“Whoever, then, thinks that he understand the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought.” - Augustine, On Christian Doctrine
Just found out today that there were 18 comments waiting for moderation. Sorry — still no idea why. You’re not all using bad language are you?
Sorry to friends in other countries for whom I spoiled the ending of the American Idol contest. I’ll be sure not to tell you that the Mavs beat the Spurs (Hurrah!) in game 7 — just in case you don’t get that game until next week.
On today’s excellent quote….Yeah - well try getting “him” to admit that.
“The right to be wrong in matters of religious belief must be accorded, otherwise we produce hypocrites instead of persons with an enlightened belief that is fully their own. If the truth be might and God all-powerful, His children need not fear that disaster will follow freedom of thought.” (Francois De Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambrai)
“Truth may be stretched, but cannot be broken, and always gets above falsehood, as oil does above water.” (Miguel de Cervantes in Don Quixote)
The scriptures can be twisted, distorted and slanted. When this happens they may be used to undo the very purpose of God who gave them. When the written word is so wrested as to defeat the purpose, plan and prayer of the Living Word, something is indeed seriously wrong. (Carl Ketcherside, The Twisted Scriptures)
Peace.
Maybe Joshua should have talked to Augustine before he showed the love of God to Jericho.
I think Augie and Josh lived in different times. Augie understood the Great Commandment!
Great quote.
What would our churches and world look like if we saw every decision, every prayer, every song, every outreach, every ministry event through the lens of loving God and loving neighbor?
What?! Mavs beat the Spurs? We just got the NBA All-Star game!
“Why did God make our bodies toot? Toots stink!” - Anna Claire Boone (age 4), On Flatulence
Grant - I’ll attempt to find an answer in my history of textual criticism class before it’s over today.
Mike, pretty good quote………but I don’t put much stock in it. He wasn’t a MOTC. Even if he was, we would have to see how he lined up on all the “issues”…….and I doubt he would cut the mustard even then.
Nice try though.
DU
Thanks for sharing that with us Mike. I like to read things from men long ago who said things that would be considered radical today.
I think quotes like these show how we’ve slid backward in our thinking as we move forward in time. Many of our Restorationist fathers would not be welcome in our churches today…including the Campbell’s and Stone. Sad.
David,
Maybe I should have said God and Augustine. I am pretty sure they lived in the same time.
I am pretty sure Joshua thought it was God giving him the command. I guess it blows the immutability quality of God if you beieve the OT.
Grant:
And my boys are working on ways to make their toots stink more.
Great quote. Do you think that is where the church of Christ has fallen short, preaching and teaching doctrine without moving people toward love of God and neighbor? How different would our churches look if that were the case? Would it effect leadership with in the church? I believe our doctrine should lead people into a deeper relationship with God and that the wonderful love and grace of God should motivate us to extending it to our neighbors.
Mike-
My crime against your blogging service was committed several days ago on the DaVinci post. I used a word that, er, describes an activity that husbands and wives will occasionally share in private moments. Apparently, it is a bad, bad word, and it sent me to comment purgatory - I suppose to give me time to think about what I’d done.
As blog administrator and my minister, please let me know if I need to be saying Hail Marys or something of that nature to redeem myself from that vile act.
I’ve been doing quite a bit of thinking and writing on this subject (hermenuetical approach) and how it affects our walk recently. We are called by Jesus to hunger and thirst for “righteousness.” Perhaps we’ve missed the point. A quote from my most recent post on my blog:
“Rightness is the winning of a logical argument. Righteousness is doing and being what I was made to do and to be.”
We were made to be “righteous” in other words, to reflect God’s nature fully… which MEANS love. We often have thought we were called to hunger and thirst for being “right.” One more quote from my blog:
“The hunger for rightness is the pursuit of self; the hunger for righteousness is submission to God.
My desire to be right leads me to competition and division; my desire for righteousness leads me to cooperation and unity.
My ‘rightness’ grows out of my own reasoning; my ‘righteousness’ springs from a transformed sense of being.”
Really understanding scripture has more to do with being transformed by God’s Word and less to do with proving the “rightness” of my own approaches.
Well, what does the Bible say about what this Augustine person say? That’s all I care about.
(I notice you’re not calling him “St. Augustine.” Is that a part of denominationalism the progressive movement hasn’t embraced yet?)
Lisa,
I am a saint. Is it an error to refer to someone else as one?
My parents have said many wise things to me. I made the mistake of ignoring many of them as I was growing up. The Bible doesn’t say anything specifically about my parents.
(Sorry, I’m letting my frustration show.)
Back to the point,
Mike, what is the argument that many in the Churches of Christ (the denomination) state saying “scripture isn’t interpreted”? There’s a scripture they use to defend that, and I can’t find it.
That is pretty dadgum funny, Matt!
