First, how is it true? Well, in the sense that we are all creations of God, it can be said that we are all "God's children". And, in the sense that we are all humans, all image bearers of God, and all God's creation, we are all brothers. But do you see a problem there? It is quaintly true, but not accurately true that "creations" are "children". You can make a painting -- your creation -- but it's not accurately described as your child, even if you call it "my baby". And if you made another painting, there would be no real family ties between them. So there's a problem with that idea.
So, how is it not true? We read in John 1:3 "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." See? His creation. But John goes on to say, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:10-13). There is a distinction, then. There are those who refused to receive Him and those who received Him. To those who received Him "He gave the right to become children of God". It follows undeniably, then, that to those who did not receive Him He did not give that right ... and they are not children of God.
Jesus makes a similar distinction.
"If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:42-44).Jesus said that those who did not love Him and didn't hear Him were "of your father, the devil". They were of a different father than He was. And it only follows that if we have different fathers then we are not all brothers.
Jesus told us that the second most important command is "love your neighbor as yourself". We have no excuse. We are even to love our enemies. But to make the argument that we're all God's children is to fail to take into account Jesus and His words. And if we are of different fathers, we are not all members of "the Universal Brotherhood of Man". Love them all? Absolutely. But don't get sucked into the lies about who is related to whom. It will cause you confusion down the line. (You know, things like "How could God show wrath?" or "Why do bad things happen to people?" or "How could God choose some over others?" and the like.)
28 comments:
I suppose you know that the Bible uses the term, "children of God," both ways? That sometimes it seems to be talking specifically about God's followers, but at other times, it is talking about all of humanity?
For instance, Paul, in his speech to the pagan Athenians says...
So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
"For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD ' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since God is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is God served by human hands, as though God needed anything, since God Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
and GOD MADE from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for God and find God, though God is not far from each one of us; for in God we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are God's children.'
"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man."
Not that I'm disagreeing with the notion that perhaps we are right to suggest that God's followers are in a sense especially God's children, I'm just noting that, as is often the case, the Bible tends to make well-rounded and fairly inclusive claims.
In this case, I would be a believer in BOTH/AND, not Either/Or. We are all, in a very real and biblical sense, God's children and family together. AND, in another sense, those who reject God have rejected God's family and kinship.
Crazy ol' Bible...
I don't suppose you noticed that I argued "both/and". I said, "... there are certainly some aspects of it that are true ..." and went on to explain in what sense it was true in the second paragraph.
Here's the problem. If we are actually all God's children in that oh-so-real sense that most people mean it, then on what possible basis could there be so much of the doctrine that the Bible describes? How could there be, for instance, anything like "election" (which, like it or not, is mentioned repeatedly in Scripture, starting first with Noah and Abraham and all of Israel on down the line)? Does a loving Father practice anything like that kind of "favoritism"? How could a loving Father allow for so many to fall into sin, for so many to reject Him, for so many to be lost? How could a loving Father have the kind of wrath that the Bible displays on God's part towards sinners? How does any of that make sense? No ... we'd expect instead that the universalists would be right. An omnipotent God would find a way to save all His children.
Unfortunately ... that doesn't square with the rest of Scripture.
Yeah, I'm amongst those Christians who don't believe in "election," at least as I understand it. Or, perhaps better stated, I'm amongst those who don't believe that thinking represents sound biblical exegesis or logical thinking.
I also happen to believe that an omnipotent God HAS found a way to save all God's children that WISH to be saved. Of course, we are not automatons and we are free to reject God's salvation, but God's grace is there for all of God's children who wish to accept it.
Or that's how it seems to many of us, anyway.
Dan Trabue: "Yeah, I'm amongst those Christians who don't believe in 'election,' at least as I understand it."
That's fine. I'll leave you to deal with the absolutely unavoidable, constant stream of both the doctrine as well as the word throughout Scripture. The idea that God chooses some isn't some silly Calvinist notion. It is a biblical certainty.
Dan Trabue: "I also happen to believe that an omnipotent God HAS found a way to save all God's children that WISH to be saved."
