'd call a time out for such a reason. So don't be such a wuss. "Boo freakin hoo, Art's being unkind!" Nonsense. Man up, drop the sanctimony and engage.
No, brother. Our actions have consequences. Sin has consequences. A brother who willfully engages in slander and lying, gleefully so, has to be addressed and repentance needs to happen.
It IS a simple easily demonstrated lie to say that my church does not talk about the risen Christ. Just a plain, bald-faced lie. There is nothing else to it but that.
Now, you may have stupidly drawn a bad conclusion based on snippets and done so in sheer ignorance, not as a deliberate lie. But I have corrected your twisting of the facts of the case. I know it can be difficult to back down from sin once you've so fully engaged in it, but you need to before we can move on. Before I am inclined to move on.
For my part, I have apologized already for choosing snippets and presenting things in such a way as to not make it clear to you all. I AM sorry you misunderstood.
As you like to say: Man up, brother. It's not that hard and it's for the best. You WERE mistaken to make that false claim, there's no shame in admitting so and apologizing. I do it all the time and I'm no better a man than you, Marshall.
Do the right thing. Humility is good for the soul.
"It IS a simple easily demonstrated lie to say that my church does not talk about the risen Christ. Just a plain, bald-faced lie."
Perhaps it is. But it wasn't a lie spoken by me. But if you think you can produce a comment that proves otherwise, you best be sure it's presented in its entire context. Otherwise you risk slander yourself.
"I know it can be difficult to back down from sin once you've so fully engaged in it, but you need to before we can move on."
No can do, son. I'm not guilty of charge.
"For my part, I have apologized already for choosing snippets and presenting things in such a way as to not make it clear to you all. I AM sorry you misunderstood."
I didn't misunderstand anything. My conclusions were logical based on your choice of words. They were crystal clear. YOU'VE misunderstood my capabilities. I do not know you that mean "elephant" when you say "chair". If you wish to imply "chair", at least talk furniture, not pachyderms. But don't go calling me a liar when I talk peanuts and circuses.
"Do the right thing."
I do. I humbly speak the truth about the Truth of God. Well...as humbly as I can, and you haven't provided any evidence that I have any of it wrong. I allow that I could be, which is all the humitlity necessary, just that you haven't shown that I am.
Checking in briefly...
Dan, you posted those "snippets" of what your congregation celebrates at Easter to demonstrate that Jeff Street is wholly orthodox and Christian.
Those snippets STILL focused far more on political activism, celebrating nature, and even celebrating THE COLOR GREEN, then they did Christ's death and resurrection. In quoting I Peter 2 about why Christ died, you stopped IMMEDIATELY before the claim that Christ bore our sins on the cross.
It's not only fair to conclude that your church doesn't have its priorities straight, it's the ONLY reasonable conclusion.
Indeed, Marshall and I have drawn this conclusion from excerpts rather than exhaustive accounts, but **YOU** picked those excerpts, presumably not to show your congregation in the worst possible light, but to prove that y'all are really thoroughly Christian.
"On Easter, we celebrate the risen Christ. Here are some of our actual words (as opposed to anyone's take on our words) from Easter. Judge for yourself..." (Mar 2, 4:58 pm)
We did precisely that: we judged for ourselves.
Don't gripe about our doing so when you urged us to. Don't gripe for drawing a conclusion that you don't like, because that conclusion is quite reasonable given that evidence.
And while I agree that humility is good for the soul, I find your saying so obnoxious and as passive aggressive as your insistence that you take the Bible seriously.
I appreciate the apology for your snarky reply to my request to cite the Bible passages you quote, but the point you say you were trying to make underlines your arrogance.
You write, "I fear you all are simply just not that familiar with the Bible and are more familiar with what you've been taught the Bible says, rather than what it actually says."
First of all, it's sheer hypocrisy for you to demand that we agree to disagree about your absurd interpretations, while you insult us about our understanding of Scripture.
But, beyond that, you have no room and no business to question any of us about our knowledge of the Bible.
We don't rip passages out of even their IMMEDIATE context to make them say THE OPPOSITE of what they say, as you have done repeatedly -- with Psalm 106, with Romans 12-13, and with I Peter 2.
We also don't draw absurd interpretations from unfounded and unbiblical assumptions, such as the assumption that God would never take human life, and the assumption that God's saving us through grace precludes His saving us in Christ's death.
I would put my knowledge of Scripture -- and more importantly, my understanding -- against yours any day of the week.
[cont]
[cont]
About my question of whether God has the moral right to take human life whenever and however He chooses, the means of human agency is implicit in that "however," as is clear from this conversation AND our last conversation.
You write:
"We have two scriptures - one which condemns shedding innocent blood and a second in which God appears to command shedding innocent blood."
1) The command isn't to shed explicitly innocent blood, Dan.
2) It's not as if we have "two scriptures," where one set of passages contains divine commands to annihilate God's enemies, and the other set contains the prohibition of shedding innocent blood. Very often, the two are in the same book.
In Psalm 106, THEY'RE SIDE BY SIDE.
Myself, I'm not simply arguing that, if God commands it, that makes it moral. Please stop confusing Marshall and me.
I agree that, broadly, it is immoral to take innocent human life.
But why is it immoral, Dan? We could both agree that its immorality is obvious, but what is its justification?
Is it because that life belongs to himself? OR IS IT BECAUSE THAT LIFE BELONGS TO GOD? If it's the latter -- and the Bible points to the latter -- then your conclusions are just perverse.
That is to say, if taking life is generally immoral because that life belongs to God, then God CAN INDEED take that life at His discretion, even through human agency.
You have NEVER dealt with the logic of this position.
Bubba and Marshall both said words to the effect...
We did precisely that: we judged for ourselves.
Don't gripe about our doing so when you urged us to.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll explain again just why what Marshall has said was so sinful and why it IS a blatant and obvious lie:
You all cite my own words that I offered from various Easter services as "evidence" that we don't "talk enough" about Jesus' crucifixion.