Glenn,
I believe you are thinking of the concept of a “priesthood of all believers” and as far as 1 verse, I think it is a combination of deductive reasoning with many verses that we get this idea. Here is something I found on a Church of Christ website…I don’t know that I agree with the conclusions or the thoughts behind it, otherwise, why wouldn’t a God who created the world out of nothing teach us Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so that we could understand the original intent (tongue in cheek…I know I am taking a jab at the author of this writing):
1. Why would God speak, if not to be understood? If God created us (James 3:9), then He knows the range of our mental capacities.
2. Salvation is inherently tied to understanding the gospel message (Mark 16:15-16; Romans 1:16; 10:17; Matthew 13:19,23). If one can’t understand, then they can’t believe and be saved.
3. We are commanded to acquire the correct understanding (Eph. 5:17; 2 Timothy 2:15).
4. Paul said that when we read we could understand it just like he understood it (Ephesians 3:3-5).
5. Jesus rebuked people for not understanding God’s will (Matthew 22:29).
6. God can create the world out of nothing (Psalm 33:6), but He can’t author a book that all can understand?
7. God commands us to be united, but then gave us a revelation which is impossible to reach agreement upon? (John 17:20-21)
Mike: Your quote for the day reminds me of the observation Jesus once made about a fisherman. He said that every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old. Thanks for sharing this new, old treasure. Or, is it an old, new treasure? Whatever. This also makes me think that the so-called old hermeneutic was once new. I’m not sure if it ever was a treasure, though. My prayer is that we all just learn to be more like Jesus in the things we think, say and do.
Ah, now there’s the rub. Interpretation through the lens of a God who so loved the world he gave his only son, that we might live, versus our cultural and predetermined ideas of what we want the word to be interpreted.
Glenn:
Could it be the verses you have in mind are found in 2 Peter 1? Here’s what you find in the KJV:
***Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.***
Here’s how the TNIV renders these verses:
***Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.***
I think we should be careful not to set up a false dichotomy between love and doctrine. As I read the Bible, love is doctrine.
Thanks, Bill. Yes, I believe that was the requested passage. The point isn’t that the Bible is easy to understand and doesn’t need interpretation; rather, 2 Peter is talking about prophecy’s origin.
Leland,
Sometimes the love of God is spelled W-R-A-T-H.
Monty,
The love of God includes killing every man, woman, child, animal belonging to Jericho simply for their land?
Nice felt board children’s story portraying God’s faithfulness, but in reality it is called genocide in the 21st century.
Come on! How is this loving at all. Takes some serious theological manuevering to justify it. Better stretch beforehand.
Mike, I remember on your blog of May 10 on “Inorganic Music” that you said, “God doesn’t care much (about what kind of music we use). Most of the old arguments were lame, built on shoddy hermeneutics.” Later in the same posting you mentioned our “a capella tradition” saying “that doesn’t mean it’s God’s way.” I read all 141 comments on that blog and I was hoping that you or one of your respondents would give the hermeneutics proving that instrumental music was acceptable to God or saying that really God doesn’t care what kind of music we use in worship to God, but I never found it.
Two quick thoughts: some have ridiculed the use of Nadab & Abihu as examples of displeasing God in worship, but Leviticus 10:1 says they “offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.” Others ridiculed the use of Noah and the ark as an example of pleasing God but Genesis 7:5 we read that Noah did according unto all that “the Lord commanded him.” If it’s OK to use mechanical instruments in NT worship, surely we have a commandment for it. If it’s not commanded, then maybe we had better look at Nadab & Abihu again.
I’ve noticed very few Scriptural references on the subject of instrumental music but plenty of “I like, I don’t see anything wrong with it, people enjoy it…..etc.”
How could you convince someone by the Bible that instrumental music is acceptable to God?
When someone says that instrumental music is “not a salvation issue” who determines what is and what is not a “salvation issue?” Does John 4:24 describe a “salvation issue?”
Love is spelled Wrath? How twisted has our theology become? We continue to justify the genocidal slaughter of Jericho as the pure will of God, while condemning those who worship God with instruments. I’m still waiting on a way to believe that either of those is reconcilable with a God who is all-merciful. And I’m not just trying to raise an unpleasant issue- I believe issues like these (especially the former) are at the core of why many young Christians find the faith they grew up in distasteful.
What’s American Idol?
Brett,
Could it be that we have been lax in teaching the full, absolute sovereignty of God to our young people? He is sovereign, you know.
I’d suggest we study God’s responses to Job’s insolence in questioning God’s decisions. Are we meant to understand, in human terms, EVERY decision made by God? Or are some things left to test our true faith and trust in Him?
Are there not actions by the people of Jericho prior to its destruction that might give us a deeper insight to God’s decision to destroy the city and all its inhabitants?
Also, God cannot lie. He gave a promise to Abraham regarding the land of Israel. How would you suggest He fulfill that promise vis a vis those inhabiting the land?
When you get right down to it, following your logic, how do you feel about the character of a God that will sacrifice His Son for a bunch of unworthies?
We may not like nor understand God’s character, but that’s what makes Him God, don’t you think? Where are we in our trust in Him if we demand answers from Him? Again, I refer back to Job.
