One of the most common objections to biblical authority is that the God of the Bible is guilty of committing immoral acts. God appears to advocate, endorse, and even commit acts that are normally seen as morally questionable. The classic example is the command to the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites as they enter into the promised land.
In fact, it is the question of whether God endorses genocide that features heavily in the objections of atheist Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion (Mariner Books, 2008). It is also a prominent theme in Peter Enns’ book, The Bible Tells Me So (HarperOne, 2014). See my review of Enns here.
For these reasons, I am thankful for the good work of Dick Belcher, the John D. and Francis M. Gwin Professor of Old Testament here at RTS Charlotte. Dr. Belcher has recently published important commentaries on book such as Genesis, Ecclesiastes, and has a wonderful book on Christ in the Pslams: The Messiah and the Psalms (Christian Focus, 2006).
Dr. Belcher recently did an interview on whether God is a moral monster with AP Magazine, an evangelical, Reformed publication out of Australia. Here are some excerpts:
Critics of the Bible claim that it contains so many obscene and cruel stories that it can hardly be the work of a holy and righteous God. Do they have a point?
Obviously, this is a pressing issue today. In the past people who have had moral problems with the Bible have said, “Well, the Bible contains some stories and practices that are offensive to many people and this undermines its authority”. But today some of the more passionate atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have gone a step further and said, “the Bible’s views on morality are dangerous”. This represents a change in the way that people are viewing the Bible. They are not simply saying that it is wrong; they are claiming that it is evil. Moreover, they go a step further and suggest that the teaching of the Bible should not even be tolerated; instead, it should be rejected as “hateful”. In response, I would point out that when the Bible describes an event it does not mean that it necessarily condones it. The Bible paints an honest picture about the fallen world and it certainly includes some confronting stories. However, the inclusion of some of these stories does not mean that God approves the actions of their characters. On the contrary, they are often condemned. What we need to understand is that God is able to use these stories in ways that further His purposes by teaching us things we need to know about Him, ourselves and His grace towards sinners.
When God brings judgment on people such as Pharaoh or the Canaanites is He being malicious, or does He have some other purpose in view?
In most of these situations, God’s first response is not judgment. Even in a case like Sodom and Gomorrah, God comes first to Abraham to reveal His plans to him. Abraham pleads with God, and God is willing to save the cities if there are 10 righteous people in them. So we see that God’s first response is not one of judgment. Usually God’s judgment comes after an extended period where people refuse to change, and evil reaches epidemic proportions. God is always slow to execute judgment. In Genesis 15 we discover that God reveals that He will not punish the Amorites for at least four generations, which in those times equated to over four centuries. I don’t think that anyone could argue that God acted capriciously and was not long-suffering and just in executing His judgments. In fact, I think that most of us would be thankful that God is so forbearing and merciful in the way He executes justice. I think we all need to pause and remember that the God of the Bible is holy and we are sinners. We deserve nothing from Him, and that’s the part of the equation we don’t understand today. If we did we would soon realise how merciful and gracious God is when He exercises such restraint towards us.
A lot of people take offence at God’s command to the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. What do we know about the Canaanites? Did they deserve it?
That’s the way this issue is presented sometimes: the poor, innocent Canaanites, minding their own business, and then God pounces on them in judgment and destroys them through the Israelites. Well, as I said earlier, God’s judgment wasn’t His first response. He waited for over four centuries until their evil had reached the upper limit, so to speak. The Canaanites were a people who were very wicked in their behaviour, even engaging in child-sacrifice. They worshiped gods who were lustful, incestuous, and bloodthirsty and the Canaanites became like the gods they worshipped. The goddess of sex and war, Ashtart, was very violent. She decorated herself with suspended heads and hands attached to a girdle. She exalted in brutality and butchery. Of course, the Canaanites also worshipped Baal, who was the god of fertility. One aspect of Baal worship involved the Canaanites engaging in sexual activity as a form of sympathetic magic to induce him to produce fruitfulness for their crops. So it’s a false picture to say that the Canaanites were innocent people minding their own business. They were extremely debauched and wicked people.
How would you answer somebody like Richard Dawkins who says that when God orders the extermination of the Canaanites He is nothing more than a moral monster?
I would answer by reminding him that the Bible says that God is a God of justice. His judgment is simply a manifestation of His justice and righteousness, and if we had a sense of His holiness, our response would be one of fear and reverence because of the holy God that He is. I would also remind him that this judgment upon the Canaanites serves as a warning of the future eschatological judgment that faces us. And I would also add this: God’s command to exterminate theCanaanites is not something that occurs all throughout Old Testament history. It is for a particular period of Israel’s history. It’s not as if Israel participated all throughout her history in this kind of activity. It was for a particular purpose in a limited period of her history. Further, it was confined to the time when she entered Canaan to take possession of it for herself so as to fulfil God’s purpose for her. Now there were times when Israel engaged in physical warfare – holy war – but many times that was defensive. So this is a strictly limited period during Israel’s existence, and we should not think of Israel participating in this kind of activity all throughout her history. To suggest otherwise is wrong.
To read the whole interview, go here.
anaquaduck says
Not only that, but when Israel disobeyed & failed to head the consistant rebukes of the prophets she too experienced discipline & punishment.
We would expect this today with our own judicial systems, to be impartial, yet often taking a soft line means no real remorse or repentance & showing partiality leads to abuse within a justice system that becomes oppressive.
The irony of Dawkins is his system of belief has no moral basis from an objective sense. So one moment he derides belief & God, the next he says it is OK to abort a child who is deemed to be defective. So Dawkins acts like God or a monster or a Caananite sacrificing human life in the name of Atheism.
God demonstrates mercy, sacrifice, long suffering & judgement, an advocate in Christ also. It all comes together in Him.
Dan Trabue says
If I may offer an opinion or two? I know this is Belcher’s interview, but you seem to be supportive of his views, so I’m respectfully raising these questions to you…
First of all, my name is Dan Trabue and I’m a Christian in the Anabaptist tradition and have been a follower of Jesus for 42 years, now. I love the Bible and take it seriously. Having said that by way of introduction, where Belcher says…
I would answer by reminding him that the Bible says that God is a God of justice.
I would respond that it is exactly because we (people like myself and others, and probably people like Dawkins, as well, although far be it for me to speak on behalf of a non-theist) believe in justice that we object to passages like the ones in question.
Let’s try to take the text fairly literally and assume for a minute that the majority of adults in Canaan, for instance (or any of the other “wicked” nations) are indeed pretty bad people with atrocious behaviors… behaviors that anyone would call “wicked” – the killing of babies, rape, abuse, oppression, etc. IF the concern is for justice, then justice would hold the abusers accountable, but not the innocent bystanders. When you start having commands to wipe out the entire population, you have moved from an attack on awful-behaving people to innocent bystanders, if nothing else, the children.
Where is the justice in an absolute slaughter of all the people of the land, down to the women and children? There is none, that is an attack against justice, is it not?
So, if we have a perfectly just and loving God, is it a rational belief that this God sometimes commands the killing of babies and children and other innocent bystanders? Many people would object to that on the grounds that it is inherently injust.
Thoughts?
Respectfully,
Dan Trabue (I’m signing in using my facebook pseudonym, Gus Ravenwheel because I don’t know how else to sign in, but I am Dan Trabue…)
Ed Dingess says
The problem is your presupposition that there are innocent people in the world. There are none. They don’t exist. No human has ever been born since the fall who did not deserve death because we are all born with a sinful nature. The doctrine of original sin solves the puzzle.
anaquaduck says
God says existence is so much more than a set of natural laws. There is a certain amount of irony in humans telling God he is doing things wrong or evil, particularly as humanity was forewarned of a devastating outcome. In that sense there are no innocents, we are all guilty before God & know not His peace or love because of his justice & purity.
We are not our own masters of destiny. I think this is a starting point regarding our position before God (as pointed out in the last paragraph). We are no different to the Canaanites, nor were Israel. It was God in mercy that initiated redemption. Deut.9:2-6. Atheism says do what you want or feel or do what the government wants, life is just an accident & we need to get by the best way we can & that way is humanity is the measure of all things.
When we look at Job we see a bit more of why certain things happen. There is a bigger picture spanning ages & nations. Did God get it wrong in sending Jesus, was he wrong to forgive the thief on the cross…usually the argument then changes to Jesus or the Israelites never existed.
I trust God’s judgement even though I don’t understand everything, I can be confident that God is light & in Him there is no darkness. God makes it clear that He is offering Salvation, to deny that on the basis of our own morality instead of trusting Christ is assured to fail, unlike Jesus.
…
I don’t know if this helps but I pray that it will, I am no minister in an official sense but also love Gods Word & am seeking to grow in knowledge, truth & God’s grace. I realise I have involved some atheism which was for the benefit of the overall article. Maybe Dr Kruger will provide input, but usually things are open to discussion on his posts
Grant says
Dan, who is an innocent bystander when we read in the Psalms that “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Psalm 51:5), teaching that sin is inherent to descendants of fallen Adam, which is confirmed in Romans 3:10-23, 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:23?
Grant says
What I mean, Dan is that since all the descendants of Adam have a nature that readily sins, and are brought up by adults who are already very experienced in sin, they aren’t “innocent,” though perhaps they may be restrained by the “common grace” of God (2 Thessalonians 2:7), which is removed as a part of God’s judment on sin (Romans 1:24, 26, 28; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12).
Jeff Pagan says
Call me biblically challenged, but I dont think we should try to come up with an extremely profound analysis of the scriptures to justify them. Lay people or new Christians are taught by most fundamentalists to accept the literal meaning of scriptures. If there are no innocent people, then we should let ISIL reign unchallenged thinking that maybe they are God’s instrument. Again I can see a Sheik or Iman saying pretty much the same thing to justify mass killings. I believe the Bible was inspired by God, but written by men affected by their circumstances. Unfortunately the story of religions that we tend to ignore is that it is as much the story of God as the story of men trying to understand him. Just think about the book of Psalms and you will understand.
Grant says
Jeff, your comment makes no sense.
You say that you believe that the Bible was inspired by God, and yet you seem to have missed the central theme: the glory of God, not just in judgment of fallen and evil people, but also in grace extended to a number of them.
The men who wrote as they were directed by the Holy Spirit of God may have been affected by their circumstances, but God is sovereign in all circumstances. This is recognized throughout the Bible by those very authors (Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28).
We do not need to try to understand God when he has communicated clearly in His revelation of Himself in the Bible and in Jesus Christ.
There is no Biblical basis for letting ISIL remain unchallenged. Christians should challenge them with the Gospel, and governments (whatever government there is in each nation is ordained by God: Romans 13:1-7) should oppose them with the necessary force.
John Stebbe says
“ . . . we object to passages like the ones in question.”
Dan, this is the Bible, and you identify yourself as a Christian. How is it that you “object” to the Word of God?
We may say that we don’t understand it, or that it makes us uncomfortable. But to “object to passages like the ones in question” seems out of place for a Christian.
Having said that, you ask:
“Where is the justice in an absolute slaughter of all the people of the land, down to the women and children? There is none, that is an attack against justice, is it not?”
I would like to respond with a couple of points:
1) God acted in a similar way during the Noah’s Flood. Certainly there were infants who perished. Do you “object” in the same way, regarding those infants?
2) Many infants today die, including, of course, those millions lost to abortion. God knows about those infants dying. He does not intervene. How do we account for this?
The only solution is that we are all born in Adam, and are deserving of punishment, no matter what our gender or age. If infants are not born in sin, and do not deserve God’s wrath, then why do they die? If they are innocent until a certain age later in childhood, why does God allow any bad thing to happen to them during infancy?
The fact is that none of us deserve any good thing from God’s hand. God does bless us in many ways, of course, due to His decision to bestow common grace upon our world. But we deserve none of it.
God sees all of humanity in the same light. We all possess a sin nature, and are abhorrent to God until He grants us repentance (2 Tim 2:25) and a new birth (John 3:7).
I am reminded of Daniel 4:35. Nebuchadnezzar reflects on his humbling experience, and concludes,
He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: “What have you done?”
Jeff Pagan says
The only problem with Belcher’s argument is that it sounds strikingly similar to ISIL’s motives for the extermination of inmoral infidels. I’m a christian studying the Bible for nearly 38 years. I have come to accept those ugly passages without attempting to defend God’s actions because Belcher just proved that one can actually bear counterproductive witness making things sound a lot worst. People today are a lot more informed than three generations ago and simplistic explanations are hard sales. This is not what we need. Sorry, I had to say it. Hope I did not offend anybody.
anaquaduck says
It can sound strikingly similar to genocide which happened because of the enlightenment with its superior ideas of race & humanity, what is valuable & what is not, which also applies to abortion, but I doubt that would want to be acknowledged.
Strikingly similar & yet so different on so many points.
God as an ultimate authority & giver of life can take it & as pointed out, also with warning, long suffering & justice, Christianity does not advocate the taking of life…pray for your enemies, do good to those who mistreat you, etc. When Peter got out his sword in Gethsemane he was told to put it away.
Sin is ugly & that is why God is putting an end to it. It is a rebellion that cannot go unignored & that is why God came & was mercisly taunted & brutally put to death, he says we ought not to be surprised by this, expect likewise even. Yes the OT is hard to come to grips with, with our modern senses & supposed logic but the OT displays mercy, compassion & justice & needs to be considered as a whole.
As a people we still kill infants, rob, steal,commit adultery, lie, decieve & hate others & God. When that happens we tend to pass it off as individuals but we are all one & the same. Sin stained sinners, infected with the same disease with different manifestations.
We have a form of godliness but deny its power & there are consequences for that, this is what I think belcher is saying as he reminds us of the need for Christ…
Grant says
Jeff, it only sounds strikingly similar if you recognize ISIL’s motives as originating in true revelation from God.
I’m not offended by what you have written. I am concerned that either in your decades of study you have not noticed, or else you do not perceive to be pertinent to this discussion, the purpose of God, which we can identify in both His judgment on sin, and His grace to the people He takes to Himself.
The Apostle Paul had no problem with difficult passages: “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Romans 3:19); “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ ” (Romans 9:20).
These are not “simplistic explanations,” they are the recognition that the Triune God is infinitely holy, sovereign and transcendent to the race of people who have sinned against him. He is worthy to judge all sin and impose a righteous penalty. And yet, again, He desires to show His Goodness not only in just judgment, but in grace, saving a number of these fallen people to enjoy the fellowship of the Triune God forever.
Jeff Pagan says
Grant: I have no doubt that you have an even deeper knowledge about God’s nature and purpose than me. Of course, I don’t suggest that ISIL’s motives are rooted in true revelation, but as a keen student of human history, it is not hard to identify infinite moments when people with sincere religious beliefs engaged in genocide. Who among us can judge these things as moral or immoral if we are all sinners (Romans 3:23) incapable of understanding the full extent of what constitutes the truth. Killing someone in God’s name is wrong. Grant you would probably reject the use of such defense in a murder trial. Why? You have no way of knowing if God really mandated someone’s murder. You would reject it because you serve a moral God. I agree with you. God is superior and sovereign, but this is what we usually say without realizing that the other side of our mouth always says he is eternal and never changes. Yes, we say he is just, but do not waste time to “come to his rescue” when he allows something that is seemingly incompatible with his eternal nature. After all, the only reason for his Son’s death on the cross was because someone had to pay for our sins (justice). The best way to interpret and explain many events is to accept God’s mysterious ways and avoid pretentious apologetics which sound intricate, uncanny and highly unlikely in the age of post-modernism. The church doesn’t have to change its message, but it needs to re-frame it. We need to stop fostering sectarian, intolerant and divisive environments. People will start paying attention when churches begin to look more and more like his kingdom should. That’s what people need and that is God’s desire.
Dan Trabue says
John…
“ . . . we object to passages like the ones in question.”
Dan, this is the Bible, and you identify yourself as a Christian. How is it that you “object” to the Word of God?
I’m sorry if I was less than clear, let me clarify…
What I mean is that I object to that understanding of God, not to the passage and not “the Word of God.”
Consider: There are texts in the Bible like the ones where God commands Israel to wipe out the entire population except for the virgin girls, the virgin girls can be kidnaped and brought home and made into wives for the soldiers that killed their families (Deut 21). Now, in theory, someone could look at that text and interpret it: “So, when we go to war, it is acceptable to kill men, women and children, and for us to save the virgin daughters and bring them home and make them our wives.” Presumably, you would object to that interpretation, and rightly so. You’d object to it, presumably (correct me if I’m mistaken) because you think it is a misrepresentation of the Bible, of God and what God would have us do.
Similarly, I object to interpretations of the Bible that portrays God as acting against justice by ordering the killing of babes because, in my view, it is a misrepresentation of the Bible and of God.
Does that clarify?
Ed said…
The problem is your presupposition that there are innocent people in the world. There are none. They don’t exist.
And Grant echoed…
What I mean, Dan is that since all the descendants of Adam have a nature that readily sins, and are brought up by adults who are already very experienced in sin, they aren’t “innocent,”
I would respectfully object, to a degree. Let me explain.
Similarly to my last point, I think this is a misunderstanding of reason, of morality and of biblical text.
1. Are there texts in the Bible that says “all have sinned…” and “no one is guiltless…” and words to that effect. Does that mean, though, that the newborn babe has actively committed a sin? Chosen to rebel against God?
I would respectfully say that this is a claim with zero data to support it and much to contradict it.
2. I would suggest that such texts are best understood as hyperbole, not a literal and factual testimony of reality. The point the authors are making, it seems to me, when they say things such as this is speaking to the sinful nature of each human… we all, in fact, have a bent to do wrong, to be mistaken, to fail, to fall short.
3. Consider two such passages, for example…
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51
“The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Psalm 58
Do we think that little David was born speaking lies?? “Going astray” the moment he was born? No! This is clearly hyperbole… metaphorical language used to emphasize the reality that he recognized his own sins/shortcomings.
Can we agree that this is not a literal fact in this text, at least about the “speaking lies…”? I’m sure we can, since that would be contradictory to reality as we know it. Now, some could say, “no, no, we MUST take it literally! It’s the Bible!” but as a point of fact, sincere believers of good faith would disagree with that opinion. Not because they devalue the Bible or disagree with the reality that humans are not perfect (and that is reality, we can see it in every case of every human ever, right?), just that we disagree with taking such texts as literal when rationally and biblically, we would say, a more metaphorical or figurative understanding makes more sense.
Can we all agree with these points, friends?
If so, then I return to my point about the understanding that God would condemn the babes, infants and children of a city for the sins of other adults in their city. Where is the justice in that? Indeed, does the Bible itself not teach that the child shall not pay for the sin of the parent?
Respectfully and in Christ,
Dan Trabue
Dan Trabue says
A couple of other points and answers to questions asked…
John asked me…
1) God acted in a similar way during the Noah’s Flood. Certainly there were infants who perished. Do you “object” in the same way, regarding those infants?
I do not believe that the great story of Noah is best understood as literal history, but more figurative in nature. I suppose we can all agree that one of the first rules of interpreting texts is to understand the literary genre and literary devices being used? If we read poetic language and insist that it is a science journal, we will likely reach a wrong conclusion.
(John the Revelator writes, “After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth…” if we treat this poetic phrasing as literal geography, then we will have imagined a flat square earth… and been quite mistaken! Surely we agree on that point?)
Since I think the best understanding of Noah’s story is figurative, then no, I do not think that God literally chose to kill a bunch of babes as a matter of will. Even if one does take that literally, however, it is a different matter to say that God chooses sometimes to take the life of a baby than to say that God sometimes human beings to kill babies.
2) Many infants today die, including, of course, those millions lost to abortion. God knows about those infants dying. He does not intervene. How do we account for this?
I, for one, do not think that God actively intervenes and stops us from any evil, as a general rule. God did not miraculously send angels to stop slaughters in Nicaragua, Rwanda, the American oppression of slaves or any other events of this nature. Presumably you and I can agree that simply because God does not step in and intervene to prevent deaths is a sign that no God exists or that God is not just, am I correct?
I rather doubt we disagree on this point, but you tell me.
Having answered your two questions, John, would you possibly more directly answer my question which prompted them?
“Where is the justice in an absolute slaughter of all the people of the land, down to the women and children? There is none, that is an attack against justice, is it not?”
If a group of religious zealots chose to attack a city because that city was populated with “sinners,” and in the process, they killed men, women and children/babes, would you not call such an act an act of extreme INjustice? Would you not call such an attack cruel and evil?
The fact that the city had sinners in it would not excuse such an attack, would you not agree?
You said in your earlier response…
The only solution is that we are all born in Adam, and are deserving of punishment, no matter what our gender or age. If infants are not born in sin, and do not deserve God’s wrath, then why do they die?
That is not the only solution, right? Is it also not a reasonable solution – even if you don’t agree with it – that this text does not represent a literally factual representation of God or God’s will?
Why do infants die? Why does anyone die? It is part of the nature of human life that our lives come to an end, eventually. We get sick and die, we get old and our bodies just wear out and die. Death is a part of life and, while we will rightly grieve deaths when they happen, the reality of death is not a sign of injustice in any manner. Do you disagree?
No, the injustice comes when a death comes by means of an oppressive or cruel attack by others against innocents. THAT is injustice, not merely shuffling off these mortal coils. Does this seem reasonable to you? It does to me.
John…
The fact is that none of us deserve any good thing from God’s hand.
Is that a fact or an opinion? If you think it is a fact, where is your objective data to support the claim?
John…
God sees all of humanity in the same light.
The Bible expresses many ideas about God’s view of humanity. Some others include…
You [GOD] have made them [humanity] a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. Psalm 8, Hebrew 2
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them… God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Genesis 1
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. …according to the Psalmist in Psalm 139
For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. according to Paul in Ephesians 2
…for instance. So, I would say a more biblically rounded and rationally understood view of humanity would be that we are created in God’s image, that God finds God’s creation Good, beloved, created just a little lower than the angels, crowned with honor and glory, prepared to do good works… AND that we are flawed, failed, prone to error… that we all sin and make mistakes.
While sometimes we and biblical writers might focus on one side or the other of our nature, I think the more holistic biblical and rational thing to do is keep in mind all sides of our nature.
Seem reasonable to you all?
Respectfully,
Dan Trabue
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
The problem is your presupposition that there are innocent people in the world. There are none. They don’t exist.
I would posit that both the Bible and human reason would disprove this claim.
Consider:
do not shed innocent blood Jer 22
Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land Deut 19
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to God… haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood…
Now Abimelek had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation?” Gen 20
…for example. So, clearly, biblically, there is a notion of innocent people and even innocent nations! at least in some context.
Additionally, Merriam Webster defines innocent thusly…
1 a. free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless [an innocent child]…
c : free from legal guilt or fault
In the definition of the word, child is used as an example. And by the English definition dealing with this concept (“free from guilt of sin, especially through lack of knowledge of evil…” and “free from legal guilt or fault”), babes are innocent of sin by the very definition of the word.
I would posit that obvious reason would dictate that, if nothing else, a newborn babe is the very image of innocent. They have not done anything to be guilty of anything! What could they possibly be guilty of??!
Here, I’m speaking of “sin” as behavior.
I think what the Bible talks of (and what reason can support) is having a sinful nature… a tendency to sin. We all will and do sin, make mistakes, err, when given a chance.
But a newborn babe has not done this, not actively sinned.
Do you disagree?
Respectfully,
Dan
Rob Dewar says
Hey Dan,
A couple of points I thought of while reading through your responses … first, I appreciate your concern for using the Bible to ground your points. I also appreciate how you started, by pointing out that even Dawkins has to have an inherent belief in justice in order to object to Biblical passages like the ones in question (why? what is justice? I believe there is much fertile ground to be explored in that direction …)
As far as your specific points, you say that babes are innocent of sin by the very definition, but I argue that your definition is, although modern, incorrect. It’s not only sin if you know it’s sin – I’ve definitely done things in my past that I now consider sinful that I did not know were wrong at the time, and I don’t believe I should be totally excused for them. That’s what original sin means – our natures are so corrupt, that we can’t not sin – we may be ignorant of it until God helps us see the sin in our lives and hopefully correct it, but that does not mean we’re not sinning. There is a difference between manslaughter and murder, but both are sin. Also, read Augustine’s Confessions and see what his view on the innocence of babes was … it was very interesting for me.
You also say that “injustice comes when a death comes by means of an oppressive or cruel attack by others against innocents,” and that the events described in the Bible meet that definition. That definition is good as far as judging human actions – when someone oppresses/attacks another, it’s an injustice. Is it accurate for divine actions though? After all, God brings about the death of everyone, and even naturally cruel things come from him. You say that he merely “allows” human injustice to take place (so is not guilty of it), but by the same token, he merely “allows” natural injustice (cancer, miscarriage) to take its course, too. If someone murdered you or I, God could have given that someone cancer years earlier and prevented it, right? All of our deaths take place at the time and in the manner prescribed by God – whether due to an unjust action on someone else’s part or due to old age or sickness. The just/unjust argument for an action by a human is judged on a temporal time scale. But for God, it has to be on an eternal timescale – his judgment (which will be just) is after, not before, physical death. How he brings about that physical death is not something we can accuse him of being just/unjust over, unless we accuse him of being unjust for all deaths and all suffering, directly human-caused or not, which of course many atheists are pleased to do, but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying.
Can a just God command his people to do unjust things (assuming these things in the OT were unjust). The injustice can be explained away by the lack of innocence (not ignorance) of the Canaanites, as others have done here. Or it could be claimed that the fact that God commanded it makes it not unjust – just as you’re saying that things that happen naturally (also at God’s command) are not unjust. The Hebrew phrase is usually translated as “devoted to destruction”, and there is a clear difference in the OT between those who are “devoted to destruction” and those who are murdered unjustly. I would also note that “devoted to destruction” is not “human sacrifice” – sacrifice is intercessory, penitent or thankful in nature, and this is none of those things. Before you freak out that I’m saying that I’d kill someone if God commanded me to … he’s laid out his plan for NT believers quite clearly and it does not involve killing or even hating people in any way. Physical sacrifice and devoting things to destruction are not part of God’s plan any more and haven’t been for a long, long time. Times and cultures have changed, and I do believe that this too is God guiding the changing culture of his people, out of ignorance and into light. The atheist will argue that then God is changing, I argue that no, his nature is unchanging, it’s us who are changing (at his behest). The same compassion and love that shines through right from the start of the OT bursts into brilliant focus in the NT, even as his justice is focused on the one final true sacrifice of his Son. Were the Canaanites and other nations who oppressed and stood in the way of God’s people in the OT (or the Jews who disobeyed his commands, for that matter) punished here on Earth? Yes, they were. But see Jesus explain the deaths of those who died in the tower of Siloam – they were not punished because they were any worse than anyone else, their deaths were part of God’s plan in bringing about salvation for his people, just as ours will be, and their eternal fate is in his hands, just as ours is.
Another aspect of this is the relationship between parents and children. While we live in an individualist society, we still can’t escape that my children will have to live with the consequences of both my strengths and my weaknesses. That doesn’t mean that God will judge them eternally by my actions (his eternal judgment is up to him, we’re best off not trying to guess at it), but it does mean that their lives and in some cases deaths (eg. abortion) will be directly caused by what I do, no matter how “innocent” they are. This is not unjust on God’s part, although it certainly is on my part, and will be an extra strike against me on the day of judgment (thank God that I have a savior!).
Anyways, that’s a lot of rambling, hopefully there are chunks of meat in there that make sense to you or whoever might read it. Feel free to point out my errors and weaknesses, these are just some of the thoughts that came to mind, by no means do I have it all figured out!
Dan Trabue says
Thanks for the thoughts, Rob. A couple of responses…
first, I appreciate your concern for using the Bible to ground your points.
And thank you. I will point out, though, that I don’t believe in using the Bible to proof text ideas or beliefs (ie, I believe in Theory 1 because, the Bible…). Or at least, certainly not the Bible alone. I also cited “reason” frequently (ie, the Bible says “don’t shed innocent blood,” so we know that there is such a concept biblically, and additionally, we can just see that babies are inherently innocent, by definition… I’m citing the Bible AND appealing to reason). Just for what it’s worth.
Rob…
you say that babes are innocent of sin by the very definition, but I argue that your definition is, although modern, incorrect. It’s not only sin if you know it’s sin
So, perhaps we’re having a difference with semantics? Then, if you’re not using the standard English definition of the word, please, provide the definition you are using so we can speak of the same thing. I certainly agree that we can do wrong/sin in ignorance, but again, I’m speaking of babies here: What action/attitude does a one day old baby do that could possibly be considered sinful by any definition of the word?
Rob…
After all, God brings about the death of everyone, and even naturally cruel things come from him…
All of our deaths take place at the time and in the manner prescribed by God
Respectfully, not everyone, nor every Christian, would agree with that claim. I don’t think, for instance, that God “brings about” the death of everyone. I see no data to support that claim, biblically or rationally.
It’s a fine hunch to have if that is a hunch you want to hold, and I can even agree at some leve, if we’re talking figuratively or poetically, I just would disagree that is how God actually acts or works in our world.
Rob…
If someone murdered you or I, God could have given that someone cancer years earlier and prevented it, right?
An omnipotent God COULD do anything. I see no rational or biblical data to suggest that our God acts in that manner in this world, certainly not as a norm. Do you disagree?
Can a just God command his people to do unjust things (assuming these things in the OT were unjust).
I would answer, No. As the Bible says, “No one should say, ‘I am tempted by God,’ for God tempts no one to sin…” (James 1, going from memory).
Beyond the Bible, reason would suggest that a Just Being would not command others to act unjustly. Agreed?
Rob…
Before you freak out that I’m saying that I’d kill someone if God commanded me to … he’s laid out his plan for NT believers quite clearly and it does not involve killing
Glad to hear that is your take on the NT. I certainly agree that this is a NT teaching (not to kill others, especially innocent bystanders…). I also happen to think that it’s an OT teaching, for what it’s worth.
Rob…
Were the Canaanites and other nations who oppressed and stood in the way of God’s people in the OT (or the Jews who disobeyed his commands, for that matter) punished here on Earth? Yes, they were.
Well, that is the question that is up for grabs, isn’t it? Were those deaths found in stories in the Bible coming from actual stories that happened, factually just as described, or were those stories more figurative, not literal renderings of history?
If that is the question being discussed, we can’t simply assume Yes, they were, that would be begging the question. It would need to be supported with some data, agreed?
Thanks again for your rambling thoughts, thank you for your patience with my rambling thoughts.
Dan
Ed Dingess says
Hi Dan,
It seems that you may actually hold a very different presupposition than most of those who follow Dr. Kruger. We do affirm the historical reliability of the OT records top to bottom and would find the idea that the stories are not literal unsupportable and quite problematic.
It has been my experience that most people being with an idea of God that fits their desire and then they bend everything, to include their view of Scripture to fit that conception. I wonder if that is what is happening here.
Additionally, once we clear the fog, I would like to explore how only Reformed Theology can plausibly answer the argument from evil.
Rob Dewar says
Thanks Dan. We definitely are using different semantics when it comes to “innocent”. I would suggest that most of the places you’ve pointed out from the Bible that use the word “innocent” are not meaning “innocent of any sin against God.” “Innocent” in itself doesn’t mean much, the question has to be asked, “innocent from what?” I can be innocent from violating a specific commandment, or I can be innocent from intentionally sinning, or I can be innocent of murder, but innocent is usually not used in an absolute sense. For example, the Bible often talks of not shedding “innocent blood” (your examples from Jer. 22, Deut 19) – what it means (pretty clearly to me) is that the blood is shed for a reason that is false – wrongful convictions. It does not mean that person is completely innocent from any sin whatsoever. You gave Gen. 20 as another example, where clearly the “innocent” is that Abimelech had not slept with Sarah, not that he was absolutely, completely, innocent. I know that you’re basing your definition on logic and not the Bible, but do you actually have Biblical support for the notion that children are completely innocent, and not just innocent of specific intentional sins?
Of course, this depends on your definition of sin. If you think that sin has to be intentional, and children aren’t capable of being intentional, then I can see where you’re coming from, and they are “innocent” in general. But you’ve already acknowledged to me that you don’t think sin has to be intentional, which is why I’m a bit confused by your position. A child definitely acts completely selfishly (a natural limitation, although it definitely extends beyond the point at which they’re capable of thinking of others). Again, does “natural” excuse sinful action? We are also naturally lustful, yet Christ condemns even lustful thoughts. I would define sin as anything that goes against God’s nature. It definitely goes beyond action into attitude and thought, and children are born with attitude.
So, when you ask, what attitude could a baby possibly have that could be considered sinful, I really think that selfishness (me first!) is at the core of every human’s being – in our very DNA – and it’s there from day one. It’s a lot of work to suppress it, and it finds its way out in lots of involuntary ways. We don’t expect a baby to be able to suppress it, but as they grow and gain capability, we work on that ability to re-make their nature “good” or at least suppress the bad – whether we recognize that or not. To actually remake that nature requires, I believe, the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives (not that non-Christians can’t live basically moral lives, but that gets into a whole ‘nother topic!).