I offered those words earlier to ask that you all NOT criticize us as heretical based on nothing, but asking you to speak directly to what we actually say, rather than what you infer.
I did not say that those snippets represent all of what we have to say.
So, once again, for you to draw a conclusion that Jeff St does not talk about the crucifixion "enough" based on these words is just not reasonable. To suggest that we talk about the environment "too much" is not reasonable.
1. You don't know what percentage of the time we are talking about nature.
2. You don't know what percentage of the time we are talking about the crucifixion.
3. You are assuming (and remember what they say about what happens when you assume) that one can't talk about nature without talking about resurrection - a pretty dismal assumption.
4. You have never answered what is the "right" amount of time one SHOULD talk about the crucifixion vs nature vs justice vs Jesus ACTUAL TEACHINGS.
5. By your own rule, Marshall here is heretical because he spends hardly any time talking about Jesus or his crucifixion on his blog. Therefore, judging by Marshall's blog, his church must just be a GOP cheerleading camp, right? By your reasoning.
6. By your own rule, Jesus himself would be open to criticism from you, a point which I find entirely likely, given the grief that you give fellow Christians who don't think just like you.
Marshall - and now Bubba - are uttering obvious lies and slander. The consequence in this case is I'm done with conversation with you until such time as you can grow up in the faith enough and humble yourselves enough to apologize.
You don't know how much time Jeff St spends speaking about "litter" around Easter (what a vile, asinine comment to begin with), and to suggest that that's what we're doing "wasting" our time is a diabolical lie.
Perhaps you all uttered the lie in ignorance, thinking that I offered a sampling of quotes that represented everything we had to say about Easter. I have now corrected that poor assumption.
Continue the lie now and it shall only be a lie, not just falsehoods uttered in ignorance.
Have you no shame, gentlemen?
Is he gone? mom2
Mom2,
I'm not looking to run anyone off. I'm looking to engage in debate on the issues of the day, particularly those of interest to me, just like all bloggers. Unfortunately, my lefty visitors, what few remain, insist on doing so on their terms, not mine. As regards this thread, we are seeing it in the whining by the left over DADT, and now once again, we're seeing it by Dan. What's worse is how those terms are vaguely defined and unevenly applied. More precisely, they're only applied to us. But we press on.
I've noticed he disappears when he can't compete. I'm sorry that he chooses his wisdom over the Truth. I have wished for a long time that he would desire to know real Truth, but it seems no amount of scripture makes the impact that I wish for him. God will not over ride our human will. He is a gentleman. Thanks to you, Bubba and others who have shared the scriptures with Dan. May it bring good results in the future. mom2
Dan,
Let's review your last:
"You all cite my own words that I offered from various Easter services as "evidence" that we don't "talk enough" about Jesus' crucifixion."
Not accurate. I believe we are concerned that you use Easter to promote non-Easter issues. Our concern is that on the day commemorating the single most pivotal event in the history of mankind, that focus on that event alone isn't sufficient for a Jeff St. congregation. As to the quantity and quality of resurrection related references during that service, there is little provided by you upon which we could reasonably comment. I think the problem is you are reading our words from a defensive posture rather than one seeking to understand his opponent. Calm down and read what we print, as we read what you print. As Bubba said over and over again, you cannot blame us our inferences provoked by the words you choose to use. If your intent was to provide an insight to Jeff St. only you hold the blame as to the impression you leave. We've responded only to the words you've printed and there was a starck lack of resurrection related examples. You tell us not to assume things you didn't say, yet now you seem to expect us to do just that regarding how much focus on the resurrection there is on Easter Sunday at Jeff St. Make up your mind.
"I did not say that those snippets represent all of what we have to say."
Nor did we imply it. But it's all you chose to say about it and it's what you chose to say that we critiqued. Nothing more.
"To suggest that we talk about the environment "too much" is not reasonable."
Actually, when you highlight the environment with no mention of the resurrection (until being called on that ommission), it's quite reasonable.
Regarding:
#1. And we didn't comment on any percentages, but only on the fact that you didn't mention Christ's death and resurrection. Your bad, not ours.
#2. Again, our criticism is that you feel the need to speak of anything else on the day commemorating that event, the most important event in human history.
#3. We assumed nothing of the kind. Our position is explained above in point #2.
#4. So what? But for the record, in my most humble opinion, on the day commemorating the single most important event in the history of the universe, 100% of the time spent on the event and its ramifications is appropriate. Talk about candy wrappers some other time.
#5. Our "rule" regards appropriate subject matter for preaching on Easter Sunday. In addition, I've said quite a bit regarding the crucifixion of late and its necessity for our ability to be forgiven and receive God's grace. Why don't you read my comments? As for my church, about which I never generally speak, as opposed to yourself and your church, assume what you want. But if you really want to know, ask sometime. I'll be happy to tell you.
#6. This is just too stupid.
So again, no lies, no slander from us. These are just the desperate cries of a desperate man who has run up against the brick wall of logic, reason and truth. We have not made the assumptions of which you accuse us. Indeed, we have explained how we arrive at our conclusiong repeatedly and you cannot accept your part in it. Boo-freakin'-hoo. Man up, I say again, and face the fault that is yours and stop deflecting blame like a small child caught red-handed in his misbehavior. You're like my daughter when she was quite small saying we were being "mean at" her for correcting her behavior. Grow up.
"Similarly, you stating Simply stating "God doesn't work like that" is not exegesis is not exegesis. Nor is it reasonable."
Since I haven't done that you point is lost on me.
"to explain or tell the meaning of."
Great, now lets hear what the meaning is. You've come up with some unsubstantiated hunches, great. Now, how about some meaning, the why, as it were.
"...appear obviously to be told in such a way as to explain creation and our place in this world to pre-scientific, pre-literate, pre-historic peoples. Not unlike OTHER creation mythologies."
