We have been warned, "You can't interpret Scripture from history." Okay, maybe you've never heard that, but I'm sure you would agree with it. You wouldn't want to determine what Scripture means by what others in history have determined it meant. I mean, wouldn't that put you in league with those flat earthers who argued "The Bible teaches that the Earth is flat, so you had better believe it"? Wouldn't that put you at odds with Galileo when he stood against the Church for what was right?
I would never argue that we need to interpret Scripture in the light of tradition or the Church. I would never make that suggestion. Here's what does concern me, though. Jesus promised to send His Holy Spirit. He promised, "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). It is my belief and contention that the Holy Spirit is an effective teacher, a skillful guide. I would argue that Jesus promised it and the Holy Spirit accomplished it.
How does that play out? I don't see history or tradition as methods of interpreting the Bible. I do see them as valid checks. When I read my Bible and I come to a conclusion about a particular doctrine, is it consistent with the historic understanding of that passage or doctrine? Or am I finding something new? I have a real problem with the idea of finding something new. It casts aspersions on the skill of the Holy Spirit as guide.
There are constantly new things cropping up on the market of biblical perspectives today. We can thank Women's Liberation for clearing the air about that whole darn "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) thing. Yeah, yeah, no one in Christian history saw it for anything but what it said at face value, but we've finally wrangled the truth out of the Holy Spirit 2000 years later and we now know what no one prior knew -- that Paul didn't mean it. Then there is the fine work done by the scholarly Jesus Seminar with their advanced degrees and sound skepticism to finally clear up all the mistakes made in the Gospels. They took a vote and decided what Jesus did and didn't say and do. All this time we thought it was all real and reliable. They've managed to clear that up. And we shouldn't over look the wonderful assistance from the homosexuals for wresting the real meaning out of those pesky "anti-homosexual" passages in the Bible. Yeah, yeah, everyone has always thought that these were prohibitions against sexual relations between same-gender couples, but now, after all these centuries, the Holy Spirit finally found a listening ear and told the truth that this is really only about inhospitableness, rape, and pagan ritual sexual events. Whew! It took you long enough, Spirit, but we're finally there! These are by no means the only "new things" floating about. Some big ones would include the entire Mormon Church and the concept of Dispensationalism, beliefs with no small following.
I wouldn't recommend you interpret the Bible from history. I would, however, urge you not to toss out history and tradition. I would hold that the Holy Spirit hasn't been so mute, such a dismal failure at leading His people into all truth. See what you find in Scripture. Then, hold it up against historic Christianity. If it is genuine, it has likely been present from the New Testament all the way through to today. If you've discovered something new ... run! Or get a new Holy Spirit ... one who doesn't take 2000 years to get things across.
22 comments:
I agree we ought not throw out tradition, by no means (I value too much traditional thinking to want to do that) AND I agree that tradition is not fool proof and each generation MUST read the scriptures for themselves.
As to this, though:
We can thank Women's Liberation for clearing the air about that whole darn "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12) thing. Yeah, yeah, no one in Christian history saw it for anything but what it said at face value, but we've finally wrangled the truth out of the Holy Spirit 2000 years later and we now know what no one prior knew -- that Paul didn't mean it.
I don't know that anyone has suggested that Paul didn't mean it when he said to that specific church that he didn't want to see women teaching men. We just don't think that is the end of the subject. Times change. Traditions change.
What could NOT be eaten in the OT (shrimp, pig) CAN be eaten in the NT. Times change. Cultures change.
Clearly, since the Bible has women prophets and deacons and teachers, Paul's word to Timothy is not a universal command, otherwise Paul would be teaching contrary to other teachings.
Beyond that, though, even if all of Biblical teaching were opposed to women preachers (and it's not), times do change. Some traditions fit a specific people, time and culture but not in others.
While reading scripture, we need to look to tradition to see what it teaches us, yes. And we must look to the Bible to see what the whole has to say about specific passages. And we ought to look at all of that through Jesus' specific teachings.
But it doesn't end there. We must also use our God-given reasoning to seek God's will. The Bible is God's Word, but it's not ALL of God's Word. It's not a magic book with each and every instruction for all times, but rather a book of truths to assist us as we seek God's will through prayer, through reason, through nature, through community and through tradition.
Agree?
Well, since I wrote this with the conversation we had earlier in mind, I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree. ;)
First, when I said, "Paul didn't mean it" I meant "as he appeared to write it." Okay? Moving on.