When I was a teenager and rebelled against God (in a big way), I was leaving home to move in with my girlfriend. My dad stood at the door to stop me. "Dad," I told him, "you can't stop me. I'm a legal adult." Do you know what he said to me? "I'm your father and I love you. If I saw you on a raft in a river and I knew that there was a waterfall ahead, I would do everything in my power to save you from that death, even if it meant snatching you from that raft against your will."
I have since repented (of course) and really appreciate the love my father showed me that day. I see him as a genuine, loving father who simply was unable to prevent me from falling because it exceeded his ability to stop. If I believed that God only wished to save those who wished to be saved, I'd really have to question what kind of a loving Father He really was. Was it a failure of love, or a failure of ability? Maybe He could take some pointers from my dad.
I'm not sure I understand: How is God desiring to save ALL who are willing a failure of love?
Are you saying that God saves some people against their will? I don't believe that to be a biblically sound position.
The idea that God chooses some isn't some silly Calvinist notion. It is a biblical certainty.
And here would be where I would once again suggest that it behooves us all to approach God and the Bible with a bit of humility. YOU find it hard to see how the Bible could be taken any other way, but it certainly is no biblical certainty. Many Christians through the ages have been just as sure that the Bible does NOT teach Election.
Dan Trabue: "Are you saying that God saves some people against their will?"
Me? No. Remember me? I'm the one that argued that the universal Fatherhood of God was limited. I'm saying that if it was not in a limited sense, it would demand universal salvation ... or a failure on His part.
Dan Trabue: "Many Christians through the ages have been just as sure that the Bible does NOT teach Election."
Well ... yeah, of course. But people who have called themselves Christians have also held that Jesus wasn't God, that there is no Trinity, that salvation is universal, and so on. I could even point you to a website where a "Christian" argues "from Scripture" that all sex of all sorts is a gift from God to be enjoyed without limit. That doesn't make them right.
All who suggest "humility" when it comes to Election have to face the simple fact that God chose Noah rather than the entire human race, that He chose Abraham instead of anyone else alive on the planet, that He chose Israel rather than any other people-group. They have to face the fact that the concept of "the elect", "the chosen", is repeated over and over. (A quick search, eliminating inconsequential mentions, had me past 50 mentions in the New Testament alone of the "chosen", the "elect".) The Bible structures the entire set of "saved" as "elect" modeled first after the choice of Israel and then as a tree with Gentiles grafted in. And all of this is without any use of logic -- simply using biblical references. Logic only adds to it. "Humility" in the face of overwhelming Scripture, to me, is arrogance.
If I may ask (for clarification purposes), do you agree with Rev Charles Finney's view on Election, who advocates on behalf of Election here?
Just clarifying what you mean by Election. I have not really talked with anyone in years who believes this, including back in my more traditional days, and I'm just reminding myself of the doctrine.
Stan noted...
"Humility" in the face of overwhelming Scripture, to me, is arrogance.
So, would it be your position that, since the anabaptists have "overwhelming Scripture" to support their opposition to war, along with hundreds of years of tradition (including the first 200 years of the church), that we would be arrogant not to be humble about our view on the topic?
Ah, Finney. Some accuse him of being a heretic. I say, "Nonsense!" Finney was an arch-heretic. I even wrote one article explaining why. So, no, I don't agree with Finney on election. I agree with Paul. Try Romans 9 for the clearest explanation. (Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying, "Everyone agrees on what this means" or "I am using Scripture and you are not." I'm just saying if you take the passage at face value without special efforts to change its upfront meaning, it explains about election as I understand it.) I understand that my view of Election is in a particular category (Reformed, Calvinist, whatever term you like), but even those who disagree with my view have to admit that there is undeniable Scripture that indicates God chooses some for salvation. How He chooses whom He chooses is a hotly debated item, but that He chooses is not.
Dan Trabue: "... since the anabaptists have "overwhelming Scripture" to support their opposition to war, along with hundreds of years of tradition (including the first 200 years of the church) ..."
No, I'm suggesting that that would be a lie or, at best, a misrepresentation of the facts. If memory serves, you first came to my blog over that topic. I laid out the Scriptures and the history of the Church on the topic. I gave biblical and historical reasons why that wasn't the position of the Bible or the Church.
You would be arrogant if you decided to take the position that (as an obviously silly example) there were multiple ways to God, that Jesus was not the only way, and that salvation was wherever you chose to find it ... "and that's a humble approach."