Wow, you guys are rich. When I read Mike’s quote, I really didn’t expect to see so many comments. But we’ve gone from Augustine to St. Augustine to Nadab and Abihu. And I don’t mean that at all to be sarcastic. How fun and challenging to read all of your comments.
I don’t have my Bible open to Lev. 10 at the moment, but could the context not imply that Nadab and Abihu were drunk? Thus, it wasn’t how they were worshipping (physically) as opposed to how they were worshipping (spiritually). …Just a thought.
Kathy, I thought that was pretty well said. I was studying with a friend recently who was asking about God’s wrath on Egypt because of one Pharaoh. I knew I should have some easy responses we’ve learned since we were kids, but I couldn’t make them make sense. But we did learn together that “at one time we too were objects of God’s wrath.” And suddenly, that verse had some weight to it.
Kathy,
I guess the question goes something like this: If God wants absolute submission to a will that doesn’t make sense to us (after all, He did endow us with logic and thought) and knows He isn’t going to get it from us, is it loving to make us in the first place?
If you are correct in your analysis of God, then He was (at least in the case of Jericho) incredibly strict and unforgiving. Why promise the Israelites (who were one particular and not always faithful group) unending promise while eliminating the Canaanites for their sins? (I know the answer is probably ‘to make a theological point and to set up the coming of the Messiah’).
And of course, likening any questioning of God’s actions to Job’s insolence leads to the idea that we should all just accept whatever Scripture says God did without any critical thought and not worry about it making sense. While that may sit right with you, the result is that people like me- who question whether that particular type of God is the one who really exists- get told “you’re insolent, don’t question God, don’t try to use your human logic.”
While it’s possible that all of what you explained is exactly how it is, and those difficult-to-comprehend slaughterings are just there to test our absolute faith in a God that doesn’t make sense, there’s another option. My suggestion is that maybe, just maybe, we have a document that represents its authors’ human conception of God, and despite their inspiration, they didn’t always get it right (after all, inspiration and inerrancy aren’t synonymous). Possibly the Jews were so blinded by their militant ethnocentrism that they perceived a God who was on their side and justified their genocide? (and possibly Jesus corrected much of that on the cross). Possibly we are base our faith so purely on Scripture that we are unable to ask tough questions about it to really get at the truth?
“When you get right down to it, following your logic, how do you feel about the character of a God that will sacrifice His Son for a bunch of unworthies?”
Following my logic, this is the ultimate act of mercy and grace, and worthy of praise. But that’s exactly why the earlier stuff makes so little sense to my ‘insolent’ thoughts. If God loves his creatures enough to sacrific His Son for them, why have some of them brutally wipe out the others? As Leland said, this takes “some serious theological manuevering to justify.” There is also a big difference between me choosing to sacrifice my life (or that of another part of me- which Jesus is to God) to redeem others, and choosing to slaughter thousands of creatures with free will.
You can explain it away with sovereignty and insolence and the need to not question and just accept, but it still comes down to; God is either sovereign and mysterious and unknowable to human logic and wrathful, or God loves all his creatures equally and treats them fairly and so many of the atrocities committed in his name are result of ‘true faith’ that’s built on misunderstanding. Your take on Scripture makes these seem unreconcilable to me.
First, Brett if I gave the impression that your questions were “Insolent” forgive me - that was not my intention in the least. I referred to Job and only to Job and how God challenged Job. Again, forgive my lack of more capable written communication.
You wrote: “God is either sovereign and mysterious and unknowable to human logic and wrathful, or God loves all his creatures equally and treats them fairly and so many of the atrocities committed in his name are result of ‘true faith’ that’s built on misunderstanding. Your take on Scripture makes these seem unreconcilable to me. ”
With all due respect, I disagree with your ‘either/or” premise. Yes, God is sovereign. He is often unknowable to human logic and yes, he DOES love all his creatures equally, treating them fairly and justly - He keeps His word to us all, whether it’s a promise of eternal life at His side through belief and following His Son, or the opposite - eternal damnation for those that reject Jesus. He gives His Son to every single living human being, what we do with that offer is up to us.
To me, these are immutable core Christian beliefs and, imo, it would be unfair to reward non-believers the same way He will believers in Him. This would make His word a lie, imo.
As far as the “genocide”, God has not seen fit to give us detailed explanations of His purpose and reasoning, but does give us glimpses when He refers, for instance, to those peoples that worshipped other gods and offered their children in the fire of sacrifice to those false gods.
As was said by Tim, ““at one time we too were objects of God’s wrath.” IOW, we too were in a postion to be totally destroyed by God, but just as He showed grace to the children of Israel, He does to all of us now through His Son.
Again, please forgive me for not making my point clear in the previous post. I’m not in the habit of taking the position of accuser, so I pray you will extend your forgiveness for my ineptness.
I didn’t mean to get defensive either (no hard feelings), it just seems that turning a critical eye to Scripture is dismissed as unacceptable in many circles.