"Some traditions fit a specific people, time and culture but not in others."
That sounds like interpreting Scripture by tradition, time, and culture. I prefer to look for principle. Take, for instance, Peter's statement "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Act 4:12). How am I to interpret that? Well, apparently the principle is "there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved" so there is salvation in no one else. Christ is the only way. Yeah, unpopular, perhaps, but the principle is given and the interpretation is unavoidable. Now we go to Paul's "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12). Surprisingly (or not), no one has ever read that to mean "in this city at this time from this tradition and this culture". Why? Well, because Paul gives the principle behind the statement. His principle is "For women are not educated in theology to the degree that men are and, therefore, shouldn't do these things." No, that's not what he says. He gives two reasons: 1) Order of Creation and 2) the cause of the Fall -- "the woman was deceived". Now, I'm thinking and I'm pondering and I'm trying to figure out when either of those two principles changed ... and I don't see it. (Interestingly, years ago I was having a conversation with a woman -- not a believer -- who was complaining to me about how unfair that thing of women not teaching was in the Bible. "Why did he say that?" I said, "Well, I don't mean to be rude or sexist or anything, but Paul said it was because Eve was deceived." "So?" "Well, let me ask you ... who is more gullible ... you or your husband?" You know what? She got it. She nodded her head and said, "Oh, yeah! I guess I can see that.")
That which "changed" from then to now has been specifically addressed in Scripture. In the Old Testament shellfish was an abomination (to us, not to God), but the New Testament specifically addresses the issue as "declared clean". I am very, very, very hesitant to suggest that God changes His mind. I need specific instructions to come to that conclusion myself. This one isn't one of them.
(By the way, I believe the "not allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man" is highly misunderstood. I think it still applies today and doesn't contradict anything.)
But you didn't address the point of the post. Tradition has value. How the Church has interpreted Scripture in history has value. Something here causes you to conclude that the Church has had it wrong all along and that was only a cultural command -- a command for that day only. No one else figured this out prior to the Women's Lib movement. What do we have today that makes us more capable of figuring this stuff out when no one prior to this could?
Logic. Our God-given reasoning. Evidence.
Women are oftentimes better, more Godly, more powerful preachers than men. I've seen this in the real world. My pastor is a woman and is the best preacher/pastor I've ever had the privilege to be associated with.
Women were considered chattel in the Bible because that was the norm of the times. We know now that it is wrong to treat women as chattel. They belong to no man, they are their own moral agents.
In the context of that patriarchal society, it made some sense that women were not allowed to be preachers in some cases. But we're not in that patriarchal sort of a society anymore.
By the way, you have not addressed the problem of the Biblical presence of women deacons and prophets.
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel...
Luke 2
Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.
Acts 21
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a helper of many and of myself as well"
Romans 16
Clearly, women had leadership roles in these times.
Stan said:
"Well, let me ask you ... who is more gullible ... you or your husband?" You know what? She got it.
Pardon me for saying so, brother, but that is a horribly sexist suggestion. Women aren't more gullible, that's a goofy stereotype, if you don't mind my saying.
I did have another request for clarification: You DO agree that we discern God's will using our God-given reasoning, too, don't you?
Of course, our reasoning is not going to be perfect, any moreso than our traditions or our biblical exegesis, but it certainly is one tool in our search for God, we can agree on this?
As to your sort of central thesis...
Yeah, yeah, everyone has always thought that these were prohibitions against sexual relations between same-gender couples, but now, after all these centuries, the Holy Spirit finally found a listening ear...
You know that it was considered the case for millenia that polygamy was okay, don't you? Abraham, David, Solomon, etc, etc, all had multiple wives. The Bible even says that God GAVE King David his many wives. Not to mention the concubines! And that was all morally okay for thousands of years. Not a peep from the bible criticizing that cultural norm.
But now, lo, these many centuries later, WE have decided (for the most part) that marriage is an arrangement most rightly made with two.
Times change. Cultural norms change. And that's okay.
now certainly, not ALL things change. It WAS and still IS wrong to kill people (although the Bible allowed for killing "men who lay with men" and disrespectful children back in the day). It is a consistent moral rule that bestiality is wrong.
But we have parted ways on other issues (polygamy, for some, gay marriage for some).
The trick, of course, is figuring out which rules are more universal in nature and which ones are more cultural. We disagree on gay marriage. We disagree on women as pastors, and probably on other issues, too.