The first key word in your isegesis is APPEAR. So, your new position is not that these ARE xyz, but that they appear to be xyz. Significant difference, please choose one. The remainder of your isegesis is clearly based on your assumptions about the peoples at that time, and what they did or did not know. For example, just because science (as we know and define it) did not exist at that time it seems as though it is quite a leap of logic to say that they had NO way to interpret the world around them beyond "myth". Again, fine hunch, but no support. Just your opinion. It seems as though your isegesis assumes too much based one what appears to be some sort of perceived cultural superiority you perceive exists with today culture. Unsupported hunch.
"God could easily have explained to them about molecules and atoms and light years and so forth, EXCEPT that it would mean nothing to them. Why would God do that?"
Since you have provided no support for your hunch, beyond a question, one must ask. Why wouldn't He do that? OR Why couldn't He have done that? OR How can you demonstrate that He didn't do that?
"No, I'm not saying God lied. I'm saying that people were inspired to tell stories (and on that question, I think you're speaking more specifically of the slaughter stories) in the style of the day to give them comfort and courage."
So, your isegesis is that "people" made up stories about what God had done, or would do, that consist of "God" doing things against his nature in order to give other people comfort. Why? What possible comfort will come from being told "God will destroy your enemies" then to find out that God is NOT going to destroy your enemies because he doesn't roll like that? Why would the NT writers (and Jesus) not clarify this? Since you seem to agree that the Bible is in some sense God's word (or primary means of communication) why would He not have set the record straight? Why would He institute a practice (sacrament) that is completely based on non factual events that don't reflect His character? How is giving false hope comforting? Why would these stories have "made" the Hebrew scriptures? Are the entire stories "non factual" or just parts of the stories? These are the kinds of questions that you breeze over in your facile isegesis.
"No, I think he was part of a people who told stories, passed down from generation to generation, to explain their place in the cosmos in ways that made sense to them."
So, your awesome isegesis leads you to the conclusion that Moses and his people made stuff up, but they had a reason. What would lead you to conclude that "they" were uninterested in their actual place in the cosmos and made no effort to find out what it was? Why would you discard a priori the possibility that they were accurately describing their communal relationship with the one who made the cosmos, and that He chose to instigate a relationship with that group of people unlike any other in the history of the world? Why would you conclude that God is bound by the rules he sets for us?
"What reason would we have for thinking it is anything else?"
As I have said, I will address this in a desperate post. However (so I can't be accused of dodging or not answering the question), my short answer is this.
I believe in a God who is sovereign over all His creation. I believe in a God who has the authority to communicate Himself through human agency in a manner that accurately reflects what happened. I stand with those who refer to certain books of the Bible as history ( as opposed to prophecy or poetry etc). I believe that a God who loved humanity so much that he provides us with a way to be reconciled to Him despite our sin, can communicate His love and plans without using "non factual" history. Finally, I believe in a God whose ways are beyond our ways and whenever I'm tempted to question His wisdom or interrogative I simply remind myself who He is and who I am, and assume He's right.
Not exegesis, but an answer.
Dan, you have offered explanations, but no support. I'm looking for more than a surface explanation, I'd like to see a little depth and substance. Maybe that all it takes for you, is one possible, semi plausible, explanation that fits with your preconceptions. If that's all it takes for you, then great. I'd like some more.
I do plan to address this elsewhere when I have time, but am not going to do much more unless you deal with my earlier comments regarding your standard of evidence. If you continue to ask for what seems like an unreasonable standard of evidence (ie records), without providing a similar standard of evidence, then it seems like a waste of time. Further, if you are going to simply dismiss anything offered by anyone but yourself without actually checking it/them out and providing some form of rebuttal it will probably be a waste of time. So, the ball is in your court. I'm still waiting on a response from a source or two so it might be a while.
Out for now.
Hilarious.
"Marshall - and now Bubba - are uttering obvious lies and slander. The consequence in this case is I'm done with conversation with you until such time as you can grow up in the faith enough and humble yourselves enough to apologize."
I'm not guilty of lies or slander, and so I will offer no apology -- and I do hope Dan is a man of his word about not talking to us until we apologize for things that we do AND SHOULD stand behind.
The charge of dishonesty, arrogance, and spiritual immaturity is hilarious coming from him.
He writes, "I did not say that those snippets represent all of what we have to say," and that's true enough, but CLEARLY he intended us to use those excerpts to judge for ourselves whether Jeff Street actually does proclaim the risen Christ at Easter.
"In truth (and in the real world, if you ever visit my church), Jeff St does not 'use' Easter for anything.
"On Easter, we celebrate the risen Christ. Here are some of our actual words (as opposed to anyone's take on our words) from Easter. Judge for yourself..."
If Dan didn't intend for us to do PRECISELY what he recommended, then why in the world did he waste his time (and ours) posting a thousand words of excerpts across multiple comments?
JUST WHAT WAS THE POINT, if not to draw inferences about what is preached at Jeff Street?
Just a few months ago, I showed how Dan clearly lied about a comment he had made only hours earlier. He tried to alter the comment's intended meaning to something less embarrassingly hypocritical, but that new meaning was COMPLETELY contradicted by the comment's original context.
This wasn't a big deal in the larger scheme of things, but instead of owning up to what he wrote, he lied -- inelegantly and obviously -- not only to get out of taking responsiblity for his own words, but to berate me into apologizing or acknowledging a non-existant error in mine.
He actually lied repeatedly in that thread, about the contents of that thread, accusing me of never answering his questions when I was able to cite immediately ten questions of his that I addressed, and then lying about what he meant with that accusation. He then later offered a completely implausible explanation for his calling us "inquisitorial."
Dan Trabue cannot even be honest about a written record to which all of us have immediate and easy access.
And the difference, "gentlemen," between when YOU say I lie and when I say you lie is the evidence is obviously there.