But here’s the part where your view still doesn’t make sense to me: “he DOES love all his creatures equally, treating them fairly and justly - He keeps His word to us all, whether it’s a promise of eternal life at His side, through belief and following His Son, or the opposite..” How is calling Israel his chosen people while condemning the Canaanites both ‘fair and just’? And if the answer is that God was just setting up the whole plan of salvation through Jesus through all of that historical ’setup’, doesn’t that seem grossly unfair to those who were born too early to see the day?
You see, I agree that there is wonderful mercy inherent in the Gospel plan (at least for those who hear, but that’s another issue), but that’s exactly what makes the earlier wrathful picture of God seem so inconsistent. Why is saying that the slaughter of certain ethnic groups is completely consistent with the later mercy (through the gospel) our default position? Why not admit, ‘wow, those events seem very inconsistent,’ and conceding that maybe the Israelites were sadly mistaken? Isn’t that possible? Or do we abandon our critical faculties for the default position and do some difficult theological maneuvering to try and make palatable something that may never go down right?
(I also don’t understand why “genocide” needs to be put in quotes. Either something is “The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group” or it isn’t.)
Brett,
So, essentially, you agree with St. Augustine — love is the essence of your hermeneutical key, the lens by which you view scripture and the final arbiter of your application of it. And that key basically derives from scripture, as you have pointed out.
I think Augustine would be pleased.
Brett - Great questions. And I like what you said about what a stumbling block this is for young people struggling to reconcile their faith with the scripture that informed their faith. It’s easy to see what Marcion was up to, isn’t it? I’ll try to get back to this later.
Jeff,
I’d say that’s about right. If you really believe God is love, how can that not be the lens through which you view Scripture? To that extent I agree with Leland’s initial criticism, that Joshua’s way of following God seems disparate with how God presents himself through the Gospel. But of course, I’ve never read Augustine’s thoughts on Jericho…
(Also, while love is derived from scripture, I’d be wary of saying it derives exclusively from scripture, as that would negate the value of universal human experience, but that’s another point anyway.)
I’m not all that familiar with Marcion, so I looked him up. I can see what you mean- Marcion seemed to grasp that there were some hard-to-swallow differences between the old and new convenants. However, I don’t quite understand his need to see the Jewish God as some sort of demigod created by the the true God (misconception or misunderstood actions are the words that come to my mind). Also, the urge to remove every single link between Christianity and Judaism seems to border on absurd!
It’s also interesting to me that all of the sources I’ve (briefly) read on Marcion (which are all web-based and therefore questionable on some level) refer to his doctrine as a departure from ‘traditional’ Christianity and the canon. That position holds that there was one monolithic traditional Christianity in Marcion’s day, and that it had an established canon, neither of which seems to have been true when Marcion was born in 85 C.E…
I would be interested in hearing more about your views on Marcion (or any of these issues) in future posts.
Tim, nothing in the context of Leviticus 10 would indicate that Nadab & Abihu were drunk, but were punished for doing something that God had not commanded. Was their “strange fire” a “salvation issue?”
I need to clarify a statement that I made Friday in which I told Leland, “Sometimes
the love of God is spelled W-R-A-T-H”
I believe that God is beyond anything that we can comprehend. In order to show us who He is He acted in the individual and communial life of His people, and inspired men (and women?) to record, above anything else, a revelatory account of who He is. His complete and perfect wholenessis broken down into words (symbols) that convey a small part of His complete character. The Bible illustrates for the community of faith, through God’s actions and through direct teaching, that God is loving, righteous, just, holy, wrathful, good, merciful, gracious, pure, sovereign, etc. (even pocessing hate - see Malachi 1:3 ff). All of these attributes combine to make His completeness. His love is a righteous,just, holy, wrathful, good, merciful, gracious, pure, sovereign, etc. love. His justice is a loving, righteous, holy, wrathful, good, merciful, gracious, pure, sovereign, etc. justice. His wrath is a loving, righteous, just, holy, good, merciful, gracious, pure, sovereign, etc. wrath. All of these character traits that scripture breaks down for us combine equally to form God’s wholeness (if I had to select one trait that is primaryit would be His holiness).
The Bible is quite clear about God’s love, mercy and grace. It is equally clear about His wrath. And its not just an Old Testament concept. As christians we say that we are saved. Have you ever ask “From what?” Paul answers that quit clearly in Romans - we are saved from the wrath of God. We must take great care to know
Him as He has revealed Himself to be. We tend to worship and adore what we like and are comfortable with, and ignore or disagree with what we dislike or find uncomfortable. When we do this we are creating a god to our liking rather than the One Who Is, and this by definition is idolatry.
I retract my initial statement that sometimes God’s love is spelled W-R-A-T-H. But He has revealed to us that sometimes His actions are best catagorized as wrath.