Still, we must strive to work it out, the best we can, God help us all.
I am just asking this to be completely clear. I asked, "What do we have today that makes us more capable of figuring this stuff out when no one prior to this could?" It appears that you answered my question with this: "Logic. Our God-given reasoning. Evidence." The suggestion, to me seems to say, "We here in the 21st century have logic where those prior to us did not. God has given us reasoning that He didn't give them." That's how it looks.
In fact, lots of the things in your response look really odd to me. Like "Women are oftentimes better, more Godly, more powerful preachers than men. I've seen this in the real world." How is that not "I will determine what I think is right by what I see, not by what it says"? We know, for instance, that there were false prophets in the Bible. They were effective people fooling many. Why should I not conclude, "Prophets who preach a false gospel are oftentimes better, more godly, more powerful preachers than those who teach a true one. Therefore, they are good"? (In fact, I cannot imagine how you, having already submitted yourself to a female pastor, could possibly allow yourself to come to any other conclusion.)
Then there was this: "Women were considered chattel in the Bible because that was the norm of the times." What am I to conclude from this? Paul was wrong because he considered women chattel and he shouldn't have? (I'm sure you can see where that road takes us.) Or the whole reference to "patriarchal society". Is the patriarchal society wrong? Well, actually, the two here are tied together. You contend (I'm not making a statement one way or the other) "it is wrong to treat women as chattel". How did Jesus treat them? How did the Apostles treat them? If the principles of the New Testament are shaded by an immoral treatment of women, what other immorality are we allowing as "biblical truth"? Do you see the problem? If Paul's command was based on a lie, an immoral behavior, he should have told them, "I want women to teach and usurp authority over men whenever they are qualified to do so because it is wrong the way you guys treat women." But ... he didn't.
It still looks a lot like the reinterpretation of 1 Tim. 2 is an effect, not a cause. We didn't revisit the passage, figure out what it meant, and then correct our view of women pastors. We were confronted by women who felt they were slighted and then tried to figure out a way to reword Paul to fit what we had already decided -- women pastors are okay. We do that assuming that even though Paul spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we know better today than every single person prior to 1960 did who ever looked at this passage. We have logic and apparently they didn't. We know how to treat women today while obviously they didn't. It's wrong.
I didn't address "the problem of the Biblical presence of women deacons and prophets" because you mentioned it in passing, not as a question. The two things mentioned in 1 Tim 2 is "teach" and "usurp authority". Both are purely in context of "man" (adult males). (That is, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, it says absolutely nothing about women teaching women or women teaching children -- nothing.) Now, the two positions that have you concerned are "deacons and prophets". Let's see ... deacons serve (not rule) and prophets pronounce what God says, not teach. I don't see the problem at all. You would have done better to go back to, say, the prophetess Deborah in Judges 4. She was judging the people at the time. That's closer to "authority". And she was a prophetess. However, she perfectly illustrates what I see in 1 Tim. 2, so I suppose it wouldn't have worked for you. When God told Deborah that Israel was supposed to go to war, she summoned a man, Barak. Only after Barak refused did Deborah serve in the capacity of leadership. You see, Deborah refused to usurp authority from men. When the men of her time refused to take it, she did, but that wasn't usurpation. To me, the aim of the 1 Tim 2 passage in question is this: Women can serve, but God designed for men to be in charge. As such, women can teach and even lead as long as they do so under the authority of a male.
That's God's design, just as it is in marriage. "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." It is the structure that God put in place. Today's culture has gone out of its way to blur the distinctions between men and women. God never did. And trying to make sense out of this passage without first recognizing the worldly perspectives that are affecting one's vision is a serious uphill battle.
Stan said:
It appears that you answered my question with this: "Logic. Our God-given reasoning. Evidence." The suggestion, to me seems to say, "We here in the 21st century have logic where those prior to us did not. God has given us reasoning that He didn't give them." That's how it looks.
I'm not saying that people in the past did not have logic, of course they did. I'm just saying that we must use our logic, too, and sometimes, "the way it's always been done" is not always right.
For example: Slavery, a six day creation, a flat world, women-as-chattel, women-as-second class citizens, slaughtering children in war, killing disrespectful children, etc, etc.
There are many things in the Bible that were taken to be true for centuries and millenia, even, that we know now are just wrong. Sometimes, our traditions are wrong.
Again, I want to know, you DO agree that we must use logic, reason, our human observations to seek God's will, don't you?