Stan said:
I gave biblical and historical reasons why that wasn't the position of the Bible or the Church.
No, you gave your interpretation of biblical passages and excerpts from history to explain why that is not YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible or of your particular denomination. There are several denominations and traditions that disagree with your particular take on history and the Bible.
And that will be the last time I'll bring this up (or at least I'll try to remember that - my memory t'ain't what it used to be), but my point in many of these discussions is humility and not confusing OUR particular interpretation of history or the Bible with God's definitive Word.
I will say without fear of being wrong that God says, "We must love our enemies and do good to those who hate us." That is what the Bible represents God as saying and I think that is 100% correct.
I will not say, "God says all war is wrong," even though I think that is a logical conclusion to reach based on what is repeatedly stated in the Bible and just basic logic. No matter how true I believe that to be, I won't presume to speak for God. I'm just suggesting that we all ought to approach extrabiblical, debatable topics with that sort of humility, no matter how right we think we are.
Dan Trabue: "... my point in many of these discussions is humility and not confusing OUR particular interpretation of history or the Bible with God's definitive Word."
I agree that we need to be careful about declaring our own interpretation as inerrant. In fact, I wrote that very thing.
A completely separate question here. You referenced "God's definitive Word". You appear to think that there is such a thing. (If that sounds insulting, please don't take it as such. It's due to my confusion.) How do you go about determining what that is? You've decided that the accounts of God ordering Israel to kill people aren't "God's definitive Word", but the prohibition of bestiality certainly is (as an example). How do you go about determining what is or isn't God's definitive Word, and can you do so in such a way that makes it authoritative? (That is, if it truly qualifies as "thus says the Lord", then everyone ought to listen. If it only qualifies as "this is what I think", then no one really needs to bother.) I'm really just asking because I've never quite understood what appears to be a contradiction between "I have high esteem for the Bible" and "I consider certain parts as not actually the Word."
You referenced "God's definitive Word". You appear to think that there is such a thing. (If that sounds insulting, please don't take it as such. It's due to my confusion.) How do you go about determining what that is?
The exact same way you do. Using my God-given reasoning.
The main difference is, I don't limit myself to saying, "IF each line in the Bible presented in a factual manner is literally true, then what can we reasonably discover?"
Rather, I prayerfully seek God's will, seeing what the Bible has to say, weighing that against what the Bible has to say in other places, weighing that against what Jesus specifically taught and weighing all that against reason.
When I say, "God's definitive Word," I'm speaking of God's Will, God's wishes, what God wants us to do. This is found in the Bible, but goes beyond just the Bible.
As the Bible itself notes, we can find God in nature, written upon our hearts, in our humanity and even in our failings. There are many ways of finding God and none are fool-proof - including our reasoning as we seek to discover what the bible has to teach us.
As I'm sure you know, the Bible itself never tells us that we must need take each line presented as history as literal. The Bible never tells us that each time it is written, "God says," that we must assume that is what God says.
This is an extrabiblical human tradition to treat the Bible as inerrant, it is not anything that God has told us nor is it anything found within the pages of the Bible.
So, we all must use our God-given reasoning, prayerfully and the best we can, recognizing in humility that sometimes we will get it wrong.
The Bible guarantees no "authoritative" source of perfect information, nor does God. Right?
When I read that All Scripture is God-breathed, I take that as an authoritative source of perfect information.
But I think you're responding to more than I intended. I was only asking for information, not some agenda for an argument.
You believe, for instance, that the passages that say that God ordered the deaths of this particular people-group are not accurate. These, as I understand it, would not be considered "God's definitive Word". Based, as I understand it, on your particular reasoning, those passages are ... what? Lies? Myths? I really do not want to put words in your mouth. I'm simply trying to understand what you classify in the Bible as not "God's definitive Word" and how you do so. I repeat ... simply trying to understand.
Those passages would be not considered to be a literally accurate representation of what happened. We can know that God did not order the slaughter of babies because God elsewhere in the Bible tells us that this is wrong.