In Lev 10:1-3 Nadab and Abihu die for offering an unauthorized fire. In verses 4-5 Moses gives instructions on taking the bodies outside the camp. In 6-7 Moses gives instructions on mourning. Then in verse 8 God speaks for the first time. His instructions are to Aaron about how the priests are to behave entering into the tent of meeting. And he says not to drink wine before entering or they’ll die. I’m not going to swear by it, but it appears that one could have to do with the other. Again, just something to consider.
Back to the larger conversation here… Hebrews 10:1 says the law is just a shadow of things to come, not the realities themselves. On a limb here, but am applying this to the Old Testament as a whole. So the question is, what significance do events like Jericho have in my life today? The first thing that sticks out is that God wants to completely conquer the enemies that battle for control of me, e.g. pride, lust… And God is so serious about it that he takes no prisoners. He wants not a hint left over.
But the event itself… I don’t agree with the idea of the Israelites not understanding God correctly. It seems that God let them know when they didn’t get it right (see Saul and Samuel in I Samuel 15:12ff) and then the Israelites or the individual received the consequences. Perhaps we’re assuming that those destroyed had no warning and didn’t know to repent. Perhaps that assumption is wrong. See Jonah. In fact, God tells Abraham that he can’t have the land yet because the sin of those living there “hasn’t reached its full measure” (Gen 15:16). I don’t think God just sat idly by waiting for them to get bad enough. It appears though that we just have no record of what God was doing among those people at that time.
“We tend to worship and adore what we like and are comfortable with, and ignore or disagree with what we dislike or find uncomfortable. When we do this we are creating a god to our liking rather than the One Who Is, and this by definition is idolatry.”
Then let’s quit saying God is loving and faithful and love your neighbor as yourself.
Let’s start saying God is bi polar and love your neighbor if he doesn’t posses something you want.
Monty,
I like your answer. However, I think I’m having problems with this on a different level than you- let me explain. You say: “The Bible is quite clear about God’s love, mercy and grace. It is equally clear about His wrath….we are saved from the wrath of God….We tend to worship and adore what we like and are comfortable with, and ignore or disagree with what we dislike or find uncomfortable.” To me it seems you are looking at how God is described in the Bible in all his many facets and asking ‘does the way Brett (or Leland, or Guy/Gal X, or Church X) match how the Bible describes God?’
In my case, I’m beginning with my personal belief of God- a wholesome, loving, guiding factor in my life, replete with mercy and forgiveness, which is partially informed by the Biblical account of Jesus’ teaching and partially through personal experience- and trying to see if everything in scripture matches up with that. The problem with describing God as a complete combination of love, righteousness, holiness, wrath, goodness, mercy, grace, purity, sovereignty, and justice is that these sometimes appear antithetical. How does absolute sovereignty reconcile with allowing free will? How does wrath reconcile with mercy? How does consistency reconcile with unpredictability? Is there one overriding aspect that is above all the others in some way?
To me at least, the answer is found in Jesus’ summation of the Law and the Prophets: “Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” As far as Jesus’ command to us reflects the nature and desire of God (and I believe it does), love appears to be foremost. So that naturally leads me to question whether following a God who asks for an eye for an eye is the same as following a God who asks you to turn the other cheek. You can’t do both! If following the two is so drastically different, and one is definitely correct, then what do we make of the other?
In other words, you’re beginning with the assumption of Biblical infallibility and assessing the characteristics of God, and I’m beginning with the assumption of some basic characteristic of God and trying to assess whether the Bible is infallible. If the Old Testament teaches that God wanted his small group of the righteous to slaughter the men, women, children, and livestock of the Canaanites- is that the same God that I believe in?
Maybe those assumptions are why we come to different conclusions.
The Bible was not written by God but written by men describing their current reality of God.
If my reality of God does not include genocide I am not compelled to include scripture which does. It reduces my Christian voice to a modern world rife with hate and genocide.
If my reality of God (and science’s) does not include God controlling the weather I am not compelled to reference scripture which does.
I am compelled to worship the God who is calls me to love my neighbor as myself. I will reference scripture (old and new) and other things as well which testify to a modern world this is the best way to do life.
The story of Jericho, The plagues of Egypt, The Flood make us look silly to a world when we preach God is Love. Parents of Jericho were seeing their children killed right before their eyes because a loving and faithful God was keeping a promise. Wake up!!!
Wow, this has taken a weird turn.
We’re starting with our concept of God and then trying to make scripture fit into that mold, instead of taking scripture and allowing it to shape our thought of God. …or just ignore the parts that we can’t make fit.
Doesn’t God warn against that. Or can we just throw out those verses too?
Go ahead Tim shape my thoughts on Jericho; justify genocide.
Fitting a square peg into round hole will never make sense, not because its way too complicated but because our simple intellect coupled with our experince tells us it won’t work.
We can think Monday through Saturday, why can’t we on Sunday?
Church, swallow the red pill!!!