You CAN NOT know how much or little we speak of the resurrection;
you HAVE OFFERED NO biblical support for your notion that we preach "too much" about creation;
you HAVE OFFERED NO biblical support for most of your positions that I have questioned you on;
you HAVE OFFERED NO credible support for your wholly whimsical claims that we preach "too much" (which you leave unsupported, as well) about political matters or "too much" (which you leave unsupported, as well) about God's great creation;
you have offered NO SUPPORT for your attack upon our children's video (beyond saying that when you criticized a video which at least Marshall has never seen and one which was thought up by, written by and created by Jeff St children, that amazingly, you weren't criticizing the children - it's THEIR video, who are you criticizing if not them? WHAT are you criticizing - oh yeah, that we let them do it for "political" (unsupported) reasons and in order to spend "too much" time (unsupported) working on it?).
In short, you all are FULL of your hunches and FULL of your confidence that you can know and judge a Body of Christ WHOM YOU'VE NEVER MET and where you HAVE NEVER ATTENDED, and you make unsupported and obviously false claims.
In short, you are liars and until I see some humility and repentance for the false claims and attacks upon a local body of Christ, then I shall remain in prayer for your sad, grace-less souls.
And yes, mom2, I'm gone. And I'll even pray for your sad, sniping, grace-less soul, as well.
Contact me when you're ready to apologize. THEN I'll know you're ready for conversation.
Craig, I'm still glad to speak to you.
I'm sorry, that first sentence should have read...
And the difference, "gentlemen," between when YOU say I lie and when I say you lie is the evidence is obviously there when you lie, but when you accuse me, it's all based upon your hunches and feelings.
Dan,
If, as you say, you're still glad to speak to me then the ball is still in your court with much on the table awaiting your response. So I shall do so.
On the "topic" that this has digressed to, I have these thoughts as someone not involved in that particular digression.
It seems fairly clear that Dan offered the "snippets" that he did in hopes of establishing his churches bona fides on the issue of celebrating Easter. Further, it seems (if I remember correctly) that both Bubba and Marshall referred to having checked out Jeff St's web site where additional material is available. So it seems reasonable that if someone posts some comments and says "draw your own conclusion" then how can it be problematic when your readers do just that. So ultimately I must ask, why is it such a big deal for people to take what is offered, read it, form an opinion and express said opinion. I thought that was the point. So to Bubba and Marshall I would suggest qualifying your comments to clarify that they apply only to the "snippets" posted by Dan. Dan,I would suggest that you dial back on the accusations of slander and lying and don't get so worked up when people express their opinions of what you post.
Just my opinion.
Marshall,
I know this thread has been a lot of fun, but just a thought. During the last campaign much was made on the left about the wonderfulness of P-BO and how much the nation would change upon is anointment. Since none of his defenders has written much about the events of his first year in office, it might be interesting to throw out some of P-BO's promises and how it's been going.
Just a thought.
This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a long time, sorry to put it here, but it's pretty funny.
"Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."
Great Dan Rather quote.
Here's the link.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/08/dan-rather-articulate-obama-couldnt-even-sell-watermelons#comments
Craig,
First off, I never said I visited Jeff St's website. That was Bubba. Just wanted to make that clear. Personally, I never saw the point since Dan has said plenty about it and I'd still have to visit them and experience their services and people to see how accurate their self-description is. Don't see that happening any time soon. However, had I taken an OTR trucking gig and wound up near there on a Sunday, I definitely would have.
I have considered a first year review of the P-BO admin, but frankly, I wasn't up for the amount of work required to do it right. Most of my posts are somewhat spur of the moment inspired by something just read, seen or heard. Still, it's not beyond all possibility to do something like that. Just don't hold me to it.
Dan, should you be checking in anyway,
Your last comment itself is a big lie.
I've just gotten through stating that I was only referring to what your church preaches on Easter according to your own "snippets" only. Do you understand what I mean or are the words too big for you? You cannot insist I did anything else. I have no idea how much you do anything throughout the year. I only found it problematic that your church feels the need to preach anything else but Christ's death and resurrection as if it's not exciting enough for your congregation, as if it won't hold their attention, as if it is necessary in any way to do anything else on the day commemorating this most important event in history. You owe me an apology for lying about me.
I don't think you can find anything that suggests I said you preach too much about God's creation. I won't say you owe me here because, frankly I can't say with certainty, but it doesn't sound like anything I said. I'm sure I've only said it's not an appropriate message on a day when a far greater message is, or words to that effect.
I've offered quite a bit of Biblical support for positions on which you've questioned me. You owe me an apology for lying about me. Ask again and I'll provide them again (this thread is too populated to go looking, but if you're really perusing my comments, the extent to which I question, then you'll recognize my repeated answers).
The charge we stand behind is that you, and based on your comments, your church, preaches that which aligns with progressive political agendas. That's crystal clear. No lie no matter how you define the word. And it's been supported over the years of our dialogues together (by together I mean you vs any of us on the orthodox and conservative side of things). So you owe us an apology for this lie that we don't support our words regarding what you DO preach is a pretty specious accusation.
You keep up with this BLATANT LIE regarding the kid's video. We have NOT attacked it whatsoever (that I can recall) as our words have always questioned the teaching of a church (to kids) that says the type of things YOU say about it. You owe us an apology.
Though we do have hunches about Jeff St and pretty much everything that is Dan Trabue related, we ONLY comment on what YOU relate to us in your comments. We add nothing to those words that the words themselves don't suggest. Unlike yourself, we find no profit in doing so.
In short, we are NOT liars and your saying so is poor proof and a lie in itself. The fault lies in your own poor understandig and equally poor ability, obviously, to articulate your thoughts to accurately convey your meaning. So it is YOU who owe US an apology.