Stan said:
In fact, lots of the things in your response look really odd to me. Like "Women are oftentimes better, more Godly, more powerful preachers than men. I've seen this in the real world." How is that not "I will determine what I think is right by what I see, not by what it says"?
Well, we DO need to determine what is right by what we see sometimes, don't we? I mean, if we see a leader slaughtering the children of their enemy, we need to see that and step up and say, "This is wrong!" and work to stop it. It doesn't matter that the OT suggests that is legitimate, we need to use our own reasoning to know that this is wrong.
Again, this gets back to the need to use not JUST the Bible, but many other criteria for seeking God's will.
Perhaps it would help if I offered an illustration with a specific Bible passage that I would hope we could agree is not a valid representation of God's will.
In Numbers 31, God commands Israel (through Moses)...
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones [ie, boys, children, babies], and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."
God here appears to be commanding Israel to slaughter children! BUT also, God has them sparing the virgin girls so that the men of Israel can make them their wives!!
Can we agree that in all cases, it is wrong to slaughter the children of our enemy? That it is simply wrong to slaughter a virgin girl's family but take her home to bed her down?
One problem I think we have is that the more traditional/conservative amongst us (and I was there for half of my life) feel a need to try to make each historic account in the Bible to be a literal representation of reality - that God LITERALLY ordered Israel to slaughter children. That God literally ordered Israel to kidnap the virgin girls to make them their wives.
The problem with that is our very consciences and reason and humanity - apart from anything the Bible might say - confirms that this is wrong, wrong, wrong. No! It is not okay to slaughter children! No! It is not okay to bed down the virgin orphan girls of our enemy!
But for the more literalist amongst us, it is more important to take those lines as literally accurate representations of history than it is to listen to our own God-given reasoning. They'd take a infanticidal god over having to say that those lines MAY not be accurate.
The problem with this (one problem with this) is that the Bible no where suggests that we must take each line as a literally perfect representation of history. We are under no compunction to assume that such an atrocity as described above MUST be assumed to be historically or theologically accurate. No where are we told by God, "Now, back in Deuteronomy, I said some stuff that sounds pretty nutty. I want you to take that to be the literal truth. Or else..."
Why would we assume that this sort of story (or that "men who lay with men" must be killed) as perfect representations of universal truths?
Only one reason I can think of: Human tradition. But I'm not seeking to satisfy human tradition. I'm seeking God's will and it is okay, says I, to use our God-given reasoning in working that out.
We will, of course, continue to disagree on this. You believe the Bible contains truth. I believe the Bible is God's inspired ("breathed") Word. Why do I say that?
Dan Trabue: "For example: Slavery, a six day creation, a flat world, women-as-chattel, women-as-second class citizens, slaughtering children in war, killing disrespectful children, etc, etc."
If the Bible is God's inspired Word, genuine truth, then I am not free to dismiss portions as you do. (I know ... your "dismissal" isn't dismissal, but you "dismiss" them as literal.) Your statement here is littered with a couple of classifications, but they demand an answer. The Bible does not, for instance, require a "flat earth" viewpoint. In fact, the argument that the Bible teaches and historic Christianity held the "flat earth" view is a myth. The Bible never commands that women be treated as chattel or 2nd-class citizens. Indeed, the New Testament is full of alterations to that perspective, giving them better treatment and standing than their society did. The slavery that the Bible speaks about is radically different than the slavery we knew in the 17th through the 19th centuries. In other words, these are all invalid, incorrect understandings both of Scripture as well as how Scripture has been interpreted through history. The six-day creation thing is only dismissed out of hand because we've decided that science is much smarter than the Bible was. I still hold that in reserve. But the "slaughtering children in war" and the "killing disrespectful children" things fall in a different category.
The Bible presents these things as not merely historical. The Bible treats them as God-given. Here is where we come up against it, isn't it? There are only a few possible conclusions. 1) They are lies. God never gave them. In one way or another, these things cannot be taken at face value. The Bible at these points is unreliable or, at best, confusing, presenting false information about God. 2) They are true ... and God was dead wrong for doing them. He commanded that disrespectful children be put to death and He was wrong for doing so. (It is an interesting sidenote that orthodox Judaism records that they believed it was the right thing to do ... and no one ever did it. It appears that this command served as sufficient warning to prevent parents from letting their children get to that point.) He commanded that Israel destroy men, women, and children and He was wrong when He did. 3) They are true and God was right when He commanded them. This, of course, requires a rethinking of our own positions. That occurs by carefully understanding what was said and done and then adjusting our own thoughts to align with God's (rather than vice versa). Of course we use our minds in seeking the will of God, but if we start with "our minds are right" and then reinterpret God and His will through our minds, we've started from the wrong spot and ended in the wrong spot.