Could a human put a baby in jail or execute it for having a selfish attitude? Of course not! We can only judge each other for either intentional actions (eg. murder) or actions which should reasonably have been intentional (eg. avoiding manslaughter) – he who is without sin and all that. Does God take circumstance into account when judging? We’ve been assured that he does, but how, we have no idea, he is the judge, not us. I believe there is assurance in the Bible for children of believers who are taken out of this life in infancy. I believe that children of unbelievers are left to God – there is no real assurance one way or the other, that’s why we have to trust him. If you don’t, you won’t like that statement, if you do, you will.
I agree with you that already in the OT, the rule was not to kill innocent bystanders, and in fact not to judge the bystander in the first place. I believe that there were times when God made the judgement directly and told his people what it was. I believe that these are historical, but even if you don’t, you have to acknowledge that God let his people think it was for many, many years and explain that. But these instances were unambiguously explicit, specific and direct – the Israelites definitely had no license to kill or persecute non-Israelites based on any reason, let alone their own judgment. The difference between OT and NT is, I believe, that it has been made clear in the NT era that there will be no direct revelation by God to place any human in a position to know or execute his judgment (on the contrary, it’s been made clear that none of us are innocent, and we all have to help each other out, and he’s already executed his judgment). Human governments can judge human actions, but it has to be on a human level of proof and standard of judgment.
I would also agree with you that a just God cannot command his people to do unjust things – if you read my original post, that’s exactly what I’m saying, in fact. I am of course defining things differently than you – if God commands something, it’s not unjust. Although the temporal consequences may appear that way to the observer (who does not have all the information), the eternal consequences will absolutely be just. Again, do you trust God, or do you not – if you do, that can be acceptable, if not, it’s never going to be.
The question about God “bringing about” the death of all people really goes into the question of providence. I believe that the Biblical evidence for a strong providence is overwhelming (not one hair on your head) as well as rational (a God that is not able to intervene is not really a God, and if he’s able to intervene – and he set up creation and its rules in the first place – then he’s in control in a fairly strong sense whether or not he chooses to intervene). How that takes human freedom into account and allows for sin and evil to occur (to be allowed by but not authored by God) is not something I have definitive answers for, and my speculation would again be going beyond this post.
Thanks again for your rambling – even if you don’t change my mind overall, it helps me bring things into focus in my own mind to work through it and put it “on paper” as it were.
Ed Dingess says
Permit me to first respond to your interpretation that some biblical passages seem to teach innocence. It is better to take those passages contextually as teaching that some men may be relatively innocent from the perspective of other men or in regards to certain specific trespasses. However, what we are discussing here is our standing before God and God’s activity as it relates to human beings. In that context we would say that there is no absolute innocence. All men are guilty and therefore deserve nothing but divine judgment.
Second, I would encourage you to only use Hebrew and Greek lexicons when studying word meanings in the Bible. Moreover, you must also look at the semantic range of particular word. For instance, in English, hot can mean physically hot, popular, good looking, or even found his rhythm. The point guard was hot in the third quarter, as an example. That is one hot car. It could even more stolen. This is true for any language. Context is the single best determining factor of what an author means by his use of a particular word.
Finally, to say that humans have a sin nature is far more profound I think than your description implies. To be born with a sin nature does not simply mean we are all born with a tendency to sin. It means that our entire being, from the start, is naturally an enemy of God from the start. An infant is a newborn enemy of God. David said he was conceived in sin, even in his mother’s womb. Babies are born with a hatred for God and a love for sin in their hearts. This is the curse that Adam brought upon his posterity. It is why grace and redemption are so marvelous and wonderfully mysterious.
Every other scheme will compromise God’s nature in its attempt to account for evil in the world. Hope this makes sense.
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
To be born with a sin nature does not simply mean we are all born with a tendency to sin. It means that our entire being, from the start, is naturally an enemy of God from the start. An infant is a newborn enemy of God.
That is certainly one belief about God and “sin nature” that many humans have held over the years. I am amongst those believers who do not believe that opinion is a biblically or rationally consistent one. No offense intended, I just disagree with that opinion.
The Bible does not dictate that “an infant is a newborn enemy of God.” That appears in the bible zero times. Further, I don’t believe there is any rational reason to believe that claim. What would make an infant a “newborn enemy of God…”?
Beyond that, I don’t know that it is rational that God’s human creation of any age, created a little lower than angels, created in God’s very likeness, are fairly called “enemies of God…” natural or otherwise.
Are we fallen? Sure.
Do we err/make mistakes/sin? Sure.
But my children also sin/make mistakes/err… that does not make them my natural enemies? Far from it! They are my beloved and I am theirs.
Is it fair to characterize this as a theory, not a fact? And can we agree that some believers simply do not find a direct agreement with this theory?
If not, then where you claim…
Babies are born with a hatred for God and a love for sin in their hearts.
I’d respectfully ask for some hard data to support that claim. The Bible hasn’t said it and I see no rational reason to believe it.
Or rather, the bible does use words something like that, but the question being asked is: Is that more literal or more figurative? I’d say, clearly, that is a more figurative expression (“I was sinful from the time my mother conceived me…” REALLY? A zygote is full of sin?? That’s just hard to believe, rationally or biblically speaking, at least for me and my tribe. Clearly, to us, this is figurative language.)
Ed…
Hope this makes sense.
Well, I was raised very traditional Southern Baptist, so it makes sense insofar as I understand where you’re coming from. I used to believe it very dearly. I just no longer believe it is the most biblical or rational position to hold, or the best way to explain these biblical passages. I hope this makes sense to you.
Respectfully,
Dan
anaquaduck says
“Are we fallen? Sure.
Do we err/make mistakes/sin? Sure.
But my children also sin/make mistakes/err… that does not make them my natural enemies? Far from it! They are my beloved and I am theirs.”
…
Yes, as a family you & your children all sin, the same with all of humanity & that sin puts us at odds with the justice of God. The Bible reveals this truth through the spirit, we can accept it or reject it ultimately. You could instigate a thousand studies & come up with a thousand different findings but that will not change the spiritual reality that is manifested in human flesh.
Humanity is at war with God, we all like sheep have gone astray. Rom 3:9-20.
The problem is humanity doesn’t want to accept the depth & disgrace of its falleness, it would rather rationalise it in the head with justification rather then knowing it deep in the heart. Unless fallen humanity turns from its folly, of which it has well been forewarned, then it can expect judgement or consequence. This is consistent with Belcher’s biblical reasoning regarding the need for Christ. .
I appreciate that the Bible doesn’t spell it out so clearly at times, especially when we still retain many measures of goodness. We look at our actions & think we are not that bad but the problem remains we are sinners, plain & simple & we can’t set ourselves free, it’s not just a bit of rope hindering us externally or superficially, it is within us & requires something Greater to set us free. Rom 3:21-31
Cory says
It occurs to me also, do you deny the virgin birth?
Was Jesus sinless because he committed no sin or was he sinless because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit?
Cory says
I would ask if we are born sinless or if sin is only the active, conscious rebellion of God, then do you believe there is the potential for someone to live their entire life as sinless? Do you believe that person would then be ushered into the presence of God upon their death, having no need of a savior?
paynehollow says
Cory…
I would ask if we are born sinless or if sin is only the active, conscious rebellion of God, then do you believe there is the potential for someone to live their entire life as sinless?
Sin, by definition, is an action (even an action of thought or motive). The one minute old infant has not had a chance to sin, have they? I’m entirely willing to consider any reasonable responses to this question, but this really does seem to be a question that is going begging when people say “all have sinned.”
I think those passages in that vein (For all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory…, etc) are hyperbolic, obviously, because I see no evidence that a baby has sinned.
Now, generally speaking, I think the religious have it right when they speak of humans having a “sinful” or “Fallen” nature… we are NOT perfect and we DO err/sin/do wrong, given a chance. I believe that because I can see it… I’ve never in my life seen an adult who was free from sin or who would even make that claim.
My only point is that I see no evidence at all to suspect that the one day old babe has sinned.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that this happens? Or do you agree with me?
Directly to your question: No, I don’t believe, as a general rule, for someone to live their life as sinless. BUT, the caveat is that I’m speaking of a normal human life. The babe that is born at 5:00 am and dies half an hour later at 5:30am did not sin, so I guess you could say they led their “entire life” as sinless.
Do you disagree? What sin did that baby do in those 30 minutes? Do you have support for that?
I’m answering your all’s collective questions, please someone, return the favor.
Thanks.
Cory…
Do you believe that person would then be ushered into the presence of God upon their death, having no need of a savior?
I think this is approaching the notion of “savior” from a wrong point of view. We need a savior, all of us, because we are fallen human beings. But we don’t need a “savior” to “purchase” our “salvation…” I think those sorts of words are clearly, where they are found in the Bible, using figurative, not literal language.
Jesus came preaching good news and that good news is that we all can be and are being saved by God’s grace. It is in embracing that Way, that Grace, that we are finding salvation. The babe who dies shortly after birth is saved by Grace. This old grumpy anabaptist who is, no doubt, a sinner in need of salvation, is saved by Grace. We ALL are saved by grace and Grace, like Love, like Forgiveness, like Justice, is of God/Jesus. In that sense, we need a Savior, because we need Grace, for, as Paul says, it is by Grace we are saved, through Faith in Jesus.
This seems rational to me.
Respectfully,
Dan
Cory says
All of Romans 5 is explicit that sin IS NOT just an action. For by Adam, death was brought to all. We are all under condemnation. 1 Corinthians 15 iterates the same thought so offhandedly that Paul didn’t even need to explain what he meant when writing about a completely different subject.
By your admittance, the potential exists for someone to live their full 120 years and never commit an offense toward God. So that person does not need a savior.
You seem to also be denying penal substitutionary atonement. I would ask, what does “The Lamb of God” mean? And what is the “wrath of the Lamb”? Or possibly, do you believe the OT is not authoritative?
Dan Trabue says
Cory…
By your admittance, the potential exists for someone to live their full 120 years and never commit an offense toward God. So that person does not need a savior.
“By my admittance…”? I never admitted such a thing. I said that, by all evidence, every person, given a chance, WILL and DOES sin. So no, I never said that. You must have misunderstood.
Understand now?
Cory…
You seem to also be denying penal substitutionary atonement. I would ask, what does “The Lamb of God” mean? And what is the “wrath of the Lamb”? Or possibly, do you believe the OT is not authoritative?
Yes, I disagree with the human PSA Theory, developed in the 16th century as an adaptation of Anselm’s theories in the 11th century, as the best way of understanding our relationship between God and forgiveness.
“Lamb of God” is figurative language found in the Bible speaking of the notion of Jesus taking away our sins, of the good news that a relationship with God can be restored/found/embraced. Of the good news of GRACE.
But it is a metaphor for grace, it is not Grace, itself. Seems to me.
“Wrath of the Lamb” is, as far as I can recall off the top of my head, found only in the book of Revelation, which is full of all sorts of imagery regarding God setting things aright.
But again, to confuse metaphor for reality is not a rational thing to do.
Do I believe the OT is “authoritative…”?
Depends on what you mean by “authoritative.”
I believe that…
1. As a point of fact, the Bible never calls the OT “authoritative.”
2. As a point of fact, the Bible never calls the NT “authoritative.”
3. As a point of fact, the Bible never calls “the Bible” “authoritative.”
4. As a point of fact, God has never told me nor you that the Bible is authoritative.
Given all of those facts (and truly, they are facts, right?), do I believe something that the Bible does not teach nor does reason demand? No. Why would I? Tradition? I love tradition and take it seriously, and for what it’s worth, but I do not conflate tradition with God, nor with fact.
This is reasonable, is it not?
Dan
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
I would encourage you to only use Hebrew and Greek lexicons when studying word meanings in the Bible.
“Do not shed innocent blood…” Jeremiah 22
“Innocent,” Hebrew “Naqiy (naw-kee)
1) clean, free from, exempt, clear, innocent
1a) free from guilt, clean, innocent
1b) free from punishment
1c) free or exempt from obligations
2) innocent
What do you think it means by innocent in that passage? It does not seem to be suggesting anything other than the English definition.
I certainly agree about considering the context when reading any text. That is a given. In this case, in this context, it appears that God is warning “wicked kings” against killing innocent bystanders, so as I noted earlier, there certainly is a sense biblically and rationally, where people ARE innocent, at least relationally between others.
Does that mean that they are innocent of ANY sin? Well, no, not necessarily, and I don’t think reason supports that… except likely in the case of infants and possibly children, because again, what could an infant possibly be guilty of?
Which returns me to the types of passages in question: A literal reading of a passage where God commands people from Israel to go in and “kill them all, including the infants and children…” still has, practically, rationally speaking, unjust deaths… Those infants had committed no sins against Israel or God. If EVER there were innocent deaths in the bible (and clearly there were), the killing of children and babies would fit that category.
Or at least some of us would argue as a biblical and rational opinion to hold.
In Christ,
Dan
Dan Trabue says
If I may offer one more pass on this notion of “original sin…” as voiced by Ed…
to say that humans have a sin nature is far more profound I think than your description implies. To be born with a sin nature does not simply mean we are all born with a tendency to sin. It means that our entire being, from the start, is naturally an enemy of God from the start.
If I say, “All humans have a tendency to sin…” I can support that biblically, as the Bible tells many stories showing how various ancient peoples, who were created in God’s image, managed to sin… sometime egregiously. I can also support that rationally, all one has to do is look around the world, throughout history and in our own lives and we all can testify to the reality that humans do, in fact, sin.
If, on the other hand, we make a claim like “All of humanity is an enemy of God…” or “at war with God…” or “naturally hates God and God’s ways…” THAT claim becomes very difficult to support.
Are there verses in the Bible that seem to hint at that sort of conclusion? Yes, there sure are. But the question for those passages, as with all passages in any text, is, “is that meant to be literal? Figurative? Symbolic? Metaphor? Straight-up fact?” and any conclusion for the claim that “these verses must be taken as literal or factual…” is difficult to support with anything other than “…because I think it is…” or, “Because my tradition has always held that belief…” and both an appeal to personal opinion or to tradition is not enough to hold up to rational consideration, in my opinion.
I mean, after all, if an appeal to “cause I think so…” is enough, then we are immediately faced with a problem when we have two different opinons, both of which can’t be correct. And if we appeal to Tradition or one particular culture, that is just an appeal to numbers and not sufficient in and of itself to be rationally convincing.
Agreed?
But other than an appeal to tradition or personal opinion, what would support such a claim, that we have chosen to be “God’s enemies,” even from infancy!??
Do you have any rational support for that kind of claim? Because I’m not aware of any.
Respectfully asked,
Dan
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
It seems that you may actually hold a very different presupposition than most of those who follow Dr. Kruger.
I am amongst the group of Christians who do not insist that one must believe the bible – especially the OT – must be taken as literally factual history, that indeed, this would represent poor biblical exegesis and irrational, leading to many potential problems. So yes, you are correct on that point. I would respectfully disagree with the more literal interpretations some of my faith family would embrace.
Ed…
It has been my experience that most people being with an idea of God that fits their desire and then they bend everything, to include their view of Scripture to fit that conception. I wonder if that is what is happening here.
As a point of fact, no.
I was raised in the very conservative and tradition Southern Baptist tradition and believed that way more or less for the first ~30 years of my life. My starting point, then, was the belief in a literal bible that, thankfully, my dear Southern Baptist teachers told me to take seriously.
Because they taught me to read the Bible and take it seriously, that is what led me away from a more “literalist” approach to the Bible, as I simply do not find that approach to be biblical or rational. So, in my case at least, it was an effort to follow God and rightly understand the Bible that led me away from the more “literalist” approach.
Note: I’m saying “literalist” in scare quotes because…
1. No one takes the Bible literally literally. We all recognize that there are some metaphors, hyperbole, parables and other more figurative language being used. We all interpret the Bible, seeking to find the best/most correct understanding, including recognizing that figurative language is sometimes used. Thus, no one reads “the four corners of the earth” and concludes that the earth is a sqare.
2. I (and many in the more anabaptist-y tradition) DO try to take the teachings of Jesus pretty literally and often find that we take Jesus’ words more literally than some of my more conservative friends and family. Jesus said not to store up for yourself treasures on earth and we literally strive not to do that, not “building up barns for later use…” for example. We literally do not take any oaths or pledge allegiance because of Jesus’ words. We do not war because we take Jesus pretty literally, etc.
Does that clarify?
Dan Trabue says
Rob…
I would suggest that most of the places you’ve pointed out from the Bible that use the word “innocent” are not meaning “innocent of any sin against God.”
Of course, I didn’t say that. Claims were made…
The problem is your presupposition that there are innocent people in the world. There are none. They don’t exist…
since all the descendants of Adam have a nature that readily sins, and are brought up by adults who are already very experienced in sin, they aren’t “innocent,” …
I pointed out that, biblically and rationally, of course innocent people exist, at least in some contexts.
I was making the point that, from a biblical and a rational view, yes, of course innocent people exist. And that, if a nation invades another nation and kills off men, women and children – even babes! – then yes, innocent people are being killed, in the sense of the idea found in the Bible and reasonably supported.
After all, surely you would agree that some religious zealots “told by God” to kill all the sinners who then came in and killed men, women and babies in another nation would have killed innocent people, am I correct?
So, the point being that if people kill others for no reason, it is not their place to do so, they are killing innocent people in relation to them.
Now, many of you all here appear to believe that if God orders it, then that makes it okay. Presumably, if God orders murder, if God orders theft, if God orders rape… it’s all okay as long as God has “ordained” it. Am I correct?
I’m saying that I don’t believe that reflects either a rational or biblical view of God.
A loving and just God would not order us to commit atrocities. Do you think if someone said “Yes, I raped children, but only at the order of God…” that this would excuse them? No, of course you don’t, you wouldn’t believe that God would do such a thing, would you?
And why wouldn’t you believe it?
I’d suggest it is almost certainly for the same reason I wouldn’t believe it: It sounds crazy, largely due to how irrational it is to say that a loving and just God would order an atrocity (or what would otherwise be an atrocity, if you believe that if God orders it, it’s all okay.)
Care to clarify?
As to the baby thing, I think we’ll just have to disagree.
A one day old baby who cries because they are hungry is in NO WAY sinning or being selfish, she’s being hungry and letting people know in the only way she knows how! How could that possibly be called a sin (even a sin in ignorance)?
Is it sinful that a mother bear kills someone who got to close to her cubs, or is it just nature? Is it sinful that a rockslide kills people beneath it? Is it sinful that a baby cries when she is hungry or poops herself?
No, no, no! None of that is reasonably called sinful or selfish or prideful or harmfully angry, it’s just nature.
Rob, I know that Augustine wrote some of this kind of thinking, but do you really think it’s reasonable? Biblical?
Respectfully,
Dan Trabue
Rob Dewar says
Dan, you’re going a little over the top here, and I suspect you know it. “If god orders theft, if God orders rape”, why are you playing the “if” game? We’re talking about a specific set of OT stories, and we already agreed that God would not and does not allow anything outside of those! In fact, I already had in my first post “before you freak out” to try to head that kind of nonsense off, and you admirably avoided freaking out until now. Do you trust God so little that you think he would order you to rape children?
You’re also refusing or unable to really say why the selfishness present from day 1 in all humans is not sinful, other than that it’s “natural” and obvious. If you think that babies cry only from being hungry, you’ve never had a baby. They cry very quickly for no other reason than that they want to be picked up. People steal very quickly because they’re hungry/poor and don’t know any better, too – you can argue that they should know better, but should they, really, if they’ve never been taught better? “Just nature” is part of the whole fall into sin, too – our nature, and nature itself was affected. Although we have a conscience, our nature is sinful, and we do need to be taught. Lustful thoughts are natural too, and impossible for basically any human not to have at some point in their life, do you think Jesus meant that only those who have practiced and lived for long enough to actually be able to prevent them were responsible to do so and sinning when they had them? And yes, for the record, I find most of what Augustine wrote to be very reasonable (more so than most of what you or I write, and I’m not alone in this).
As for the claim that there are no totally innocent people, you really haven’t disproven it from the Bible. Your counter-claim if you want to do so has to be that some people are completely, totally, absolutely innocent. That there is no original sin, that our nature is uncorrupted (or that it’s corrupted, but not sinful, maybe?). But the quotes you gave were all showing that the people or person in question was innocent of one specific sin or another, not that they were (in absolute terms) innocent. You acknowledge this when you say “in some contexts”, but fail to point out how those contexts apply to the passages in question.
Now, if the OT story you were responding to was that God ordered the invasion of the nation and told the Israelites to kill all the murderers, and they went and killed everyone, then yes, innocent people (innocent of murder) would have been killed. But the story is not that – so by what basis do you judge the people being killed as innocent or not? If they fought back? Then a man who was killed who had no chance to fight back is just as innocent as the babies and children.
My position is not just that if God ordains it, then it’s OK (although I do believe that, as I believe that God would and could not do otherwise). Rather, it’s that God will make it just in the end, and the end is not physical death. I don’t believe the Israelites had carte blanche to go in and commit atrocities in Canaan. I do believe they were ordered (by God) to kill entire populations of people. I don’t believe that that would ever be OK outside of the very limited historical circumstances given, and if someone tried to justify their own atrocity by pointing to this instance, I believe I would have any number of reasons to throw that back into their face, and I believe that God himself will do so in the end. In the end, both the Canaanites who were killed and the Israelites who killed them will face their judge, as will we – judging God from a temporal perspective rather than an eternal one makes no sense, and we are totally unfit and unable to judge from an eternal perspective.
paynehollow says
Rob…
We’re talking about a specific set of OT stories, and we already agreed that God would not and does not allow anything outside of those! In fact, I already had in my first post “before you freak out” to try to head that kind of nonsense off, and you admirably avoided freaking out until now. Do you trust God so little that you think he would order you to rape children?
You totally misunderstood my point, Rob. I DO trust God. It’s personal human interpretations of God that say “Sometimes, God has commanded people to kill babies…” I think that description of God conflicts with sound biblical and rational thinking.
Do you understand my point?
Rob…
I do believe they were ordered (by God) to kill entire populations of people. I don’t believe that that would ever be OK outside of the very limited historical circumstances given
Do you see that the point could be argued that you’ve set a precedent? That sometimes in the past, God DID command people to kill babies (men, women and children) and that the bible never tells us literally that God wouldn’t do it again, so if God DID tell people again to kill an entire people, including their babies, that you’re allowing that it’s possible?
Or even that you allow that it’s possible at least in the past that it happened?
Look, I’ve come from where you are coming (or something similar, anyway). I get the reasoning that I used to hold myself. I’m just saying that I no longer believe it is a biblically apt or rationally sound way of understanding God. Thus, I’m not rejecting God, not rejecting the Bible… just some human’s interpretation of some passages… That is, you and I disagree on the genre and meaning of Deut 21, Deut 31 and no doubt some other passages, just like we probably agree on a great number of passages.
I hope that clears up my position for you.
Rob…
But when 99% (or whatever) of historical Christians disagree with you, I would argue that you should very closely examine what you believe. Note that this makes sense even from a protestant mindset – we do for the most part attempt to align ourselves with historical (esp. early) Christianity, and to justify it if we do not.
1. I agree that we don’t know the numbers of Christians who agree with tradition on this point, and I agree that the majority through history have probably sided with you. That is what tradition is, after all.
2. I further agree that mere tradition is not sufficient reason to accept it. Nor are numbers.
3. I do feel I’ve made a rational and biblical case that is abundantly more clear and more biblical than the traditional belief (and note: I’m not the only Christian making this case… I’m part of many who do not feel that traditional beliefs are sufficiently rational or biblical) and, since the traditional case no longer makes ANY moral, rational or biblical sense to me, what else can I do but follow God the best I can understand God?
Respectfully,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
Hi Dan,
Perhaps I can help with your concern here. As Christians, we believe that we have received the final revelation of God at present until the glorious coming of our King. There cannot be new and additional revelation beyond that which we have received. What we have received, we are told will usher in the physical appearing of Christ. For this reason, no one could ever claim that God told them we are to kill babies now.
Concerning your view of sin Dan, it seems to be far afield of that revealed in Scripture. Once you say that a small fib will not bring God’s justice, now we have to determine just what sort of deception will result in divine judgment and who gets to say. When you take the punishment out of God’s hands and place it in your philosophy, you have now landed in a radical subjectivism where morality is relative and justice depends on the philosophy and interpretation of a man, such as yourself. Just how much of a lie merits God’s punishment in hell? And who gets to say? You? Me?
Death is part of the natural world but couldn’t God have created a world without death? And if God is all knowing, surely He would know how to create a world without death. And if God were perfectly good, he WOULD have created a world without death. But death is here. Therefore, there is no all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good God as posited in Christian theism. Now what, Dan? Will you compromise God’s power, His knowledge, or His morality? One of these must give unless you take up the reformed position. This argument has given rise to problems in philosophy and theology for centuries. It has produced Molinism, Process theology, open theism, libertarian free will and many other views that simply do not find their support in the Scriptures. And it is the Scripture with which we have to do as believers.
There is no doubt a special place in the heart of God for children. But that does not change the fact that the teachings of Scripture clearly inform us that all men are born under the curse of God, subject to wrath, and with a darkened, wicked nature. If that were not true, regeneration would not be necessary.
The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. Ps. 58:3
Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Ps. 51:5
Dan, I provided you with a number of verses that clearly inform us of the unbeliever’s disposition toward God and you simply ignored them. You have an idea of God in your mind before you come to the text. And the text will be made to conform with your idea rather than you conforming your idea to the text. The former is the product of autonomous human reason and is idolatry; the latter is the sanctifying process of the word of God as it shapes our hearts and minds to its standard of revealed truth.
Sin is not just a mistake or some imperfection of sorts. Unbelievers are not people who are just out there trying to do their best to live moral lives and find meaning in life just waiting for someone to come along with the Jesus story so they can “get saved” and follow Christ. Such a humanistic picture of the unbeliever is precisely wrong. The bible never pictures the unbeliever through that lens. I see destruction from Noah, to Sodom, to Jerusalem, and especially in the end, to all men who refuse to submit to the righteous King. Humanism replaces sin with imperfection, and mistake. It replaces drunkard with substance addiction. It replaces whores with sexually open and free woman who carves her own sexual path. It replaces perverse sodomy with same-gender sex and calls it love. On and on I could go. God’s attitude toward sin has NEVER changed and it never will. But for grace, we would all be living under the wrath of God today.
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
I provided you with a number of verses that clearly inform us of the unbeliever’s disposition toward God and you simply ignored them.
I did not ignore them in the slightest. I pointed out that you were question-begging. The question isn’t “Does this verse contain the words “The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.” The question is, are these words intending to convey a literal or figurative meaning? And, if literal, what evidence is there to support that?
On what basis, I’m asking, is your presumption that these verses indicate a literal reality hold more sway than those who think it clearly represents figurative language?
You can’t skip over that question and move on to the next point, reasonably speaking.
Fair enough?
Dan
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
God’s attitude toward sin has NEVER changed and it never will. But for grace, we would all be living under the wrath of God today.
Similarly, this is question begging. On what basis does your view (and the many who agree with you) represent the “right” or “true” image of God’s nature and not those who disagree with you? On whose authority is yours the “right” answer?
Respectfully,
Dan Trabue
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
When you take the punishment out of God’s hands and place it in your philosophy, you have now landed in a radical subjectivism where morality is relative and justice depends on the philosophy and interpretation of a man, such as yourself. Just how much of a lie merits God’s punishment in hell? And who gets to say? You? Me?
I have not taken punishment out of God’s hands. Never happened. I have taken it out of the traditionalists’ hands and said, “On what basis are you human presumptions/interpretations of the Bible reasonable? Biblical? The “right” presumptions?”
Questioning fellow humans and stating that they are not the final authority is not at all taking anything from God’s hands.
Who gets to say? Indeed, that is the question being posed.
I’m pointing out some extremely rational problems with the presumptions some humans have about the nature of God, of humanity, of “sin,” and of justice. I’m asking reasonable questions. Responding with, “But Psalm 58 says…” does not resolve anything, since I also know what Psalm 58’s words are. The questions I’m asking have to do with the rational basis for the interpretations of some humans about these passages in question. Do you see my point?
For instance, this bit of human reasoning…
<I. if God is all knowing, surely He would know how to create a world without death. And if God were perfectly good, he WOULD have created a world without death.
This is a human presumption, agreed? You are reasoning this out in your head, correct? God has not told you this, nor does the Bible, agreed?
I am saying that, from my personal point of view, death is a natural thing and in death itself, there is no wrong, there is no sin. It is a beautiful and healthy part of the natural world. Without death, life can not go on! How wonderful, how elegant!
Of course there is grief in seeing a flower fade and go to dust, there is grief in the loss of our loved ones, but that does not indicate a moral wrong, at least not in my opinion.
So, here we have two human opinions. One that God surely wouldn’t have allowed death if he is Good. Another believing that God created this marvelous elegant world full of the circle of God’s life.
Who’s opinion is the right one?
That’s part of what I’m asking.
Respectfully,
Dan
paynehollow says
Rob…
We’re talking about a specific set of OT stories, and we already agreed that God would not and does not allow anything outside of those!
Did we? I think the question is, did God literally allow/command these or are these stories more figurative. For those who think that God literally might/did allow/command Israel to kill whole cities – children included – and that God literally said it was morally acceptable to “rescue” (your group’s word, not mine, not the Bible’s) the orphaned virgin girls and “allow” (your group’s words, not mine, not the Bible’s) them to marry (regardless if they wanted to or not) their captor/rescuer. You all think these are literal representation of what God has commanded in the past, correct?
On what biblical or rational basis, then, do we conclude that this God would not command the same thing again? Or order a similar action – actions that we would similarly consider immoral as a normal rule?
Again I ask you all collectively: IF this happened today to some group of orphaned virgin girls, would we say this is acceptable behavior or would we call it an atrocity? I have to believe that you all would join me in calling such behavior evil and an atrocity, however awful the adults in that place might have been.
Rob…
I do believe they were ordered (by God) to kill entire populations of people. I don’t believe that that would ever be OK outside of the very limited historical circumstances given
Respectfully, the question I am asking is, “Why?” IF God has ordered that sort of behavior in the past, why might God order it again? Does the Bible say somewhere, “Never again will I command such behavior…”? Does reason dictate it?
On what basis do we “know” that this God would not command this behavior again, if he’s done it in the past?
Dan
anaquaduck says
“Respectfully, the question I am asking is, “Why?” IF God has ordered that sort of behavior in the past, why might God order it again? Does the Bible say somewhere, “Never again will I command such behavior…”? Does reason dictate it?”
Does the Bible say Will I again bring judgement…yes it does & Belcher argues this in the context of the last judgement.
Why do you reject Belchers logical & hermenutic & Theological argument that points us to the risen Christ.?
May it be that dispensationalism is part of your belief system along with the cirle of life & death & maybe a bit of hakunana matata trying to fit the Bibe into your logic & again why do you ask questions wanting to know something only to dismiss it as opinion which it clearly isnt, its much more disciplined study.
I cant see anything solid in your approach of is it, isnt it but I will defend it strongly anyhow & strongly disagree on the bais of opinion.
To go through life on such a flimsy approach is in contrast to the teachings of Jesus Christ who taught literal truth in a historical context as well as speaking in parables & providing teachers to gaurd against false teaching throughout the ages.
To say that you dont believe in hell (as you seem to have stated elsewhere) as a certainty is to go against Christ himself as you put your understanding above his..This is not living by faith & trusting God’s word. The world is full of liberal Theology but that doesnt make it right or acceptable, Jesus taught that there will be differences & manipulation of the Bible, this will also work in God’s favour & all those who are truly found to be in Him by His Grace.
http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/apostles-creed
Dan Trabue says
Anaquaduck…
To say that you dont believe in hell (as you seem to have stated elsewhere) as a certainty is to go against Christ himself as you put your understanding above his..
Hold on, AD. Think this through a second.
1. As a point of fact, neither you nor I know what happens in the afterlife with absolute certainty.
Agreed?
2. That is, we can not demonstrate factually and objectively, “Here is hard data to demonstrate that this personal interpretation of the various times ‘hell’ and ‘heaven’ are used in the Bible is the one correct opinion.”
Agreed?
3. We hold opinions about what this or that might mean. And it MAY be that, in the end, one day we know all things and it is revealed perfectly and God tells us, “Yes, Dan and AD, when these various writers referred to ‘hades’ ‘sheol’ ‘hell’ or other similar terms, they were referring the metaphorical separation of humans from Me, and that separation leads to a hellish existence… it is NOT a literal burning hell where people suffer for an eternity… Thus saith the Lord…” and at THAT point, we will know the facts of the matter. But right here, right now, we can not say that we know as a point of known fact that our opinion is the right one.
Can you agree?