Tim,
I understand your frustration at ‘throwing out verses’ but I think that roots back in our assumptions/beliefs. You believe at the beginning that all Scripture is inspired and infallible, while some of us (Leland obviously) don’t. From my perspective the question is; is there any type of content in Scripture that would shake your faith in it? If the answer is no, then I admire your faith, but unfortunately can’t share all the same conclusions. I do appreciate discussing this in a rational way without sarcasm or contempt (forgive me if that wasn’t the intended tone of your posts, Leland).
“Doesn’t God warn against that.”- some of the authors of the Bible do indeed warn against that. But of course if the beginning assumption is that those authors wrote through their flawed conceptions, a more critical eye is also needed. In other words, I know you won’t agree with my thoughts- in fact you’ll probably find some of them disturbing- but hopefully we can both recognize that our conflict is caused by the assumptions we make about Scripture, not because either of us is purposefully defying God- both of us believe we are searching for Truth in the best way possible.
On the other hand, I can also appreciate the message inherent in some stories which I don’t hold to be literal- the Flood teaches us to obey God/do good and trust him if we’re faithful, Creation tells us we’re all valuable and created in the image of God, Jericho teaches us (as you said) “completely conquer the enemies that battle for control of us.”
Forgive me for sarcasm was the intent of my comments. I am tired of people tellimg me I want to create a God in my own image simply because I want my faith to make sense. I find this knee jerk response to my comments as insulting as my sarcasm has been for some.
When we play the mystery of God card for something (Destruction of Jericho) so obviously incongruent with the teaching of Jesus it astounds me.
The old “His ways are not our ways”, “We don’t have the big picture” cop outs only go so far when developing a real faith but go a long way in crushing a pseudo faith.
Another good one people use on me in a mgic attempt to get me in line “You are willing to shape scripture but are you willing to let scripture shape you?” Nice empty one liner.
Try doing something novel and answer my questions of how killing the people of Jericho demostrates loving your neighbor? It doesn’t even have to be scriptural. And if we conclude it doesn’t we have to do one of the following: 1. Stop saying it was God speaking to Joshua 2. Stop saying Jesus was God incarnate or 3. Stop saying God is immutable.
If we are to speak the truth in love then I would assume that we need to understand the truth in love as well.
Wow.
Dear Brett and Leland,
I think that you both have very deep faith. I hope that you find whatever Peter had when he answered Jesus’ question about leaving with “to whom shall we go?” That is where I end up sometimes anyway, when I really do not understand, which is often. And I do not mean that to be trite. I don’t mean to offer that is an answer, I just pray you end up there, where I think Peter was, maybe without answers, but with hope. We’re all still searching if we are honest, I think.
If we have reached the point where we deny infallability (let alone inerrancy) and accept only the scripture that corresponds to our understanding of reality…is there any authority in the bible?
Or what if “love thy neighbor” is not what I see as corresponding to the best way to live in a modern, scientifically formed world? What if I think natural selection is the way to go? Toss out the sermon on the mount as unimportant?
Faith isn’t supposed to make sense…that’s why it’s called faith. Where are we told to “figure it all out” with our human reasoning?
On that note: If we can use Old Testament examples for why a practice should not be used (Nadab & Abihu’s strange fire), why can’t you use an Old Testament example for why a practice should be used (Psalms - instrumental music).
I think this is Mike’s reason for saying that our hermeneutic is shoddy at best. I tend to agree with him.
J.P.,
It’s scary isn’t it? Once you step outside the ’safe zone’ of Biblical infallibility things aren’t as cut and dry (and it’s frustrating for me too). But that doesn’t change my conclusion- I can’t start blindly accepting everything as literal truth anymore than you’ll allow yourself to doubt it. As for authority- I’m not sure. Guidance and hope definitely, but I can’t be sure about absolute infallible authority on every single statement.
Are these statements ‘authoritative’?:
“And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”
“The flood continued forty days on the earth….And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.”
“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the O
“Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
“If you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife….After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes.”
I hope you would agree that these statements don’t carry the same authority as the command to love your neighbor as yourself. In fact, some of them are pretty hard to reconcile with it. We just use our God-given reason to come to different conclusions. Again, I would ask “is there absolutely any type of content in Scripture that would make you wonder if the whole thing is authoritative?” For me, these passages are those sort of things.
I guess I shouldn’t expect most posters on a church of Christ blog to really understand.
Brett,
I can definitely relate. On one hand, there is a general consensus of what we find distatsteful, but I wonder how far the application can be stretched to justify things. For instance, the question of homosexuality. How much easier does that dilemma become if we can say, “Oh, sorry, that doesn’t jive with my understanding of loveing my neighbor, toss it out.” That seems to me as non-critical as blind faith on the other end.
I think also where you are coming from is a position, quite understandable, that has very insightfully seen the need to delineate between inerrancy, infallability, and infallability in regards to matters of salvation.
And…don’t be so quick to assume I don’t allow myself to doubt it. I’m just trying to follow others’ arguments to their natural (I think) conclusions. I have a whole different set of faith related baggage, personally.