Take your Numbers 31 perspective. You argue that God 1) orders the death of the children of their enemies and 2) saving the virgin girls for marriage. I've read that passage over and over, and did it again now. I don't see where He commanded the deaths of all children or where He gave them for marriage. Here's the really key point. If He did, He is in violation of His own values! Why does the passage say that God ordered this in the first place? "These, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD" (Num 31:16). What was Balaam's advice and Israel's treachery? They married pagan women against God's explicit command. So you would have us believe that God commanded against marrying pagan women, ordered Moses to kill those people for that crime, and then violated His own command and judgment by giving them pagan women to marry! If, on the other hand, God gave Israel pagan women who had not taken part in the treachery as house servants, then it wouldn't be giving them to marry, would it? (As for the "killing children" part, He specifies "males". But that's another matter ...)
But, beyond that, you start with a presupposition that I do not. "Children are innocent." You begin with a denial of Original Sin -- that mankind is sinful from birth. Of course it would be wrong to kill innocent people of any type. You begin with the presupposition that God is not entitled to do with His creation whatever He so chooses. Since we don't get to decide to kill children (and we don't ... except, apparently, "a woman's right to choose"), God cannot. (Thus, I cannot agree with your position "Can we agree that in all cases, it is wrong to slaughter the children of our enemy?" I am not so authorized, but God may be.)
I start with the assumption that God is Sovereign (can and does do with His creation as He wills), that the Bible is His inspired (God-breathed) Word and, as such, accurate and "literal". I define "literal" as "as written", taking poetic passages as poetic, prophetic passages as prophetic, historical narrative passages as historical narrative, and so forth. Since books like Genesis through Job and the Gospels are written in a historical narrative format, I take them as historical narrative. I do not revise them to fit my understanding of what God can or cannot do. Oddly (at least to you), I have yet to find a contradiction either in the biblical accounts or in God's character. I have found lots of places where my understanding was lacking. But ... that's consistent with Jeremiah 17:9, isn't it? In other words, you and I start from radically different starting points and, of course, come to radically different conclusions.
Thank you for the thoughts. A few responses. You said:
The Bible does not, for instance, require a "flat earth" viewpoint... The Bible never commands that women be treated as chattel or 2nd-class citizens... In other words, these are all invalid, incorrect understandings both of Scripture as well as how Scripture has been interpreted...
I agree. That is my point. That Scripture (ie, the Word of God - which is much larger than merely the Bible, but is all that God would teach us) does not require a flat earth view or a six day creation view or a view that women are chattel, etc. The important thing to keep in mind is that we are seeking God's Will, not the Bible's Will. We ought not make the mistake of making the Bible our god.
I love the Bible, but it is not a magic book nor is it my god. It is the book that the church has agreed to be our Scripture. But it does not demand a literal interpretation nor does it demand that we take teachings (six day creation, women as chattel, etc) found within it as Sacrosanct and untouchable. That view is not found within the pages of the Bible.
In short, to treat the Bible as inerrant is to make a claim about the Bible that the Bible does not make, nor does God make anywhere that we have recorded. It is a human tradition, wrong in my estimation.
Where you say:
I start with the assumption that God is Sovereign (can and does do with His creation as He wills), that the Bible is His inspired... Word and, as such, accurate and "literal"...
You're doing so in an extrabiblical fashion. The Bible makes no such requirements of its readers. God has not made that a requirement. Tradition has. And sometimes, human tradition (humans being prone to fail) are wrong.
You say...
But, beyond that, you start with a presupposition that I do not. "Children are innocent." You begin with a denial of Original Sin -- that mankind is sinful from birth.
Actually, I believe you have a wrongly interpreted version of that doctrine. Babies ARE innocent. They have committed no sin. They are white as snow, there is not a sin upon them.
This would be an example of something that is logically discerned and impossible to reject, so far as I can see. Aside from anything the Bible says, clearly and beyond all doubt, a two minute old newborn has committed no sin. They are innocent.
I would assume you can agree with me?