But also unlike you, I don't demand one. I only insist on proof for your accusations. You've provided none. We could easily call all of your misinterpretations, like those listed in your last comment, as lies, but the thought simply never occurs to us. For one who so routinely misinterprets so much, including Scripture, calling our conclusions, which are based on your own words, is ironic.
That last line is missing something. It should read, "calling our conclusions lies..."
but you knew that.
We haven't apologized, Dan, and yet you've added another comment or two.
If you're not going to say anything worthwhile in your comments, I'd appreciate it if you kept your word and kept your peace.
As it is, you write, "You CAN NOT know how much or little we speak of the resurrection."
And yet you posted nearly a thousand words' worth of excerpts for SOME reason: what was that reason, if not to give us some idea what is actually preached at Jeff Street?
You write about what you believe, and we are well within our rights to draw conclusions about you from that writing.
You write about what your church does, and we are also well within our rights to draw conclusions about your church from that writing.
Unless your Sunday School class's children created that video project without any prompting from the adults AND ON THEIR OWN TIME, the adults who teach their class should indeed be held responsible for suggesting that project and spending weeks' worth of class time (which is what an earlier comment of your implies) working on that project.
Don't hide behind the children, Dan. Take some responsibility: if you and the other adults suggested the project, and if y'all scheduled time for it during the Sunday School hour, then y'all are entirely liable to criticism for doing so.
And, about the Bible's clear teachings, the text itself plainly states, for instance, that God destroyed Sodom and that Christ Himself taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.
On at least three subjects -- what the Bible says, what you believe, and what your church believes -- you seem intent on playing games in order to accuse your critics of lying, slander, arrogance and even megalomania.
"Who says what's obvious? We disagree, now what?" ad nauseum.
It's the sort of thing one would expect from an obstinate and petulant eight-year-old.
Maybe I should apologize for picking on your church's children -- at least the overgrown brat who refuses to take things seriously enough to take responsibility for his own writing.
Marshall,
I thought one of you said you visisted, couldn't remember which one, or if I remembered wrong. However the point remains, that what Dan snippeted, and is on their site is designed to make the church look good. It doesn't.
As far as the P-BO retrospective, hope you do something it would be interesting. How long did it take for GWB to lose his base, 5-6 years. P-BO's is already rebelling.
Anyway, we know we won't be seeing any big posts about how awesome the last year has been.
Craig said...
However the point remains, that what Dan snippeted, and is on their site is designed to make the church look good. It doesn't.
Name three specific things that you think don't "look good."
Is it quoting MLK? You have a problem with that? Is that anti-Christian to quote MLK? Anti-biblical? If so, please provide support.
Is it expressing love of God's creation, is that what doesn't look good? If so, why not? Something specific please, along with biblical support.
It seems you are, like others here, being blinded by your political and cultural ideologies and can't separate a difference in worship styles and teaching techniques from something that is actually wrong.
BUT, if you can provide support for anything that you see wrong in my church snippets, please do so now.
Or, if THREE things in what I quoted are too hard to find, point to just ONE quote that you think is problematic from a Christian point of view. Just one, Craig.
The provide some biblical support showing why we were wrong to use that line.
Craig, I was the one who mentioned Dan's Jeff Street blog, on March 1, at 2:20 PM.
"And, to be honest, I'm not sure how reassured Bible-believing Christians should be about the fact that Easter's on your church's schedule. If your other blog is any indication, there's more about celebrating the season of spring than Christ's bodily resurrection -- and your pastor perverts the Bible's claim that Christ died for our sin into a progressive-friendly narrative of mere political activism."
It seems that much -- possibly all -- of what Dan posted, the next day, as proof of his church's orthodoxy was copied-and-pasted from that blog. I'm not sure what he thought he was accomplishing by reposting stuff that already seemed more politically progressive than distinctly Christian.
"Distinct" is the key word. Most major religions enjoin us to care for the poor, and most of us recognize the need to be good stewards of our natural resources. But forgiveness and eternal life through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ: these are distinctly Christian doctrines, essential and (quite literally) of infinite importance. A group that downplays or even denies parts of this, the core of the Christian gospel, loses credibility in describing itself as a Christian congregation.
I would very much like to see you and Dan continue your discussion: I'll be on the lookout for it, and if it's the sort of discussion that ought to be between just the two of you, let us know, and I'll be happy just to spectate.
Regarding "celebrating spring," Craig, here are some of the quotes that some here appear to find problematic...
Where man sees but withered leaves, God sees sweet flowers growing.
~Albert Laighton
God is in the business of resurrection. Where we may be tempted to see only dry, dead leaves, God sees sweet flowers growing. Hallelujah! What a graceful, grace-full description of resurrection, reminding us of our own savior's resurrection each and every spring.
Do you find that to be problematic, too, Craig?
Awake, thou wintry earth -
Fling off thy sadness!
Fair vernal flowers, laugh forth
Your ancient gladness!
~Thomas Blackburn, "An Easter Hymn"
Again, what a picture of resurrection. Amazing grace, indeed! Does this description not fill your Christian heart with joy and hope, knowing that it may be Friday night now, but Sunday's coming! (to reference Tony Campolo, I believe).
And, if this doesn't call to your mind Jesus' own resurrection, do you really find it problematic that other Christians can be touched and graced by such a reminder? Is there something inherently biblically WRONG with that resurrection reminder, or is it just not your cup of tea?
Or what of this quote:
See the land, her Easter keeping,
Rises as her Maker rose.
Seeds, so long in darkness sleeping,
Burst at last from winter snows.
Earth with heaven above rejoices...
~Charles Kingsley
Again, finding reminders of God's resurrection in the world around us. Do you really think that is merely "celebrating spring?" And, even if it strikes you thusly, does that mean it's wrong for other Christians to find joy in such great poetry celebrating NOT spring, but resurrection?
The problem, it seems to me, Craig, is that some see others worshiping God and celebrating Jesus' resurrection in ways that are different than what they're used to and, instead of saying, "Hmm, they find that meaningful and I don't," they appear to decide instead, "UGH. They 'worship' differently than I do. They must be wrong."