4. If you don’t agree, then please, offer the hard data and demonstrate that your opinion is a known, demonstrable fact. Keeping in mind, merely pointing to a biblical passage is not hard data, because it takes us right back to the questions, “but is that literal or figurative? what does it mean in the real world?”
Agreed?
5. So, given that I am merely acknowleging the reality that I do not know with certainty what the meaning of “hell” in these texts, isn’t that just humbly acknowledging my own limited knowledge? Of course it is, isn’t it?
6. If all I am doing is humbly admitting I do not know with certainty what the factual answer is… how is that “going against Christ…”? Where is humility contra-Christ? Do you see why this claim is not only factually mistaken, how it seems ridiculous on the face of it? As if you are calling good (and humility is a good, right?) “bad…”
Respectfully,
Dan
paynehollow says
Rob…
You’re also refusing or unable to really say why the selfishness present from day 1 in all humans is not sinful, other than that it’s “natural” and obvious. If you think that babies cry only from being hungry, you’ve never had a baby.
I’ve had two, thank you, and they cry for a variety of reasons, not always known. For instance, when they came into the world and the medical staff poked, prodded and cleaned them off, they cried. I see no evidence of anything selfish in any of that.
I’m simply asking for some data to support the notion that they were being selfish in crying over any of that. It has nothing to do with “refusing” to say why the selfishness “present from day 1…” is not sinful. It has to do with asking you collectively to not question beg. On what basis, I’m asking politely, would we suspect that babes are “selfish” on day one? I don’t see any data to support that conclusion. Do you have any?
The presence of crying is not, in itself, evidence at all of selfishness. You’ll have to make a better case than that, this is my point.
Respectfully, where is your evidence (beyond the bald and unsupported claim) that they you suspect there is “selfishness present from day 1…”?
That question is what remains unaddressed.
Dan
Dan Trabue says
I’m sorry, I missed this question…
Again, does “natural” excuse sinful action?
I’m saying that I see no rational or biblical reason to consider natural crying a sin.
It is natural to cry when a loved one dies, tears of grief, perhaps even “selfish” grief. Is that rational at all to call it “selfish” or “sinful…”?
I just don’t see how or any rational basis for that. If you do, what is it? That is, what is the rational basis to call a hungry one day old baby crying “selfish” or “sinful…”?
I guess I would say as a general rule that if it’s “natural” it’s not sinful. The natural longing of a man for a woman or vice versa is natural and not sinful. Now, if that lust leads a man to rape a woman, THAT is sinful, wrong, unjust, immoral, etc. But it is the action taken – wrongly causing harm to another – that is the sin, not the natural longing for sexual activity.
Rob…
I believe that the Biblical evidence for a strong providence is overwhelming (not one hair on your head) as well as rational (a God that is not able to intervene is not really a God, and if he’s able to intervene – and he set up creation and its rules in the first place – then he’s in control in a fairly strong sense whether or not he chooses to intervene).
I would just repeat what I noted earlier…
Were those deaths found in stories in the Bible coming from actual stories that happened, factually just as described, or were those stories more figurative, not literal renderings of history?
If that is the question being discussed, we can’t simply assume Yes, they were, that would be begging the question. It would need to be supported with some data, agreed?
Do you have data that supports a belief that these texts should be taken as literal history? What does that data look like?
Of course, that might be beyond the scope of this topic, I’m just saying that we can’t assume that these stories are literal just because of tradition or “it’s how I’ve always believed…” Fair enough?
The questions, “What genre is this? What literary devices are at play here?” are basic building blocks for serious textual study of the Bible and we must be prepared to answer them reasonable and as well and honestly as we cann, agreed?
Respectfully,
Dan Trabue
Dan Trabue says
One more thought for everyone, jumping back to my claim that an invasion to kill men, women and children – even babes – is inherently unjust, which is why it’s not rational to claim this as a literally factual representation of a Just God…
The claim has been made (correct me if I’ve misunderstood, please) that infants, too, are “sinful” because they are “selfish” in that they cry for food. So, in this village, it was not unjust to kill everyone, including the infants, because they too had “selfishly” wanted food, the argument presumably goes…
Part of the problem with this is that part of the notion of Justice, which certainly includes the idea of correction – even punishment – for wrong behavior, is that any punishment MUST be proportionate to the “crime…” Thus, some would argue, that if you kill someone, taking your life is a “just” penalty.
But (and I’m asking this seriously), does anyone here really think that, for a babe crying for food – even if that is a sin, which I find ludicrous, personally – that the death penalty is a proportionate punishment?
Honestly, even if you ultimately disagree with me, do you see how irrational and immoral that seems on the face of it? Do you understand how many – believers and non-theists alike – would find that claim just as immoral as “hell…”? I’m genuinely interested in any thoughts/responses to that question.
Thanks,
Dan Trabue
Ed Dingess says
Hi Dan,
Your presupposition concerning the punishment must fit the crime actually sounds something like Rob Bell or Brian McLaren would say to be honest with you. What is wrong with it? If fails to grasp the concept that no temporal punishment could ever satisfy the infinitely holy God. This is why it took Christ to pay an infinite price for our sins. Hence, your analogy fails because it equivocates between finite human justice and infinite, divine justice.
Concerning your view that humans are not enemies of God in a universal sense, I can only direct you to Scripture which is abundantly clear on this matter:
Matt. 6:24 Everyone who is not a servant of God hates God.
John 7:7; 15:18 The world hates Christ.
John 17:14 The world hates the word of Christ
John 3:19 Men love darkness rather than light – they hate the light
Rom. 3:11 No one seeks God
Rom. 3:18 No one fears God
Rom. 8:6-8 The natural mind hates God, is an enemy of God
James 4:4 Whoever befriends the world makes himself an enemy of God
1 John 3:10 Unbelievers are called children of the Devil
Matt. 13:36-43 One is either wheat or tares, the world are tares, tares are sons of the evil one while the wheat are viewed as the sons of the kingdom
And there are many other passages to which we could turn.
Rob Dewar says
I’ll respond to your last two points here:
I do agree that “just because of tradition” and “it’s how I’ve always believed” are not sufficient reasons to know that something is absolutely real. But when 99% (or whatever) of historical Christians disagree with you, I would argue that you should very closely examine what you believe. Note that this makes sense even from a protestant mindset – we do for the most part attempt to align ourselves with historical (esp. early) Christianity, and to justify it if we do not. Which is why I keep questioning you – to me, you have the heavier burden of proof if you’re the one trying to change the interpretation of a specific text or understanding.
As example, your definition of sin, which is apparently now limited to action (not thought or attitude, which were included earlier) and excludes anything “natural”. I don’t see how you can read Jesus’ words and arrive at that conclusion – actions come from our hearts, and are just symptoms of our condition, and that shines through the gospels quite clearly in my reading, whether literal or figurative. Our hearts are sinful, and I don’t see how that translates into “we are innocent”.
As for your proposed method of Biblical interpretation (“What genre is this? What literary devices are at play here?”), of course I agree. But I disagree that we should ignore other people’s interpretations of what genre it is and what literary device is at play, even if that other person is no longer alive. If 1900+ years of church history and scholars interpret something literally and you tell me that it’s not literal … I’m going with 1900+ years of church history, even though that’s simply an argument from authority …
I do see how many would find much of what I’ve speculated on “as immoral as hell.” Am I to understand that you also don’t believe in an eternal death, or hell? There is corrective justice, and there is proportionate punishment. I don’t see how your solution (it’s just figurative) gets around that, though – how does a God who tells these stories and allows them to be promoted for 1900+ years come out looking good by your standards? The stories and their place in the Bible are just as problematic if they’re just imaginary and you try to judge them by human standards.
I’ve already pointed out that human justice and divine justice are different things. If God ordains (I know you hate that word, but it fits) that a baby should die as part of an invasion, obviously that’s not a just penalty because the baby cried for food. You’re willfully combining different aspects of my argument. Me showing that even a baby is born with a sinful heart is not me saying that they deserve to be killed for crying when they’re hungry. The baby didn’t really do anything to deserve to live in the first place, actually – God in his mercy and love allowed for the child to be born. The child was born, is sinful. God set up events such that the child would be removed from this life – not on the basis of any specific action the child may or may not have committed, influenced or not by the already sinful heart, after which I believe that, as a human person, he will be judged by his creator.
I’ll leave this by emphasizing that God is in control of when and how we die and is free to manipulate the circumstances of that how he will, just as he did the circumstances of our birth. I echo Job “naked I came, and naked I will go, blessed be the name of the Lord.” I hope and pray that what I have said makes some sense, and that if it doesn’t, someone else can come along and explain it better than I – at this point, we’re both just running around in circles chasing our own tails.
paynehollow says
Rob…
I do see how many would find much of what I’ve speculated on “as immoral as hell.” Am I to understand that you also don’t believe in an eternal death, or hell?
I believe that I don’t know what happens in the afterlife and I have no objective way to find out (short of entering it, I suppose). Just as a simple point of fact.
I further believe that the Bible has a good deal to say about hell, hades, sheol, heaven, the Kingdom of God, paradise and other afterlife concepts… some of which seems figurative, some contradictory with other comments and none of it spelled out as in a science book (This is what WILL happen, objectively so). Is “lake of fire” figurative or literal? I don’t know, and no one else does. As a point of fact. We have no objective way of demonstrating which interpretations are best.
I further believe that a lot of evangelical thought about “hell” has more in common with Dante’s inferno than it does the Bible.
Finally, I further believe that the notion of a just and loving God is the most rational view to take, and that, rationally speaking, sending a 16 year old to suffer for eternity (or, worse perhaps, to be burned alive in torment for an eternity) for ~15 years of relatively minor offenses is simply not consistent with a loving and just God. It violates the notion of the penalty fitting the crime that is part of justice.
Rob…
There is corrective justice, and there is proportionate punishment. I don’t see how your solution (it’s just figurative) gets around that, though
Why not?
My solution is that God is a just and loving God and, since I factually do not know (none of us do) how exactly, specifically God deals with Justice questions, I am perfectly content to leave it to a perfectly just and loving God to do what is just and loving.
I just disagree with human opinion (not God’s opinion, but fallible human opinion) that the best explanation for God’s justice is an eternity spent in suffering for those who failed to believe just right and repent just right.
Do you think any of that is irrational? If so, how? On what basis would you conclude that?
Respectfully,
Dan
anaquaduck says
God forwarned humanity regarding sin, also the consequences. Humanity rebelled & suffers the consequence. It threw away so much because of a lie, whether we like that or not there is nothing that we can do about that.
Where does it say that a baby was killed for being hungry or selfish…it doesnt. You also seem to assume that the gravity of sin can be self correcting with the right conditions but it cant otherwise God would of sent a behaviouralist instead of a Saviour..
I think you have drifted away from the argument in that sense, was God wrong to address sin, should he have left humanity to its own devices or would you have prefered that He do it your way which is a kind of vanity in a way.
Belcher highlites some of the false misconceptions, where some would like us to think God is the monster not the poor innocent Canaanites. I dont think anyone is denying the seriousness of it at all & we may miss something in our cloaks of individualism. God deals with us as nations as much as individuals, whether we be young or old, Our governments do this too.
God gives & he takes away, we all have to face him one day, we all have to give account of ourselves, not the other way around. It wont be a conversation in that sense. Now we wrestle in prayer, seeking to walk in faith with a holy & righteous God who is rich in mercy. This was & is the message of salvation demonstrated in Christ with power from the Holy Spirit.
Joey Henry says
Dan,
It seems to me that you object to the idea that it was just for God to remove from his creation the Canaanites by using Israel as his instrument because of the following:
1. There are innocent Canaanites during that time (i.e. Children and babies in particular).
2. It would not seem right for God to wipe out these innocent people without just cause.
Thus, for you, this biblical story should not be taken as factual. Or, the view of the writer is mistaken on what God commanded them. Or, maybe there is a hidden message (metaphorical, symbolic) other than the straightforward report which we should decipher.
It is my understanding then that you object to the idea of a just God executing these acts because of your apriori principle that “No innocent should suffer without reason.” Several of the responders already say that there is a biblical reason and that is “sin” – actual and original. If this is granted then it seems that your objection is satisfied.
But you keep on insisting that sin couldn’t be the reason because babies don’t “sin”. In your worldview, sin can only be actual. So let’s test the consistency of this worldview. Since you believe that the Scripture is “inspired” in some sense and there are truths in it, then perhaps we can test the consistency of your worldview.
So let me ask you: Do you believe as the Scripture say that the wages of sin is death? It is a fact that children and babies die. If in your worldview God is just, how then do you account for this phenomenon in your worldview? Why do children and babies, if they are innocent, suffer the wages of sin?
Regards,
Joey Henry
Joey Henry says
Dan,
As to your last post, let me give an answer to it. Your apriori is that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. You argued that, since being selfish diaplayed by children is just a venial sin, shouldn’t that not garnered a punishment due only to mortal sin?
Now, I certainly do not believe that our being hungry and craving for food is sinful and selfish, it is nonetheless a manifestation that somehow we gained the consequence of sin. Logically, we have sinned if we suffer the punishment of sin. But the question is, how big should sin be to render the capital punishment? Should there be degrees of punishment as there are degrees of sin?
The evangelical answer to this question is this: There are degrees of sin and there are degrees of punishment. But, all sin venial or mortal merits condemnation. It results to separation from a just and holy God. Why so? It is because of the worth of the dignity of the offended party. Let me give an analogy to what I am saying…
If an ant kills another ant, we wouldn’t be so concerned of justice since the dignity of an ant doesn’t deserve our concern. However, if an ant bites a our son, then we feel compelled to squeesh the ant because our son is has dignity more than an ant. If an ant kills a baby then, we feel compelled to exterminate them and don’t feel any guilt about it. It’s the same feeling when we want to eradicate malaria causing mosquitoes. The dignity of a mosquito and ant (or a colony of them or even the entire species) is far lesser than a human for them to hinder what humans value.
Now take this analogy to the next level: The infinite value of God’s dignity versus the finite Value of man. You’ll see that even the smallest infraction of God’s glory would merit an eternal consequence simply because of the worth and dignity of God himself. To lower the consequence is to lower the dignity of God.
I hope that makes sense.
Regards,
Joey
paynehollow says
Rob…
As example, your definition of sin, which is apparently now limited to action (not thought or attitude, which were included earlier) and excludes anything “natural”.
You’ve misunderstood my words, Rob. I never once said that sin is limited to action. Indeed, it is not.
What I have asked is WHAT is there that a baby does that can be called “sinful” by any rational or biblical measure. I’m waiting for that answer, still.
Joey asked…
Do you believe as the Scripture say that the wages of sin is death?
Yes, I absolutely believe that this biblical metaphor is a beautiful, powerful, scary rendering of the nature of sin as we know it. Sin – that which causes harm, which destroys, which breaks down relationships and community and distances us from God and from humanity – is a deadly, destructive thing.
Do I think, however, that this passage should be taken literally? That if a person sins ONE time, by telling a small fib, for instance, that he will be “paid” the “wage” of death…? No, I don’t think that understanding is doing justice to the point of the passage.
It’s not a literal payment kind of thing, it’s figurative language talking about the destructive, deadly nature of sin.
It is a fact that children and babies die. If in your worldview God is just, how then do you account for this phenomenon in your worldview?
? I’m not sure I understand the question. People, animals, plants… everything dies. It is part of the reality of the natural world God created. Death is a simple natural fact, a part of the great circle of life. What else?
Why do children and babies, if they are innocent, suffer the wages of sin?
Again, I’m not sure I understand the question.
Sin – wrong and harmful actions, behaviors, etc – does not just affect the “sinner…” it has repercussions. If a person has made the poor decision to drive while intoxicated and wrecks and kills a family, that person’s mistake – their sin – has affects on them as well as the people around them. That’s part of why sin is so deadly.
But that is the nature of this world, too. Babies, children, everyone, innocent bystanders and otherwise, are badly affected by our decisions, good and bad. It’s one reason why we should strive to be “delivered from evil…”
Does that answer your questions?
I’m not clear what that has to do with my questions.
Joey, do you think a one day old has engaged in sinful behavior, thoughts or attitudes? If so, name them please and provide support.
Thanks,
Dan Trabue
anaquaduck says
Dan,
Sin is something that we are born with, it is a problem of the heart. the Bible says this is our natural condition because of the fall. Even if a baby where placed in a vacuum of nothingness all its life, that would not undo its natural condition.
Deliver us from evil in the context of Scripture would mean trusting in God & Scipture which seems contrary to your belief or world view. Its a bit like God & money, you cant have two masters, try as we might we are just not able.
God begins His work of Salvation, that is, begins to deliver us from evil by Sending a Saviour that comes through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc. This message of hope then powers on to the gentiles, it is a fulfilment that is found in Christ who also taught about the reality & power of sin, death & hell.
It seems to me you are unable to provide evidence for your own belief/unbelief. Where or how did death eventuate ?
The Lords Prayer is a prayer prayed in faith, we pray to God because He is just & true in all His ways.
http://www.heidelberg-catechism.com/en/lords-days/52.html
Dan Trabue says
Anaquaduck…
Sin is something that we are born with, it is a problem of the heart. the Bible says this is our natural condition because of the fall. Even if a baby where placed in a vacuum of nothingness all its life, that would not undo its natural condition.
I understand that this is your opinion. You believe, presumably because it’s part of your faith tradition, that “sin” is something we are born with. And if you want to believe that, this is fine with me. I don’t think that theory fits the data we have available or is rational or, ultimately, biblical.
From a simply rational point of view, we can see that people sin, we err, we make mistakes, we do bad things at times. This is verifiable by simple observation.
But the human opinion that we are “born with sin” is not verifiable. It is a guess, a hypothesis that can not be proven (or disproven, I suppose). For one thing, I don’t know what “born with sin” means.
As regards to sin, I understand if Person A does a harmful action towards Person B, that this is sin, it is wrong, it causes harm and (for those of us who believe in a loving and just God), it displeases God.
But saying a baby is “born with sin…” I don’t know what that means in any meaningful way.
Saying that all humans have had a “sin nature” or a tendency to commit sin, given the chance, THAT I can observe and see as being rational and measurable.
But we are not “punished” (at least not rationally) for having a “sin nature.” We are held accountable for actual behavior, not the tendency to commit that behavior.
Again, from a purely rational point of view, would it make sense to condemn a person to jail because they have the tendency to want to steal, even if they’ve never done so? No, that is not rational. That is not just.
So to hold the hypothesis that God would punish a babe for having this tendency to sin, even though it has yet to commit a sin, that is not rational or just.
To hold the hypothesis that a baby – even a newborn, 10 minute old babe – has already committed a sin/sins, that is not observable, reasonable or just, not as far as I can see.
So, ultimately, I just don’t know what “born with sin” means. You’ll have to explain this hypothesis before I even know what to think of it.
Thanks.
Anaquaduck…
It seems to me you are unable to provide evidence for your own belief/unbelief. Where or how did death eventuate ?
I am saying that, by all known evidence, death is a simple result of life. In our natureal world (the world that we theists believe God created in this way), life is not eternal. It has a starting and ending point, death. So “death eventuated” by the very nature of life as life happens in this natural world.
The evidence is that is all that we see. We know of nothing observable in our world that is eternally living. What more evidence do you need? I’m unsure of your point here.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Dan Trabue
PS: Why “anaquaduck,” by the way?
anaquaduck says
In places like Hebrews 11 & 1 Cor 1:22-23 there is a distinction between living by faith & living by human reason(not that reason is bad but because it is limited by humans who also happen to be spiritually blinded). I am really puzzled how you can be a Theist on the basis of evidence & then seem to reject the Bible’s teaching on sin or death on the basis of rationalism.
If you look at genetic entropy & the bible concerning the living ages of the patriarchs you will see that death took much longer.You will also see that Enoch did not die, Elijah also I think later on. Jesus actually rose from the dead after being hung on a tree & shedding his blood, sin could not hold Him, death as a power had no hold because He was sinless.If we were not sinful we would not have been cursed & we would not have to die.
I think thats about all I can say on the matter. Why anaquaduck…why not ? no, its a play on some things… aqueducts(carry water) ducks (get around on foot, they fly & swim, as in versatile) & colour (aqua) which commemorates my appreciation of many things artistic, so its just a tricky nickname. My given name is Dean.
I came to see my sin when convicted by the Holy Spirit, not tradition as such, but the law (10 commandments) also mirror God’s holiness in a way that reveals my darkness, displaying my unwillingness (rebel heart)to love God & His ways. If you cannot follow the commandments wholeheartedly inwardly & outwardly then that is an indication of your sinful nature, children dont need to be taught rebellion, it comes naturally, to be delivered from its grip requires something greater & super natural, the Bible points us to Jesus, it urges us to turn from our folly, otherwise the chasm remains & destruction awaits.
Its not a feel good message or necesarily intellectually fulfilling, its more like good medicine that has the power to heal.
Dan Trabue says
Anaquaduck…
I am really puzzled how you can be a Theist on the basis of evidence & then seem to reject the Bible’s teaching on sin or death on the basis of rationalism.
Do you understand that I am absolutely 100% NOT “rejecting the Bible’s teaching on sin or death…”? That I am, instead, disagreeing with human opinion on their interpretations of biblical texts as it relates to sin and death?
Do you understand that disagreeing some fella humans (and no doubt, you guys are a bunch of great, wise believers, sincere and serious in your love of God and Jesus) is not the same as disagreeing with God or the bible?
Again, I love the Bible and, being taught by my Baptist forebears to take it seriously, I do, very much so. I take it so seriously that, when confronted with opinions of fellow humans and with what I think the Bible and, more importantly, God is teaching, that I must follow God, not humans.
That I disagree with your interpretation is no more “rejecting the Bible” than you disagreeing with my interpretation is “rejecting the Bible…”
I will not say to you guys, “Fellas, you disagree with my opinions, therefore you must be rejecting the Bible, because my understanding IS the right understanding and disagreeing with me is the same as disagreeing with the Bible and, by extension, with God…” I wouldn’t even think of it.
Will you extend the same grace in the direction of folk like me who merely disagree with your opinions?
Thanks,
Dan
Joey Henry says
Dan,
Thanks for your answer. The questions I asked you are really designed to explore the consistency of your worldview. Thus, they are very relevant to judge the soundness of your theonomy.
It seems to me that you want to interpret “death” as a metaphorical word which means it “causes harm, which destroys, which breaks down relationships and community and distances us from God and from humanity”. Now, it is a fact that babies or children are not exempted from these. Babies are harmed, destroyed, subject to social ills and broken relationships. I want to know, in your worldview, how can it be that God is just and yet all the effects of sin are felt by children, given that children are innocent?
You then argued that the passage shouldn’t be taken literally. However, even if we take your metaphorical definition, it can’t escape the reality that children do experiece all the misery that adults experience without exception. Even natural death fits well within the metaphorical meaning you gave as natural death causes harm, causes pain and breaks relationship. Yet, babies and children do suffer all these things. How do you account for a just God in your worldview given that innocent children suffer and experience the same ills as guilty adults do?
Now you keep on repeating that death is just part of a natural world God created. By what authority do you believe this? How do you know that death is just natural? Isn’t it a given theme in the Bible that death is never natural and that it has to be conquered? In fact, do you believe that Christ physically died and was physically resurrected the third day to save mankind from death, or is this biblical narrative metaphorical too?
Finally, you said that sin has social effects in that even innocent bystanders are subject to its effect. But then, isn’t this a gross inconsistency of your apriori that no innocent should suffer. If God is just in your worldview then the reality that children are subjects and objects of the consequence of sin is unreasonable. Your worldview then as it stands is inconsistent and irreconcilable to reality. This means that your worldview has no explanatory power and therefore deficient and inconsistent.
***As to your question: Do babies engaged in sinful behaviour or attitudes? My answer is no. A baby has not engaged in actual sin. But according to Scripture, even when one has not done so, he/she is still “in Sin” and therefore subject to all its consequences. A baby need not do anything wrong to be considred a sinner. A baby need only to be “in Adam” to be a sinner. Paul explained it in Romans 5.
That is why the gospel is also glorious Dan. In order for you to be considered righteous, you need not lived a perfect life as this is impossible. One has to be “in Christ”, the second Adam, to have the Righteousness of God in him.
You see, the Gospel is the converse of your apriori. If as you say no innocent should suffer, then no guilty person should have eternal life. But how then can you account for the biblical fact that guilty people do attain eternal life? How can a just God let this gross unfairness take place?
Regards,
Joey Henry
Dan Trabue says
Joey…
It seems to me that you want to interpret “death” as a metaphorical word which means it “causes harm, which destroys, which breaks down relationships and community and distances us from God and from humanity”.
Death is a reality in our world, it is a part of life. Thus, I do not view “death” to be metaphorical. What I said was that SIN (not death) is that which causes harm, destroys, breaks relationships, etc. Understand my point better now?
Joey…
Now, it is a fact that babies or children are not exempted from these. Babies are harmed, destroyed, subject to social ills and broken relationships. I want to know, in your worldview, how can it be that God is just and yet all the effects of sin are felt by children, given that children are innocent?
Well, bad things happening, sin causing harm, this is part of our natural world. It is my belief based on the evidence at hand that God does not generally intervene to stop bad things. To some large degree, God’s design in this world is that we are God’s hand, God’s feet, God’s agent for change in this world. We are charged with looking out for the least of these, God wants to act through us.
Do I judge God as wrong for having this system in place, where humans are the tools for positive change, if positive change is to come? No. Do you?
This question does not seem to be any more problematic for my view than the more traditional view, since God does not act in this world to stop bad for those who hold your view any more than for my view.
Joey…
then, isn’t this a gross inconsistency of your apriori that no innocent should suffer.
I don’t hold that no innocents DO suffer from other’s actions. Of course, innocents suffer, we can see it every day, unfortunately, so we are all too aware of this reality.
I DO hold that we should stand against those who would harm innocents, as we generally strive to live “God’s Kingdom come, God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven…”
How is this different than for your position?
Joey…
By what authority do you believe this? How do you know that death is just natural?
By observation of the natural world. By all the known data I have observed.
Do you hold the opinion that death is not just a natural part of life? On what basis/what evidence do you have for that theory?
Isn’t it a given theme in the Bible that death is never natural and that it has to be conquered?
1. Not every biblical passage says that death is “never natural.”
Eccliastes 3 says that there is a time for everything in this world, a time to be born and a time to die, for instance. And in Genesis 3, we see that from dust we are, to dust we return, which seems to me to speak of the natural cycle of life, albeit in figurative language.
2. The verses that treat death as “the enemy” seem to me to be figurative language, not literal. So, no, I do not believe it is a “given theme” in the bible that death is never natural.
3. Again, I would point to the reality that death is a natural part of natural life, “natural” meaning “found in nature.”
Joey…
In fact, do you believe that Christ physically died and was physically resurrected the third day to save mankind from death, or is this biblical narrative metaphorical too?
I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe in the literal death and resurrection of Jesus, and so I do take those stories to be literal.
Joey…
As to your question: Do babies engaged in sinful behaviour or attitudes? My answer is no. A baby has not engaged in actual sin. But according to Scripture, even when one has not done so, he/she is still “in Sin” and therefore subject to all its consequences.
Thanks for the answer to the question. I agree with you in that there is zero evidence to support the hypothesis that babies engage in sinful behavior or attitudes.
But what do you mean, then, that babies are “in sin…” That they are due to be punished (?) for this state of being “in sin…”? As I noted in another answer: Are you saying that because babies have the human nature and will sin eventually, if given the chance, that they should be punished for that nature, even though no sin has occurred?
If so, where is the justice in punishing someone for something they haven’t done, only the potential to eventually do it? If that is your position/hypothesis, I would respectfully note that this seems contrary to basic notions of justice as we understand it.
Joey…
If as you say no innocent should suffer, then no guilty person should have eternal life. But how then can you account for the biblical fact that guilty people do attain eternal life?
I think it is an obvious reality that, as a matter of justice, no innocent should suffer/be punished for something they have not done. I suspect you agree, but you tell me.
In what sense does that point (which we no doubt agree with) lead us to think that “no guilty person should have eternal life? I don’t think the two hypothesis are connected.
SHOULD “guilty people” have eternal life? Well, I for one believe so and am thankful for the grace and justice that would not punish even us imperfect people.
I account for it by Grace as Christians have generally understood it. But I also point to the notion of Justice, that any punishment that does get doled out would not be disproportionate to the crimes committed.
How can a just God let this gross unfairness take place?
God, being God, is entirely capable of forgiveness and, indeed, this forgiveness is part of God’s divine nature, I believe. God can and does forgive we imperfect humans.
Does that mean I don’t believe in some manner of “punishment” or accountability? No, as a matter of fact, I also believe God is capable and willing to hold us accountable for our actions. I just don’t know the exact details of how that happens. I trust God to be just in doing so and I thank God for God’s love, grace and forgiveness in doing so.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Dan
Joey Henry says
***Dear Moderator, please don’t approve my last post. Please approve this instead. Respectfully, Joey Henry
Dan,
Once again thanks for your response. This will be my last post on the matter.
The reason why I responded to you on this subject was because of your objection to the idea that God used Israel as a means to exectue justice to the Canaanites. You argued that this couldn’t be the case because there were innocent children involved. It would be unjust for God to do so as it will violate your apriori that no innocent should suffer for the things he/she has not done. Several responses has been offered already arguing that there is no violation of justice here if you would allow that no son of Adam after the fall is innocent. All are under sin, and all are condemned in Adam. You object to this thus I responded.
I raised these comments:
1. The Bible speaks of the wages of sin as death. My argument is this: If children suffer the consequences of sin, then it is logical to presume that children are under sin. You dismiss this by arguing that the biblical statement should be taken metaphorically. It means that sin causes harm, social ills and thus deadly. I pointed out that even with this metaphorical construct, one cannot escape the logic that if the consequence of sin are those mentioned and if children experience the same situation as anybody elses in this fallen world then it logically follows that they are accounted as sinners and not innocent. Otherwise, you are being inconsistent with your own dictum that innocent peoples shouldn’t suffer for the things they have not done. Remember, we are not arguing about sin having the effect of harm to another person. We both agree that sin can harm others. We are talking here of consequences and penalty of the one accounted as sinner. My challenge for you is to account in your worldview for a just God and the existence of innocent children experiencing all the consequences of sin that guilty adults experience without violating your apriori. I have not seen you done this, and I believe you can’t.
2. You keep on insisting that death is merely a natural consequence not a judicial punishment of sin. You deduce this from observation, Eccles 3 and Gen 3. The first basis is without merit. Mere observation does not establish the fact that death is merely a natural consequence. Eccles 3, if you read it more carefully, is written from a perspective of a humanist, i.e. one who views and observes things dependent on his own understanding and death as the end-all state. Thus, the writter’s oft repeated conclusion that life is “meaningless”. The message of the book is not about how God views death but a how a person who leans on his own understanding views all things under the sun. It doesn not support the idea that death is merely a natural consequence. Finally, Gen 3:19 does not support your argument because it is clear that the pronouncement by God was judicial in nature. Adam sinned and the punishment is death. Again, if death is experienced by children, and if you insist that they are innocent, then account for a just God in your worldview whereby the punishment due to Adam in Gen 3:19 is experienced by all his posterity including children. But there’s none offered.
3. You believe that the death and resurrection of the Lord is literal. If this is so, how is His death significant if death is merely part of the natural cycle? Even so, why shouldn’t this be interpreted as metaphorical as you often interpret other parts of the Bible? It seems that it is more consistent to interpret this narrative as metaphorical in your worldview because Jesus was innocent yet he suffered the consequence of Adam’s sin, namely death? Again I sense arbitrariness in your judgment on which passage in the Bible is metaphorical or literal.
4. I challenged you to account for the converse of your position. You keep on insisting that no innocent persons should suffer for the things they have not done. Conversely, no guilty persons should be justified for the things they have not done. To do so is gross injustice! You said these are not parallel situations but didn’t even give an argument for that assertion. You argued that God can do the converse because he is God and he is able to forgive. But this doesn’t explain things… forgiveness is not justice. In your worldview, Jesus’ work on the cross should not be applied to anyone else. If we are rendered sinners not because of Adam’s disobedience then we are not rendered righteous because of Christ’s righteousness. The babies are righteous not because of the cross but because of their inherent goodness. The babies do not need grace and Christ but deserve justification because they are naturally innocent. When Christ died on the cross, it was for the world… EXCEPT for babies. All these are the logical consequences of the worldview you are espousing.
Have a think of these things Dan. The solution offered is quiet simple and consistent. No one is innocent because all are in Adam after the fall. The Canaanites are not innocent. Their children are not innocent. The Israelites too are not innocent even if God used them to execute judgement against the Canaanites. Israelite children are all deserving of punishment too. All peoples in fact are liable to judgment. We can only escape that judgment if God reckons the blood of his Son as payment for our sin. If we are sinners in Adam, how much more are we righteous in Christ.