Now, the doctrine of original sin, as I understand it, holds that we are given a bent, a tendency to sin. That is what we inherit. We don't actually inherit guilt for actual sins upon our birth. If there are churches out there that believe this, I think they do so in contradiction to the Bible and to logic.
After all, the Bible teaches how wrong it is (repeatedly) to shed "innocent blood." There is definitely a notion within the Bible that people can be innocent. This is especially true (logically and human-ly speaking, but also I think in the Bible) of children.
So, no, I don't reject the doctrine of original sin, just a bad interpretation and application of it.
So, assuming you agree with me (tell me if you don't) that newborns (if nothing else) ARE innocent, that leads us to your next point...
You begin with the presupposition that God is not entitled to do with His creation whatever He so chooses... (Thus, I cannot agree with your position "Can we agree that in all cases, it is wrong to slaughter the children of our enemy?" I am not so authorized, but God may be.)
No, I begin with the presumption that God won't ask us to do that which God has forbid us to do.
Do you think God would command bestiality and, if God did so, then it would be okay?
Do you think God could command child-rape and, if God commanded it, it would be okay?
No, no, no! God forbid. God does not ask us to do things that are wrong (with the "out" being that if God asks us to do it, it's not wrong). That would be a rejection of Biblical teachings about the nature of God.
Tell me, if a soldier told you that he believed god was telling him to take an Iraqi girl home (after killing her parents and baby brother) to be his wife, would you say, "well, if God told you, it must be okay"? OR, would you object in the most strenuous terms possible?
I object. God does not command evil.
I do not revise them to fit my understanding of what God can or cannot do. Oddly (at least to you), I have yet to find a contradiction either in the biblical accounts or in God's character.
The Bible says, "Do not shed innocent blood."
The Bible says, "God says, 'kill all the people, including the children.'")
How is that not a contradiction to you?
Please do me a favor. Show me someplace in your Bible that teaches "treat women as chattel". I'm not asking for the very words. Just something that suggests "We ought to do this." I can find "They did this", but that's not the same thing. If you could, please show me that teaching.
You claimed before to love the Bible. You have a different definition of the concept. When I read "All Scripture is God-breathed", I assume it means that all Scripture is God-breathed. If God breathed it, it is the "Word of God". If it is the Word of God, then either God might make mistakes and, therefore, the Scriptures might, or not. It is not mere tradition that leads me to this conclusion. It is 1) the text, 2) the logic (that you agreed we're supposed to use), and the continuous testimony of the Church.
Having discarded that position, you and I cannot have a rational conversation because we are speaking from completely different foundational principles. You say, "All men are dogs" and I say "All men are cats" and then we try to come to an agreement about all men. Can't happen. (It's an example of the problem. I don't actually mean you -- or I -- say that.)
So ... I say, "I was brought forth in iniquity" and you say, "Babies are innocent." You contest my understanding ... fine ... but you must admit that we're starting from different perspectives. So if you see babies as innocent and I see all humans as guilty from birth, then we cannot come to the same conclusion about what to do about it, can we? So when you say, "I would assume you agree with me", the answer is, "No!"
At this point I'm no longer reasoning with you, you see. We cannot bring up an argument (I mean a position, not a fight) and say, "See?" and expect the other to say, "Oh, yeah, I get it now" because we've started from totally different positions. If you start with "Babies are innocent", then your logic that either God didn't do what the Bible says He did or God is a sinful being Himself is unavoidable. And I can see why you conclude "The Bible shouldn't be read as written." But I don't start there. I start with the standard doctrine of Original Sin which you deny. That doesn't say, "You naughty, naughty boy" or "You're WRONG, heretic!" It simply says that you and I start from radically different places in regards to the nature of Scripture, the nature of Man, and the nature of God. There is little wonder that we come to different conclusions.
Women as chattel (property) or second class citizens in the Bible...
When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
Deut 25
[women have no say in who is or isn't there husband]
"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
Deut 25
[there is no penalty for the two men fighting, but if the woman intervenes in an effective way, SHE has her hand lopped off??
"When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.
"She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
Deut 21
[need I comment on this? Overtake another nation, kill a girl's parents and, if you see a beautiful virgin that pleases you, you can take her home, forcibly shave her head and trim her nails - classic dehumanizing techniques - and then, give her a month to mourn - how generous! - and THEN, God says, you can take her to be your wife. She has no say. She is chattel. She is the property of the male. This is the way it was back then, you are familiar with the historical conditions then, aren't you? Do I need to continue or will this sampling suffice?]