Even though there's nothing biblically wrong (I would hope you would agree) in celebrating Easter and Jesus' resurrection using those quotes, as well as biblical passages such as "I am the resurrection and life..." or hymns, such as "My Redeemer Lives."
Come Craig, you don't really find any serious fault from a biblical point of view in any of these quotes, do you?
=====
I think of the garden after the rain;
And hope to my heart comes singing,
At morn the cherry-blooms will be white,
And the Easter bells be ringing!
~Edna Dean Proctor, "Easter Bells"
I've been away much of this weekend because of a death in the family. My Catholic uncle passed away and we've been in mourning as a family. I attended the funeral at a Catholic church out in the country yesterday.
I have to admit, I just don't get the Catholic traditions, the more "high church" approach to worship.
But having said that, my prayer as I sat there was that this was meaningful and supportive for my Aunt and her family.
It doesn't matter that I "approved" of or found their manner of worship meaningful to me. If it was meaningful to them, that was all that matters - if it helped comfort them in this time of grief and sadness, then I rejoice.
We can be gracious that way, in our family of Christ, too. Don't you think?
Dan, as much as I disagree with a few of your points in the last comments, I find those comments much less absurd then your accusing us of lying for daring to do precisely what you requested -- that we "judge for [our]selves" what your church preaches on the basis of what you excerpted.
About the funeral in your family, I'm not sure that the only thing that matters is whether the ceremony is "meaningful."
"If it was meaningful to them, that was all that matters - if it helped comfort them in this time of grief and sadness, then I rejoice."
I AM NOT suggesting anything wrong, per se, with a Catholic funeral, but I question your point more generally.
Does it not matter whether the comfort provided is a false comfort? Does it not matter whether the ceremony's meaning conforms to what's metaphysically true?
Your comment could be taken as a pretext not to evangelize.
(By evangelism, I mean actually telling people about salvation through Christ's death and resurrection. "Speaking in defense of the poor" and "Creating a video praising God's creation" might be good, noble, and worthwhile things, but they simply don't qualify as evangelism.)
Does your comment apply to Buddhist and neo-pagan ceremonies and even to platitudes about how the departed is still alive as long as we remember them? If these things comfort the bereaved, is that really all that matters?
The logic of that position argues STRONGLY against making Christian disciples at the cost of their being ostracized by their family and persecuted by society.
LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that, unlike some people I know offline, I do believe that at least some Catholics are genuine Christians. And, about protocol at a funeral, I believe in tact, that there's a time and a place for everything -- though, really, times that remind us of our eventual death are excellent times to proclaim Christ's death for us so that we might have life abundantly.
And, TRULY, your extended family has my condolences. I just don't think genuine grace is reflected by a willingness to gloss over the monumental importance of discerning eternal truth from glib but comforting mistruths.
Dan, about nature and Christ's resurrection, I agree that there's a recurring theme between the two, a theme that C.S. Lewis discusses at length in quite a few of his non-fiction books.
This "harmony" between the two can be seen by believers as an indication that both springtime and Christ's resurrection came from the same eternal and unchanging Author. Skeptics can conclude that nature's yearly cycle is why the story of the Resurrection resonates with listeners.
But there's a HUGE difference between using springtime as a metaphor for Christ's resurrection and using it as a **SUBSTITUTE** for Christ's resurrection.
And I think we can see that difference clearly.
Dan, Christ used bread and wine to convey the meaning of His own approaching death, and so songs about the Lord's Supper will frequently include references to bread.
But it simply does not follow that all songs that mention bread include clear allusions to the Lord's Supper -- that all such songs are clearly about the Lord's Supper.
Your church's song about "bread for the journey" DOES allow a Bible-believing Christian to impose onto the words an explicitly sacramental meaning about dependence on God's grace through His Son's death and, secondarily, through fellowship with His church.
But, at least from what you quote, the song doesn't require that meaning.
It's innocuous and safe in a very craven fashion, in that allows your church to cater to those who actually do believe Christ died for our sins without actually saying so explicitly.
The songs and poems you excerpt provide plausible deniability in the sense that those who are looking for Christ crucified and risen could find vague allusions that MIGHT fit the bill, but the lost aren't presented with a clear proclamation that would require a response.
Even the one poem that explicitly connects nature and the Resurrection...
"See the land, her Easter keeping,
Rises as her Maker rose.
Seeds, so long in darkness sleeping,
Burst at last from winter snows.
Earth with heaven above rejoices..."
...focuses entirely on a personified creation, not the incarnate Creator.
Nature rises "as her Maker rose," and then we're back to celebrating HER rising, not HIS.
[cont]
[cont]
Apart from what you excerpt -- and here I reiterate evidence that contradicts your claim that our positions are unsupported -- there are numerous reasons why it's entirely reasonable to conclude that your church doesn't focus on Christ's death and resurrection.
1) You clearly believe that we're not actually saved by Christ's death. His death is a "representation" or "manifestation" or "acting out" of God's saving grace, but you deny the Bible's clear teaching that it is what actually saves us.
Contrary to the clear implications of Christ's prayer in Gethsemane (and the Father's apparent answer), you believe that the cross wasn't necessary, that we could have been saved even if Jesus had lived to old age and died of natural causes.
2) Less clearly, you don't seem to believe in the necessity of the bodily Resurrection. As I cited earlier, you once wrote, "I and my company are not of the sort that insist upon a literal interpretation of the Creation or even the Resurrection story. I believe in faith the resurrection story, but it is not the sum total of my belief. IF someone could somehow prove that Jesus was never resurrected, it would not mean the end of my following the teachings of Jesus."
(Your "company"? Would that be your congregation?)
