Why do I believe what I believe regarding Christianity? Well, there is certainly a large intellectual component to it. I am convinced, based on evidence and reason, that Christianity is true. I am convinced that the Bible is God-breathed and, therefore, inerrant. I can see things like fulfilled prophecy and the fact that it was written by some 40 authors over thousands of years without contradiction and with a single message and that's evidence. I am convinced by that same Bible that Christ, God's Son, became flesh and died for my sin, paying my debt. I am convinced that the God of the Bible is truly and uniquely Sovereign (capital "S"). The evidence, the texts, the reasoning all bring me to this place. A lot of people seem to have some rational difficulties, but in my mind I see a seamless structure that all just makes sense to me. (That is not to suggest that I understand everything. "Don't fully understand" is not the same as "Doesn't make sense".) In fact, a good portion of my theology has been arrived at against what I was taught earlier in life and told in more popular Christian circles. I didn't get here because I necessarily liked it or because I was brought up this way. I have become convinced by evidence and reason.
If I were to tell you that the only reason that I believe what I believe is evidence and reason, however, I would be less than honest. Very little in life, in fact, is that simple. Most things are complicated. There is a strong intellectual component to my beliefs, but there is also an important emotional component. Having arrived where I am theologically, I have become quite attached to what I believe. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I need it. I'm perfectly willing to consider other options and there are certainly things that are more peripheral than others, but there are core beliefs that, if you were to strip them away, would devastate me.
Take, for instance, the idea of God's Sovereignty versus Man's Free Will. The by-far most popular belief is that Man has Ultimate Free Will. God doesn't interfere with that. Why would He? He gave Man Free Will and humans can do as they please. Most people like that idea. Me? It terrifies me. If that is, indeed, the truth, then life is hopeless. Some argued, for instance, on 9/11/2001 that "God is a gentleman and doesn't interfere." Don't tell me that! I want to believe that God is in charge. I want to believe that they meant it for evil but God meant it for good. I want to believe that God works all things together for good to those who love God. On the other hand, if God has given free rein to Man, then Man has free reign ... and God does not. (That was not a spelling error in either case.) The image, then, is a god who is there in heaven, ringing his hands, trying to figure out how he's going to pull this one out. "Oh my, oh my ... I wish they wouldn't do that. How terrible! Now what will I do? I'll figure out something." That god inspires no confidence, provides no meaning, and gives no hope in times of crisis.
That's just an example. It actually affects all portions of my life. If I look to Judaism or Islam (or other religions), for instance, I am offered the "hope" of eternal bliss if I just be good enough. "Good enough" is a vague concept that, well, knowing myself, isn't going to happen. Without the Atonement, "good enough" isn't good enough to give me hope. If I look to atheism, I am offered no reason for anything except "Stuff happens". That happy old platitude "Everything happens for a reason" is bunk. Everything just happens. There is no basis for morality, no basis for meaning in life, no answers to evil (a contradiction in terms), and no way to make sense of life. No hope.
You may disagree with my theology. That's perfectly fine. And I'm perfectly willing to 1) discuss it with people who disagree (in a friendly manner) and 2) examine whether or not I might be wrong. You have to realize, however, that there is a lot on this side. My beliefs conform to the Bible as it is written. My beliefs conform to orthodoxy in the historic Church. My beliefs make rational sense to me, carefully enmeshed and intertwined. If you're planning to try to talk me out of it, you will need some new set of information or logic train because I've seen most of them, and you'll need to offer me some sort of hope in life because moving off of where I am thus far appears hopeless. Sure, sure, you're happy with it, but, trust me, I can't go there. Like the hymnist, "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name." Anything other than the Sovereign God I know, other than orthodoxy, other than an inerrant Bible, other than a Savior who died on my behalf and paid my debt ... anything else may be a sweet frame, but it is not sufficient for my hope. It is ... sinking sand.
45 comments:
In a friendly manner, then, if you're willing to consider "whether or not you might be wrong," consider this: Where you say...
I want to believe that God is in charge. I want to believe that they meant it for evil but God meant it for good. I want to believe that God works all things together for good to those who love God.
Why does the thought terrify you that God allowed people to make that free choice, even if it wasn't God's will? I understand that for some people it feels "safer" to believe that God will stop the bad guys or that God is controlling everything, but we don't live by our feelings. Just because we may WANT God to be in control of what bad people do, does not mean that is the case, right?
For me, the thought that God desired for 9/11 to happen, for the holocaust to happen, for tragedies to happen, in order to try to teach us some lesson or for some happy platitude like "Everything happens for a reason," THAT would be what is truly terrifying.
Consider: If someone arranged for their child to be beaten, with the thinking being, "My child needs to learn self defense, but is too lazy and unmotivated to do so on his own. Therefore, I'll arrange this beating - nothing fatal, mind you, just a few bruises and a broken bone or two - in order to teach him a lesson and so that he WILL learn self defense and everything will work out for the good..." IF a parent did that, would you call that loving and responsible or crazy and horrible?