Regards,
Joey
Dan Trabue says
Joey…
You keep on insisting that no innocent persons should suffer for the things they have not done. Conversely, no guilty persons should be justified for the things they have not done. To do so is gross injustice!
I’m saying that as a matter of justice, we should not cause harm to innocent people.
Do you disagree?
I am NOT saying that bad things don’t happen to innocent people.
See the difference?
Those opinions are not in any way related to holding an opinion on whether guilty persons should be “justified” for things they have not done.
You said these are not parallel situations but didn’t even give an argument for that assertion.
I am telling you point blank I see absolutely no parallel. If you want to make the case that there is a parallel, feel free to do so. I don’t see one. I can’t give an argument for something that, as far as I see, does not exist.
Joey…
You keep on insisting that no innocent persons should suffer for the things they have not done. Conversely, no guilty persons should be justified for the things they have not done. To do so is gross injustice!
Re: the latter… why?
If I tell my kids to do some small jobs to raise money so they can go to the museum IF they pay their own way, and one does and one does not, but the reason they didn’t was because they were busy with a big school project, and I then give a pass to the one child and say, “Well, because you had school work to do, I’ll pay your way…” Is that a “gross injustice” or is that just grace, given by my choice?
Or, to give it a biblical air, If the boss hired some workers at 8am and told them he’d pay them $100 for a day’s worth of work, and then he needed more workers and hired more at noon and still more at 3pm and, at the end of the day, he paid them all $100, is that a gross injustice? Or does his grace towards the later workers in no way take away from his grace for the morning workers?
I do not view grace or largesse to be a gross injustice, at least in some circumstances. I would imagine you could agree, at least in some circumstances, so perhaps there is no disagreement?
Joey…
The babies are righteous not because of the cross but because of their inherent goodness. The babies do not need grace and Christ but deserve justification because they are naturally innocent. When Christ died on the cross, it was for the world… EXCEPT for babies. All these are the logical consequences of the worldview you are espousing.
I think the problem you are having is that I do not share your presumptions about how or why God forgives/shows grace. We ALL need grace in my worldview, saints and sinners alike. Babes who have not yet sinned and crusty old sinners such as myself, we all need grace, because it is grace – love, unmerited favor, forgiveness, compassion… grace! – by which we are saved. Not some blood payment to “pay off” our sins from a God who “can’t” permit forgiveness outside of some blood payment… that is a business deal, not grace, in my worldview/understanding of God and the Bible.
Noting the reality that a newborn has not yet sinned does not mean that they don’t need grace because grace is a Way, THE Way of the Realm of God, and we all need to live and die and have comfort in that grace, amazing grace. Seems to me.
Respectfully,
Dan
paynehollow says
Ed…
What is wrong with it? If fails to grasp the concept that no temporal punishment could ever satisfy the infinitely holy God.
Is that your opinion? Okay, it used to be mine, as well. I no longer find it an acceptable answer because I do not believe it to be rational, moral or biblical. Consider:
Let’s say that there was a child who lived to be 16 – old enough to be an accountable adult.
In that child’s lifetime, he was not perfect. He lied to his mom 125 times! And he lied to his dad 255 times!! He one time stole a pencil from school (and felt miserable about it). In his later years, he sometimes felt feelings of lust for certain young women and even looked at a porn magazine 22 times! Along those lines, he committed the sins you might reasonably expect a normal 16 year old boy to commit.
Then he died. He had lived his life in a Hindu nation and really knew nothing of Jesus, so he had never repented of his sins and “got saved” in the manner that traditional evangelicals believe one must get saved.
Now, the Calvinist/Utterly depraved tradition of Christianity would say that because God is a Just God, God can NOT allow this boy in to heaven if he never repented of his sin. This view of God says that God is SO unable to abide sin, that God MUST sin this child to hell for an eternity.
But I would just ask you to consider that rationally… is it REALLY rationally “just” to punish some in torment for an eternity for never really knowing about Jesus and, therefore, failing to repent and get properly “saved…”? Again, I would remind you that a basic component of Justice is that any punishment must fit the crime. A lifetime of torment for the, let’s say, 12,000 rather petty sins of a child… is that rational? Does that really meet the definition of Justice?
I would say not.
I have come to think that the traditional evangelical understanding of a lot of these phrases that they use to reach the extrabiblical notion of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement (what most modern evangelicals believe, in theory) are not the best understanding of Biblical ideals, and we can see that in that it fails at some basic logical levels.
One man (among others) opinion, for what it’s worth.
Ed…
Concerning your view that humans are not enemies of God in a universal sense, I can only direct you to Scripture which is abundantly clear on this matter
I get that you interpret those passages on a more literal level. The question, though, is ARE those passages intended to be taken literally? Is it rational to take them literally? Is it consistently biblical to take them literally? I don’t think so.
So, while if it makes most sense to you to take them literally, I disagree with that interpretation. And again, I would point us back to real world evidence/examples/reason:
The babe who is one day old… in what possible sense is that babe “at war with God” or “an enemy of God…”? There is zero data to support that conclusion, that I can see.
Do you have any data to support that conclusion? I’m open to hearing it.
But simply pointing to passages (which may be taken literally or may be taken figuratively) is not sufficient rational or biblical support. It begs the question… But ARE those passages to be taken literally or is it hyperbolic or otherwise figurative language?
Respectfully,
Dan Trabue
Ed Dingess says
Dan,
you continue to appeal to reason but your reason has a philosophical underpinning that you seem to ignore. Is it reasonable that God would judge an unregenerate, God-hating 16 year old? Of course it is. God is perfectly holy. The 16 year old you describe withheld from God what no person should withhold from God: entire and complete submission. Your reason is based on a humanistic system and standard of morality, not Scripture. Where Scripture creates tension within your system, you bring out your literary magic wand and with one small motion, didactic literature becomes non-literal generalizations that supposedly support your position. The funny thing is, even if take those passages non-literally, I cannot arrive at a different conclusion, no matter how hard I try. What else could they be teaching? It seems incredibly obscure and mysterious.
You seem to think that whether or not literature should be taken literal or not resides with the reader. I reject such non-sense. You seem to have no problem taking me literally. Once you allow for such a subjective standard in when to take Scripture literally and when not to take take it literally, then Christian theism collapses. You see, Dan, you take the Bible too literally when it says there is actually a God, and there was actually a person really named Jesus. These ideas are just literary devices designed to help mankind aim for a greater good. None of the Bible ought to be taken literally. It is just fine literature used to support a particular philosophical goal. Nothing is really immoral, not in a real sense. Hitler’s behavior was not really evil. Hitler’s behavior was just unattractive in light of the morals of the men that wrote much of the Bible. You see Dan, your radically subjective hermeneutic not only destroys Christianity, but it destroys meaningful human communication.
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
Is it reasonable that God would judge an unregenerate, God-hating 16 year old? Of course it is.
That was not the question I asked. The question I asked was: Is it reasonable, moral or just that God would punish a relatively decent 16 year old for an eternity of the worst suffering for his 20,000 “small” offenses?
I’m asking you: Is that reasonable? Moral? Just? If you think so, how so? Provide some support, please.
The question gets to the point that in True Justice, any punishment/accountability must be commensurate to the crime. If we had a child that took a lollypop from the candy store, a morally just and reasonable punishment would be something like making that child admit the crime to the store owner, to apologize and to work to pay off the cost and a bit extra by way of punishment, for instance. But condemning that child to a lifetime of hard labor and prison rape… that would NOT be justice. It would be a vast travesty of justice.
Do you understand my point, there?
Ed…
You seem to think that whether or not literature should be taken literal or not resides with the reader. I reject such non-sense.
As a point of fact, in the real world, any time any of us reads literature, we have to strive to understand its genre and literary tropes/tools. It’s just part of what reading means.
Do you disagree?
Now, I might read Harry Potter and think it’s a how to manual for wizardry, while you might read it and think it is fiction and, in that case, you would be correct and I would be mistaken. When I say that we humans HAVE to decide the genre, etc, that isn’t to say that we can’t be mistaken, just that as a point of fact, we humans DO have to decide.
Agreed?
My point, as regards to the Bible, is that, there, too, we must decide. The difference is that, with Harry Potter, we can check with the author if there is ANY confusion as to the genre and get a definitive answer. We can’t do that with the Bible.
You may think it is abundantly clear that Jesus did not mean that we should literally love our enemies and turn the cheek and never violently oppose them with death and physical harm, and I might read the same Jesus and think that yes, he DID mean it literally and it is abundantly clear… and neither of us can prove that we hold the One True Understanding.
Agreed?
I can’t imagine that we actually disagree on any of this, when you get right down to it. Yes, you and I both might think that a passages literary genre and styles are abundantly clear, but you and I both are fallible humans with no way of getting an authoritative answer to sort out our disagreement. These are all just facts, are they not?
Ed…
You see Dan, your radically subjective hermeneutic not only destroys Christianity, but it destroys meaningful human communication.
Come now, brother, let’s not be ridiculous or blow up a simple disagreement beyond what is rational. As a point of fact, we simply disagree about some matters which neither of can authoritatively prove.
Where am I mistaken?
Also, where you assume my hermeneutic is subjective, what do you think my hermeneutics are?
I believe in fairly rational and traditional hermeneutics as it relates to the bible, probably not that different than yours…
1. Begin with a real desire to seek Truth. Prayerfully. Humbly. Using our God-given reasoning.
Am I wrong here? Am I doing something differently than you? What?
2. Always consider what the text actually says.
3. Always consider the context (the cultural context, the context of the immediate surrounding text, the context of the rest of the Bible).
4. Strive to keep in mind/understand original language and clues about the text that might be strained in translation.
Am I wrong in any of these? Am I doing something differently than you? What?
5. Interpret obscure teachings/passages through more clear teachings/passages.
6. Interpret all of Scripture through the lens of Jesus’ specific teachings (being followers of Jesus, we believe that Jesus is the most obvious, clearest representation of God and God’s will, and for this reason, we use JESUS as our guide and role model in studying Scripture).
7. Recognize that we all are using our God-given reasoning and that our opinions and understandings are not one in the same as God’s opinion and God’s understanding.
These are generally my hermeneutics, what is more subjective about mine than yours? Where are my hermeneutics “mistaken…”? Or are they reasonable and similar to yours?
Dan
Ed Dingess says
You may be well served if you work through the Shepherd’s Conference lectures on Inerrancy. Men like Marcion and Valentinus were recognized as heretics by the early Church. Marcion ripped out the parts he didn’t like and Valentinus exercised them out through his perverse interpretation. So says Tertullian.
Here is the link to the Shepherd’s Conference:
http://www.tms.edu/resources/media/
Ed Dingess says
Dan,
Do you believe that Adolf Hitler was a wicked man who deserved eternal punishment and and that he is in the fiery hell today because of his rejection of Christ and his earthly atrocities?
Do you believe any parts of the Bible should be taken literally? And if so, what are the literary markers in your hermeneutic that helps you objectively take the authors literally in one place and figuratively in another? In other words, how can you tell, outside your philosophical and theological presuppositions, that an author was being literal or figurative?
I would love to read your response to these questions. I am accusing you of employing an irrational and purely subjective hermeneutic in your reading of Scripture. I am also concluding that you probably are a fan of men like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and other emergent leaders.
My aim is to show that you are inconsistent in your application of biblical hermeneutics and that what guides your decisions about a particular text is NOT some purely objective way of allowing the biblical authors to speak for themselves, but rather, a sinister and selfish motive borne out of a philosophy that is in opposition to the God revealed in Christianity. We all must guard against the fact that our sinful nature possesses a deep desire to twist and pervert God’s truth. Your hermeneutic seems to on as flimsy ground as a hermeneutic could be. And it seems very familiar to me as I did my Th.D. on the hermeneutics of the emergent church. Talk about “herding cats.”
Dan Trabue says
Thank you, gentlemen (I believe you all are gentlemen, correct me if I’ve made a mistake), for your many thoughts and opinions on these questions. I appreciate them all.
A few general points, before tackling ideas more specifically:
1. Just a reminder: I grew up Southern Baptist and believed the traditional ways for the first ~30 years of my life, I am not unfamiliar with the reasoning or arguments that “side” offers. I believe I understand it all very well and, while I can of course always learn more/hear new ideas, I’m not really hearing anything I have not heard before.
2. The problem is that I still have questions that I think point to holes in those traditional arguments. Those questions, I believe, point to the rational and biblical inconsistencies of the traditional view on these questions. My concern is that the traditional view…
a. Involves a good deal of question begging and circular arguments. If the question is, “On what basis would we take these passages in question as being literal representations of ‘God’s Will’…?” You can’t say, “but the Bible says…” No one is disputing the words appear in the Bible, the question is, do we reasonably take these passages in a literal manner? That is one question I rarely see addressed, beyond appeals to traditions or numbers or the aforementioned question begging and circular argument fallacies.
b. When I say I have questions, I don’t mean I’m unclear on the answer… I think the answer is pretty clear (being human, I am always capable of being mistaken or not fully understanding, but within the realm of human fallibility, I believe the answer is pretty clear). What I mean is: Here are these questions. The answers to these questions point to holes in the traditional argument. If you can’t answer these questions in a reasonable manner, then I have to maintain that I was correct to abandon the traditional view in favor of one that I believe to be more rational, moral and biblical.
What else can I do, but follow God and the Right as best I can.
3. Simply stating, “You are mistaken…” or “Your position is inconsistent…” without saying how I am mistaken/how is my position inconsistent/on what basis you make that claim does not help me understand any mistake I may have. And simply, again, appealing to “But the Bible says…” does not help your case or my understanding, any, because I am aware of what the text of the bible says. That’s not in question. The question is: Is your understanding/interpretation reasonable, consistent, moral and/or biblical in a way that mine isn’t?
I’m glad to answer the questions asked of me, I’d appreciate if you all could address some of the questions I ask, as well. I understand that questions are our way (one way) of raising rational concerns, so we help one another out and continue a respectful conversation by addressing each others questions, hopefully as directly as possible.
Respectfully,
Dan Trabue
Jeff Pagan says
Dan, you are absolutely right. You have captured the heart of the matter in its entirety.Is it enough to say “the Bible says” to avoid filling the intellectual gaps? Then the purpose of our scholarly discussion is pointless because at the end God is sovereign and consequently not as predictable as we have been lead to believe.
Ed Dingess says
Jeff,
This is a false disjunct and I think it is a very rude way of putting it. The inference is that those who affirm and embrace a high view of Scripture and belief in divine sovereignty are predisposed to an anti-intellectual bias. The truth is just the opposite. Because we have a high view of Scripture and it’s reliability, we have every reason to make huge investments of time and energy in our effort to understand it.
By the way, this discussion has not been a scholarly discussion. It is nearly impossible to carry on such a discussion in this type of format. We all have to pick and choose from the evidence and the arguments and fit them into this format to the best of our ability. There is nothing scholarly about creating an arbitrary method that allows you to classify genre as literal or non-literal on nothing more than a speculative philosophical bias which is precisely where this discussion landed. Moreover, I would submit that such a scheme would utterly fail in any attempt to account for evil in the world while also retaining a distinctly Christian view of God. In addition, I am not afraid to say that the view of Scripture expressed by Dan or anyone on Dan’s page is distinctly unChristian. That is to say that there is a distinctly Christian view of Scripture and Dan does not display that view. His view is a view that is a view “other than the view” expressed in historic Christianity. In the end, it comes down to “man says” or “the Bible says.” But that does not mean we shortcut our hermeneutics or exegesis. It means just the opposite.
paynehollow says
Ed…
Because we have a high view of Scripture and it’s reliability, we have every reason to make huge investments of time and energy in our effort to understand it.
Again, just a clarifying note: I and my tribe, too, have an extremely high view of Scripture. So high, I’m not willing to say “the Bible says this…” when it does not say this.
I and my tribe, too, have spent huge investments of time and energy in our efforts to understand the Bible and, more importantly to us, to understand God.
I would not want the impression to be left that those who think as I do are somehow less devoted to Scripture. We both study scripture, BOTH seek God’s will, both hold great reverence for the bible and, in the end, simply disagree.
Do you understand that Ed, and friends?
Ed…
In addition, I am not afraid to say that the view of Scripture expressed by Dan or anyone on Dan’s page is distinctly unChristian.
Likewise with this. Just because my tribe/faith tradition disagree’s with Ed’s faith tradition does not make us “unChristian.” Ed, come now brother, do you not see the irony in complaining to Jeff about the supposedly “very rude way of putting it…” while very rudely saying that those who agree with me are “distinctly unChristian.”
Again, IF I have offered any opinions that are “unChristian” (ie, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, then by all means, show me the teaching of Jesus to support that. In fact, Jesus has not affirmed the opinions of the reformed church in its human opinions about the historicity of the OT.
Can we agree with that simple fact? It is a fact that Jesus did not/has not affirmed your human opinion that the OT must be taken as literally factual history. Plain and simple. IF I am mistaken, all you have to do is offer up the words of Jesus where he affirms the rc opinion and you will have done me a favor. But as we both know, that does not exist in the Bible, not in the real world.
So, please brother, take a more respectful approach with those who merely disagree with you. Disagreeing with Ed or even the reformed church does not make one unChristian.
On the other hand, one could argue that calling fellow believers “unChristian” for the mere sin of disagreeing with your opinions to be close to “unChristian.” If I may remind you of the words of Jesus in the story found in Luke 9, where some of his disciples were upset that someone was claiming work in Jesus’ name…
“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
We are Christian who follow Christ, whether or not we agree with other human opinions.
Respectfully,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
Having grown up in a traditional Southern Baptist Church would actually mean that you “probably” do not understand the teachings of the formed faith, at least from a “probability” standpoint. The SBC, with all due respect to that organization (it has some very good men and people in it that I love and respect), does not have a strong reputation for producing theologically informed Christians. So, your having grown up in that environment is of little import to me.
Your previous point about history, Dan, had nothing to do with style and everything to do with substance. If you claim otherwise I would say you are being a little disingenuous. Style is inconsequential to the discussion. Substance, on the other hand matters a great deal and so too does intent, purpose, goal, aim, and objective. Your implication was that moderns and especially westerners, are concerned with factual history, things that actually took place while ancient writers were not so much concerned with such things as factuality. And we all know where you are going with this inference. For any scholar you can produce holding such presuppositions, I can produce one that will rebut your claims. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with very different views on the nature of Scripture despite you insistence to the contrary.
It is ironic that you should claim to have a high view of Scripture when we just had the Shepherd’s conference no more than two weeks ago, and where more than a dozen times we were warned that modern men will claim to believe in inerrancy when in fact they do not. What they have done is redefined the word altogether, or adopted a hermeneutic that allows them to do as they please with the text, disregarding the author at just about every turn, and that, all because they are offended at the classic Christian view of God. You have displayed your contempt for God in your remarks about God’s justice and your opinions about divine judgment. This is no small difference between you and historic Christianity. Make no mistake about it; when you indict God’s judgement as expressed in historic reformed confessions and creeds, you actually are indicting Scripture, and in so doing, you are showing contempt for God. This is because the confessions are a clear and unambiguous expression of the teachings of divine revelation on the subject. We cannot pretend that this is an in-house debate between two groups who have a high view of God. It is not that.
How did Jesus view the Old Testament, Dan?
First, Jesus believed in the historical Adam. In fact, Jesus based His view of marriage and divorce on the historical reliability of Gen. 1-2. See Matt. 19:4-6 (I wonder what you believe about gay marriage and the “gay Christian” movement)
Jesus believed Cain murdered Abel, literally. Matt. 23:35
Jesus believed in the historical account of Noah and the Ark. Luke 17:26
Jesus believed in the historical, literal, global flood. Matt 24:37-39
Jesus believed in Abraham, Lot, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the historical account of Jonah, and on and on I could go.
Not only did Jesus believe in the literal historical accounts of numerous OT passages that many modern scholars outright reject, he believed that the OT was inerrant, perfect, and contrary to your belief, that it was binding and authoritative. Matt. 5:17-20; 15:3; Mark 7:8, 13.
Jesus said that the Scriptures cannot be broken. They cannot be destroyed. The Scriptures are indestructible. Can you think of anything that is indestructible. John 10:35
Jesus believed that knowledge of the Scripture would protect one from error, which means that the Scriptures cannot contain error themselves. Matt. 22:29
The OT Scripture will endure until the end. Matt. 5:18
The Words of Christ shall never pass away. Matt. 24:35
We have just scratched the surface on what Jesus believed about the OT. For instance, I have not bothered to provide an exhaustive list of proofs. Additionally, we have not even touched on the Jewish view of Scripture at this time.
Only a hermeneutical magic wand could overturn this evidence supporting the view that Jesus held to a high view of Scripture which necessarily involves accepting the historical reliability of it’s contents as well. This is true even if we acknowledge that Scripture is divine condescension as God accommodates Himself in a manner that finite human beings such as ourselves, can understand what He has to say.
If Scripture is not our authority, and is not binding, then we are at the mercy of ourselves. Our own sinful selves. Thank God He has not left us to ourselves but He has given us a bright and shinning light by which to see.
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
where more than a dozen times we were warned that modern men will claim to believe in inerrancy when in fact they do not
Let me be clear: I do NOT believe in “inerrancy” as it is popularly used by many evangelicals. That is, I do not believe that the Bible calls itself “inerrant” or that there is any reasonable support for belief that the 66 books written (according to those books) by human beings is “inerrant” in and of itself, or really, that “inerrant” is a correct word to use about a book, any book.
But exactly because I have a high view of Scripture/the bible, I am not willing to make claims about it that it does not make.
How is that unreasonable?
Is GOD inerrant? Of course, an almighty, perfect God is, by definition, without error.
Is everything God thinks, wants, wills without error? Again, I believe that is a rational conclusion.
Do I conflate the written words of humans (inspired by God, I believe, but still written by humans) with the entirety or certainty of “All God Wills…”? No. Why would I?
I believe that the Bible is as scripture for us and that, as such, it is useful for teaching and correction, as the bible says about “scripture…” Because I have a high view of Scripture, I’m willing to say only what it says, and not go beyond with human speculation, and ALL that the Bible says about “scripture” is that it inspried and useful for teaching and correction. That is what I believe.
How is that unreasonable?
How is affirming a bunch of extrabiblical/beyond biblical human theories holding a higher view of the bible than merely saying what it says and letting it go at that?
Ed…
The SBC, with all due respect to that organization (it has some very good men and people in it that I love and respect), does not have a strong reputation for producing theologically informed Christians.
I certainly can agree with that. My point, however, is that I have 30 years of grounding in theologically conservative teachings and serious Bible study (and whatever you might say about the S Baptists, they DO teach the Bible. A LOT…) and that I’m not unfamiliar with your arguments as presented here thus far. It was exactly this Bible study that led me away from some of these views that we are speaking of here in this thread.
Now, to what is I think the main point of this last comment of yours. You said…
How did Jesus view the Old Testament, Dan?
First, Jesus believed in the historical Adam.
Stop right there.
Does Jesus MENTION Adam’s story? Yes. Does Jesus say “I believe and affirm in the story of Adam in Genesis as literally factual history, just as it is written…”? No, as a point of fact, Jesus never says anything of that sort.
So you are making a claim here, that Jesus believed in “the historical Adam.” I would ask you to support the claim. Merely pointing to Matt 19 does not make your case. Does Jesus mention Adam and Moses in that story? Yes. Does that demand that Jesus was affirming their stories literal factual nature? NO.
You have to support it with something other than a passing reference to the existence of the text.
We KNOW what the text says. What does it mean? That’s the question. You appear to think that mentioning a story is the same as endorsing it as literal history.
It’s sort of like that Grasshopper in Aesop’s fable… you’re not doing the hard work of demonstrating your opinion is a fact.
Look, I just mentioned the ant/grasshopper fable. Does my mere mentioning of the story mean that I take that grasshopper to be a literally factual grasshopper?
No.
So, it does you no good whatsoever to mention a bunch of verses that mention OT characters. No one is disputing that those stories are mentioned. The question is: Are those references indicating a belief in those stories as literal history?
I hold the opinion, No. You hold the opinion, Yes.
By all means, support your opinion if you want to make your case. But merely mentioning them does not make your case.
Fair enough?
Ed, I’ve tried pretty steadily to answer all your questions you’ve asked of me, can you please return the favor?
Can you acknowledge that the mere mentioning of a story is not the same as an edorsement of its literal reality?
Can you agree that my disagreeing with your human opinion or the opinion of various reformed church brothers and sisters or you disagreeing with my human opinion or various anabaptist progressives… that this disagreeing with fellow believers is not the same as disagreeing with God?
That merely holding different opinions about/interpretations of various passages is only that: Humans disagreeing over their opinions/interpretations?
Can you agree that holding a high view of scripture is not simply affirming a literal reading?
That, indeed, no one holds a literal reading of the bible as a whole, that we ALL use our God-given reasoning to say, “that passage is metaphorical, that story is parabolic, that story sounds more literal, that wording is hyperbolic…” that this is ALL based on our human reasoning? (Which is not to say that some reasoning might be more rational or sound than others, some conclusions less likely than others, just that it IS our human reasoning that we are using to sort it out…)
You say…
If Scripture is not our authority, and is not binding, then we are at the mercy of ourselves. Our own sinful selves.
But to my last point, since we perforce MUST use our human reasoning to read through and make sense of these passages, are we not relying upon ourselves in the end? To be sure, we are praying for God’s guidance and relying upon the Holy Spirit’s wisdom to aid, but even there, we are using our reasoning to sort out what is “God’s guidance” and what isn’t, right?
The fact of the matter is, we all use our reasoning to sort through these pages. Thank God for grace and that we are created in God’s glorious image, to do good works in Christ and that we are saved by grace, not by our perfect understanding, amen?
Or if you disagree, where are we NOT using our reasoning to sort these views out?
Respectfully,
Dan
Dan Traube says
Ed…
Your implication was that moderns and especially westerners, are concerned with factual history, things that actually took place while ancient writers were not so much concerned with such things as factuality.
How about this, Ed… instead of speaking in vague generalities, let’s be specific. Could you provide me with a list of books/stories/traditions that come from prior to ~500 BC that provide literally factual histories, as told in the modern sense, with no fantastic elements that you suspect are not literal history.
Not an exhaustive list, just a handful would suffice, so we can deal with specifics.
And to clarify: I’m not saying that ancients were or weren’t “much concerned” with factuality, or otherwise guessing as to their motives. At all. I’ve never said that and am not implying it.
I’m saying there is no data of which I’m aware that demonstrates they told stories with the emphasis on linear, literally factual history and that alone prior to the era of modern history telling.
And so, I’ll just wait for that list…
Respectfully (and yet, challengingly),
Dan
Dan Trabue says
You cite Matthew 29 and say
Jesus believed that knowledge of the Scripture would protect one from error, which means that the Scriptures cannot contain error themselves.
Matthew 29 says…
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”
1. Saying “I believe Genesis is written using figurative language” is not the same as saying it contains errors. Saying that one believes the commands from God to kill entire peoples, including their babies are written more figuratively, not literally… that is not the same as saying it contains errors.
Do you understand that point?
I have NOT said anywhere that “scriptures contain errors.” I have said that human interpretations are, in my opinion, mistaken.
Do you understand the difference between someone disagreeing with human interpretations of various texts and calling the Bible full of errors?
I just wouldn’t want you mistakenly beating up a strawman out of misunderstanding, so I’m trying to make sure you understand my actual point.
2. So, you cite Matt 29 and say that Scripture protects us from error, when we “know the Scriptures” and “power of God…” Well, I know the Scriptures, I’ve read them all my ~48 reading years and had the bible read to me prior to that. And I recognize the power of God, of course.
Does that mean I am protected from error, and can not be mistaken in my opinions?
Does that mean you are protected from error and can not be mistaken in your opinions?
Could you answer these questions, please? I’d love to find out that I can’t be mistaken! How cool would that be!
With God’s Love,
Dan
Dan Trabue says
One last thing, Ed, and I’ll await your opinions/responses…
If Scripture is not our authority, and is not binding, then we are at the mercy of ourselves. Our own sinful selves.
1. The Bible does not claim to be “our authority” and certainly not a “binding” authority. Not one time. That’s a simple observable, demonstrable fact.
2. SOME humans have reasoned that, “IF the Bible says ‘scripture is inspired,’ then that must mean just about the same thing as saying God authored it, and IF we accept that the 66 books of the Bible are as Scripture, and God is our authority, THEN…” and reached a human conclusion – outside the Bible – of the “authoritative” and/or “binding” nature of the Bible. But to be clear, while they reasoned their way through it starting with a few bible verses, it is a human opinion, not from “the Bible”, not directly, anyway.
3. That being the case, are you suggesting that we be at the mercy of this human opinion, this “own sinful self” human opinion, and hold that human opinion as binding, even though it is from outside the Bible?
Do you see the self-defeating nature of this reasoning?
At least, that’s how it seems to this poor sinner.
Respectfully,
Dan
Dan Trabue says
Joey…
It would be unjust for God to do so as it will violate your apriori that no innocent should suffer for the things he/she has not done.
To be clear: I don’t think God orders people to commit atrocities. I don’t think God will command people to kill, to rape, to kidnap, to kill or harm children, etc. I think this because
1. It is irrational that a just and loving God would command people to engage in grievously wrong behavior.
2. As even the Bible says, God will not tempt any person to sin.
To try to get around this problem on your view (and it IS a huge problem, I hope you understand how awfully immoral and irrational the appeal is to a Just/Loving God who commands people to commit atrocities) by saying, “Well, if God commands it, it is no longer immoral or unjust…” That appears to me to be a way of saying there are NO moral ideals, only whims of a God who may or may not call for us to commit atrocities. That is problematic. At that point, the biblical injunction that “God won’t tempt us to sin” becomes meaningless because, if God asks us to do it, it isn’t a sin…”
Clearly, there are bad behaviors, there are unjust atrocities, and we ought not engage in them. Period. They are bad behaviors because they are inherently bad, because they impinge upon our self-evident, God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Thus, that approach to trying to get around your problem is problematic rationally, morally and biblically.
To try to get around this by saying, “These were evil people, not innocent, even the children and babes!” is also problematic. As at least one other person here agrees, babies, at least, are innocent of sin. They have committed no evil on which to be judged and punished.
Additionally, we are right back to a god who commands atrocities (and killing babies is an atrocity) is a rational, biblical and moral non-starter. You have to have some answer to those problems to make your case and it isn’t “babies are immoral” or “God might command atrocities, but it wouldn’t be atrocities because God commanded it…”
Even if you ultimately disagree: Do you see how at least some people see those positions as irrational and morally/biblically unteneble?
So yes, Joey, I believe that people should not punish babies for crimes they have not done. I believe that killing babies – even the babies of “the enemy…” even an especially sinful or evil “enemy…” is a moral atrocity, contrary to sound judgment and biblical teaching?
Do you disagree?
Joey…
The Bible speaks of the wages of sin as death. My argument is this: If children suffer the consequences of sin, then it is logical to presume that children are under sin.
“The wages of sin is death” is clearly figurative language. God (or the devil or whoever) does not “pay” us “death” for our sin. If you think that is literal, that’s okay with me, but I disagree.
As to thinking it is logical that children are under sin because bad things happen to them is, again fine, if you want to believe it. But it is not a logical imperative.
If, as a point of fact, bad things happen in this world to innocent people (and that is an observable fact), then the reason that it happens is that this is not a perfect world. Bad things DO happen to babies, from no fault of their own. That is a simple reality.
Now you appear to be making the argument that you hold a theory that bad things happen to babies because God “must” “punish” “sin” and therefore, babies being punished is evidence in support of that theory, but it just doesn’t rationally follow.
Again, WHAT sin has a one day old engaged in? There is nothing observable, that is a failed conclusion, then, short of some evidence that newborns are sinning somehow.
Joey…
Otherwise, you are being inconsistent with your own dictum that innocent peoples shouldn’t suffer for the things they have not done.
I have no where said that bad things don’t happen to innocent people. So there is no inconsistency. There is only a strawman fallacy.
Joey…
The first basis is without merit. Mere observation does not establish the fact that death is merely a natural consequence.
You can’t just dismiss my understanding, Joey, you have to have some counter evidence to support the claim.
In the real, natural world, death happens. Life is not created to go on forever. Bodies wear out, age, get ill and die. This is all observable reality in nature. Death is, by very definition, natural. This IS observable.
Now, if you hold a theory that, in addition to being natural (ie, it factually does happen in nature), that there are other reasons for death besides being natural, you are free to make that case and present evidence. But you can’t dismiss my real world observations in favor of an unsupported theory (and a mere appeal to tradition or your interpretation of ancient texts is not hard evidence).
You must first make your case with some evidence.