You made the unintelligible distinction that the doctrine of the bodily Resurrection is somehow inherent but not indispensable; you believe that your faith would not be shaken if the doctrine were disproven; and you even imply that the Bible isn't clear on the doctrine, as if God could tell us that the bodily resurrection resulted from a mere misinterpretation of the text.
I have no good reason to believe that your theology would change significantly if you came to believe that Jesus is an entirely fictional character, that His death and resurrection simply are not historical events.
After all, you don't believe that Christ's death saves us, and -- contrary to I Corinthians -- you seem to believe that our faith isn't in vain if Christ was not raised bodily.
If your conception of Christ's death and resurrection is as contrary to Scripture as it appears to be, then I cannot imagine that you would be entirely comfortable joining a congregation whose beliefs differ so dramatically from your own.
Dan,
My condolences, I know how difficult it is to lose a family member. My prayers will be with you and yours.
To your comments.
My point was not that I think that the snippets you chose make your church look good or bad, but simply that YOU chose these snippets BECAUSE you thought they made your church look good. The fact that Marshall and Bubba took you at your word and evaluated what YOU chose to post doesn't justify your reaction to their opinion. I have avoided commenting on the specifics of this because of what I see as a lack of context. But, the fcat remains that YOU chose the snippets, and you invited comment on the snippets. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean anyone is lying or slandering, just that they have a different opinion. I think that's still allowed.
Dan, this is one more situation where it seems as though you didn't actually read what I posted. Since I never said I found anything wrong with your snippets, why would you accuse me (or assume that I was) doing so. Are you lying? IS this soem attempt to slander me? Or is it you choosing to react to what your preconceptions tell you I meant. I am willing to assume it is the latter, and that you will realize that this is not productive and be more careful in the future.
As to the differences in styles of worship, I completely agree that God should be worshipped in numerous styles. One of the spiritual highlights of my life is taking communion and singing in the church in St. Loius du Nord and not being able to understand a word that is being said. So we are agreed on style. It seems as thoug the concerns expressed by others are more about substance that style. Surely you can agree that differences in substance are worthy of discussion. You yourself in suggesting that Calvins theology is so bad that it is borderline/crosses the line heresy, are not displaying the grace you seem to ask for. I have heard no one but you (and various popes) ever express the notion that Calvinism is borderline heresy. Most Arminians would not even agree with you. But, if that is what you mean showing grace then I am confused. I personally have serious substantive issues with RC theology, but I spent a weekend in Jan at a camp where a priest was the speaker and I would almost look past those issue to atend his church (he was that good), in the same way I would not personally attend or join churches of a couple of denominations for differences of substance. I would not, however, brand there theology as heretical or even near so as most of my issues are secondary and therefore I can live and let live on those. So, please lets not confuse style with substance.
Had I known of your situation I would not have pressed as hard on wanting you to answer/address some open issues/questions. So, I am sure that you will deal with them as your life gets back to normal.
Again, condolences, I am sure that your family is appreciative of your presence and support.
Bubba,
I'll let you know if we can agree on the ground rules and when I get some more informaton together for some of this.
I just heard this morning that some woman named Angie Jackson, was tweeting while having an abortion and that CNN has given her the softball interview promotion. So, it would seem that while Ms. Jackson can kill an innocent child, God can't.
Craig...
My point was not that I think that the snippets you chose make your church look good or bad, but simply that YOU chose these snippets BECAUSE you thought they made your church look good.
I chose them because they were the ones online and the ones that I had easiest access to. If I was truly worried about making my church "look good" to less gracious people who insisted upon a very specific format, I would have taken the time to go through and pull out some of the many quotes that deal with Christ's life, death and resurrection.
My purpose in posting those comments was to ask quite specifically, "What in the world do you see wrong in any of these quotes that you have access to?"
If you thought I was posting something that was fully representative of everything we teach or everything we say at Easter time or something that I was using to try to make our church "look good," you misunderstood, probably due to my fault, I'm sure. For that, I apologize.
And so, I return to the reason I referenced those posts: Of what we have ACTUALLY said (and to which you have access), is there anything scripturally, morally or logically amiss with them? What is wrong with them?
If nothing, then why the harsh criticism?
Craig:
Just because you disagree, doesn't mean anyone is lying or slandering, just that they have a different opinion.
When one makes the claim that my church spends "too much" time talking about "litter" and "celebrating creation," and "political activism," and not enough time on what they perceive to be the important stuff, then there is the implication that they know of which they speak.
If I were to assume that Marshall's oft-times ugly and bigoted-sounding and right wing political-themed opinions were representative of his church's full agenda, I would be making an unfair and inappropriate assumption. I might have a hunch that his church holds some of the same rather ugly positions that he does, but I don't know that, thus, I would not begin to make that claim.
It would be inappropriate for me to judge (publicly, especially) Marshall's church based on Marshall's writings. To make accusations and implications of the sort made here in this thread would be slanderous and bearing false witness. It would be bearing false witness, EVEN IF it turned out Marshall's church was every bit as impetuous and grace-less as he often is because I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE THE CASE.
I can't merely hold assumptions and then make the proclamation that my assumptions are correct, not without bearing false witness.
A witness is, by definition, one who has witnessed something and is able to testify to the truth of something. Marshall and Craig can't do that about Jeff St or even very effectively about me, since they don't know the totality of my life.
They CAN point to a quote and say, "Dan when you say X, this is problematic because..." and make their case specifically against X. But to assume I mean Y and possibly Z and argue against those is not reasonable and to further assume that my church ALSO teaches Y and Z is even less reasonable.
Craig...
Since I never said I found anything wrong with your snippets, why would you accuse me (or assume that I was) doing so. Are you lying? IS this soem attempt to slander me?
Ummm, because you said, and I quote, "that what Dan snippeted, and is on their site is designed to make the church look good. It doesn't."
I am reading that understanding that you are saying what I quoted does not make my church look good.
You said, "It doesn't." and that is where I get that. Were you referring to something else, or were you referring to my quotes?