I say, "I was brought forth in iniquity" and you say, "Babies are innocent." ...So when you say, "I would assume you agree with me", the answer is, "No!"
I'm not sure I understand your position then. What exactly is it that you think newborns are guilty of?
You see, I think the problem is you're misunderstanding a church principle. The doctrine of original sin is not meant to suggest that Babies are guilty of something. Find a church leader who suggests this is true?
I reckon I've seen that sort of teaching in some less orthodox charismatic churches that play sort of loose with church tenets, but not in any mainstream Christian thinking. Is this the tradition you're coming from? If so, do you recognize that you are outside (I believe) of the mainstream of Christian tradition? (Which is not always a bad thing, when the tradition is wrong, but you seem to place a good bit of value on church tradition).
Stan said:
When I read "All Scripture is God-breathed", I assume it means that all Scripture is God-breathed. If God breathed it, it is the "Word of God". If it is the Word of God, then either God might make mistakes and, therefore, the Scriptures might, or not.
Jesus clearly loved the Scriptures. And yet, EVEN THOUGH the scriptures were clear that eating shrimp was an abomination and sinful, Jesus taught a NEW teaching. That OLD teaching is no longer valid, the new teaching is that shrimp is fine, especially grilled and barbecued.
Does that mean that scripture was wrong? I don't know. I just know that what was a truism within scripture is no longer and that's okay.
Like Jesus, I love the scriptures. Like Jesus, that doesn't mean that I think they all are equally valid.
And you agree. After all, I'm assuming you no longer think we ought to kill "men who lay with men," or disrespectful children, right? Why is that? No one ever said that those scriptures were no longer valid. God did not say, "Y'all can ignore that passage about killing the gays and kids."
Nonetheless, you don't think those scriptures still apply. Does that mean that you hate the scriptures? Does that mean that you don't think they were God breathed?
I will repeat for clarity: "You and I start from radically different places in regards to the nature of Scripture, the nature of Man, and the nature of God. There is little wonder that we come to different conclusions." The things you take as "obviously true" (like "babies are innocent" and "the Bible teaches that women are property" or "polluting is sin") I don't see. I can't even say, "You're wrong." I haven't started in the same place. As an example, what you see as "The Bible teaches that women are property" I see as "God is protecting women from being tossed aside and ignored." Your version of "Original Sin" is a "given" for you. Mine is the same one that I find in Scripture (not suggesting you don't ... except I think you find it in experience, not Scripture) and in Augustine and in Church history and in Luther and in Calvin and in Jonathan Edwards ... shall I go on? It's not "some less orthodox charismatic church" view. It is the standard, Reformed view.
"Jesus clearly loved the Scriptures. And yet, EVEN THOUGH the scriptures were clear that eating shrimp was an abomination and sinful, Jesus taught a NEW teaching. That OLD teaching is no longer valid, the new teaching is that shrimp is fine, especially grilled and barbecued."
Thanks for the humor, there. I mean, I know you can't actually find somewhere that Jesus said, "Throw another shrimp on the barby." I know there is nothing in the Gospels where Jesus taught "shrimp is fine". And this, again, illustrates what I'm talking about. When you hear "new testament" (as in "new covenant") you hear something that suggests that old stuff was tossed out. I hear clarification, enhancement. You hear "Shrimp was bad but now it's good" and I hear "It never was about shrimp; I'm talking about something else." For instance, it was always clear that adultery was sin, but Jesus said, "You don't get it ... lust is the equivalent of adultery." That's clarification, not nullification. When the Pharisees complained about Jesus working on the Sabbath, He responded to their erroneous understanding, not a revision of God's Law. He clarified, not nullified. (After all, wasn't it Jesus who said, "Not one jot or tittle will pass away"?) You think, because we no longer stone people, that it's no longer valid. I think that Israel was a theocracy whose laws were stated by God. We are no longer in a theocracy so capital punishment isn't in our hands anymore. Clarified, not nullified.
We should stop now. It is abundantly clear that our starting places are not the same, so our conclusions cannot be the same. You are perfectly happy arguing from perception and experience what you believe to be true, assuming that your perception and experience are a sufficiently reliable measuring stick of the Bible. As such, I have no room to tell you "You're wrong because the Bible says ..." because there is no weight there for you. And I can't be swayed by "You surely believe what I feel is true" because there is no weight there for me. So let's let it go, okay? We don't agree. That should be sufficiently clear. We won't agree. That's equally clear. Indeed, you must not agree with the intent of this post that we've been discussing or you would have to make some radical changes in your thinking (just like, if I were to agree with you that they were all wrong for all that time I'd be tossing out my entire belief system as well). So let's call it a day on this one, okay?