Respectfully,
~Dan
Rob Dewar says
Dan, I took a couple of days off of this thread to shave some splinters off of a log of anger that had clearly lodged itself into my eye. Having returned from my self-enforced sabbatical, I’ll take one more kick at the can. But first, I will ask you to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of relying on tradition and begging the question. On the former, agreeing with tradition does not imply that we haven’t examined tradition and found it worthy. On the latter, you are as guilty of any of us – this is an internet discussion, there are unstated premises to our arguments, and if you judge them charitably, they can often be thought out. If you’re not able to do so, simply ask for the premise, don’t accuse the other of not having fully thought out their argument.
You’ve clearly accused me in the thread above of thinking that babies deserve to be killed because they cry for food. I’ve re-read all of my comments (there aren’t that many), and fail to see where I said that. Can you please point it out, or retract those accusations?
Now, when discussing whether or not “innocent” really existed as an absolute state, I did say that the sinful nature is present in us from day 1, and that crying selfishly is a way in which we can see that evidence very early. You reject that and say your babies never cried selfishly (although they did cry for unknown reasons sometimes). So you asked for further evidence. You won’t accept Biblical evidence, having judged it not to be literal. So, I point to every single human who has ever lived. Not one has shown evidence of not having a sinful heart. I believe you even capitalized that they WILL sin at one point here. I believe that point stands – babies do have a sinful nature, and as soon as they get communicative enough, it does come out. By inductive logic, you can’t draw a line and say “now they’re sinful, yesterday they weren’t”, so the only logical conclusion is that it’s always been there (my logic, of course). Incidentally, I’m “radically” pro-life, so I believe “day 1” is actually too late, if you mean “day 1 after birth” …
You then say, so what, they haven’t sinned yet, they’re innocent of any specific sin, they don’t deserve to die. Here our definitions continue to differ. You say sinful means “have sinned”, I’m using it as “sinful nature”, which can include “will sin”. Now, you further say, even if they have sinned, justice has to be proportionate, they may not deserve to die. Again, why are you focusing on babies then? There were many Canaanites who did not personally commit an action that deserved the death penalty if judged in a court of law. We DO both agree on that – so sure, I’ll agree that “innocent” people, as judged by you or I, died in the story (literal or not) of the Canaanites vs the Israelites – there were many there who neither you, me, nor the Israelites could have condemned to death.
Now we’re up to judging, and justice. And again, we disagree on definitions. You say you’re content to leave final judgment up to God, but you speculate that that final judgment will be in accord with your definition of True Justice (proportionate, in response to an action). I say that God’s judgment is infinitely more just than ours, and that there’s no logical reason to believe that it will match with what we judge to be just. I say he can actually judge based on the heart, because he knows the heart, where we can only judge based on actions (incl. words). I say he can judge from an eternal perspective, where we can only judge from a temporal one. Hopefully you at least agree that God is greater than you or I, if not with those specifics …
Now, if God’s justice is greater than ours, why should we assume that something we perceive to be unjust actually is unjust for God? Why is your speculation (that the story did not happen, because it would have been unjust) more valid than mine (that it did happen, and was just, and that I can speculate and maybe even shed some light on the reasons why/how, but ultimately don’t have to worry about it because it was God’s judgment, not mine)? Further, why does judging the whole passage to be non-literal based on your limited conception of justice make sense? Shouldn’t it be judged literal or not prior to that? I believe that the tale of Abraham and Isaac is instructive here, too (literal or not), where God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac – Abraham walked in faith, even when told to do something apparently and patently unjust, and God guided him through and made it right in the end. I judge the tale of the Israelite conquest to be true based on it being presented as though it were true (in style, in later treatment, and in a number of other ways), and walk in faith that God was just throughout.
On to other things, you’ve asked repeatedly for us to point out your contradictions. I’ll post a quote from you where I see a contradiction in two subsequent lines:
“…never once said that sin is limited to action. Indeed, it is not.
What I have asked is WHAT is there that a baby does …”
What someone “does” is an “action”. You’re asking for an observable action to prove that someone (a baby) has sinned. That’s why your definition of sin seems to me to be limited to action – unless a sinful action has already occurred, you’re not willing to admit that sin is present.
I do have one further question with your version of “natural” being “good”. I asked if you believed in eternal death already (and you got off into a side conversation about lakes of fire and 16 year olds suffering for eternity and I don’t believe you actually answered the question beyond “I don’t know”), now I’ll ask, do you believe in eternal life? You’ve stated that “Without death, life can not go on” – does that mean that God cannot sustain life in such a way that there is no death? That would be correct based on observation, but would put a lot of the rest of the Bible into the “figurative” (and not even very usefully so) category, as well as remove any real reason to be a Christian vs. just trying to live your life as well as possible … Then further, if you believe in eternal life, do you believe that all humans have a God-given right to it?
Thanks,
Rob
paynehollow says
Rob,
First of all, if you’re having anger problems because of anything I have said, let me apologize right off the bat if I’ve said anything that should have caused anger. I’ve been trying to be especially respectful and conversational in simply raising some questions and concerns I have about the topics here. I have, in no way, intended to rouse anger, just conversation.
Now, to specifics, you said…
You’ve clearly accused me in the thread above of thinking that babies deserve to be killed because they cry for food. I’ve re-read all of my comments (there aren’t that many), and fail to see where I said that. Can you please point it out, or retract those accusations?
And, again, I will gladly apologize if I’ve said anything wrong. Having said that however, you just said, and I quote, “You’ve clearly accused me in the thread above of thinking that babies deserve to be killed because they cry for food…”
As a point of fact, I never did say that, nor did I think it. That’s crazy talk, why would I make such a claim? Of course no one here thinks babies should be killed for crying!
I’ve never said those words or anything to intimate that idea, so believe me when I say I have NO idea what you’re speaking of there. If you have some direct quote of mine that raises concern for you, by all means, point it out and I’ll be glad to clarify, or even apologize if necessary.
On the other hand, since you apparently have made a great mistake yourself and put words into my mouth that I didn’t say, perhaps you’ll consider that you’re getting angry over a misunderstanding on your own part? And perhaps you’ll retract your accusation?
So, I’m setting that aside and allow you to address this or clarify there’s been a misunderstanding, separate from any points you raise.
Respectfully and out of love for you fellas, as my family in Christ,
Dan
paynehollow says
Rob…
But first, I will ask you to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of relying on tradition and begging the question.
Again, I did not say that. You have misunderstood, I believe. Or point out where I said that and I can certainly apologize, but I believe you have misunderstood again.
Rob…
You reject that and say your babies never cried selfishly (although they did cry for unknown reasons sometimes). So you asked for further evidence. You won’t accept Biblical evidence, having judged it not to be literal. So, I point to every single human who has ever lived.
1. I did not say that babies, in general, never cry selfishly. I’m sure that it is possible that, at some point, older babies possibly cry selfishly. I’ve said that I see no evidence, have read no data to support the hypothesis that newborns are crying selfishly.
2. Regarding “every single human who has ever lived…” I would say that I have no idea for every single human ever. Again, I’m stating quite clearly that I see no hard data to support the hypothesis that newborns are crying selfishly.
Do you have any such data?
And yes, pointing to a bible verse that says a person was “sinful from conception” ! and they “lied from the day they were born” ! for instance, I think that does not help your case because clearly – abundantly clearly to any reasonable person, I would guess, this is figurative language.
A baby can not lie from the day they are born. ! It MUST be figurative, not literal language.
Do you disagree?
Rob…
By inductive logic, you can’t draw a line and say “now they’re sinful, yesterday they weren’t”, so the only logical conclusion is that it’s always been there (my logic, of course).
Re: the former, you are correct. We have no reliable, definitive way of saying one day they were sinful and the next day they weren’t. However, you are correct that it is only your logic that says the only conclusion is that they were always sinful (if that is what you are saying).
Again, I can’t repeat this enough: I believe that everyone, given a chance, will sin, will do something wrong. That is what I think is reasonably called a “sinful nature” or a “fallen” or “imperfect nature.” And that nature, that tendency, is a very human reality.
But there is a difference between saying “That baby will one day sin” and “that baby sinned the moment they were born.”
Agreed?
Along those lines, you said…
You then say, so what, they haven’t sinned yet, they’re innocent of any specific sin, they don’t deserve to die. Here our definitions continue to differ. You say sinful means “have sinned”, I’m using it as “sinful nature”,
MW defines “sinful” as
: wrong according to religious or moral law
: very bad or wicked
Clearly, a baby is not “very bad or wicked.” Surely we can agree on that?
Then, a baby, who has not sinned yet, is not “wrong…” If you think they are “wrong,” then please tell me what they’ve done that is wrong. Having a sinful nature? Do you believe that having a sinful nature is, in itself, wrong? How so?
Or are you using some other definition of “sinful…” (“Full of sin” literally) If so, please provide it so we can understand one another. Surely you can’t blame me if you’re using non-standard English definitions of common words…
Of course, I am familiar with the various Bible meanings of “sin” but I don’t see that they help your case.
One such definition is “miss the mark” but how does a newborn miss the mark?
Another is “rebellion against God” but how does a baby do that?
Yet another is “Trespass” or “transgress,” but again, how does a baby do this?
Again, if you are using “sinful” to merely mean, “Having a sinful nature,” then you and I agree. But there is nothing punishable about having a sinful nature, it’s the crime that brings punishment, just from a flatly rational view of justice.
Do you disagree?
Rob…
I say that God’s judgment is infinitely more just than ours, and that there’s no logical reason to believe that it will match with what we judge to be just.
Why do you believe that? If mere humans, flawed though we are, can see the injustice of killing or punishing innocent people… if we can see the injustice of an overly harsh penalty… wouldn’t God’s justice be even better than our sense of justice?
From where do you think we get our sense of justice?
Are we not created in God’s image? Does God’s Spirit not speak to us? Do we not have a moral conscience innate to our being (God’s law, written upon our hearts/minds)?
If we’re saying there is Justice, but we don’t – can’t! – really know what it is, then how do we know what it is? Would you also say that there is an idea of Goodness, but we can never know what it is. It might be good and just to kick puppies, it might be good and just to drive cars over kittens… we just don’t know!
I know those are silly extremes, the point is, if we don’t know anything about justice or righteousness, then how do we know anything about justice and righteousness?! Do you see the rational problem with that as a starting point?
I don’t believe our sense of Justice or Righteousness is that blighted and fallible that we can’t generally know injustice when we see it. Do you?
Rob…
why should we assume that something we perceive to be unjust actually is unjust for God?
Because we are created in God’s image, with God’s law on our hearts and minds, with the Spirit of God bearing witness, with our God-given reasoning to sort these things out.
And again, “unjust for God…” I’m not speaking of what God may or may not do on God’s own time. I’m talking about God tempting/commanding people to sin, to commit atrocities… it’s what people do that I’m speaking of, not God. It is always, I’m saying, unjust, wrong, atrocious for people to kill the babies of their enemies and that God does not order us to commit atrocities.
Do you disagree?
Rob…
What someone “does” is an “action”. You’re asking for an observable action to prove that someone (a baby) has sinned. That’s why your definition of sin seems to me to be limited to action
Okay, I can see why you’d think that. I believe I went on to clarify that, but will do so again: I’m counting thoughts, attitudes and behaviors as “action.” They are things we actively do, engage in, take part in… an action in that sense. It does not always need to be visible.
But if you go from there to, “Well, we can’t see it, but I bet that baby is having selfish thoughts…” that is mere speculation, not definitive or provable at all. It is, at best, a wild and unsupported guess. At least that’s how I see it.
I’ll stop there for now.
Respectfully,
Dan
paynehollow says
Rob…
do you believe in eternal life?
Do I believe in it? Yes. Can I prove it? No.
You’ve stated that “Without death, life can not go on” – does that mean that God cannot sustain life in such a way that there is no death?
Rationally speaking, an infinite, omnipotent God can do anything, right? We could make all sorts of speculations about what God might or might not do in a world beyond ours.
I was speaking specifically of this observable world, this creation of God, as we believe, where we can see and observe the natural laws that God (we believe) established/willed into being/however it might have happened. In this world, as we know it now, without death, life can not go on.
This creation relies upon the circle of life (which includes death) to operate. COULD God upset those laws of nature, presumably established by God? Sure. But I see no data to support that this is the plan in the here and now.
Do you?
That would be correct based on observation, but would put a lot of the rest of the Bible into the “figurative” (and not even very usefully so) category, as well as remove any real reason to be a Christian vs. just trying to live your life as well as possible …
Hmmm… I don’t agree. I think Jesus’ teachings, Jesus’ Way, the Way of Grace, the Way of the Prince of Peace, the Realm of God, is ALL very much worth embracing, even if one does not live eternally (or even without the fear of suffering eternally). But maybe that’s just me.
Then further, if you believe in eternal life, do you believe that all humans have a God-given right to it?
I dunno.
I believe that God created us in God’s image, including the idea that we have free will. We can say No to God, if we want, and God allows that. So, I believe we all have a right and ability to choose “hell” (however that might be defined) as well as God’s Realm. And that, God being a God of perfect love and perfect justice, it is God’s will that none would perish/choose “hell…” God has invited us ALL to the feast, from the greatest to the least, (especially the least, if you believe the bible’s teachings on that point.)
Will some people turn down that realm, that feast, that glory? I believe people do it all the time, unfortunately. And I believe God allows that.
Does that mean people can successfully abandon/reject God for all eternity? I’d just have to say that’s a question that’s beyond my pay grade, you’ll have to ask God that one.
Does that answer your questions?
Thanks for asking.
Dan
Dan Trabue says
Out of time, but a few quickies.
Ed…
I am also concluding that you probably are a fan of men like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and other emergent leaders.
I come from the anabaptist tradition (albeit the progressive wing of it). I am almost entirely unfamiliar with any of the gentlement you mention or other emergent leaders. I’ve heard a little bit about McClaren and read a few quotes with which I agree. That’s my sum total experience with Emergent writers/thinkers.
Ed…
Do you believe that Adolf Hitler was a wicked man who deserved eternal punishment and and that he is in the fiery hell today because of his rejection of Christ and his earthly atrocities?
As a point of fact, I do not know the fate of any dead person.
As a point of fact, I don’t believe in a fiery hell, at least in the popular sense.
I do believe that God has created us with a free will and we are able to reject God’s Realm in favor of a realm that is ungodly (which I believe would be an awful, hateful, bitter place to be) and that some people, by all seen evidence, have/had/do embrace that other realm, but as a point of fact, none of us know Hitler’s fate.
Agreed? Or do you have some special revelation I am unaware of?
I have to expect that, if pushed, you will agree you do not know with any certainty, Hitler’s fate.
Ed…
Do you believe any parts of the Bible should be taken literally?
Absolutely. Being a follower of Jesus, I take Jesus’ teachings pretty literally. But even there, we MUST acknowledge that all biblical text has some potential figurative language used.
Jesus commanded us to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin. I don’t take that literally, for instance.
Jesus comamnded us to hate our mothers and fathers, I do not take that literally, for instance.
But generally speaking, I take Jesus’ teachings pretty literally. “Love your enemy, turn the other cheek, do not store up for yourself treasures on earth, don’t swear oaths, consider the lilies of the field, do not worry, then, etc, etc…”
As far as the histories/stories found in the Bible, we must understand that textually, all of the OT was written in the era prior to the Era of Modern History. Historians tell us, based on evidence, that “moden history telling” began between 500 BC and 500 AD, with people like Herodotus and Thucydides, and that prior to that, literature and stories simply did not tell history in the same manner as after that.
Stories may have been based on some actual people and events, but the same weight was not given to telling them in linear, factual manner as was true for later.
There are no known literally factual histories (in this modern sense) prior to ~500 BC. As a general rule, you would probably agree that the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ancient literature need not be taken as literal history.
So to expect that ancient literature would be told in a modern manner is not rational, it seems to me.
Further, the Bible, or the books therein, never one time make a claim to be telling factual history in this more modern style. I simply have no rational reason to conclude that I must take ancient stories as representing history as told in this modern style, any more than I would expect the ancient stories should have been written in English.
But, there are a great number of fantastic truths and morals and insight we gain from reading these delicious stories in the OT and they form the very foundation for gaining better insight into the NT, so please don’t misunderstand that I don’t think the genre of ancient stories is modern history to be that I dismiss the OT. I LOVE the OT. I just believe (as do, no doubt, you all) that we must try to rightly understand the literary genres and tropes being used for best understanding.
Cory…
Out of time, but a few quickies.
Ed…
I am also concluding that you probably are a fan of men like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and other emergent leaders.
I come from the anabaptist tradition (albeit the progressive wing of it). I am almost entirely unfamiliar with any of the gentlement you mention or other emergent leaders. I’ve heard a little bit about McClaren and read a few quotes with which I agree. That’s my sum total experience with Emergent writers/thinkers.
Ed…
Do you believe that Adolf Hitler was a wicked man who deserved eternal punishment and and that he is in the fiery hell today because of his rejection of Christ and his earthly atrocities?
As a point of fact, I do not know the fate of any dead person.
As a point of fact, I don’t believe in a fiery hell, at least in the popular sense.
I do believe that God has created us with a free will and we are able to reject God’s Realm in favor of a realm that is ungodly (which I believe would be an awful, hateful, bitter place to be) and that some people, by all seen evidence, have/had/do embrace that other realm, but as a point of fact, none of us know Hitler’s fate.
Agreed? Or do you have some special revelation I am unaware of?
I have to expect that, if pushed, you will agree you do not know with any certainty, Hitler’s fate.
Ed…
Do you believe any parts of the Bible should be taken literally?
Absolutely. Being a follower of Jesus, I take Jesus’ teachings pretty literally. But even there, we MUST acknowledge that all biblical text has some potential figurative language used.
Jesus commanded us to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin. I don’t take that literally, for instance.
Jesus comamnded us to hate our mothers and fathers, I do not take that literally, for instance.
But generally speaking, I take Jesus’ teachings pretty literally. “Love your enemy, turn the other cheek, do not store up for yourself treasures on earth, don’t swear oaths, consider the lilies of the field, do not worry, then, etc, etc…”
As far as the histories/stories found in the Bible, we must understand that textually, all of the OT was written in the era prior to the Era of Modern History. Historians tell us, based on evidence, that “moden history telling” began between 500 BC and 500 AD, with people like Herodotus and Thucydides, and that prior to that, literature and stories simply did not tell history in the same manner as after that.
Stories may have been based on some actual people and events, but the same weight was not given to telling them in linear, factual manner as was true for later.
There are no known literally factual histories (in this modern sense) prior to ~500 BC. As a general rule, you would probably agree that the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ancient literature need not be taken as literal history.
So to expect that ancient literature would be told in a modern manner is not rational, it seems to me.
Further, the Bible, or the books therein, never one time make a claim to be telling factual history in this more modern style. I simply have no rational reason to conclude that I must take ancient stories as representing history as told in this modern style, any more than I would expect the ancient stories should have been written in English.
But, there are a great number of fantastic truths and morals and insight we gain from reading these delicious stories in the OT and they form the very foundation for gaining better insight into the NT, so please don’t misunderstand that I don’t think the genre of ancient stories is modern history to be that I dismiss the OT. I LOVE the OT. I just believe (as do, no doubt, you all) that we must try to rightly understand the literary genres and tropes being used for best understanding.
Cory…
It occurs to me also, do you deny the virgin birth?
I hold no great opinion on that. I tend to take it literally (ie, I do believe it, for what it’s worth), but am not bound to that. I don’t think it should be considered a critical tenet of Christianity.
Jesus never taught it, it’s simply not tangential or critical to Jesus’ teachings so largely, I am indifferent to the question.
Cory…
Was Jesus sinless because he committed no sin or was he sinless because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit?
I dunno. Do you?
I tend to think that Jesus is God and that God does not sin, so Jesus was sinless because it just wasn’t in his nature. But Jesus nor God have told me the answer to that question so frankly, I just don’t know.
Respectfully,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
For the benefit of Dan and whomever else may find these comments useful:
Dan
I have to expect that, if pushed, you will agree you do not know with any certainty, Hitler’s fate.
Ed
Actually, if we assume that Hitler never repented of his rejection of Christ, we do know with certainty his fate. It is the same fate that Satan and all those rejecting God will face: “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Re 21:8.
I know, I know, we can’t take the fiery flames of hell literally. If that is true, neither can we take this literally: And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.
Re 22:5.
If you can’t take hell literally, then you have no right to take heaven literally either.
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. Re 22:14–15.
Dan:
As far as the histories/stories found in the Bible, we must understand that textually, all of the OT was written in the era prior to the Era of Modern History. Historians tell us, based on evidence, that “modern history telling” began between 500 BC and 500 AD, with people like Herodotus and Thucydides, and that prior to that, literature and stories simply did not tell history in the same manner as after that.
Ed:
I suppose the next thing your going to tell us is that prior to Aristotle, men had no idea how to reason according to the laws of logic. Our differences are not academic Dan. Instead, they are profoundly spiritual at bottom. If what you say is true, and we cannot trust the accuracy of the OT stories, then we also cannot trust the teachings of the NT teachers nor Jesus who clearly understood these stories as actual historic narrative describing the activities of YHWH in the history of national Israel and mankind in general. If Jesus was God, as you admit, then he could not have gotten it wrong about the historical nature of Adam, Moses, Abraham, and David. If Jesus was wrong about something so basic, then I submit we cannot trust Him to get it right when it comes to anything, let along His identity and our eternity.
If you mean that the language was suited to the culture at the time, I agree. But if you mean that the stories were not factual historical accounts of the authors, I could not disagree more. Once again, your biggest issue is that you reject divine authorship from the start and this leads you into many errors and places you outside the camp of historic biblical Christianity.
As far as your Gilgamesh analogy, you are equivocating. The OT history of Israel and the documentation right up to the time of Christ and even to present day separate the history of the OT from such fantastic stories like Gilgamesh that are in no way connected to the reality of history.
Your position reduces to an absurd position that out of one side of your mouth rejects a mountain of biblical truth while out of the other you want to hold onto God, the historical Jesus, and even the incarnation.
What is irrational is for one to hold that the source for the historical Jesus is, for the most part, historically unreliable, and for the most part, cannot be taken literally, and then to claim that God exists, that Jesus was a real historical figure, and that Jesus is God. Moreover, the morality Dan calls on to indict God seems to be a morality of Dan and perhaps his scholarly friends own invention. Surely it is not a morality that is informed by Scripture. How could it be? It is used against God everywhere Dan finds the revelation of God offensive.
Scripture says: God is love. Dan likes. Dan says this is literally true.
Scripture says: Humanity is wicked and under judgment. Dan dislikes. Dan says this is not to be taken literally.
Scripture says: There is a real eternal heaven where we shall never die. Dan likes. Dan says this is literally true.
Scripture says: There is a real fiery hell where men who reject God will suffer eternal conscious torment. Dan dislikes. Dan says this is not to be taken literally.
Like it or not Dan, God is perfectly holy, perfectly righteous, perfectly just, perfectly loving, patient and kind. Because of that He calls men to Himself and redeems those whom He chooses even though none of them deserve it. Because of this God also pours out His righteous wrath and indignation on every soul that does not believe: to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. Like it or not Dan, it is literally true.
Your position is regrettably outside the corpus of Christian teachings. Christianity does not hold to the views that you seem to believe. The Confessions (Westminster, London, Savoy) all reject your claims about Scripture, about God, and about Christ. Scripture condemns your approach in no uncertain terms. I would encourage you to find a reformed church, PCA, Reformed Baptist, OPC, or such and see what you might discover in such a community.
paynehollow says
Regarding your last: I would remind you that I grew up in a traditionalist, conservative southern Baptist church. I’m not unfamiliar with your positions. Attending them again would only reconfirm how mistaken I believe that tradition is on some of these points. Because my traditional church background taught me to take the Bible seriously, I have, and my serious study of Scripture has led me away from that traditional viewpoint on these topics we’re discussing.
Exactly because I take the Bible seriously, I am entirely unwilling to say “The Bible says…” when I am merely citing human opinion. Nor am I willing to conflate my or other human interpretations of biblical passages with “God’s Word…” My interpretations are my interpretations. Your interpretations are you interpretations. I personally have no corner (at all) on perfectly interpreting the bible. I presume you can say the same for yourself?
As to your preference to take some parts of the bible literally that I do not… You DO agree, don’t you, that you don’t take the whole of the Bible literally, right? That is, when Jesus commands his followers to hate their parents, you don’t hate your parents, do you? When Jesus commands us to not store up treasures on earth… DO you store up “barnhouses” of treasure for your retirement? When Jesus said, “Give to everyone who asks you…” do you? If so, could I have $700, I’m looking to get a better guitar…
Do you agree that the reality is, you don’t take the Bible literally? That you, like me, use your God-given reasoning to say, “Hmm, it seems reasonable to me that THIS passage is using figurative language, while THAT passage seems to be more historical… and THAT passage seems to be speaking a universal rule while THIS passage seems to be a more localized rule…,” I am correct, am I not, that you and I both agree on the principle of using our reasoning to sort out more figurative language and intent from more literal?
Ed…
Once again, your biggest issue is that you reject divine authorship from the start
Again, because I take the Bible seriously, I am not willing to make claims about the Bible that the Bible does not make about itself. As a point of fact, Ed, the Bible does not say “God is the author of the Bible…” It says, at least in places, quite literally that “This book was written by Luke…” By Paul, by John…
Do I believe that the Bible is inspired? Yes, that is my opinion (although the bible never makes that claim either about the Bible). It is a book written by fallible human beings who were inspired by God, in my opinion. The claim that the Bible is “divinely authored” is unbiblical and has no data to support it. Given that, why would you insist that I must believe that?
Ed…
If Jesus was God, as you admit, then he could not have gotten it wrong about the historical nature of Adam, Moses, Abraham, and David.
Again, I am unwilling to make any claims about the Bible or about Jesus that the Bible does not make. As a point of fact, Jesus never once stated a position on the “historical nature” of Adam, et al. Talking about them and their stories is not the same as saying “…I therefore am affirming that these stories are all literally factually historic, told in the modern sense of History…”
Agreed?
I mean, I reference these stories, too, but that does not mean I believe Adam’s story is literally factual, as told in the bible. I think clearly, the story is told in a mythic genre, so I interpret it and value it in that manner. And just to clarify: MYTH does not equal FALSE or LIES. It’s just a genre of story-telling, a way that ancient people told stories to explain beginnings/origins. “And THAT is how the snake lost his legs…” “And THAT is why the leopard has spots…” “And THAT is why there’s a rainbow in the sky…” etc. It fits the genre of myth.
Do you hold to the position that God can not inspire fictional stories/myths/parables? I bet you agree that God can do so. The question then, is “What genre is this told in, what literary devices are being used?” and merely holding different opinions on that is not the same as “rejecting” or “denying” the Bible, is it?
Now, as to this…
Scripture condemns your approach in no uncertain terms.
You are making a large fact claim, stating it as a fact to condemn “my approach” in no uncertain terms. I am saying that you are factually mistaken. Point blank.
First of all, what do you think “my approach” to following God/reading the Bible is?
1. My approach is to seek God, humbly, prayerfully, striving to walk in God’s ways by God’s grace.
Where does “scripture” condemn that approach?
2. My approach to reading the Bible includes striving to understand the genre/literary devices being used.
Where does “scripture” condemn that approach?
3. My approach calls us to humbly acknowledge, “This is my opinion as to what this passage means, what this genre is…”
Where does “scripture” condemn that approach?
In short, where does Scripture condemn “my approach…”? If “Scripture” does condemn it and you point me to it, you will have informed me and helped me out, no doubt.
However, if this is an empty and unsupported and unsupportable claim, then you have made a false claim, or at least an unsupportable claim, and the Bible and reason both would condemn that approach, agreed?
Respectfully, Ed (and correct me if I’m mistaken) but you appear to be saying, “IF Dan disagrees with my and my traditions opinions about what genre this is, then he is not a Christian…” But if you are saying that, on what basis do you do so? Does the Bible say, “What must I do to be saved? You must agree with Reformed Church opinions about literary genres in the Bible!” No, of course it doesn’t. Do you see how it sounds like you’re adding to the Bible, adding rules about what it takes to be a Christian that simply aren’t biblical or rational.
I am a Christian because I am a follower of Jesus, who I call Christ, whom I believe to be the son of God, who I believe taught us about the way of Grace and that I recognize the need for God’s grace in my life and have accepted that Grace, through faith in Jesus, the risen son of God.
Do I perfectly agree with reformed churches (or Catholic churches, or eastern orthodox churches or even anabaptist churches) on every point? No, but that is not what being a Christian is. Yes, you could make a case that I am a very poor student of some of reformed church doctrines, but that is not my goal.
Fair enough?
How about this: I won’t say you’re not a Christian because you’re not anabaptisty enough if you won’t say I’m not a Christian for not being RC enough? God bless you in your faith journey through the reformed church and may God grant us all wisdom and, more importantly, grace.
In Christ,
Dan
paynehollow says
Ed…
I suppose the next thing your going to tell us is that prior to Aristotle, men had no idea how to reason according to the laws of logic.
I’m making the claim that in different times and different cultures/traditions, people told stories in different ways. There is nothing spectacular or hard to believe about that claim, is there, Ed?
Do you insist that all histories must be told in the modern style? If so, on what basis do you not take the Epic of Gilgamesh literally?
On what rationally consistent basis do you say, “ALL other ancient stories – stories that contain mixes of history and yet, fantastic claims about men and gods and dragons and miracles – ARE told in a mythic style, or with figurative, not literal stories, but THESE ancient stories found in the Bible are told in the more modern ‘literal history’ style…”?
Do you know of even one other ancient text that is told using the more modern literal history style? I’d honestly be interested in knowing. As far as I’m aware, there are no stories from prior to 500-ish BC that would fit the more literally factual style of telling history. Not a single one.
If that is the case, then it would seem reasonable, would it not, to conclude that these are the ways they told stories/histories in this time period, in these cultures? Why is that not a rational conclusion?
In short, I have no problem if you think that these more ancient stories are told using a modern history genre, if that makes most sense to you, good for you. Believe it. I’m just saying, IF there is no evidence at all (textually or outside the text) that these stories were written in a more modern literally factual style, then please don’t condemn others for merely going where the evidence seems to support.
Ed…
What is irrational is for one to hold that the source for the historical Jesus is, for the most part, historically unreliable, and for the most part, cannot be taken literally, and then to claim that God exists, that Jesus was a real historical figure, and that Jesus is God.
Ed, I believe in God for a variety of reasons. Not simply “the bible tells me so…” I believe that a creator God explains this complex, intricately designed-appearing world… that a creator God explains “the Big Bang…” Reason tells us ex nihilo nihil fit…” Nothing can come from Nothing. A creator God explains that.
I believe in Jesus’ reality because of known historic data. The church DOES exist, it came from somewhere, by all appearances and all data, because of the teachings of a 1st century itinerant preacher named Jesus.
And I believe in the human tradition of accepting “the Bible” as being “as scripture” for us – believe in its inspired status and that it is useful for teaching and correcting, because it all rings true and, again, the church and its teaching factually did come from somewhere.
I don’t believe that reducing one’s faith down to “I believe it because the Bible tells me so…” is a rational or, in the end, biblical approach to taking the Bible seriously. The Bible itself speaks of God revealing God’s Self through Creation, through the Holy Spirit, through Reason, through our conscience, through community and through “scripture…” On what basis would we remove all of that and only say “because the Bible…”?
And what is irrational about believing in Jesus or God because of evidence, the data at hand?
So, when you say, “that the source for the historical Jesus is, for the most part, historically unreliable, and for the most part, cannot be taken literally” I would clarify: Trying to make the OT out to be literally factual history when that does not appear to be reasonable, THAT human tradition is unreliable. But all that is doing is saying that it is important to understand the literary genre of a given text. What is wrong with that?
And what IF the OT was not written as a literally factual more modern-style history? Does that suddenly make your faith meaningless and unreliable? Why?
Moreover, the morality Dan calls on to indict God seems to be a morality of Dan and perhaps his scholarly friends own invention. Surely it is not a morality that is informed by Scripture. How could it be?
?
Look, in Jesus’ teachings, we find him telling the story (literal history??) of the sheep and the goats and the teaching that we should take care of/side with the least of these, that in doing so, we are attending God and God’s needs! WOW! What an amazing teaching. We find repeated warnings about the dangers and trappings of wealth. And we can see that the idea of “We are not in this alone, we should take care of, love, be in community with our neighbors, even our enemies!” makes some good bit of rational sense. That simply piling up wealth for our own benefit “down the road” is foolish because we don’t know that “down the road” is ever going to be here.
My point is, these stories point to moral teachings and values that I believe are ultimately quite rational and great. So again, I don’t believe in siding with “the least of these” or in living simply just “because the Bible tells me so…” I believe them because I think they make rational sense. That morality IS formed by Jesus’ teachings (ie, Scripture), is it not? What difference does it make to those moral lessons whether or not the OT represents literally factual history? YES, my understanding of morality IS formed by Jesus’ teachings, and not believing in literal history genre interpretations does not in any way take away from that.
I don’t get how you get from here to there, it does not seem rational, to me. But maybe that’s just me.