I'm in the crazy and horrible crowd myself.
People are funny. As we interact with each other, one person can say one thing and the other person can hear something entirely different. You know how that goes. He says, "My, the prices here are pretty high" and she hears "My, you sure are expensive for me to be with." That kind of thing. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you just said to me because it's one of those kinds of things.
Here's what I heard: "Stan, here's what I recommend. Give up that silly notion that God is actually Sovereign. That whole 'God works all things after the counsel of His will'? Hyperbole! He only works some things. The rest is up to us. Okay, well, almost everything falls in that category. So don't expect God to be in charge of things. Man is. We have Free Will to violate God's Will. And you should like that! People do bad stuff? Well, that's what happens. Get over it. There is no reason, no meaning, no comfort. God has taken a hands-off approach and there is no reason that you should think that any good will come from anything that sinful Man does. Now, that should provide you great comfort! I know it does me!"
That's what I heard.
One genuine comment here on what you said. I started with the first reason that I believe what I believe, and that is evidence and reason. I believe that God is Sovereign because the Bible says He's Sovereign. That's not feelings. I conclude that He works all things according to His will because the Bible tells me He does, and that's not living by my feelings; that's what it says. It just so happens that I like it, too.
I said in the post, "If you're planning to try to talk me out of it, you will need some new set of information or logic train because I've seen most of them, and you'll need to offer me some sort of hope in life because moving off of where I am thus far appears hopeless." What you offered me was hopelessness. "People can and do violate God's ultimate will, and that's the way it is. God is not in charge of everything. There is not a reason for everything. Get over it." You did not follow my instructions. You did not offer me some sort of hope in life. In popular terminology today that is called a "fail".
Here's what I heard: "Stan, here's what I recommend. Give up that silly notion that God is actually Sovereign.
That IS extremely funny, seeing as how I never said ANYTHING like that. Seriously, I think this is one of the most interesting things I've run across in my days of blogging: This whole tendency to read into words things that were absolutely not written or intended.
Human nature: What are you going to do with it?!
Stan said...
I said in the post, "If you're planning to try to talk me out of it, you will need some new set of information or logic train because I've seen most of them, and you'll need to offer me some sort of hope in life because moving off of where I am thus far appears hopeless."
And to be clear, I am NOT trying to talk you out of anything either. I'm just raising the question (that has gone unanswered): IF a parent did what you describe God doing, would that be a GOOD parent or a BAD parent?
Raising questions is not making accusations nor trying to change minds. It is asking questions. At least, when I do so, that is what I intend to do. Asking questions and seeking clarification. NOT striving to change opinions.
Stan said...
God is not in charge of everything. There is not a reason for everything.
I think there is GREAT reason for everything. In everything, God is giving us comfort and strength to face the challenges before us. God is not PLACING death and destruction and sin before us, God don't do that. God is not the author of evil, after all.
But what JOY, what COMFORT, what DELIGHT, what HOPE I find in God's presence and revelation in the changing of the leaves, in the end of a season and the beginning of another, in the community of saints, in the Godly acts of love found in the simple act of a child hugging a parent or even a stranger!
Hallelujah! Even though God does not cause evil in our lives, God IS there for us, comforting us and strengthening us by God's Spirit and by God's Body, the community of faith!
Dan Trabue: "And to be clear, I am NOT trying to talk you out of anything either."
Ummm, okay, but you started with "if you're willing to consider 'whether or not you might be wrong,' consider this:". Now you're assuring me that I'm not wrong?
Dan Trabue: "IF a parent did what you describe God doing, would that be a GOOD parent or a BAD parent?"
Nice move there. So, now ... God is God and we are ... God Jr? God is the Supreme Being, the Most High, and we ... well, we're just His kids, right? This is one of the fundamental problems with the idea of the Universal Fatherhood of God. It is misleading. We are creations, not children. God does not bear the same obligation to His creations as parents have with their children.
But, let's reverse the question. God knew that these guys were going to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings, killing thousands, and He did nothing (according to your rules) because God does not interfere with human will. If Dad knew that his little Jimmy was going to get shot today if he went to school and did nothing to stop it, would he be a good dad or a bad dad?
Bottom line ... bad question from a bad perspective.
Dan Trabue: "But what JOY, what COMFORT, what DELIGHT, what HOPE I find in God's presence and revelation in the changing of the leaves, in the end of a season and the beginning of another, in the community of saints, in the Godly acts of love found in the simple act of a child hugging a parent or even a stranger!"
I'm sorry, but that is completely irrational. No, I don't mean it's irrational to find delight in pleasant things. I mean that it is completely irrational to offer to someone who is asking "What do we do with the bad things that happen?" "I find great comfort in the good things that happen."