That's enough for me. I don't have to respond to them beyond "they are not to be taken literally." If I were to take guesses (and that's what it would be, since I don't know what literally happened), I might guess that they represent the wishful thinking of an oppressed people. It is not uncommon when a neighboring nation has been oppressive and deadly, for the people of the oppressed nation to have vengeance fantasies. The Psalms contain examples of this, "Wipe out mine enemy, O Lord," the psalmist prays more than once. Which is not to say that God supports us wishing that our enemies be wiped out, but God certainly understands this very real emotion and thus, it is expressed in the Psalms.
That would probably be my best guess as to what that represents.
"When I read all Scripture is God-breathed..."
1. The 66 books of the Bible never tell us that "These 66 books are the Whole of Scripture." That is a human tradition.
2. God-breathed is not to suggest without error. As noted, God may inspire me to write a vengeance poem to express a very real emotion (against an attacker, for instance) as a healthy way to grieve and deal with such an attack. That is not to say that God supports me wiping out my enemy and dashing their babies' heads against rocks, just that our God is God enough to understand such violent expressions without condemning us. There may be many good and legitimate reasons why some historic stories are told in a mythological manner.
3. For example, the people of 4,000 years ago would not know what to do with a scientific explanation of the Creation of the world. They would not understand concepts such as "100 billion years ago..." It makes great sense to tell the Truth of the creation story (that God created the world) using mythological language and to do that is not to undermine its "God-breathed-ness."
I am still trying to understand. I am going to feed back what it appears you have said and you tell me if I got it right.
The Bible (the 66 books we have) is not "the whole of Scripture". "Inspiration" simply means that it was inspired writing, not that God superintended it, oversaw it, verified it, or any such thing. The Bible contains mythology, wishful thinking, and literal inaccuracies. We determine what is or is not actually accurate. Ultimately we do not have any authoritative source of perfect information.
Let me know what was inaccurate.
Mostly correct.
1. It is a fact that the Bible never makes the claim that "these 66 books are scripture." That is just a reality. You agree, yes?
2. "Inspired writing," means to me, "inspired writing." The Bible makes no claim (nor does God ever say) that God "superintended, oversaw or verified" the Bible. That is just a fact. You agree, yes?
3. Certainly, stories like the Creation story is told using classically mythological language that does not sound as if it should be taken literally. This is more of an opinion, I suppose, but I think a case can be made that the Biblical Creation story sounds not dissimilar to other Creation myths.
(And you should not make a mistake to think that by calling the story representing the great and wonderful Truth that God created the world "mythological sounding" is to disrespect the Bible. There's nothing wrong with telling Truths in mythic form. Jesus told parables regularly. It's a great way to tell Truth.)
4. Where you say, "We determine what is or is not actually accurate," that is the way it is. But clearly, God holds all Truth. When I say "we determine" I only mean that we have the responsibility of trying to determine God's will.
There's nothing really unusual about that, surely you agree? That is, you and I both are responsible for striving by God's grace to determine God's will (ie, what is accurate)?
So, generally right and I would expect that you would probably have to agree with me, as described above (with the possible exception of whether or not the Creation story "sounds" mythic - perhaps we could agree it does not sound scientific?)
You keep going for agreement. I was trying to achieve understanding. Surely you know I can't agree to all that. The fact that there is no biblical text that says, "These 66 books are Scripture" is not a proof that they aren't. The phrase "God-breathed" (translated "inspired by God") does not have the same implication as "truly inspired writing". The entire text from Genesis through Esther is treated as historical narrative, not "myth". Sure, "myth" doesn't necessarily equate to "not true" ... although in some sense it does ... but the language and context from Genesis 1 through Esther 10 does not come across as mythology (let alone the effect it would have on theology). And when you say, "We determine what is or is not actually accurate", you mean it quite differently than I do. You are free to pick and choose, compare what you believe about God and science and religion and what else against what the Bible seems to say and then pass judgment on the texts, while I compare what the texts say and then pass judgment on my views of God, science, religion, and whatever else. These are not "the same" nor is it agreement.
But I do understand you better now (my original reason for asking). Of course, I'm still stuck. Why debate Scripture, the nature of God, religious values, or morality when you are quite sure we don't have a common, authoritative "Word of God"? Why not settle with "You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want"? Why is my opinion not just as good as yours, since there is no infallible source and reason is all we really have? What's the point of arguing points with no ultimate reality source?