Romans 2:13ff: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)”
It sounds like Gentiles can come to an understanding of God through reason.
sounds like proof-texting to me.
Actually, it was just a response to your question: ‘Where are we told to figure it all out with our human reasoning?” Of course, the passage I quoted doesn’t say that, but it does say that it’s possible to know God outside revelation, which is more or less the same point.
Back to what you said: “Faith isn’t supposed to make sense…that’s why it’s called faith.” (Proof-text that please) Do you begin conversations with nonbelievers with “Hey, this won’t make sense, but listen anyway”? If so, I doubt we have enough in common to hold any type of conversation.
I absolutely believe faith IS supposed to make sense. It may not be provable, but it won’t be contrary to the sense that God gave us. The problem with your argument of ‘this doesn’t make sense, but accept it because you have faith’ is that you can use it to support absolutely anything.
Terrysj, I hope you are still following the comments on this thread, I’m a little late in reading it. I wanted to respond to your question about instrumental music. I grew up in non-instrumental Churches of Christ and have worshiped in them most of my life. As a Bible Major and Greek minor in college I began “searching the scriptures to see what was said was true” anew with the new tools I was learning. I found on this subject “our” biblical arguments simply did not hold water. The greek word for to sing in it’s most literal sense is “by or with the playing of strings” (Theological Dictionalry of the New Testament VIII, p499). Though the word certainly progressed to include singing alone I believe a solid argument cannot be made that such alone is being commanded in Eph. 5:19. “To pluck” is simply too inherent in the words. For most of the 1st century christians their Old Testament was a greek version called the Septuagent. And psallo and it’s varients are used for playing an instrument many a time there. After coming to this realization. I prayed that God would forgive me for condemning others who worship with instruments. I also made a more indepth study of scriptural reasons for withdrawing or withholding fellowship. This was thirty plus years ago.
For the last two years I have worshiped in an Army chapel with instruments and have played the guitar with one of the worship teams for the past year. Lest you think instruments are always a distraction to worship I might tell you of a comment I recieved yesterday. The brother said “the worship really touched me today. It was a sermon in song that said it all.” Sometimes I am so aware of God inhabiting His praises when I am singing and playing alone and I am so connected to Him that I am brought to tears. I still sometimes yearn for a little a capella and sing that way though.
I hope you will think about this.
I’ve been challenged by this conversation. Can’t say I’ve enjoyed all of it, but it has been good for me, none-the-less.
I’d like to respond to Leland’s question about Jericho and the connection to love thy neighbor.
Perhaps that isn’t the question to ask. (Perhaps Augustine wasn’t inspired in saying everything has to fit into the two-fold love of God and neighbor.) The greatest command is to love the Lord your God. And I do think there is a connection here.
If your assumption is that God can’t judge or that God can’t punish disobedience, I don’t know what to tell you. But if you believe there will be a day of judgment, there will be a heaven and hell, then why can’t God bring judgment on Jericho. (Aren’t the Minor Prophets continually warning against the Day of the Lord coming on different nations, including Israel?)
Thus it wasn’t a matter of Israel loving its neighbor as much as them being God’s instrument to bring judgment. (Interesting to note that just because one nation is used to bring God’s judgment on another doesn’t necessarily mean it is the more righteous nation. He tells Habakkuk, “You’re not going to believe what I’m going to do… I’m going to use Babylon, an evil nation, as my tool of judgment”. Habakkuk 1:5-12 … is it okay to use the quote marks since it is very loosely translated?)
[Cathy, if you haven’t read this book in awhile, do so. I think you’ll love it. Habakkuk keeps saying, “I don’t understand, but I’ll wait and I’ll watch.” It reminds me of your posts.]
I don’t want to take away from loving our neighbor, but can we consider that God is also a judge who does in fact judge?
One more note and I’ll bow out. Leland, I want to encourage you not to assume this hasn’t been thought out or that I’m simply spewing rhetoric. If you judge it too quickly as a knee-jerk reaction, it will be too easy to judge me instead of what I’m saying.
God bless you guys. Peace
Proof texting is not a good thing, BTW…therefore prooftexting my last comment would make no sense either. Proof texting is taking a passage out of context to prove your point. I don’t believe Romans 2 was written to show us that we can understand God through reason…that sounds very humanistic and takes away God’s authority.
now… Hebrews 11:1 says, “What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see.” (New Living Translation)
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (New International Version)
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (King James Version)
Faith is not knowing something. Faith is inherently based on what I cannot see.
Which still doesn’t mean faith will be contrary to human common sense.
“I don’t believe Romans 2 was written to show us that we can understand God through reason…that sounds very humanistic and takes away God’s authority.”
I believe the whole passage is talking about how those who don’t have the Law may actually still be following God in their own ways. It’s a scary passage for those who believe you can only arrive at knowing God through divine revelation, but it seems that that’s what it teaches. It doesn’t minimize God’s authority at all- rather it shows that God’s authority is inherent in how the world works, and man can to some extent come to know God by examining the world with his thought. Just because something sounds ‘humanistic’ doesn’t make it sound wrong. Maybe there’s some truth in humanism, to the extent that it gives back to man some of what Biblical literalism takes away when it tells him ‘despite being made in God’s image, you are incapable of coming to know God on your own, you must trust in the revelation he gave to others.’