Regardless, I’m not “indicting God,” I’m disagreeing with HUMAN interpretations. The only possible way to call that indicting God is if you conflate your human opinions with God’s will. Do you do that?
Is it okay to disagree with Ed, or is disagreeing with Ed and his tradition the same as disagreeing with God?
Surely you don’t want to make that claim.
Respectfully,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
I do not take Gilgamesh seriously because Scripture rules out the slightest possibility that demigods actually exist. Good enough?
The New Testament authors and Christ Himself, understood the Old Testament as reliable and accurate historical narrative. There is no hint whatsoever that it was ever understood as anything but historical fact by the writers of the NT or the authors themselves.
Difference in style does not equate to radical difference in substance. Moreover, the OT authors were not the origin of the text they wrote. They each had an author superimposed. The origin of the OT writings is not man. It is God. The men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The OT is the Word of God. This is the Christian position, has always been the Christian position, and will always be the Christian position.
The evidence you rely on is not evidence Dan. It is conjecture and sheer philosophical bias. You dismiss what you think is fantastic, not based on evidence, but based on your worldview. What you find irrational and unbelievable is not based on the Biblical Standard but on your modern, humanistic, autonomous philosophy.
How could God ever create something from nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. That is the epitome of irrationality. But for some reason, you want me to accept it. It is not enough Dan to believe that some sort of really powerful God exists. What you have to tell us is what this God is like and you will have to do so in a manner that is consistent with your own philosophy. You claim the OT has fantastic stories that cannot be taken literally, but the grandest of them all, God created something from nothing, you want to accept. Mind boggling.
Islam exists also Dan. So does Buddhism, Mormonism, and a plethora of other religions, all claiming that Christ was wrong. Islam says they have the last prophet and revelation from God. Christianity says we do. Judaism says that Christ was a fraud. Some people say he didn’t exist at all. Where is your rational evidence if the Bible cannot be trusted? The Church exists, but that is not proof that Jesus rose from the dead or that He is God. Jesus could have been a madman or a lunatic, or an incredibly gifted con-artist.
But the Church and Jesus taught that the OT was binding, that it was the very Word of God, and that it was reliable. This, you reject.
You say that Scripture teaches us that God reveals Himself through a variety of means, to include human reason. I would submit that you are taking those passages overly literal.
You believe the parts of the Bible that make rational sense to you. In other words, you subject the Bible to your standard of rationality and if it passes the test, you endorse it. But if it does not pass your test of rationality, your write it off as fantasy, as ancient loose storying telling not to be taken literally. And what is the guiding principle? Is it due to an accepted principle of basic interpretation? Not at all! It is your own subjective notion of what is rational and what it not. And what determines what is rational? Some transcendent standard to which we are all subject? Of course not! Rather, it is your own worldview, your own philosophical outlook. That is your ultimate standard of truth. What a wee little world you live in sir.
To say in one more time Dan. With all due respect, your view is not the Christian position and no Christian will allow you to bring such damnable things into the holy community. I am sure you are a nice person as far as people go. And I am sure you probably engage in a lot of temporally good works. But I am equally sure that all those works are as filthy rags before our holy God. I will pray for you sir.
I would get into the flaws in your presuppositions about modern versus ancient history styles but I think I have said enough to refute your position. It all comes down to your view of the Nature of Scripture.
paynehollow says
Ed…
You dismiss what you think is fantastic, not based on evidence, but based on your worldview. What you find irrational and unbelievable is not based on the Biblical Standard but on your modern, humanistic, autonomous philosophy.
Again, I will remind you that I came from a conservative, traditionalist background. My “worldview” going into this was that the world was probably ~6,000 years old, or at least that Adam and Eve were real people and the story was literally factual, that Jonah was literally factual, etc, etc. This charge against me (and it is an attack on the person, not my actual argument, I will note) is simply not supported by the data.
I went into the discussion years ago believing the traditionalist view, having that as my worldview. As a point of fact, I did not find it “irrational and unbelievable” to take the bible literally, including the fantastical elements of the OT. It’s just that, the more I read the bible, the less believable this human insistence upon a literal history was… It’s full of internal inconsistencies and irrational leaps that I just had to abandon in order to try to be true to taking the Bible seriously.
So, at least in my case, this has nothing at all in the real world to do with me believing the science was all wrong and “dismissing” the Bible to match my worldview and everything with trying to rationally, morally follow God and walk in the steps of Christ, my Lord.
As a point of fact: My disagreeing with other human opinions is not the same at all as “dismissing” the Bible. Do you understand that?
Do you think that humans can’t disagree with one another on unprovable hypotheses as to the correct literary genres without saying, “They hold an opinion different than my opinion, therefore, they are not a Christian…”?
And as to this…
your view is not the Christian position and no Christian will allow you to bring such damnable things into the holy community.
Won’t “allow” a fellow believer to hold a position different than yours into the “holy community…” what does that mean? There is no room for disagreement in your church on the notion of inerrancy? Is that a Christian “essential” in your church… one that you believe is “damnable…”? If so, wow, friend, I disagree.
You can disagree with my opinion on this if you want, I won’t call your position damnable. I will accept you as my brother in Christ and love you with the love of God, by God’s grace, man. We are, none of us, holding to perfect interpretations on all matters and thank God, we are not saved by our adherence to a list of religious tenets created by humans. Thank God for Grace!
Come, brothers, let us reason together. It’s okay to disagree.
In Christ,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
Dan,
I belong to a reformed community whose faith is expressed in a very specific confession of belief. We require that you uphold the components of that confession in order to be acknowledge as a true believer in Christ. Not just anyone can walk in, live or believe whatever they want, and take the name of our Lord and Christ. What I am saying is that if you were in my communion, we would be having several coffees and I would be attempting to change your mind on these issues. Eventually, I would take this to a witness, then to the elders, and finally to the church body. If you refused to repent of your views as expressed here, you would be excommunicated. Now, I am not saying every view you have expressed would result in such a process. But a denial of a literal Adam certain would. A denial of eternal judgment also would. Any consent to gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle would. Your statement the the Bible is not authoritative and binding would assuredly move you out of the community if you rejected the community’s attempts to provide loving correction in the truth.
The problem Dan is that you are not disagreeing with human opinions. You are disagreeing with the plain teachings of Scripture; teachings that have been adopted and embraced by the community of Christ for 2000 years; teachings that everyone who professes faith in Christ are obligated to believe. The teachings of Scripture are clear, at least the main things we say are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. But quibblers have invaded the vineyard of Christ, seeking at every corner to pervert His truth and infect his body the cancer of unbelief. This, we must guard against. I realize that my rhetoric is quite strong at this point. But I see your teachings as quite damnable and destructive to the souls of men Dan. This is not an issue we can agree to disagree on. The consequences could not be more serious.
paynehollow says
Ed…
What I am saying is that if you were in my communion, we would be having several coffees and I would be attempting to change your mind on these issues. Eventually, I would take this to a witness, then to the elders, and finally to the church body. If you refused to repent of your views as expressed here, you would be excommunicated.
Wow. Well, I am certainly glad that I don’t attend that church. I have no problem at all saying that I would not be a good follower of Ed’s church’s beliefs.
But not being in agreement with Ed’s church is not the same as not being a Christian. You all don’t get to decide “these sets of human beliefs are ESSENTIAL to being a Christian. If you disagree with we, humans, on these human beliefs, you are not a Christian.”
Thank God for Grace! Thank God for Liberty of Conscience! Thank God we don’t have to jump through human hoops and belief systems in order to be saved!
The problem Dan is that you are not disagreeing with human opinions. You are disagreeing with the plain teachings of Scripture; teachings that have been adopted and embraced by the community of Christ for 2000 years; teachings that everyone who professes faith in Christ are obligated to believe.
Wow. Wow. Is everyone here at this blog ascribing to this unbiblical and unChristian belief system?
Ed, the problem is that you can not point to one place where Jesus, the Christ (ie, the Christ in Christian, the God-man whose teachings we believe and follow), says, “you must agree with a literal Adam in order to be saved…”
Is that what you are literally saying? Than one must affirm a literal Adam in order to be saved?
How is that not a teaching of salvation by works? By Perfect knowledge?
How is that a Christian teaching at all? A biblical one? A reasonable one?
Friend, it ain’t. It just ain’t.
Come on, surely not everyone is ascribing to this anti-Grace, anti-Christian belief? Or better yet, surely I have misunderstood you, Ed… Say it ain’t so!
Respectfully,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
No Dan, I will not admit that Jesus’ mentioning of Adam, or Moses, or Abraham, or Jonah does not at all mean that he did not necessarily accept them as real historic figures. There is nothing in the text or in history to suggest that Jesus thought that Adam was a fictional character in a parable. We are not going to play your by your syllogism here. We begin with Christ’s mention of Adam. Luke included Adam in His Genealogy. You know, Luke, the meticulous historian who paid great attention to detail. Paul talked about death reigning from Adam to Moses. Death seems pretty literal to me and surely Moses was to be taken as a literal person, right? Paul mentions Adam and Christ together in 1 Cor. 15. If Christ is real, then surely Adam was real. He again mentions both Adam and Eve when he is writing to Timothy. Jude mentions Adam in the same context in which he mentioned Enoch. Job mentions Adam and even talks about how he did not hide his sin like Adam did. Hosea talks about how Adam transgressed the covenant.
Can you show any evidence, outside of your conjecture, that we should understand Adam in a non-literal way? There can be no reasonable doubt that the entire corpus of Scripture depicts Adam as it does every other person in Scripture. There is nothing to suggest that we should NOT understand Adam as a historical figure. The burden of proof is on the Johnny-come-lately postmodern reconstruction of biblical narrative Dan.
paynehollow says
Ed…
Can you show any evidence, outside of your conjecture, that we should understand Adam in a non-literal way?
No, that’s the point. Neither of us can prove our conjecture. You have zero hard data to support your hunch. I have zero hard data to support my hunch.
That is the reality of it all.
Agreed?
If you have hard data, by all means, present it.
You don’t, friend. You just don’t.
paynehollow says
Ed…
The burden of proof is on the Johnny-come-lately postmodern reconstruction of biblical narrative Dan.
No, I’m stating that my opinion is clearly my opinion and that it is not provable. The burden of proof lies with the one who is insisting that they can’t be mistaken. Are you insisting that you can’t be mistaken, or do you agree with the reality that this is your unprovable opinion?
~Dan
Dan Trabue says
Okay, two more responses to Ed…
Not only did Jesus believe in the literal historical accounts of numerous OT passages that many modern scholars outright reject, he believed that the OT was inerrant, perfect, and contrary to your belief, that it was binding and authoritative. Matt. 5:17-20; 15:3; Mark 7:8, 13.
As a point of fact, those verses, none of them, say anything about the OT’s “inerrancy” “perfection” or authoritative nature. Not one word. Factually speaking.
Also, I’d appreciate a response to this claim you made, which I’m telling you, is factually mistaken. The claim (and my responses below it)…
ED: Scripture condemns your approach in no uncertain terms.
You are making a large fact claim, stating it as a fact to condemn “my approach” in no uncertain terms. I am saying that you are factually mistaken. Point blank.
First of all, what do you think “my approach” to following God/reading the Bible is?
1. My approach is to seek God, humbly, prayerfully, striving to walk in God’s ways by God’s grace.
Where does “scripture” condemn that approach?
2. My approach to reading the Bible includes striving to understand the genre/literary devices being used.
Where does “scripture” condemn that approach?
3. My approach calls us to humbly acknowledge, “This is my opinion as to what this passage means, what this genre is…”
Where does “scripture” condemn that approach?
In short, where does Scripture condemn “my approach…”? If “Scripture” does condemn it and you point me to it, you will have informed me and helped me out, no doubt.
However, if this is an empty and unsupported and unsupportable claim, then you have made a false claim, or at least an unsupportable claim, and the Bible and reason both would condemn that approach, agreed?
Ed Dingess says
Conjecture: A hypothesis that has been formed based on very little evidence. Fact: you have not very little evidence for your belief that Jesus did not take Adam as a real historical figure. I, on the other hand, have more than a little evidence, I have more than sufficient evidence to believe that Adam was a real historical figure. Not only do I have the a posteriori of Scripture. I have the a priori nature of Scripture. I also have the redemption of mankind in Christ as overwhelming evidence. For if there was never a real Adam, there was never was a real fall. And if there never was a literal fall into sin, then there is no need for a literal Savior to redeem. My evidence is the numerous references to Adam in Scripture that takes him as real with no literary markers suggesting otherwise, not one. I have the historic Jewish religion. I have the ancient and historic Church as evidence. I have the belief of the Jews at the time of Christ. There is Adam, the first man, formed from the dust, created in the image of God, a living being. There are no literary markers in the text to suggest that Moses was giving us a parable, a non-literal account of the beginning. Using your method, and applying it in your manner, I can turn every historical figure in Scripture into a non-literal person. But if I take Scripture as God’s revelation to His Church, and I understand God speaking to us in plain human language (condescending to do so of course) because God had something He determined to say to us, and I take it that God wanted us to be able to understand HIs message, then I must believe that God would not intentionally confuse us by using literal literary markers to speak non-literally because that is NOT how humans communicate. This is not to say that all things in Scripture are equally clear and easy to grasp. It is to say that God condescends to speak to us and that we can see when He is using historical narrative, and when He is commanding, and when He is teaching, and when He is using other literary devices to reveal and instruct. We see how parables were structured and we know that the Genesis account does not fit the genre of parable, or analogy, but that of plain, simple historical narrative.
“Literary theorists may stand in awe of the ice “floating on” the water and they may describe its aesthetic shape and its evocative powers, but sooner or later their ship will awaken to a crashing “Titanic-like” revelation of the fact that what they were starring at was in fact an iceberg, with much more below the surface than above.” [Scot McKnight via Osborne in The Hermeneutical Spiral]
Narrative criticism has a place in biblical hermeneutics. But as Osborne rightly says, if narrative criticism is cut off from historical and referential meaning, they become arbitrary and subjective. The whole point in hermeneutical method is to get to the truth of divine revelation while avoiding arbitrariness and subjectivity in our conclusions about the text. The sin with which we all have to deal is ever working to deceive us and if that sin can use our own self, then then deception is even more effective. Who do we trust more than our own (wicked and deceitful) hearts?
The truth Dan is that you found something quite offensive and distasteful about the God presented in Scripture as interpreted by historic Christianity. He is unjust, not loving enough, immoral, monstrous, or something else you don’t like. If your heart has not been regenerated, that would make sense because as I said at the beginning of our exchange, the depraved heart is hostile to the true God of Scripture and Scripture could not be more obvious about that. Hence, you hear the God of historic Christianity described, you read the doctrines of the historic Church in Christ, and many of them leave you cold. You find many of them to be simply repugnant. Like, perhaps, that one cannot be gay and a Christian, maybe. Or that people who have never heard the gospel enter eternal judgment. Or, no human is innocent in the sight of God. That is a God, Dan, that you find morally reprehensible and you seek in whatever way possible to dispose of Him. This is what Scripture means when it says that the natural man is hostile toward God. I do not mean to offend you but I do intend to tell you the truth as directly and as lovingly as I can. If that is rude, then I suppose you will have to think me rude.
Dan Trabue says
Respectfully, Ed, you are question begging. Repeatedly.
Further, you are ignoring my repeated simple and clear questions. If you would answer them, then we could perhaps clear things up a bit. But just ignoring them makes it seem as if you are not interested in a dialog so much as a rant.
Respectful, give and take dialog is something I am very willing and prepared to engage in. But you have made repeated unsupported charges and accusations, engaged in repeated fallacious reasoning and not responded to reasonable questions. Shall I presume, then, that you are not able to support your charge against me? And that you are just too proud to admit it? Pride cometh before a fall, you know…
Regardless, let me know if you would like to deal with the questions I’ve asked, respectfully. If not, I will have to suppose that you are not able to support your charges or claims and you made them in error. Which happens, no problem.
God’s peace be with you, friend Ed,
Dan
Bruce Symons says
Dan, I admire your graciousness and patience. Not everyone who reads this website disagrees with you.
I am wondering, Ed, if you are confusing what we humans do with language. Our language can be literal or metaphorical regardless of how we think of the reality of the ‘things’ we are talking about. Rather simplistically, ‘my car is a bomb’ is metaphorical language (hopefully) referring to something which is real. ‘George killed the dragon’ is literal language referring to a myth. So how do we know that the story Jesus told in Luke 10 30-36 did or didn’t actually happen?
Peace
Bruce
Dan Trabue says
Bruce…
Not everyone who reads this website disagrees with you.
Thanks, Bruce, it’s good to know I’m not alone here. And you make a great point. Clearly, we all take some parts of the Bible more figuratively than others. The question to consider (one of them) is, on what basis do we take this text literally and that one less so? Do we have a consistent criteria/rubric by which to do this? What is it? – unfortunately, the reality is that we have been given no one rubric by which to say authoritatively “THIS is what we take literally and THAT is what we take more figuratively…” What we have is our God-given reasoning and, unfortunately, that is less than perfect, but such is our reality.
I must say that I respect and love my more traditional and conservative friends and family in Christ… It was more traditional types who taught me to take the bible seriously and who taught me the Bible so thoroughly (well, they certainly tried with this poor student, anyway)… it was their efforts and love for God and me and the Bible that informed me and got me started on this Way and for that, I am forever in their debt.
Plus, the conservatives in my life have been, almost without fail, genuinely good people concerned with following God in practical, helpful ways in the real world. They have been generous, loving, giving, charitable and kind, almost without fail. God bless them, I love the ones I have known and, by extension, these brothers and sisters out here in cyberland who I do not personally know.
The one time that my more conservative friends and family are less charitable is when it comes to simply disagreeing with them on a handful or two of topics that they just do not consider up for debate or almost not even up for discussion.
My hope in visiting a place like this (as well as with my real friends in the real world) is just to respectfully try to just open up the conversation a bit, to let them know, “Hey, we too, are believers, striving by God’s grace to walk in the steps of Jesus and take this Bible seriously, just as you are… and as it happens, we simply disagree on some points and that has to be okay.” I’m not demanding (at all!) that they must change their minds, I am not saying they are “bad Christians” – and certainly not UN-Christian -for disagreeing with my opinion.
If the disciples in the early church could get into some serious disagreements (and clearly, they did) and still be church together, albeit imperfectly, well, I believe so too, can we. Disagreement must be okay.
As much as anything else, what helped me was learning to accept the reality that my opinions were MY opinions, and that, even if I thought/think that the Bible/God is abundantly clear on any point, that my interpretations are still mine, not God’s, and that I can’t rationally (and shouldn’t, morally) conflate my interpretations with God’s Word or with fact…
So, I’m just offering my opinions, for what they’re worth and to be considered or not by my beloved family-who-I’ve-not-yet-met here.
May God bless us all with wisdom and grace.
Dan
Ed Dingess says
Bruce, my doctoral work was in hermeneutics. I understand very well what Dan is arguing and I do not believe that Dan’s or perhaps your objection to the historicity of the OT has it’s ground in literary analysis, not even for a second. That much is painfully obvious. The objection, as Dan has unwittingly revealed repeatedly, is philosophical. Dan does not like a God that would send national Israel to destroy the pagan nations in Canaan. He does not like a God that would damn a 16 year old to hell. It has nothing to do with legitimately handling the text. If that isn’t obvious to you, I do not know what else to say.
Now, to address your point: to say that you car is hot or that your car is a bomb is clearly the use of language to do something very specific. My point Bruce is that it is easy to see when such literary devices are employed. That is the nature of language. But if you were to say, your car is a blue ford. What ground would I have to classify your sentence as metaphorical? That is what we are dealing with here. When the writers of the sacred text employed things like metaphor, simile, parables, etc., the markers are not difficult to discern. I hope this helps explain the issue. Dan doesn’t care for the Christian God in any sense whatsoever. He has even denied the binding and authoritative nature of Scripture and has had the unmitigated brass to claim that his view should sit in Christian company. I am sorry, but with all due respect, damn the view that the Holy Scriptures are not binding for the Christian to hell, because that is its origin and its destination. Anyone promoting such views are themselves not just a little misguided. They are the enemy of God Himself. I blame the modern Church for not having the guts to the stand it needs to against this nonsense and call it what it is. Paul had no problem calling these men wolves and their teachings demonic. We should have the courage to do the same.
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
Dan has unwittingly revealed repeatedly, is philosophical. Dan does not like a God that would send national Israel to destroy the pagan nations in Canaan.
Just to clarify:
* My objection is moral and rational and biblical.
* I do not “like” a god that would order people to kill babies. (Do any of you like the notion that a god might command people to kill babies? What is there to like in that?? Do you understand how irrational and immoral that sounds?)
* I think such a god is irrational, unjust and not in fitting with the biblical description of the Almighty Creator God, the God of Love and Justice, personified in Jesus, the Christ, within whose teachings I do not believe you could find a shred of evidence that God sometimes commands people to commit atrocities.
Thus, with that human hypothesis being irrational, immoral and unbiblical, I do not find it to be sound or reasonable.
Not that you are answering my questions, Ed, but do you understand that my objection – what drove me AWAY from the traditional view that you hold – was that the description of god you hold in your theories does not match the biblical view of God? That was my starting point: The Bible, because I was a good traditional conservative who loves the Bible and God and took it, at the time, pretty literally.
It was, in fact, this very literal starting point that I had that drove me away from a literal “inerrant” approach to biblical words… the reasoning just does not hold up biblically.
When you say “Dan does not like a God…” you are making it sound like it’s whimsical on my part, instead of deliberately biblical and rational. That would be an erroneous suggestion to make, so if you are making it, you are, in fact, in error. It has everything to do with deliberately trying to legitimately handle the text.
Now you have been corrected and there is no need to repeat the error, or it will move from an error from ignorance to a deliberate falsehood and slander, which incidentally, the bible calls sin. Let us reason like respectful adults, friends and not move in that direction, please.
Respectfully,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
(1) To claim that ancient writers wrote with a different style than modern writers of history does not mean that ancient writers had no interest in communicating historical facts even if they at times may have used mythic language. We can see the difference between myth and narrative and the markers are objective rather than radically subjective.
(2) To compare ancient pagan writers to Biblical authors is not only committing the genetic fallacy, it is a false comparison since the sacred writings are, well, sacred writings. They enjoy the characteristic of dual authorship: divine and human. Many ancient writers employed myth in their historical narrative. The writers of sacred Scripture were ancient writers. Therefore, the OT employs myth in it’s historical narrative. That is the fallacy of your argument Dan.
(3) Your argument reduces Scripture to the sole product of human construction. The Christian community has never held such a low view of Scripture. Jesus never held such a low view of Scripture. The NT authors never held such a low view of Scripture.
(4) The NT writers treat the events of the OT like literal historical narrative. In fact, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ back to God actually right through Adam. If Adam was myth, why would he be included in a real genealogy? I asked you this question before and you ignored it. I am asking again.
As far as blasphemy is concerned, Dan, your statements that the Word of God is not binding or authoritative, implying that the Bible is just a book written by men is indeed inflammatory and factious. It slanders God’s word and as such, it slanders God. You are saying that the Word of God is not trustworthy. Concerning the factious man we must now turn our attention. You see, Dan, Paul was not a proponent of unity at the expense of truth. Let us return to the factious man in Titus that you so eagerly embraced (even though it is not binding or authoritative). The Greek word for factious is hairetikos. It is where we get our word heretic. A man who brings in teachings contrary to what has been handed down by the apostles is a factious man, or a heretic. That man is to be warned twice and then rejected from the community because of his opposition to the faithful teachings of the Christian community. This same Paul said wolves would enter the flock. Paul also talked about arrogant men who hold to a form of godliness but deny its power. Avoid these men Paul said. These are men who appose the truth. Jambres and Jannes both opposed Moses, claiming that the Jewish God was not the final authority for their lives, that Moses was acting of his own volition. They did all they could to copy the power of God as if what they had to offer was of equal worth. The bottom line is that they opposed the truth. This is what anyone who opposes Scripture as authoritative does as well. By opposing the divine revelation, you are in fact opposing the truth. By rejecting the authority of Scripture, you are rejecting the authority of God Himself for Scripture is God speaking.
If there is no truth in Scripture that is binding and authoritative, then what on earth is Paul talking about when he talks about rejecting people, avoiding people, and excommunicating people? It sure sounds binding to me.
Dan Trabue says
Ed, you have referenced yourself as having “doctoral work… in hermeneutics…” and I certainly have no reason to doubt it. I’m confident you are an intelligent, well-educated person, serious in your discipleship with Jesus.
So perhaps you have some wisdom and knowledge of which I’m unaware and I’m glad to hear it. Unfortunately, however, so far, you have relied upon rational fallacies and character attacks rather than respectful reason. You’ve been question begging and misrepresenting my arguments and just totally dodging some reasonable questions.
Now, again, perhaps you do have some wisdom to pass on. I am, no doubt, a foolish old guy with limited brain cells who could benefit from new knowledge. But, in order for you to do so, you will have to first end the logical fallacies, ad hominem and graceless personal attacks and actually answer some questions, if you want to make your case.
Please, do so.
Your fallacies/rational errors thus far include…
They enjoy the characteristic of dual authorship: divine and human.
Source? Says who? On what basis do you make this claim since the Bible never does. At all.
Along those lines, you said…
[saying] that the Bible is just a book written by men is indeed inflammatory and factious…
And otherwise suggested I held a “low view” of the Bible.
My response was factual and biblical:
The Bible’s books are written by humans according to the Bible. Paul clearly identifies himself as the author of the Epistles. Luke identifies himself as the author of his two books. The Psalms often identify the works as “a Psalm of David…” or “A Psalm of Solomon…” The books themselves often identify the author(s).
So, when I merely point to the actual words of the Bible and the actual authors identified literally therein, that is a “low view” of the bible and it is “inflammatory and factious…” but how so?
Is not adding to the Bible something that it has not said a lower view than taking it literally, in a case like this?
One of your misrepresentations…
Many ancient writers employed myth in their historical narrative.
The writers of sacred Scripture were ancient writers.
Therefore, the OT employs myth in it’s historical narrative.
That is the fallacy of your argument Dan.
Except that this is not my argument.
My argument is this:
There is no evidence of books written prior to ~500 BC being told in a modern, factually accurate manner with no fantastic elements;
The OT comes from this time period;
Therefore, there is no rational reason to insist that the OT must be taken as a modern, factually accurate history;
Along those lines, I offered you the opportunity to support your case by providing some examples of ancient literature that is told in the more modern, factually literal style.
I’m still waiting. By all means, make your case. Provide other literature that is also told in the modern style of literally factual history. But if you can provide no support for the claim, then on what rational basis would I accept your human theory, with no support?
Another rational problem from you: You have made claims along these lines…
We can see the difference between myth and narrative and the markers are objective rather than radically subjective.
And I have asked you to provide these “markers” and/or this “objective criteria” to which you keep refering. What is your source for this? I’m open to hearing them, but you first have to actually produce them. As it is, you keep making unsupported, empty claims.
I have no rational reason to agree with an unsupported, empty claim, I hope you can understand my position there… surely you would even agree with it?
Another fallacy…
Your argument reduces Scripture to the sole product of human construction. The Christian community has never held such a low view of Scripture. Jesus never held such a low view of Scripture. The NT authors never held such a low view of Scripture.
Says who? Where does Jesus affirm “dual authorship” of the Bible? My argument does not “reduce” anything. It points to the facts that Paul appears to be the author of Paul’s leters. That Luke is the author of Luke’s books.
There is nothing “low” about just stating what the text actually says, is there. So, instead of dealing with my point (that the Bible makes no claims to “dual authorship, and that the human authors are generally identified), you engage in attempted ad hom attacks calling taking the Bible literally on this point a “low view…”
Another question begging fallacy…
The NT writers treat the events of the OT like literal historical narrative. In fact, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ back to God actually right through Adam. If Adam was myth, why would he be included in a real genealogy? I asked you this question before and you ignored it. I am asking again.
Other ad hom attacks/fallacies…
Dan, your statements that the Word of God is not binding or authoritative, implying that the Bible is just a book written by men is indeed inflammatory and factious. It slanders God’s word and as such, it slanders God. You are saying that the Word of God is not trustworthy.
1. I have never said “the word of God” is not trustworthy. Fact. Has not happened. This is a falsehood, Ed and now that it has been pointed out, I would expect a gracious and humble man would admit his error and repent. I hold no ill will towards you, I’m sure it is an error from ignorance, not an intentional lie, but it is a falsehood. Please correct the claim.
2. I have said that, according to the bible the books of the Bible are written by humans, inspired by God, but still written by humans. There is nothing at all inflammatory or factious about simply stating facts. If you take offense to someone merely stating facts, then you are being overly-emotional and perhaps are a bit too high strung and should take your emotionalism down a notch or two.
3. Whether or not the Bible is “binding” or “authoritative” is the question we are talking about. To insist I must agree with the premise of the question prior to answering it is question begging. A fallacy.
4. As a point of fact, the Bible does not call the Bible “binding” or “authoritative.” I’m not willing to make a claim about the Bible that the Bible does not make or that God has not told us. A have a high view of the bible, that way. I’m not willing to add to it, what it does not say.
Are you prepared to add to the Bible what it does not say and demonize others who don’t take you at your word?
5. It is simply silly to say that taking the Bible to be written by humans, as the books of the Bible say, is not slanderous to God. You do not get to speak for God on this point, friend Ed. You aren’t god enough, fair enough?
Another ad hom…
Concerning the factious man we must now turn our attention.
Instead of dealing with my points and questions, you are trying to attack my person. As I think any reasonable view of this thread will show, I have been polite, respectful, humble, answered questions when asked and simply offered my human opinions and clarified some facts and asked some questions (which have too often gone unanswered). Where is the factiousness in that? I have treated you as brothers, acknowledged my love and respect for you as family in Christ, even in the face of your ad hom attacks. Where is the factiousness in that?
Ed, if someone were to come along and objectively read these words (without sharing your particular cultural affiliation), who do you think they would say is being factious?
More ad homs (attacking the person while not dealing with his arguments)…
The Greek word for factious is hairetikos. It is where we get our word heretic. A man who brings in teachings contrary to what has been handed down by the apostles is a factious man, or a heretic.
So, even though the Bible never says it, even though Jesus never one time taught it, you are saying it is a heresy to not insist upon an “inerrant” Bible, to view Genesis’ literary style as being mythic or more figurative… this is heresy in your view of Christianity? Must one agree with Ed’s opinion on the human theories of “inerrancy” and “authority” and “literal history” in order to be saved, Ed?
Are you not adding to the Bible and to Jesus’ teachings and to Christianity something that Jesus, the Christ never one time taught? Does that not concern you?
One last bit of (what seems to me to be) emotional histrionics and ad hom fallacies…
You defied those who were over you in the LORD, and rather than embracing what you were obligated as a Christian to believe, you rejected your elders teachings
Who is it, Ed, that is “over me in the Lord…”? You?
And who says I am “obligated” to agree with other human opinions? You?
So, believing as I do in the long baptist, anabaptist and other’s priesthood of the believer, I have to say along with Luther (if, indeed, he said it…) that, being obliged to follow God as best I can, even if other humans disagree with my opinions, “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
Or with Peter, “I must obey God, rather than humans…”
I am sorry we have areas of disagreement, brother Ed, but that is part of the reality of human followers of Jesus. I do not expect you to bow to my 42 years of Christianity and study and discipleship and I will not bow to your years of discipleship. We must strive to follow God and the right, by God’s grace, the best we can.
Or, as Luther said (as translated here…)
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures
or by evident reason
-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-
I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God.
Thus I cannot and will not recant,
because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound.
God help me. Amen.
May God grant us grace and wisdom,
Dan
anaquaduck says
“To say that you dont believe in hell (as you seem to have stated elsewhere) as a certainty is to go against Christ himself as you put your understanding above his..
Hold on, AD. Think this through a second.
1. As a point of fact, neither you nor I know what happens in the afterlife with absolute certainty.
Agreed?
2. That is, we can not demonstrate factually and objectively, “Here is hard data to demonstrate that this personal interpretation of the various times ‘hell’ and ‘heaven’ are used in the Bible is the one correct opinion.”
Agreed?” Dan
Not agreed, far from it…where does it say in the Bibe that something needs to be scientificaly verified before it can be real or true. Is God real ?
…….
“6. If all I am doing is humbly admitting I do not know with certainty what the factual answer is… how is that “going against Christ…”? Where is humility contra-Christ? Do you see why this claim is not only factually mistaken, how it seems ridiculous on the face of it? As if you are calling good (and humility is a good, right?) “bad…” Dan
While you claim to be acting in humility & using Bible verses to prove humility is good you are yet to verify scientifically that your humility is true or false. And why are you using the Bible if it has no authority as you allege.
You are all over the place Dan. Jesus tells us as he told Nicodemus you must be born again. How are you going to verify that….You have to accept it or reject it, there is no halfway when it comes to Salvation & God.