For my part, I'm not really arguing points as much as explaining my position. And what's the point? Understanding, insight, community, Bible study, building up the church... These all seem like good reasons to me.
I have even less in common with a Muslim or Zoroastrian than with you, but I'd still find it interesting and beneficial to have these sorts of conversations with them. Even though there is no single "infallible source" between me and them.
As to your comment about "you keep going for agreement," I was just verifying that you and I can agree on the reality that, for instance, the Bible does not say "These 66 books are Scripture" - not that you agree with the concept, just that we are starting from the same point on basic facts.
IF, for instance, you disagreed with the fact that the Bible says "These 66 books are Scripture," then all you would have to do is provide that biblical source and we'd be one step closer to more understanding.
Your understanding that I don't hold the view that "God says - or the Bible says - these 66 books are Scripture" might help you understand my HIGH view of the Bible. I'm not willing to make claims about the Bible that the Bible does not make exactly because I take the Bible quite seriously.
So, do you see why I was trying to verify basic agreement on basic facts?
Stan asked...
Why debate Scripture, the nature of God, religious values, or morality when you are quite sure we don't have a common, authoritative "Word of God"? Why not settle with "You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want"? Why is my opinion not just as good as yours...?
Why? Because not all opinions ARE equally valid. The person who believes that it is a good thing to put to death the infidels does not hold a morally valid position. And so, the way we address such differences of opinion is through talking and that seems to me to be a good thing - even if we come from radically different perspectives (and I still maintain that you and I do not come from that radically different perspective).
Beyond conversation, what else is there? How else can we achieve any measure of understanding in this divided and fallen world short of conversation?
Another important reason to have discussions like these, it seems to me, is understanding more exactly where we agree and disagree. You may disagree on my take on the Bible and I, yours, but I do know you to be a Christian and hopefully you can see that I am a Christian.
So, by knowing that we are part of the same family, it helps when others might say, "Those goofy [conservatives/liberals] sure hate Jesus..." then we can more assuredly say to those people, "Hold on, I happen to know a Christian [liberal/conservative] and sure, we disagree, but it has nothing to do with hating Jesus. They ARE Christians, they just hold different views on some points..." and I think that kind of understanding is a good thing: To help end the division and demonization that happens all too often within the same family.
It would be interesting ... likely another time and another place ... to find out more where we agree than where we disagree.
As I have noted before, I quite often have agreed with your comments and have made many notes to that effect. Other times, I have agreed and said nothing.
There doesn't really seem to be as much to talk about in areas where we agree than in areas where we disagree, you know?
Stan: We are saved by God's grace.
Dan: Yep. Yep, we are.
Stan: That is to say, it is by God's grace that we are saved.
Dan: Mm-hmmm. Sure enough...
Stan: Yep...
Sorta like the guys in the alley on the TV show, King of the Hill...
I expect it would be easier probably to list the 10-20 ways we disagree than the hundreds in which we know doubt agree.
I have often engaged in the discussion (not with you) about Reformed theology or not (aka "Calvinism versus Arminianism"). I have tried on multiple occasions with multiple people in multiple venues to point out that the discussion is misleading. Debates within Christendom make people think, "Hey, don't these people agree on anything?" In the case of Calvinism vs Arminianism, the truth is that the debate centered on five -- only 5 -- differences. In all other aspects there was total agreement. But since the debate centers on those 5 points of disagreement, it looks like there is no agreement. And it's not true.
So I mused about what we would find as points of agreement because it is my firm conviction that Christians -- genuine Christians (rather than CINO - Christians In Name Only) (yeah ... I just made that up) -- have a large body of agreement and a smaller area of disagreement more on the periphery.
So ... when people see me disagreeing with other Christians, and all they see is the disagreement, I sometimes wonder, "Wouldn't it be helpful if they could see the larger body of agreement to help offset this perception that 'these two guys don't agree about anything, do they?'."
That's why I like to point out those areas on which I disagree occasionally.
D'oh! I meant to say, "point out those areas on which I AGREE with you..."
Oh, man, thanks for the correction. I didn't respond because I didn't get it. Makes sense now.
Post a Comment