Thank you for the conversation.
Peace.
And you need not publish this one, Stan. Just between you and me, though, it sounds like you're saying, "If you don't read the Bible like I do, then I can't really reason with you..."
I have many folk who don't read the Bible as I do, and on many topics, it would appear we won't ever agree. But I still find value in the conversation. Perhaps even more value than in conversations with those with whom I DO agree.
You think?
I needed to publish it because I needed to be clear. Not "if you don't read the Bible like I do" but "If we have no common ground". We have no common ground in this discussion.
It's like this. Bob determines how to spend money based on a budget, and Ted determines how to spend money by how he feels. On what basis can they communicate on spending money? Bob is thinking, "It's abundantly clear that Ted isn't using a budget. What's wrong with him?" and Ted is thinking, "How can Bob possibly operate on a budget when how you feel is what's important?" Unless one speaks to the other on common ground, they cannot communicate to the other.
It is that gap that we have not bridged.
Ah, but we DO have common ground. We have a common language. We have logic. We have a common humanity. We have a common faith and Lord. We have more in common than we have different, it would seem to me.
We just disgree on how to read parts of the Bible. But just because we disagree on how to read the Bible (at least in part) does not mean that we have no common ground.
For instance, I believe we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. You?
I suspect we agree.
I believe that Jesus is the son of God, who came to earth as a man, lived a good life, taught us how to live and who was killed by the powers that be by a crucifixion following a kangaroo court of a trial. Three days later, I believe Jesus rose from the dead and soon thereafter ascended to heaven.
I suspect we agree.
I believe that Jesus taught we are to love our enemies, to love God, to love our neighbor as ourselves. I believe that Jesus taught that we are wracked with humanity and in need of salvation and that salvation can be found through God. I believe that God's will is for us all to be saved from our sin, from that which hurts us and separates us from one another and from God. I believe that salvation is a gift from God by God's marvelous grace. That grace is a gift that we can accept or reject, but God's hope is that we'll accept God's Life, God's Way, God's Peace, God's Justice. God won't save us against our will, but the offer is there for those who wish to accept it.
I suspect we agree.
I believe that being saved is not merely recognizing that Jesus is the Son of God (as the Bible says, "even the demons believe that much") but saying that we agree with God, that OUR way is a way prone towards sin and destruction. Instead of following OUR way, we are to follow in the steps of Jesus, by God's grace. we won't do so perfectly (ie, without error), but we can follow nonetheless, by God's grace, asking for forgiveness when we fall short.
I suspect we agree.
I suspect we agree on more than we disagree, and on the things we disagree, it's over topics that aren't as critical to our Christian faith as the essentials I list above.
Further, I think that all of this common ground gives us much room to have discussions on those topics on which we don't agree. Even if the topic is how to read the Bible. Now, we may not come to an agreement (I'd suggest that's likely), but it doesn't mean we can't or oughtn't have the conversation. If nothing else, hearing how others are interpreting the Bible increases our understanding of other believers and understanding is always good, even if it does not lead to agreement.
Or so it seems to me.
I guess I'm just not making myself clear. I didn't suggest we have nothing in common. That would be foolish of me. Hey, we're both humans, aren't we? (At least ... I am.) No, what I said was, "We have no common ground in this discussion."
I believe (I wrote) that biblical truth can be looked at as written and can be verified historically ... that new interpretations are highly questionable because I believe the Holy Spirit has done what He needs to do from the beginning. We don't have something they didn't have. We do have a valid Bible ("as written"). In this discussion, you would say, "No, I disagree." You won't accept my argument from the Bible that Scripture is God-breathed and, therefore, reliable, accurate, and infallible. I won't accept your argument from your reasoning that is contrary. I cannot accept that the Holy Spirit takes 2000 years to find someone to figure this stuff out. You can't accept that the Bible was right all along as it was. We have no common ground in this discussion.
Nor would I suggest that I don't gain from our discussions. I find all sorts of good stuff discussing things with people with whom I disagree ... you included.
But I think you've stated your view -- I'm wrong -- and I think I've stated my view -- you're wrong -- and I don't see what else we can do with it. That's all.
Post a Comment