This is not my opinion, it is the gospel message, the message of hope for a fallen world, fallen nations & fallen individuals. As the old song puts it, trust & obey, there is no other way.
paynehollow says
AD…
While you claim to be acting in humility & using Bible verses to prove humility is good you are yet to verify scientifically that your humility is true or false. And why are you using the Bible if it has no authority as you allege.
Are you accusing me of not being humble in my approach to Scripture? By saying, “This is my opinion, it seems reasonable, moral and biblical to me, but it is my opinion and it’s not provable…” am I being arrogant? You appear to be making a charge against me for something, but I’m not sure what your point is.
And I’m not “using the Bible.” That is exactly the point, I don’t want to “use” the bible. I’m reading it for what it’s worth and prayerfully seeking God’s Way and looking for understanding in what the bible says, in God’s Word written upon our hearts, in God’s revelation in the world around us… We’re speaking about various Bible verses, so, since that is the topic, I’m offering my opinion about it. What is wrong with that? What is “all over the place” about that?
So, I asked you a question…
“1. As a point of fact, neither you nor I know what happens in the afterlife with absolute certainty.
Agreed?”
And you responded with…
Not agreed, far from it…where does it say in the Bibe that something needs to be scientificaly verified before it can be real or true. Is God real ?
What are you disagreeing with? DO you know what happens in the afterlife with absolute certainty? I don’t, not verifiably. I have opinions.
Is there something wrong with me asking that question? If you know what will happen with absolute certainty, please share it, that would be cool to know, wouldn’t it?
Friends, you all seem to be a bit on edge here over my simple questions and opinions. There is no need for that, I mean you no harm. I’m just engaging in conversation. We are on the same side, fellas, let us all seek wisdom and grace together, okay?
AD, I am fine with trusting and obeying God as revealed in Jesus, the Christ. That I disagree with you all is not indicative of disagreeing with God.
With God’s Love for you all,
Dan
anaquaduck says
Dan,
Well you are using the Bible… it was your support for being humble. But as you also hold to what appears to be rationalism you have yet to provide verifiable evidence that your humiity is genuine & your argument/opinion consistant with Scripture.
The humiltiy that Jesus speaks of should also be seen in the light of his judgements against towns & fig trees that dont bear fruit & his challenge to the rich young ruler. There are many people who want God on their own terms, but Christ warns against this as he looks into the heart with all its good intentions but nevertheless false notions of disicipleship & living by faith.
Can I absoluteley be sure their is a hell ? For sure, on the basis of Christs teaching…God does not lie, & what about the rich man & lazarus.
It’s in footloose (80’s movie) where foolishly a young girl rides inbetween two modes of transport, it works for a little while but then a truck comes over the hill…she takes it as far as she can but eventually its one mode of transport or the other.
God’s wisdom & grace cannot be seprated from His truth & Spirit, they find their all in all in Christ. Jn14:6. Jesus is the way to the Father, Jesus & the Father are one, The Father carried out his justice on Adam & Eve & on the Cananite tribe for its godlessness. Gods redeeming love that He showed Israel was not because they were anymore deseving but because God was building a nation that would bring a conquering king who would redeem what was lost…
It is true that disagreeing with another believer is not necesarily disagreeing with God, but nor is it indicative that someone is in agreemet with God also.That is why God has given us Scripture, that we might know his revealed mind & know for certain what is true & what is false. Satan used Scripture also & there are many false doctrines & ideas out there…Even Peter was swayed by false teaching & Paul was there to challenge him.
To leave someone in ignorance is to go against brotherly or sisterly love. I am so grateful for the many times I have been challenged in my life regarding God & His word. All the more says Scripture as Christ’s return or our leaving this world draws nearer.
Take care Dan.
nAeD.
paynehollow says
Ed…
Moreover, the OT authors were not the origin of the text they wrote. They each had an author superimposed.
Your data to support this claim, please? Thanks.
Ed…
The evidence you rely on is not evidence Dan.
What evidence is it, Ed, that you believe I “rely on…”?
Ed…
How could God ever create something from nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. That is the epitome of irrationality. But for some reason, you want me to accept it.
? Why do you think I want you to accept that? I believe that ex nihilo nihil is one of the good rational reasons to believe in a creator God. You are mistaken about what I’m thinking, Ed.
Perhaps you guys are getting a bit over-excited, you are making presumptions about what I believe that isn’t true and making false claims. Now, I am quite sure you are doing this by accident, out of misunderstandings on your part, no problem. But instead of making assumptions about what I am or am not implying, why don’t you just stick to my actual words?
Ed…
You claim the OT has fantastic stories that cannot be taken literally
Again, I don’t claim they “can’t be taken literally…” I’m saying I have no rational reason to assume they should be taken literally. You have misunderstood my actual position.
Ed…
Judaism says that Christ was a fraud. Some people say he didn’t exist at all. Where is your rational evidence if the Bible cannot be trusted?
Okay, let’s stop right there. Let’s take this one step at a time, because you’re misunderstanding and sounding emotionally-charged, not taking this rationally.
1. Ed, beloved brother in Christ, I did not say that the bible can not be trusted.
Do you understand that I have not said this?
2. What I have said is that some of the Bible uses figurative language. Everyone agrees with this. You agree with this, I am sure. Jesus told parables, those aren’t literally factual stories, they are fiction told for a moral reason. It is figurative. Jesus commanded us to “pluck out our eyes.” He was using hyperbole, I am sure you agree.
So, all I have said is, in principle, something you agree with: That some texts in the bible uses figurative language.
Do you agree with this?
3. I further said that we use our reason to try to decide what is figurative and what is literal.
Do you agree with this?
4. I further said that, while it may be clear to us that this collection of verses are, in our human opinion that we reached using our God-given human reasoning, literal or figurative, that our opinions are not infallible.
Do you agree with this?
I can’t imagine that you disagree with anything I’m actually saying. It appears that you are just reading into my words things I have not said.
Does any of that help?
Ed…
You believe the parts of the Bible that make rational sense to you. In other words, you subject the Bible to your standard of rationality…
Again, Ed, this is NOT what I said. I believe all of the Bible. I do disagree with some human interpretations, conclusions that some humans have reached using their reasoning, but disagreeing with fellow humans is not the same as not believing the Bible.
And yes, I DO use my reasoning to sort out the Bible, but surely you do, too? How do you understand anything without using your reasoning? There is nothing wrong with using our reasoning, dear friends. Surely we agree?
And Ed, I repeat my request to you:
ED: Scripture condemns your approach in no uncertain terms.
You are making a large fact claim, stating it as a fact to condemn “my approach” in no uncertain terms. I am saying that you are factually mistaken. Point blank. Please support your unsupported charge or admit you made a simple mistake.
I will remind you some of the teachings found in the Bible…
Thou shalt not bear false witness…
If you have an actual concern about something I have actually said and you can support that charge, please do and you will be helping me and everyone else. But making false and unsupported charges is not in keeping with the grace and respect that brothers should hold for those they merely disagree with.
In Christ,
Dan
paynehollow says
Ed…
We are not going to play your by your syllogism here. We
It would appear that your syllogism is, as follows (correct me if I’m wrong)…
All people who refer to characters in a story believe it is literally factual history.
Jesus referred to characters in OT stories
Therefore, Jesus believed that all these stories represent a literally factual history.
Is that your proposition?
If so, it fails on your first premise. NOT all people who refer to characters in a story believe it to be a literally factual story.
Or, perhaps, this is your proposition
Jesus referred to OT characters from OT stories
Jesus would not have done this unless those were literally factual stories
Therefore, Jesus believes that the OT stories were literally factual.
In this case, you have not proven the second premise, just stated it as if it were a given.
In neither case does the syllogism hold up as rational.
My syllogism, on the other hand, is…
Jesus referred to characters from OT stories
Not everyone who refers to characters from OT stories takes those stories as literally factual history
Therefore, we can not conclude that Jesus “must have” taken those stories as literally factual history.
That is a rationally sound, self-contained premise. It isn’t making any claims beyond what is rationally provable. It’s not claiming that Jesus didn’t take the stories as literally factual history, just that we can’t know that he insisted upon it.
Rationally speaking, where am I mistaken?
Thanks,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
First of all Dan, I have not provided only the evidence that Jesus believed that Adam was to be taken as an actual historical figure. I many provided others as well. The preponderance of the evidence for the Genesis story, both biblical and extra-biblical during the time of Christ and prior to Christ, is enough to for us to conclude that the common belief of all those who referred to Adam or “the beginning” were literally referring to the Mosaic account of beginnings recorded in Genesis 1-3.
Given the amount of evidence in support of a literal, historical understanding of Adam, I suppose my best move at this point is to ask you to provide some clues and markers by which we should take the Genesis account as myth, or legend, or story, or even a parable.
The truths of Scripture are mined a posteriori. Far too often we see erroneous inferences that are the product, not of sound hermeneutics and detailed exegesis, but rather, faulty, humanistic philosophy. Of course, a guiding principle is analogia fidei or better yet, analogia scriptura.
I have told you (in amazing brevity) why I believe that Adam was a historical figure. I have pointed to Christ, Paul, Jude, early Christianity, OT writings outside of Moses, and Ancient Judaism. I have not discussed the critical nature of this conversation to basic Christian soteriology.
What I want you to do Dan is provide disclosure on the grammatical rules and literary markers you use to arrive at your view that Adam was not a real historical figure. Furthermore, I would like to see how you arrive at your belief that Jesus did not take Adam to be literal along with the rest of the evidence I gave you. Why did no one correct the common view that Adam was really the first man? I look forward to your answer.
paynehollow says
Ed…
The preponderance of the evidence for the Genesis story, both biblical and extra-biblical during the time of Christ and prior to Christ, is enough to for us to conclude that the common belief of all those who referred to Adam or “the beginning” were literally referring to the Mosaic account of beginnings recorded in Genesis 1-3.
What evidence? All I have seen you say is “Look, all these people in the Bible refer to Adam… therefore, that means they must have taken it literally.” That is question begging.
What evidence, Ed? If you have given any, I have not seen it (beyond repeatedly saying “the stories are referenced in the Bible…” but that is not evidence, in and of itself.) Do you have any actual evidence? Hard data?
Ed…
is to ask you to provide some clues and markers by which we should take the Genesis account as myth, or legend, or story, or even a parable.
Already done it. Beyond that, I’m not the one saying definitively that I speak for God or the Bible on this point. What I have clearly said is that…
Given the time period and the writing genres of the time;
Given the writing styles found in Genesis and their similarity to other mythic styles;
Given the science that does not support a 6,000 year old earth happening in seven days where all people came from an Adam and an Eve, literally… or that the rainbow is in the sky as a literal promise, created for the sole purpose of a promise… or that languages developed when a tower fell down;
Given the entire absence of any hard data in support of a literal Adam, or a literal world flood, or a literal tower of Babel…
Given all that, I have no reason at all to suspect that these stories are written in any genre than the genre they appear to be written in, which is a mythic genre, or using figurative language, by and large. Now, I have no problem if you want to take it literally, if that makes the most sense to you… but I disagree with that opinion and restate that I see no rational reason to take it literally.
The difference between you and I is that you appear to be making it a point which good Christians or people of good faith can’t disagree upon, and that those who disagree with your unsupported opinion are displaying some “anti-Christian” behavior/beliefs.
Where did Jesus ever teach us that we have to agree with the human theory of inerrancy or a literal Bible?
Fact: He didn’t. So you appear to be adding to what Jesus said something that Jesus never said and making a “Christian” essential a teaching that Jesus never taught. Is that wise? Reasonable?
Again, if you’d more deliberately go through and answer the questions I have asked of you (questions that point to holes in your argument and which, if you could answer, might strengthen your argument… but I don’t believe you can answer them, which is probably why you’re opting for ignoring them… just as a guess. Of course, it could be simple time restraints, too, I get that…), you could perhaps resolve this in a respectful, give-and-take, “be prepared to give an answer” sort of rational way.
Respectfully,
Dan
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
Of course, a guiding principle is analogia fidei or better yet, analogia scriptura.
If, by analogia scriptura, you mean… “God‟s Word is presumed by the interpreter to not contradict itself” …then I would just say that this is my problem with your opinion. If God does not change and if God is providing moral guidance and if God commanded Israel to take slaves, to kill children and babies, and to force women into marriage, then that leads to rational conflicts within Scripture. You then have a Scripture that is not internally consistent or rational, because in other, more clear places in Scripture (and by our own God-given moral reasoning), we see the more reasonable notion that a just and loving God would not command people to commit atrocities, would not command people to sin, would not tell people to kill babies or enslave others or say that you may beat your slave without penalty as long as you don’t kill them.
The rational problem, then, with your opinions is that you have a problem with Scripture contradicting itself, not to mention with violating just basic moral reasoning. So, if that is your measure, then your humans are failing on your own measure.
Ed…
I would like to see how you arrive at your belief that Jesus did not take Adam to be literal along with the rest of the evidence I gave you. Why did no one correct the common view that Adam was really the first man? I look forward to your answer.
As I look forward to your answers to my many unanswered questions.
Why don’t you take a turn answering my questions (and humor me, please, and answer them directly and clearly so that I understand what it is you are answering… saying “When you ask…, the answer is…” so I can’t miss it), and then I’ll answer this one.
Thanks,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
To take the OT as mythic language results in the destruction of Christianity and leads to skepticism on one hand and atheism on the other. If I can take Adam as myth, then I can take Eve and the snake and the garden as myth. If I can take the garden as myth, I can take the event of creation itself as myth. If I can take the creation as myth, I can take the Creator as myth. If I can take the Creator as myth, I can take his commandment to Adam as myth. If I can take his commandment to Adam as myth, I can take his commandments to others as myth. If I can take his commandments as myth, I can take the breaking of his commandments as myth. If I can take the breaking of his commandments as myth, I can take sin as myth. If I can take sin as myth, I can take his promise to redeem and to forgive as myth. If I can take his promise to redeem and forgive as myth, I can take his promise of Christ as myth. If I can take the promise of Christ as myth, I can take Christ Himself as myth. If I can take Christ as myth, I can take his followers as myth. If I can take his followers as myth, I can take everything they wrote as myth. If I can take everything they wrote as myth, I can take the Bible as myth. If I can take the Bible as myth, I can take Christianity as myth. If I can take Christianity as myth, I can take its ethic as myth. If I can take the Christian ethic as myth, I can take morality in general as myth. If I can take morality in general as myth, I can take immorality as myth. If I can take immorality as myth, I can take the view that “slavery and killing babies as being immoral” as myth.
If I can take immorality as such as myth, then I would have no moral objection to the historical events described in the OT. Your objections to the behavior of God in the OT collapse into a radically subjective standard of your own arbitrary invention and conjecture.
But, if I have no moral objections to the behavior of God described in the OT, I really have no reason not to take them as literal historical language. If I have no reason not to take the OT accounts as literal historical language, I have no reason to assign them to myth. If I have no reason to assign the OT accounts to myth, then I have no reason not to believe that Adam and the creation account are to be understood as literal historical accounts God acting in history.
Slippery Slope.
Dan Trabue says
Ed, I don’t think you’re interested in dialog, as you are just ignoring reasonable questions. So, for the most part, I’ll pass on continuing down a one-sided conversation with you. I hope you understand.
But I will address this because I hope to help you see just how the line of reasoning here just does not hold up. You said…
To take the OT as mythic language results in the destruction of Christianity and leads to skepticism on one hand and atheism on the other. If I can take Adam as myth, then I can take Eve and the snake and the garden as myth. If I can take the garden as myth, I can take the event of creation itself as myth. If I can take the creation as myth, I can take the Creator as myth.
1. Of course, in the real world, considering some of the OT text to be using figurative language does not in any real way “destroy” Christianity. That’s just a bit too emotional and hyperbolic to be taken seriously.
I and my faith tradition and local church consider part of the OT to be mythic or otherwise figurative in genre and literary devices, and yet, we are still here, not “destroyed,” still following Christ, still Christian. It has not, as observable in the real world, resulted in the destruction of Christianity. That’s just silly.
Indeed, all of us would say that our faith has never been more alive, more vibrant, more real, more real-world and vital than when we moved to this faith tradition. I invite you, if you are ever in Louisville, KY, to visit Jeff St Baptist Community at Liberty in downtown Louisville. While you may not agree with us on many points, you will not often find a more on-fire and loving and compassionate or wise congregation of Christ followers. If John was literally correct and “by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another…” well, clearly here, you can see the church of Jesus Christ, alive and doing well, thank you very much and praise be to God!
2. As to your (hopefully intentionally silly?) slippery slope fallacy… well sure, anyone can take anything as a myth. This key board I’m typing on COULD be considered “mythic” by some. But why would anyone consider it a myth?
Just because we say that Genesis reads largely as if it were written in a mythic style and was written in a time prior to the era of Modern History telling (beginning in ~500 BC – ~500 AD), does not mean that Christianity is “destroyed,” any more than saying some of Jesus’ stories appear to be parables/use figurative language.
Could I take “the Creation” of the world as Myth? Well, no. Here is the world. It exists. I can touch, feel, measure, observe it. It is real. It came from somewhere, so no, I can not take the creation of the world as a myth because its reality can’t be denied.
Can I take “sin” as a myth? No, of course not. I can see bad behavior, I can see rapes, murders, thefts, abuse and oppression and I can see and measure the harm and pain caused by that. I can’t deny it, it’s there.
So, you silly slippery slope argument is just that: A rather weightless fallacy. It does not rationally hold together and it certainly does not result in the “destruction of Christianity.”
Now, Ed, I would still respectfully encourage you to look at my actual arguments, consider my actual questions, weigh them, think them through, try to answer them. I suspect you will not be able to adequately answer them and you will see that they are pointing to some solid points that I am making and that you are entirely capable of taking note of and considering them. If you can’t answer them, perhaps you should ask yourself, why not?
Or maybe you can answer them and help shed some light on your position and strengthen your case. At any rate, the ball is in your court, brother.
In Christ,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
Why do you think I am not responding to your questions? First, your criteria for non-literal language is based on philosophical grounds, not objective literary rules. If I am wrong, cite the rule. What markers in the text tell us that Adam or Noah is to be taken as non-literal while Moses or Jesus should be taken as literal? Based off your criteria, we can send the entire corpus of Scripture to the non-literal ash heap and ignore the whole darn thing. To say that this is how all ancient histories were recorded is simply false. If you were correct, we could have NO confidence that ancient history is even close in reality to what we think it was. That is where your reasoning takes us, Dan. We end up not knowing if anything from ancient history is reliable. That is simply preposterous.
Now, concerning your outrageous and blasphemous comments regarding the nature of Scripture, I will make a couple of observations.
The Nature of Scripture
The OT Scriptures presents itself as binding and authoritative. Try breaking any number of commandments and see what happens. Moses gave to Israel what God gave to Him. What God gives is binding. Ex. 24 contains the literal, historical event of Israel’s affirmation of the divine covenant. Everywhere Scripture presents itself in the OT, it is presented as authoritative and binding. Challenge it and you end up on the wrong side of a stone.
Jesus Himself shared his view of the OT. He called it unbreakable. He said that it was accurate and only leads to truth by telling the Jews that the reason they erred was because they did not know it. In other words, Scripture is so accurate, if you handle it correctly, you will never be wrong about it’s record. That is astonishing. Jesus said His word would NEVER pass away. He said that anyone who did not observe the Scripture were not of God. Jesus thought that the Word of God actually sanctifies. No word of a man can set you free, can sanctify, or is unbreakable. Clearly Jesus had a traditional, high view of Scripture and affirmed it’s authority in numerous places. The NT writers also made the same affirmations. The early Church affirmed the same. Ancient Judaism also affirmed the authoritative nature of Scripture. The tradition of this view is long and rich.
The Collapse of Moral Objections to OT History and the Nature of Divine Justice
Now, you object to babies being born sinners. You object to God judging a 16 year old. You find the actions of God with Israel to purge the land from the pagans objectionable. What we have to understand is your standard of morality. What is the basis of your objection to this sort of behavior? I have accused you of bringing your personal subjective philosophy to the conversation and imposing your own views on the text of Scripture and you have been utterly silent on that accusation.
The Bible presents OT history as literal, straightforward history with no markers to take it otherwise. Your theory that the OT is like Homer or other ancient writers is unsupportable and without merit.
The Bible present itself as authoritative and binding. It’s commandments are not presented as options. The community of the people of God in both covenants are never presented with God’s word as if it is a nice idea to adopt. In fact, they live with the possibility of stoning, excommunication, and severe discipline if they ignore it. Your objection is based upon autonomous human reason and a worldview that dismisses the biblical accounts and teachings a priori.
By the way, you do NOT have a faith tradition Dan. What you have is a scheme engineered upon the God-hating philosophies of the enlightenment that worships the human intellect and bows at the alter of modern science. That is not a faith tradition. It is the manifestation of antichrist top to bottom. I know, I am not supposed to say such harsh things. I wish it were not the case, but it is what it is and I would do God nor His truth nor His Church no service to say less than I have.
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
your criteria for non-literal language is based on philosophical grounds, not objective literary rules.
To which “objective literary rules” do you refer, Ed? What is your source for “rules…”?
Do you have some authoritative source to which you refer?
Ed…
The Bible presents OT history as literal, straightforward history with no markers to take it otherwise. Your theory that the OT is like Homer or other ancient writers is unsupportable and without merit.
Says who? What is your source? You are making claims and offering no support, Ed. What is your source? Is it authoritative? Is it simply “Ed…”? You have to be prepared to support claims, Ed, especially when you are stating it as if you had authority to support it.
Ed…
The Bible present itself as authoritative and binding.
What is your source? Your support? Again, an empty unsupported claim means nothing, Brother Ed.
Ed…
Your objection is based upon autonomous human reason and a worldview that dismisses the biblical accounts and teachings a priori.
Again, in the real world, my world view was a conservative one that took the Bible literally and seriously. It was THAT world view that led to my rejection of Ed’s opinions, not “dismissing biblical accounts and teachings a priori…” This is just a simple factual error, Ed. You are wrong, but that’s okay. Mistakes happen. Repent and move on.
Let it go.
As to “human reasoning,” I gladly cop to using my God-given reasoning. You do, too, do you not? If you aren’t using your reasoning, what are you using?
Don’t demonize people who use reason, brother, that’s a dangerous and rather nutty road to go down.
Ed…
By the way, you do NOT have a faith tradition Dan. What you have is a scheme engineered upon the God-hating philosophies of the enlightenment that worships the human intellect and bows at the alter of modern science. That is not a faith tradition. It is the manifestation of antichrist top to bottom.
You bring a smile to my face, brother Ed. I know these are meant to demean and demagogue, but their silliness is just so over-the-top that I can’t help but smile.
That I believe in following Jesus’ teachings pretty literally,
that I believe Jesus is the risen son of God, who came teaching us the Way of God’s Grace and Love;
That I strive, by God’s grace, to walk in the steps of my Lord, Jesus,
That I am not willing to make claims about the Bible that Jesus didn’t make, that the Bible doesn’t make…
THIS is all supposed to be evidence of “the manifestation of antichrist…”? Hyperbole, much, friend Ed?
Fellas, it’s okay to disagree with other human opinions. There is no rational reason to literally demonize the Other for the sin of disagreeing with Me. Indeed, that sort of pride and arrogance is something we should be very wary of, my brother.
Or, as Bill Murray once said, “lighten up, Frances…”
Lord, have mercy, you are amusing, but still, it’s a bit sad, this vehemence. Embrace grace, my friend.
In the deep and abiding love of Jesus,
Dan
Oh, and by the way, Ed, I truly do love you as a brother in Christ (as well as anyone can say that of a relative stranger on the internets…). You are created in the image of God, to do good works and I thank God for Ed and his life!
That is, you know, one of the biblical markers of how to recognize God’s followers… love for one another. Can you say the same of me? If not, does that concern you?
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
To say that this is how all ancient histories were recorded is simply false.
Then enlighten me, brother. Expand my knowledge. Cite any ancient literature (prior to 500 BC) that tells stories in the more modern literally factual manner. I am a man of limited knowledge. There COULD be something out there I’m not familiar with. Enlighten me and I will be that much more knowledgeable.
Ed…
Why do you think I am not responding to your questions?
I have no idea. My best guess is that you can’t answer them without exposing the errors in your reasoning, but you tell me. That is, I don’t think there ARE any reasonable answers to my questions if you start with your opinions… that you’ll have to back down from your claims (especially any of your self-styled authoritative claims) in order to answer them.
Or, perhaps in some cases, it’s just that you actually agree with me and perhaps you’re reluctant to admit it? I dunno. For instance, these questions…
[I’ve simply said] that some texts in the bible uses figurative language.
Do you agree with this?
3. I further said that we use our reason to try to decide what is figurative and what is literal.
Do you agree with this?
4. I further said that, while it may be clear to us that this collection of verses are, in our human opinion that we reached using our God-given human reasoning, literal or figurative, that our opinions are not infallible.
Do you agree with this?
I expect that you can agree with each of those, so why you wouldn’t answer them is a bit of a mystery, except maybe you don’t like where they lead? I don’t know, you tell me. That’s why I ask questions.
I’d rather not try to guess your answers, so when seeking clarity of others’ positions, I ask questions. Why wouldn’t I?
Respectfully,
Dan
Dan Trabue says
Ed…
Now, concerning your outrageous and blasphemous comments regarding the nature of Scripture, I will make a couple of observations.
“Blasphemous…”? What have I said about Scripture that could at all be called blasphemous?
Is disagreeing with Ed’s opinion about whether text A is written using figurative language “blasphemous…”? Says who? On what basis would you make such a claim?
Is loving the Bible and striving to take Jesus’ teachings fairly literally blasphemous?
Is stating that my opinions and interpretations about Scripture are my opinions, as are yours… is that “blasphemous…”?
Ed, don’t you think you’re over reacting way too much here? If nothing else, if you’re going to make such scurrilous and serious charges (“blasphemy” “antichrist…” etc) don’t you think you should be prepared to be specific and support such claims? And if you are serious about your concerns, wouldn’t the more respectful and reasonable thing to do be to start with talking to me, personally… Rather than making vague and unsupported charges like this publicly?
From St Paul…
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Being “able to teach” and instructing gently would, it seems to this poor sinner, being clear about what it is your objecting to. As a starting point.
In Christ,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
If you were correct in how you approach Christ Dan, then perhaps I would be over-reacting. But if I am correct, if historic Christian orthodoxy is correct, then how could I be over-reacting? Part of the problem with the American brand of Christianity is its casual attitude towards God, Christ, and Scripture. American Christians are in the drivers seat. They excise from Christianity the elements they don’t like and think they can still get away with calling themselves Christians. Jesus was clear that many will come in his name making such claims and he said that the distinguishing feature between the genuine and the real will be their attitude toward the Word of God. See Matt. 7.
Now, to address your examples of literary devices above: “This car was a lemon from the day I got it” is indeed not to be taken literal. But its meaning is to be taking literal. By lemon, we mean junk. And to say junk from day one may or may not be hyperbole. If it started breaking from day one, we can take it pretty literally. To argue against original sin is to commit the heresy of pelagianism.
You seem to want to treat OT authors as if they were all religious versions of Herodotus. No one is arguing that there may be existed a difference between ancient story telling and historical narrative. The former existing for entertainment and the latter for preserving the truth of certain events. Moses and the rest of the OT authors were not Herodotus or Thucydides or Homer. Pagan secular historians make these sweeping generalizations as do their counter-parts in philosophy. I was amused when I first began studying philosophy to find out that it all began with Thales who lived around 543 B.C. I pretty sure Solomon came several hundred years before Thales and I am pretty sure he was a pretty good philosopher.
As I said from the start of this exchange: the difference between is your view of the nature of Scripture and as it turns out, that has created a perverse view of God’s righteousness and an thoroughly unbiblical view of the nature of man. You defied those who were over you in the LORD, and rather than embracing what you were obligated as a Christian to believe, you rejected your elders teachings and pursued a path that was more amenable to your unregenerate mind. And here we are. You have overthrown Scripture as your final source of authority for faith and practice; you have outright rejected God’s righteous, holy, and just nature in preference for the American love god; finally, you have decided to adopt pelagianism which was rejected by the ancient Church as a clear heresy and perversion of human nature. In short, you hold non-Christian views of the nature of God, the nature of Scripture, and the nature of man to include the nature of sin.
We will not argue you into biblical views of these areas. Only genuine faith in Christ, a true and living faith will lead to a proper understanding of Christian doctrine. My advice to you is to repent and place your entire faith in Christ, wholly submitting your entire life to Scripture, believing all that it says and recognizing it as authoritative and binding for all you think and do.
Ed Dingess says
Dan, I would be happy to talk about alleged contradictions in Scripture and supposed discrepancies (discontinuity and continuity) between the description of God we read in the OT and the one we read in the NT. But you will have to provide specific examples of these contradictions.
We begin with your definition of “a loving God.” What informs your understanding that God is loving in the way you define “a loving God?”
Now, I am going to accuse you of taking the NT writings that describe God as loving as far too literal. That language should be understood in a more non-literal. If Jesus is a myth, I can conclude that God didn’t really give anything at all to demonstrate his love.
You are going to have to show me why one biblical account should be taken literally while the other one should be taken non-literally given that both are presented in exactly the same matter of fact sort of manner.
Dan Trabue says
One other response and then I’ll await to see if you deal with questions asked of you. You said…
I would be happy to talk about alleged contradictions in Scripture and supposed discrepancies (discontinuity and continuity) between the description of God we read in the OT and the one we read in the NT. But you will have to provide specific examples of these contradictions.
This was in response to my comment…
If, by analogia scriptura, you mean… “God‟s Word is presumed by the interpreter to not contradict itself” …then I would just say that this is my problem with your opinion.
I’m just wanting to be clear that I’m speaking of problems with your opinion as it insists upon irrantial inconsistencies with the picture of God you envision with your interpretation. So, I am not speaking of “alleged contradictions in Scripture,” but actual contradictions in your opinion.
I am insisting upon understanding this because, unfortunately, this is a problem I often have seen in more conservative opinions (including my very own, back when I was more conservative)… the notion of conflating of our opinions with God’s Word. When I pointed to “this is my problem with YOUR opinion,” you immediately changed that to “alleged contradictions in Scripture…” as if your opinion on Scripture and Scripture itself were one in the same.
I’m sure that is not your intent, but I am just trying to be as clear and respectful and accurate as possible: My disagreement is not with “Scripture” but with “Ed’s opinion/interpretation of Scripture…”
Just to be sure you all understand my objection.
Now I’ll wait to see if you want to begin addressing some of my questions. Thanks!
Respectfully,
Dan
Rob Dewar says
Dan, replying to your latest to make sure you see the reply, rather than replying way up-thread. I’m going to present a couple of your quotes for you first to show you that I did not make up my accusations against you:
Dan, way up:
“The claim has been made (correct me if I’ve misunderstood, please) that infants, too, are “sinful” because they are “selfish” in that they cry for food. So, in this village, it was not unjust to kill everyone, including the infants, because they too had “selfishly” wanted food, the argument presumably goes…”
Dan, latest response to me:
“And, again, I will gladly apologize if I’ve said anything wrong. Having said that however, you just said, and I quote, “You’ve clearly accused me in the thread above of thinking that babies deserve to be killed because they cry for food…”
As a point of fact, I never did say that, nor did I think it. That’s crazy talk, why would I make such a claim? Of course no one here thinks babies should be killed for crying!”
In the first quote, you clearly presumed that my thinking was that it was just to kill infants (babies) because they had selfishly wanted food, which as you now acknowledge, I did not even imply. Thank you for apologizing (or offering to). I don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill on this single point, but I do want to show why it’s frustrating discussing with you – your position changes from post to post, and you use enough “presumably” and “correct me if …” type phrases to just be able to wiggle out from underneath it most of the time.
Now, some more responses to some of what you said in your response to me (some relevant to your later discussions with Ed, some not):
Dan:
“But there is a difference between saying “That baby will one day sin” and “that baby sinned the moment they were born.”
Agreed?”
Agreed, but I said neither of those things. I said, that baby was sinful from the moment he was born (which you may agree with, I think, but you don’t agree that justice can be executed on the basis of being sinful, as far as I can see – one actually has to commit the sin … I’ve already explained how God can actually see our nature and judge based on that, I don’t believe you responded to that, although some of the next points get close).
Dan:
“A baby can not lie from the day they are born. ! It MUST be figurative, not literal language.
Do you disagree?”
Of course I disagree – why can a baby not lie from the day they are born? You certainly haven’t proved that! You admitted yourself that you don’t know why a baby cries every time it cries or what it means, why can those cries not be lies? Yes, I’m being a bit facetious here, but your presumption of infant innocence doesn’t hold up – at best, you can say “I don’t know” whether they lie or not, but that hardly seems basis to say the passage “MUST” be figurative.