If there were no basis in reason at all, how would you decide to have faith in Jesus instead of faith in the Bob, or Buddha, or any Hindu deity? I think you would agree that you use your human reason to help shape your faith as well.
Tim,
Again, good, thoughtful posts. I too think it’s about time for this to wrap up since we’ve come down to our assumptions that point to the roots of our conflict. I’ve heard the same explanation (relating to judgement and using the Israelites as an instrument) from Bible professors at Harding (Monte Cox specifically), and it does seem well thought out. You say; “If your assumption is that God can’t judge or that God can’t punish disobedience, I don’t know what to tell you. But if you believe there will be a day of judgment, there will be a heaven and hell, then why can’t God bring judgment on Jericho.”
You’re right here- the disagreement is deeper than Jericho. It’s about the nature of God. If you can believe in a God who has revealed his word through the Bible and the Bible only, and will punish those who do not obey (which appears to be the majority of his created humans for most of history) to eternal judgment, then Jericho makes perfect sense. Since we disagree on the nature of God, it would make sense that our conception of which actions make sense for Him would be different.
“I believe the whole passage is talking about how those who don’t have the Law may actually still be following God in their own ways. It’s a scary passage for those who believe you can only arrive at knowing God through divine revelation, but it seems that that’s what it teaches. It doesn’t minimize God’s authority at all- rather it shows that God’s authority is inherent in how the world works, and man can to some extent come to know God by examining the world with his thought. Just because something sounds ‘humanistic’ doesn’t make it sound wrong.”
I agree with you on this…the former post you made sounded different to me.
“If there were no basis in reason at all, how would you decide to have faith in Jesus instead of faith in the Bob, or Buddha, or any Hindu deity? I think you would agree that you use your human reason to help shape your faith as well.”
I didn’t mean to make it sound like there is no brain activity going on when we have faith, but that faith is different than belief or knowledge.
At the same time, I would like to add that I don’t think we were meant to figure out every aspect of every facet of all our lives.
The Jews were given the Law written word for word to address pretty much every situation. The Old Law was taken away with Jesus’ perfect law arrival: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and prophets hang on these.
To try to dictate every worship practice from incomplete information that we’ve tried to deduce what kind of singing we use in a one hour time frame from week to week is moronic to me when there’s not one verse that says anything about doing a specific set of things in that one hour a week.
Especially when we have verses like Romans 12:1 which tells us that we are “…in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.”
I don’t think we will ever figure it all out. But this should not be an excuse to relegate it to mystery.
Hey, fun discussion over on “Inorganic Music”, its been a blast. As someone who truly accepts God’s word as perfect [I do have questions about a couple translations however] I wonder how ol Augustine feels about the “love of God” as quoted by the inspired apostle John in 1 John 5:3. ” For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: for His commandments are not grievous” kjv, by the way, how do the “new hermeneutic” folks deal with this? Just curious. Tim
Leland, in a rhetorical way (you may answer if you like) I ask, what is so bad about mystery?…
Tim said, “I wonder how ol Augustine feels about the “love of God” as quoted by the inspired apostle John in 1 John 5:3. “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: for His commandments are not grievous” kjv, by the way, how do the “new hermeneutic” folks deal with this? Just curious. Tim”
I personally would ask, what are God’s commandments that we are supposed to follow? I usually go to what Jesus taught as main authority. I would say that the commandments under Jesus’ new law are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. The second is like it…to love your neighbor as yourself. These words were spoken by Jesus himself when posed the same question.
BML,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with mystery. It is the fuel for discovery.
Great milestones have been reached by putting mystery on the table and examining it closely.
By this method we can assign the label mystery to what really is mystery and not just lack of critical thought.
Exactly.
Just wondering… are the words [recorded by Holy Spirit inspired men] of Christ in the Biblical record of more weight than words written by other men who were also inspired by the Holy Spirit who is God? For instance, Our savior commanded belief and baptism for salvation [Mark 16:15-16], whereas in ACTS 2, Luke recorded Peter expounding that baptism is for remission of sins, along with Pauls experience in Acts 22:16, baptism to wash away his sins. Do those folks embracing the “new” hermeneutic give more weight and emphasis on some inspired scripture than on other inspired scripture?
Just trying to figure out where you folks are coming from……Tim
Me…I weigh Jesus’ words over everyone else’s. I can’t speak for everyone here though and would not try to.
I’ve been away for a bit, so forgive this late reply to a older post.
I think this quote is so applicable to the workings of how we view the Bible. How we understand and perceive things is often relative to our station and point in our lives.
The point about the two fold love of God is powerful. Interpretation can go lots of ways, however, application brings teh reality and experience of God’s holy love to hearts who need Him.