That is, do you think my quotes don't make my church look good? If not, then I am asking you to deal with the specifics of why.
Don't just say, When Dan posts snippets from his church, many of them don't make his church "look good." Be specific. WHAT doesn't "look good?" Why not? On what basis are you making that claim?
IF, on the other hand, "It doesn't" refers to something else and I misunderstood you, then I apologize.
If you'd clarify, I'd appreciate it.
Craig...
Surely you can agree that differences in substance are worthy of discussion. You yourself in suggesting that Calvins theology is so bad that it is borderline/crosses the line heresy, are not displaying the grace you seem to ask for.
The difference is I'm speaking of a broad category of religion. I'm not talking about your local congregation or about some other entity of which I'm not wholly (or even hardly) informed whereby I could legitimately hold an opinion.
If you speak about the problems with anabaptism, you could do so based on information that is out there and available and reasonably hold a position. However, if you were to criticize Jeff St or Marshall's church, you do not hold near enough facts to form a legitimate opinion.
THAT is what I'm criticizing as slander - that some here are speaking of something of which they know extremely little and thus, are mostly ignorant. Ignorance is never a good starting point for putting forth harsh opinions.
That is the difference. I'm sure you could agree.
Dan:
1) You refer to us as "less gracious people who insisted upon a very specific format," when we've done no such thing, and you can't substantiate the charge. Hypocritically enough, there's nothing gracious about your accusation that we've done so.
2) You write, "If I were to assume that Marshall's... opinions were representative of his church's full agenda, I would be making an unfair and inappropriate assumption."
That's a poor comparison, since I don't believe Marshall maintains a blog that's comparable to your Jeff Street blog, and I don't believe he presented a list of excerpts from his church trying some point or another about what his church believes and proclaims.
More, while it is wrong to assume that one congregant's writings are representative of the whole, it's simply not true that no conclusions can be drawn. Those conclusions wouldn't be airtight, but they wouldn't be groundless either; many "hunches" are based on some amount of evidence, and a hunch can be right, after all.
Because it's hard to conceive of your being happy at a church that denounced abortion as a moral outrage, it's a safe bet that Jeff Street isn't vocal in its opposition to abortion.
You can tell us we're drawing conclusions that the evidence doesn't conclusively support, but that doesn't mean our conclusions are wrong.
3) You write:
"And so, I return to the reason I referenced those posts: Of what we have ACTUALLY said (and to which you have access), is there anything scripturally, morally or logically amiss with them? What is wrong with them?"
Let's be honest about the very recent and easily verified history. Your original intent seemed to be about more than that -- specifically, to demonstrate that your church celebrates the risen Christ.
"On Easter, we celebrate the risen Christ. Here are some of our actual words (as opposed to anyone's take on our words) from Easter. Judge for yourself..." (Mar 2, 4:58 pm)
But, even if those questions really were the sole reason you reposted those excerpts, I think you miss the point of my criticism.
"Of what we have ACTUALLY said (and to which you have access), is there anything scripturally, morally or logically amiss with them? What is wrong with them?"
It's not enough to say that, FROM WHAT YOU QUOTE, what your church does isn't in any clear violation of what is biblical and moral: that standard ought to apply to the words and deeds of any group to which we belong, be it a civics organization, scouting troop, or amateur softball league.
A church ought to aspire to more. A congregation should do more than avoid what is biblically and morally impermissible: it should actively conform to the Bible's priorities.
"What is wrong with [what we have said]?"
Well, what is distinctly Christian?
We are supposed to proclaim Christ crucified, to evangelize, and to make disciples; you question whether those really are our priorities, and you make absurd claims equating videos about water quality with ACTUAL evangelism.
There's nothing wrong, per se, with celebrating nature, political activism, etc.
The problem is, if those are Jeff Street's priorities -- and by all evidence, they are -- then Jeff Street doesn't really appear to be an authentic church: it is something else entirely, and it's disguising its own agenda with the trappings of a Christian church.
It's the misplaced priorities and the deception that I find offensive.
To put it another way, Dan:
You claim Jeff Street is a Christian congregation, but I believe the evidence points strongly against that claim. The video and the poems wouldn't be problematic if I thought they were in the context of a church whose priorities conform to the Bible, but I don't think that.
So, I suspect that what would otherwise be arguably good activities that SUPPLEMENT the top priorities are really activities that SUBSTITUTE for them.
I have no problem with a bridge club that has chips and sandwiches -- there's nothing "immoral" or "wrong" with having food before or after the game -- but if the members never get around to playing cards, they're not really a bridge club.
Dan,
I have said nothing about your snippets, except that YOU put them forward, and MA and Bubba offered their opinions on those snippets. I have not offered any criticsm of YOUR snippets. If YOU chose snippets that reflect on your church in a way that you did not intend, then YOUR bad. I am not sure why you are focusing on this rather than dealing with the various other things on the table.
Upon moving further down your comments I see you pull out 2 words that I could have chosen better. "it doesn't". My bad, I probably should have qualified that by saying that your snippets could lead someone tobelieve certain things or something else. But, if you consider this "harsh criticism" then you truly have thin skin. Further I believe that MA and Bubba have taken issue with specifics and provided areas where they have problems with yoru snippets. You could have, had you chosen to put forth the effort, chosen snippets that more fully representthe broader scope of your Easter celebration and all of this digression could have been avoided. But, the fact remains, that YOU chose to put up snippets that don't (appearantly, based on your further comments) fully capture the scope of your Easter. That is not my problem, I did not put my snippets up for critique. So, we can continue with silliness until you can credibly claim that you dodn't want to search back and find stuff, or we can deal with the more substantive things. Your call.
Finaly, if you were to read my last few commenst (before this silliness) you would find a number of items that you have missed up to this point.
I believe that if you start with my Marh 5, 2010 at about 10:30 pm and move forward you will find a number of things on which you might comment or answer.
Post a Comment