Dan:
“MW defines “sinful” as …”
Please, explain why the MW definition of sinful would be more accurate than any definition from the Bible … you say that “I am familiar with the various Bible meanings of “sin” but I don’t see that they help your case.” I’m using the definition used by Jesus, which I explained in my previous post. Sinful means full of sin – the roots of the tree, the inside of the cup. “A state of the heart which gives rise to sinful action”, perhaps (including word, thought, attitude).
Dan:
“it’s the crime that brings punishment, just from a flatly rational view of justice.
Do you disagree?”
Of course – from a flatly rational view of justice, it’s the intent that brings punishment (mens rea). Or do you suggest that laws against attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder are unjust? No crime has been committed in those cases, only planned. God being greater than us can trace intent back a lot farther than we can.
Dan:
“If mere humans, flawed though we are, can see the injustice of killing or punishing innocent people… if we can see the injustice of an overly harsh penalty… wouldn’t God’s justice be even better than our sense of justice?”
Are you saying that in every case where we perceive an injustice to have occurred, one actually did occur? All I was saying in the point you were responding to was that that is unlikely to be the case, and I’ll stand by that … And yes, God’s justice would be even better than our sense of justice, but I fail to see why that means that he would only judge less harshly than we think he should and not, sometimes, more harshly.
Dan:
“If we’re saying there is Justice, but we don’t – can’t! – really know what it is, then how do we know what it is?”
That is not at all what I said. I said our knowledge (and ability to apply it) of what Justice really is, is imperfect compared to God. Thus if we judge God’s action by our knowledge and judgment, and He comes out unjust, I think it’s likely our knowledge/judgment at fault, and not God’s action. You would rather say that our knowledge/judgment is correct, but God didn’t commit the action.
Dan:
“I don’t believe our sense of Justice or Righteousness is that blighted and fallible that we can’t generally know injustice when we see it. Do you?”
“Can’t” is too strong – even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but you did add “generally”. Can’t consistently, and can’t depend fully on our human sense of justice, yes, I do believe that. I believe that the Bible demonstrates quite clearly that we were dead in our own sin, even if we were created in God’s image. It is all figurative language, but dead is even stronger figuratively than literally. Read Romans 1 and 2, read 1 Corinthians 2, read Ephesians 4, and tell me that I should rely on human understanding and on a human sense of justice to judge what God may or may not have done 3000 years ago … I don’t think that makes sense. I can’t say it better than Proverbs 3:5 – “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.” That’s my approach, and I’m sticking to it …
Dan:
“But if you go from there to, “Well, we can’t see it, but I bet that baby is having selfish thoughts…” that is mere speculation, not definitive or provable at all. It is, at best, a wild and unsupported guess.”
Why is this wild and unsupported, but your assertion that babies aren’t selfish, sinful human beings is not? I can use inductive logic and walk backwards in time to get to my conclusion, you have to rely on the old folk saying “innocent baby” to get yours. Emotionally, I’m with you all the way, but logic and observation just don’t take me down that road (and neither, I believe, does the Bible – the only reason you say those passages are figurative is based on your emotional take, as far as I can see).
Dan:
“COULD God upset those laws of nature, presumably established by God? Sure. But I see no data to support that this is the plan in the here and now.
Do you?”
Do you believe the resurrection literally happened? You’ve said in this thread that you believe the existence of the church points to Jesus’ teachings and existence being true. I believe it actually points to the resurrection being true as well, that teachings and existence would not have been enough … which does imply that God can and has upset the laws of nature, at least once, but chooses not to in other cases of earthly injustice (which I believe is balanced out by eternal justice … not sure what your response to an atheist who doesn’t have that eternal perspective would be).
Anyways, hopefully that gives you and others some more food for thought. I’ll leave you with one final question. Most figurative myth has a point – it has truth embedded in it, even if it didn’t happen literally as told. My biggest problem with the theology that comes through your comments here, is that “figurative” is being used nearly synonymous with “can be ignored” or “doesn’t mean what it says”. I would say figurative language actually does mean what it says, and the parts of the Bible I understand as figurative still mean what they say, and I can underline how if asked on any one of them. In fact, figurative language is usually used to underscore points that can’t be made strongly enough in literal language. So, if the following passages are figurative/mythical and not literal, as you claim, what moral do you think is being taught by them? What literal point is being better-served by using figurative vs literal language? Do they serve any purpose, or should they just be regarded as historically interesting, and not really “Biblically” so (understanding the Bible as a book used to guide the life of Christians)?
– God commanding the Israelites to commit atrocities (especially, not just recounting historical counts of the atrocities, but actually having God command them)
– “I was sinful from the time my mother conceived me…”
– all the texts on Jesus blood being shed for our redemption (you’ve claimed “But we don’t need a “savior” to “purchase” our “salvation…””)
– “lake of fire”, “outer darkness”
– “The wages of sin is death” (you explicitly claimed this one as figurative, not literal)
I look forward to your reply,
Rob
Dan Trabue says
Rob’s questions/comments to me will, I think, help reframe and restate my actual points and see what it is I am asking of you all. I think you all are misunderstanding many of my actual points and instead arguing against points I have not made and do not believe. So, thanks Rob, for your thoughts.
The question I had was with the claim that it was not unjust to kill all of a village, men, women, children and babes. I objected to this reasoning, because if nothing else, newborn babies are innocent and one can not justly kill them. Some here defended the killnig of the whole town including babes because “The problem is your presupposition that there are innocent people in the world. There are none…” (Ed) I was trying to figure out in what rational sense babies could be called “not innocent” and some suggestions were made.
On that topic, I had stated, and Rob took issue with, this comment…
“The claim has been made
(correct me if I’ve misunderstood, please)
that infants, too, are “sinful”
because they are “selfish”
in that they cry for food.
So, in this village, it was not unjust to kill everyone,
including the infants, because
they too had “selfishly” wanted food,
the argument presumably goes…”
What I did here was fairly rational and straightforward. I said
“THIS is what it sounds like, to me, you are saying…”
And…
“Correct me if I’m wrong.”
And then proceeded to say what it sounds like, to me, you (collectively) are saying.
Rob took issue with that, saying…
your position changes from post to post, and you use enough “presumably” and “correct me if …” type phrases to just be able to wiggle out from underneath it most of the time.
First of all, Rob, HOW is saying, “This is what it sounds like you’re saying… correct me if I’m wrong” doing anything other than respectfully, politely trying to repeat back what I’m hearing you say? To say that this is some sort of devious attempt to have “wiggle room” is just a farce of what I’ve done. It’s about being polite, not presumptuous.
Do you understand that?
What is possibly wrong with attempting to repeat back what I think you are saying?
It seems to me that the responsible answer is, IF I have incorrectly summarized your opinion is, “Thank you for asking Dan, but as a point of fact, you are mistaken in your summary. Here is where you made the mistake, I believe…” and correct my polite, respectful summary.
NOT saying that I have made a false charge, but responding politely with a respectful correction to my polite, but mistaken, summary.
Agreed?
I think you are being too emotional, too easily offended here, brother. I was simply trying to repeat back what I understood your position to be, and asking politely if that was it.
Is that not exceedingly respectful and reasonable?
So, while I can apologize for not understanding correctly (if that is the case, which I’m still not sure to be true), but I won’t apologize for asking you “Is this your position?” based on my best understanding of your position. That is just how respectful conversation happens, friend.
=======
Now, moving from that procedural point to the meat…
MY position and question has been a simple one…
The problem with the human theory that God sometimes, In Israel’s history, commanded people to kill entire populations, including infants, is that at the very least, the infants are innocent, by definition, of any crime. Thus to implement the death penalty against an entirely innocent babe for no sins of their own is a travesty of justice, it is an atrocity, nothing less.
If and when this happens today, you all agree… to specifically target and kill babies in raids against human “enemies” is an atrocity, a crime against humanity.
The argument against this problem in taking these passages literally has been voiced by multiple people, including Ed, Grant, John and anaquaduck, and perhaps Rob… is that there ARE no innocent people in the world. Period.
Again, Ed’s words… “The problem is your presupposition that there are innocent people in the world. There are none.” [emphasis, mine]
This is a claim that strains credibility. “What?” Other people ask, amazed… “Babies are not innocent? That just sounds crazy, you know?!”
And so I ask the reasonable question, “What are babies guilty of? What sins have they committed?”
This line of questioning went largely unanswered, although, bravely Rob did try to address it. He and I seemed to agree that it is reasonable to say that babies – all of humanity – have a sinful nature… a tendency to sin, given the opportunity. But having a sinful nature, I clarified, is not the same as actually sinning.
I may have a tendency to abusively drink alcohol, but I should not be arrested for drunk driving unless I actually have gotten drunk, right?
So, I have tried to get an accurate understanding of what exactly it is that you all, collectively, are trying to say that newborn babes are guilty of that they can reasonably face a death penalty punishment in these biblical stories. The closest to anyone stepping up to answer this has been by good, brave Rob, who made claims like this one…
“when you ask, what attitude could a baby possibly have that could be considered sinful, I really think that selfishness (me first!) is at the core of every human’s being”
I questioned whether or not a babe crying for food or a clean diaper or for attention is in ANY rational sense at all called “selfish.” But still, that was the closest that I heard of anything like an answer to my reasonable question.
And so, given that history, and your series of answers, (and here is the critical part, Rob), given all of that…
It sounded like to me that you were saying
“So, the babies in the OT could be killed by Israel, at God’s command, and not be a crime against humanity/atrocity/great evil, because those babies were not innocent before God… ultimately, they were selfish, for instance… therefore, they were NOT innocent before God and could reasonably receive a death sentence and people could be commanded to kill them because they were sinners…”
In the ultimate answer to my question, that APPEARS to be what you are saying.
Now could I be mistaken? Sure. If I am, please correct me. If they are not being punished because of some sin on their part – selfishness, for instance – then how is punishing the innocent a “just” or rational thing to do?
And understand: My saying “This sounds like what you’re saying” is not an attack, it’s not a false charge, it’s not a falsehood, it’s not an attempt to slander you… it is a simple attempt at understanding your position and making sense of it.
I greatly appreciate your willingness to try to actually answer the questions I have asked, Rob. Please respect that I may not have perfect understanding of your position and will respectfully seek clarity.
The ball’s in your collective court, bros.
In Christ,
Dan
Rob Dewar says
Dan,
I am human, perhaps (probably) I am occasionally too quick to anger. Your posts read to me more as you intentionally reframing the points I had made in an outrageous way to try to discredit them. If you were truly instead stating your understanding of those points, then it was your understanding that was deficient and not your rhetorical style, and I made the classic mistake of attributing something to maliciousness rather than to ignorance … forgive me for that. I will suggest that you have repeatedly stated that you’ve heard all of our arguments before, and that that attitude can and often does lead to people not really reading and considering their opponent’s arguments, but rather assuming that it’s exactly the same as they’ve heard a million times before, when they should be reconsidering whether or not perhaps they’ve missed some nuances in there … everyone is guilty of this, not exclusively you!
Procedural matter hopefully laid to rest :).
Now, on the topic of the sinful nature of man – what I’m not trying to do is defend the specific instance of the Canaanite “atrocities”, but the concept of original sin. I believe it does have an impact on understanding the rest of the Bible (both OT and NT), but it’s not a direct thing. Earlier in this thread I referenced Jesus’ teachings on the tower of Siloam, where he made it clear that a) God was in control and b) the people did not die because of anything they actually did (or thought). Until or unless we agree on some form of original sin, whether using that term or not, the rest of my or anyone else’s arguments in this thread will make very little progress. I believe that the core differences between us that make your point of view logical to you are:
1) Original sin – I see the fall into sin as corrupting all of humankind, completely. Not that there is not still a small measure of the light of nature present, not that we can’t be genuinely loving and kind, but that we are in far worse condition (when compared with the ideal) than we think we are.
2) God’s providence – I think it’s illogical to believe in an all-powerful God and then say that he has no ability to set up (directly or indirectly) natural conditions that lead to natural-appearing or even human-directed outcomes, even if you say that that restricted ability is by his choice. I believe that that is why your position is ultimately no more acceptable to the atheist, and ultimately no more recognized as “logical” than mine is. That’s a pragmatic judgment, but you have used the pragmatic argument a few times as well (quote: “do you see how irrational and immoral that seems on the face of it? Do you understand how many – believers and non-theists alike – would find that claim just as immoral as “hell…”?”).
I think the only way to understand the types of passages under question is by a thorough trust in God. For me, that implies that I have to trust that God is in control no matter how dark the situation or story seems, and that in an eternal perspective, it will come out right. That if it’s difficult to understand, it’s because I haven’t yet figured out (and may not ever figure out) how to understand it (I won’t quit trying though :). For you, you trust the same thing, except (it seems to me, I’m guilty of paraphrasing you here) that you insist that the darkness probably isn’t there to start, so an eternal perspective is not required, and that you can pretty much understand it.
I’ll get into specific questions and points in my response to your next response, once I have time to type it out (which is not immediately) … so any response here would be premature, but go for it if you want ;).
Ed Dingess says
I cannot help but wonder if it is a fair question to ask if Dan is an apostate. Personally, I believe it is and I think the answer to that question is yes. The next question we have to then ask is does Scripture provide instructions around how we in the Christian community are to relate with or to those who are apostate and who are doing all they can to infect others in the body with their teachings. I fully appreciate that my suggesting is about as counter-culture as it could possible be. But I am not very concerned with being culturally correct. I am just thinking out loud here. I view this issue as a very big. It is critical for the sanctification of the body.
Dan Trabue says
Now, to address some of Rob’s points/questions to me…
Of course I disagree – why can a baby not lie from the day they are born? You certainly haven’t proved that!
1. First of all, to be clear I am primarily saying that “I have NO DATA on which to base a claim that ‘newborn babies sin.’ There is, so far as I have ever heard absolutely zero claims to hard data to support that claim.
Is there even ONE shred of data to support that claim?
1a. If someone responds, “Yes! The data that supports that claim is that the Bible says ‘I have been a sinner from my mother’s womb!” I would respond by noting that this is the question ultimately being asked, thus you’re begging the question. That is, the question is “Ought passages that say ‘I have sinned from birth’ or ‘No one is righteous, all have sinned…’ be taken literally or figuratively?”
Thus, you can’t say, “Yes, they should be taken literally because the bible says “all have sinned,” therefore, there is the proof!” That is question begging. You first have to support it outside your particular interpretation before insisting it is correct.
2. I would say that, the way the bible speaks of sin and what is just plain reasonable is this: That sin is those deliberate acts/behaviors/attitudes that can reasonably be expected to cause harm, cause damage or cause separation.
Thus, the infant with no motor control who flails their arm, knocks over a candle and starts a fire that kills ten people has NOT in any reasonable sense “sinned.” There was no reasonable expectation of intent to cause harm there.
2a. For this reason, I don’t think that one can speak of an infant or person with extremely limited mental reasoning is capable of sinning in any reasonable manner.
2b. Yes, we can sin unintentionally, but that is more reasonably speaking of behaviors we engage in that can reasonably be expected might cause harm. The person who took medicine, got drowsy and drove somewhere impaired and then crashed and killed someone had a reasonable expectation that they might harm someone, even though it was nothing at all like intentional.
But this is different than the person who has no ability to reason their way to understand intent doing something that causes harm. That is simply a tragedy, an accident, a disaster, but not a sin.
I do not believe you could find any Bible verse to contradict this and, just as importantly (since I don’t think the Bible is rightly considered a Rule Book), this is just basic sound reasoning.
So, I think reasonable people can agree that a newborn baby, with no great ability to reason things through, can intentionally sin in attitude or action. If biblically “sin” is rejecting God or rejecting God’s Way… there is zero data to support that an infant can do this.
Now, I am open to data to support the claim, if you have any data. But merely pointing to the Bible and saying, “But when it says here ‘all have sinned…’ then I, personally hold the opinion that this includes babies…” is not data. It is an unsupported opinion.
Fair enough?
Or, if I am mistaken, please show me where and help me out.
Thanks.
Rob…
Why is this wild and unsupported, but your assertion that babies aren’t selfish, sinful human beings is not?
Because you have no data to support your hunch. Do you have any? If so, please offer it.
Rob…
from a flatly rational view of justice, it’s the intent that brings punishment (mens rea). Or do you suggest that laws against attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder are unjust?
Crime includes intent. Thus, it is a crime to plan a murder, but it isn’t murder. It’s the PLANNING in that case that is the crime.
Rob…
So, if the following passages are figurative/mythical and not literal, as you claim, what moral do you think is being taught by them? What literal point is being better-served by using figurative vs literal language?
God commanding the Israelites to commit atrocities (especially, not just recounting historical counts of the atrocities, but actually having God command them)
These stories come from a time before more literal history telling (which historians say begins in the time of 500 BC – 500 AD, roughly). They are, I would suppose, stories loosely based upon actual peoples and events, but with some fantastical elements added, not by way of “lying” or “distorting” but simply because that was the way of storytelling in that time period. The purpose being to emphasize the everlasting story that God is with us, God cares for us, God is a God of love and justice, etc…
– “I was sinful from the time my mother conceived me…”
Clearly hyperbole, to emphasize our own sinful nature. It’s not rational to take this literal in any way at all. HOW can a zygote (from the time my mother conceived me) without a BRAIN possible be sinful? How can a newborn lie? These are clearly hyperbolic in nature, just like Jesus’ “If you eye causes you to sin, gouge it out!”
– all the texts on Jesus blood being shed for our redemption (you’ve claimed “But we don’t need a “savior” to “purchase” our “salvation…””)
A way of explaining to people in a culture where blood sacrifices were normal and accepted the notion of God’s sacrificial Way of life, where God and we who follow God can “pour out our lives” as a sacrifice for others. It’s all about love and grace, not a business deal sealed in blood. The “blood sacrifice” idea are part of ancient cultures – many of which were not theistic at all – and I see no biblical or rational reason to try to make them literal.
– “lake of fire”, “outer darkness”
– “The wages of sin is death”
Ways of emphasizing the severe pain, problems and separation caused by sin, not a literal reality.
You may not agree with me, but these are at least reasonable attempts at explanations… that is, you may not ultimately agree with the symbolism, but you can’t say that it is entirely unreasonable conclusion that some people might reach.
Thanks for asking,
Dan
anaquaduck says
“{from a flatly rational view of justice, it’s the intent that brings punishment (mens rea). Or do you suggest that laws against attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder are unjust?
Crime includes intent. Thus, it is a crime to plan a murder, but it isn’t murder. It’s the PLANNING in that case that is the crime.” Dan
Regarding sin though & God’s justice. To plan a crime is sin, to commit a crime is sin & humanity is already judged to be sinful because of our first parents disobedient act. Sin is in our nature as David illuminates something that science cannot reveal due to its limitedness & often bias interpretation through the lens of evolution with its fantastical elements.
The wages of sin are death, not some unchanging natural law or circle of life that has no absolute meaning & is all accidental.There will always be a problem when you try to impose your own personal philosophy & force it into or over the historical narrative of Scripture. In this sense you are always going to create problems for yourself that cant help but deny the supernatural power of God that created all things & raised Jesus from the dead.
….
“These stories come from a time before more literal history telling (which historians say begins in the time of 500 BC – 500 AD, roughly). They are, I would suppose, stories loosely based upon actual peoples and events, but with some fantastical elements added, not by way of “lying” or “distorting” but simply because that was the way of storytelling in that time period. The purpose being to emphasize the everlasting story that God is with us, God cares for us, God is a God of love and justice, etc…” Dan
Surely this is vauge & lacks clarity yet it would seem you accept this statement by faith alone in Dan alone without bringing anything of merit to the table. Although you claim to hold two views the truth is they are not compatible & so you are always switching between one or the other.
Just because beliefs & cultures have similarities deosnt mean there was no primary original or that others dont operate from falsehood. you dont have to look to far today to see this as people, companies & nations are swayed by each other.
“These stories come from a time before more literal history telling (which historians say begins in the time of 500 BC – 500 AD, roughly”
Can you provide a reference for this claim please ? sureley there is more to this & sureley it is debatable…
.
Dan Trabue says
anaquaduct, and others…
There will always be a problem when you try to impose your own personal philosophy & force it into or over the historical narrative of Scripture.
I’m telling you, friends, that this is a flat out falsehood. This does not fit the facts of the matter. Now, I’m sure this falsehood is just from ignorance and misunderstanding, not an intentional lie. But I’ve corrected this same sentiment several times, friends. At some point, one might have to wonder if it’s just an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, friends. Please cease and desist.
The facts are: I was very conservative in my religious beliefs. I took the Bible fairly literally, as you all still do. And because I took the Bible literally, and because of my conservative Christian approach to the Bible, I had to change my opinion NOT because of “my personal philosophy” nor because of any outside influence, but because that is what I believe to be more true to biblical teaching.
This repeated innuendo that I’m just trying to “make the bible fit” a liberal world view or a “personal philosophy” is just a falsehood, and thou shalt not bear false witness, right?
So, respectfully I’m asking you to cease with the false witness. I’ve clarified your misunderstanding so that now you know the facts of the matter, there is no need for anyone to repeat that falsehood any more.
If you value truthtelling. And I am absolutely certain you all do.
Thank you,
Dan
Dan Trabue says
I had said…
“These stories come from a time before more literal history telling (which historians say begins in the time of 500 BC – 500 AD, roughly”
and Anaquaduct reasonably asked…
Can you provide a reference for this claim please ? sureley there is more to this & sureley it is debatable…
This is a reasonable and fair question. IF there are ancient histories told in a literally factual style, then Genesis could be written in that style… that is, if people told histories in a literally factual style in that day, then Genesis could be part of that history. So, the question is, DID people write histories in that style in that time period or not?
My point has been that the era of Modern History began with Herodotus and Thucydides, around 500 BC to 500 AD. Prior to that, history just wasn’t told in a literal, linear, factual style as we see happen afterwards. On what basis do I believe this?
There are two people that scholars have traditionally considered the “father of modern history…” Herodotus 484-425 BC) and Thucydides (460 – 395 BC).
“Widely referred to as “The Father of History” (first conferred by Cicero), he was the first historian known to collect his materials systematically and critically, and then to arrange them into a historiographic narrative.”
[from his wikipedia page, just for convenience]
“Thucydides has been dubbed the father of “scientific history” because of his strict standards of evidence-gathering and analysis of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods, as outlined in his introduction to his work.”
[from his wikipedia page, just for convenience]
Prior to these fellas, literally factual history telling just does not appear to exist as a genre, just like science fiction or mysteries as genres did not exist. It is not an indication of anything other than the storytelling genres that existed at the time. We don’t call the ancient stories “bad” or “unreliable” or “false” because there were no mystery genre stories, nor should we consider more mythic or epic histories bad or false because they are told in the genres of the day.
I’ll provide a link below to a source citing most of the known ancient literature, where you can see the Hebrew texts, along with Gilgamesh, the Story of Sinuhe and others.
http://www.ancient-literature.com/timeline.html
If you read these, you will find some are poetry, some are hymns, some are instructions and some are narrative stories, relaying events. But in each of them, you will find fantastic elements that you would not accept as literal history (the exception being the Hebrew OT texts).
What I am saying is that I have seen no evidence that prior to ~500 BC, there existed a linear, literally factual history telling as a style. You almost certainly don’t accept the miraculous creation story of the gods in the Hindu Brahmanas narrative, nor of the various gods and fantastical elements within Gilgamesh, or the gods and human flights/miracles within the Egyptian story of Sinuhe. I would suppose you don’t insist that ANY of these other stories should be taken as literally factual history. But you want to make an exception for one collection of stories… the Hebrews OT.
On what rational basis/on what criteria/rubric would we form a hypothesis that these stories MUST be taken as literal history?
The fact that a story is told that sounds like it involves real people and places?
These other texts do that.
The fact that people at the time believed them to be literal histories?
These other texts do that.
What is the rubric that would rationally differentiate the OT from these other texts, and that would say they are told in a different genre that does not appear to exist at all in ALL of ancient literature?
I’ll gladly entertain some reasonable rubric.
But not merely an appeal to tradition or cultural preference.
Fair enough?
Respectfully,
Dan
Ed Dingess says
No Dan, that is not what you are saying at all. You entering the investigation by illegitimately imposing your presupposition that no such linear, literally factual history exists prior to ~500 B.C. And from there, you are dismissing any evidence (the entire OT) that suggests your presupposition is false. It is the genetic fallacy and you refuse to come to grips with it, not because you just don’t want the OT to be historical reality. Your rejection is based on your prior, if not newly adopted, belief that the God of historic, traditional Christianity is a God you have come NOT to like, not even in the slightest. Therefore, your system must be imposed on the text in order, not to discover truth about God, but so that it tells the very story you desperately WANT it to tell.
You have not addressed Hosea speaking about Adam historically violating a real covenant just as Israel was doing during his day. You have not dealt with the fact that Luke includes Adam in his genealogy. You have not dealt with Jude who mentions Adam alongside Enoch. He also mentions Moses’ death, Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain, the error of Balaam, the rebellion of Korah. Josephus gives us a detailed account of creation.
Your answer is not an answer. There are numerous reasons for us to take the OT as plain historical narrative given its nature and how the rest of Scripture treats it. But genuine faith is required in order to possess a true understanding of the nature of Scripture and THAT, and THAT ALONE is our problem. In the absence of genuine faith, men will conjure up opposing images of God, and numerous humanistic theories on the nature of Scripture all of which are based on a godless, pagan, autonomous philosophy aimed at elevating man and making God tolerable to the wicked and deceitful unregenerate heart.
Dan Trabue says
One more point. I said…
On what rational basis/on what criteria/rubric would we form a hypothesis that these stories MUST be taken as literal history?
It’s not only that you are saying “It’s reasonable that these stories might have been told as literal history…” but you all, collectively appear to be saying that we MUST believe them as literal history… it’s not an option to hold a different opinion than the popular traditional one.
So there’s really two questions:
One: On what rational basis do you think these stories should be taken as literal history?
Two: On what rational basis do you insist upon total agreement with that theory and, short of total agreement, one can not be a Christian (or a “good Christian…” if you are more tolerant than Ed appears to be on that point)?
Ed Dingess says
I drive a silver 2014 GMC Sierra. I live in North Carolina. I was born in West Virginia. I have three sons and a daughter.
My truck is the bomb. The state in which I live is hotter than Hades in August. West Virginia has more mountains than the sea has fish. My second oldest son is a giant.
When I was a young man, my oldest son at one week old was admitted to the hospital for pneumonia. I was very scared that he would die.
Bruce Symons says
Ed, regarding your post about where you live and what you drive I’m not quite sure what you consider you have done. That is, I am inferring that you were intending to refer to reality. So you have simply illustrated literal and figurative _language_ and not whether that language refers to something which might be mythical in some way.
Peace
Bruce
Rob Dewar says
To respond to some of your points:
Dan:
“I have NO DATA on which to base a claim that ‘newborn babies sin.’
I have NO DATA either way on the question, and no conceivable (pun intended) way to collect such data. Your position (that we are not all sinful, until we have sinned) is not based on data, but on logic and definitions. Your argument depends heavily on circular logic – which I have no problem with, every argument is circular at some level. Using your own words:
“sin is those deliberate acts/behaviors/attitudes that can reasonably be expected to cause harm, cause damage or cause separation.”
“Yes, we can sin unintentionally, but that is more reasonably speaking of behaviors we engage in that can reasonably be expected might cause harm.”
“So, I think reasonable people can agree that a newborn baby, with no great ability to reason things through, can intentionally sin in attitude or action.”
No surprise – your definition matches your conclusion and vice versa. But you have that little word “deliberate” in there. You do have to talk around “sin unintentionally” and then qualify your conclusion with “intentionally sin” though, so it’s clear that it’s not completely illogical to separate the concept of sin from the concept of intention.
Ironically, I believe that your definition of sin (with intention tied in) is very OT. I believe that it’s also very “modern” – the concept of us humans being so blind to our own condition as to be called dead in it isn’t popular for any number of reasons, but not because it’s not rational (it’s very rational to believe that people can’t recognize their own shortcomings, and that everyone has inherent shortcomings). I think Jesus’ entire teaching ministry is involved in showing how it’s not what you DO that matters nearly as much as who you ARE. I’ve cited several examples of this several times.
You’re willing to trace the commission of the crime back to the intent and “criminalize” that. This is on the basis that it’s volitional, but I have to question how up-to-date you really are with crime studies, as, while it may be volitional, a lot of it is also inevitable. I believe that social factors really do play into crime rates – but that that does not impact the personal responsibility of those who commit the crime. In fact, I think your whole definition of sin is really a definition of crime, and I think sin takes it to the next level.
In fact, at a psychological level, how much of intent is itself intentional? Ie, how much control do I have over my intentions? The very word “intentional”, and the way it’s used, implies that the intent is its own thing and that it is in some ways pre-volitional. It traces back, again, to who you are – and who we are is sinful human beings who need to be remade by the Spirit. There is no logical reason to believe that we can recognize, diagnose or treat our own condition.
A few more specific responses to your points …
Dan:
“Because you have no data to support your hunch. Do you have any? If so, please offer it.”
No, I don’t, just as you don’t. I do have arguments and logic to support it – boiled down, we’re all evidently sinful as soon as we’re able to express it, why would it not be present in us before that? If your definition of “sin” includes “evidence”, then, no, we may not have personally committed a sin, but I don’t see it as a necessary part of that definition, as expressed above.
Dan:
“Crime includes intent.”
Indeed, it does, but where does the intent come from? Our will, of course. If our will was not broken and sinful, would it not be possible to have a “perfect” human who never sinned? And yet you’ve acknowledged that, given time, we will all sin, and that’s what the Biblical language means. Logically then, our will is inclined to sin … ie, sinful.
Dan:
“HOW can a zygote (from the time my mother conceived me) without a BRAIN possible be sinful?”
Again, depends on your definition of “sinful”. Not just of “committing a sin”, but actually “sinful”.
Dan:
“I see no biblical or rational reason to try to make them literal.”
This gets into the sacraments and the reason for them, in my opinion. We are humans, and as such are not creatures of pure logic and reason. We aren’t computers. Literal, actual, occurrences hit us on a visceral, real level that theory does not. Why did God not create us all in a perfect state and take us directly into heaven? Why create us as literal actual human beings, with all the mess that incurs first? Because that’s what we are – “literal” and “real” are part of it, as much as we try to deny it …
“You may not agree with me, but these are at least reasonable attempts at explanations” – I actually agree that they are reasonable attempts at explanations, but the reasonable-ness of them is bound up in an extra-Biblical viewpoint. I know that you keep re-iterating that “I had to change my opinion NOT because of “my personal philosophy” nor because of any outside influence”, but you also then make the claim that the Bible (OT) has to be understood like all other pre-500 BC literature, that the definition of sin has to match our human definition of crime, that the words of Jesus should be judged as literal vs figurative based on your logic of what must be literal or figurative.
Your background is Baptist, and I actually see where you’re coming from based on that background and reading of the Bible – there’s a reason I’m not a Baptist! I think they have retained a lot of historical Biblical knowledge in their churches, but have pulled out a few of the crucial underpinnings of them. I believe that a renewed interest in Reformed theology is a result of various Baptist figures realizing this. Ironically, I believe that the same theology is embedded in the various orthodox flavors of Christianity as well (including Roman Catholic), but that, rather than pull out the underpinnings, they’ve added huge amounts of ornamentation, to the point where the whole structure is groaning under the weight of it. If you’ll forgive me for going way off-topic with a crazy metaphor … I believe what you’re doing with your theology is, you’re insisting that you “know where we’re coming from”, but you don’t, not really, as where you’re coming from looks similar on a lot of levels, but does not have the same foundation. And instead of building it up, you’re tearing it further down – on a personal level, I won’t judge you as Christian or not, but on a theological level, of course I’m going to present you with the alternative, and where I see you specifically going wrong (as other posters here are doing).
anaquaduck says
Seriously Dan, where does Scripture in Scripture teach the non literal interpretation…it doesnt, time & again, even within the poetry is a rich & strong vein of historical narrative & miraculous or super natural power. By your own admission you have adopted Rationaism & it is by its principles you either confirm or deny things that Jesus himself taught. Trusting in a particular style of literature will not bring you closer to God & if you dont beleive the ‘Holy’ Bible is holy & we need fallen & limited human logic to over rule then I am puzzled how you come to a conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah who’s lineage can be traced back to Abraham or Adam for that matter.
Where does Jesus say we need a rational basis or a Roman historian to understand Scripture which was written before the Roman historian was born. Wouldnt you be better off understanding Hebrew.
The problem with your second point regardless of what you think of Ed (who has some great stuff to say also) is what does Jesus think about who is or isnt a Christian. I would say the Apostles creed would be a good place to start in terms of belief & conversion.
Jesus taught that even if someone came back from the dead people would still not believe. Luke 16: 19-31.That puts rationilism & Christianity at odds I would say. I am holding onto Jesus there or better still, He is holding onto me, as promised.