No, you didn't actually say any of those things that I "heard" you say. On the other hand, I have no means of interpreting it any differently. You asked, "Why does the thought terrify you that God allowed people to make that free choice, even if it wasn't God's will?" That means that God does not work all things after His own will. How do I conclude differently?
You offered no suggestions on how one with your perspective can find hope in unpleasant situations. You simply offered "It's not God's fault. Clearly things happen outside His will." No hope. Stuff happens. Being happy about happy things is fine. Your solution to unhappy things is ... well, missing.
Your solution to unhappy things is ... well, missing.
Bad things happen. Sad things happen. Thus is the world.
From our perspective, it is a sad and tragic thing when someone dies of old age, but that is how life works. We live, we die.
There is no solution to that, it is the way things work. Right?
Now, when people CAUSE bad things to happen, that, too, is the way things work. We have free will and some people (ALL people, to some degree) make selfish decisions and sometimes harmful and even tragic decisions. There's not a "solution," to that, I guess short of killing everyone. It's the way life and human nature is.
Are you wanting some perfect solution? I don't have it. I'll gladly own up to that. Sorry. Of course, neither do you have a solution to the problem of sin, I don't guess, at least as far as it impacts our world, right?
But the HOPE is not found in perfect solutions in a finite and imperfect world. The HOPE is found in the grace and comfort and community to deal with life as it really is. No?
And what is the ultimate source of that grace, comfort and community? Humanity? No. God.
Yes, I guess some might think that life would be better if God created a world where no harm ever came to anyone and nothing sad ever happened. But God, in God's wisdom, did not create the world thusly.
I see nothing at all missing in how God has created things nor anything terrifying in that reality. It is what it is.
completely irrational to offer to someone who is asking "What do we do with the bad things that happen?" "I find great comfort in the good things that happen."
I'm not sure how that is irrational. If bad things are happening, we CAN take comfort that God is working (through us) to make all things work to the good, which doesn't mean that God is making all bad go away, but that we (the church) can be there for one another, supporting and strengthening one another, and the reality is that we DO tend to get stronger through adversity, at LEAST when these adversities are handled with community and support and grace.
What is irrational at all about that?
Dan Trabue: "There is no solution to that, it is the way things work. Right?"
Well ... yeah ... in your worldview. In my worldview God has a purpose for all things, and all things happen at the will of God for God's good purposes. The solution to bad things in my worldview is "They meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." In your worldview humans violate God's will by sinning and that's just the way it goes.
And what, pray tell, would make you think that God works all things together for good? Oh, sure, maybe that's His will, but when His creation is perfectly free to do whatever they wish and He cannot interfere, there is no possible way that He can work all things together for good. Clearly that must be another hyperbole, right? I mean, are you really going to tell me that airplanes exploding into buildings work together for good when you already told me "There is no solution to that, it is the way things work"?
(Note: Since I believe that God actually is Sovereign over all things and nothing happens outside of His Ultimate Will, I don't have a problem with the literal promise from Rom 8:28. I just don't think you can count on it.)
Well, the good that CAN come of it, when people are living with Kingdom of God values, is that people pull together and support one another, that calls for peace and justice sound all the louder, that righteous anger at the use of deadly senseless violence flares white hot.
I can think of all sorts of good that God works toward, when people are being directed in Jesus' ways.
reason and evidence are why I have changed from a premillennial eschatology to an ammillennial eschatology, at least when it comes to the millennial kingdom. Scripture has much to say and as long as we are willing to listen to it, we can see that Scripture is logical, reasonable, and True. And I think your secondary reason is just a logical outflowing from your primary reason.
For readers everywhere, Jeff Street Baptist Community is actually Dan Trabue. Just so you don't get confused.
Your little dance is odd. First you told me there was no solution. Then you laid claim to "God is working (through us) to make all things work to the good" (a claim I can't actually find in my Bible). Now you're quite sure that there is "all sorts of good that God works toward", followed by the very important caveat, "when people are being directed in Jesus' ways."
So I'm back to my question. On what do you base any sort of confidence that God will actually work all things together for good? (My Bible doesn't say "through us".) If God only accomplishes that by people who choose to follow Jesus's ways, how can you be confident that it will happen? Or are you going to admit that it's more likely another piece of hyperbole?
David: "I think your secondary reason is just a logical outflowing from your primary reason."
I don't know if I'd say "logical", but certainly natural. When we see things a certain way, it tends to affect our feelings. And when we see things in a positive way, we tend to be happy about it. Good point.
Sorry, that Jeff Street WAS me, I was testing something for my church and had signed in under another name.
First you told me there was no solution.
There is no solution to the problems that occur because of tragic sin, in the sense that tragedies DO happen. God does not intervene to stop them, as a general rule. So, when I say that all things work together for the good, agreeing with the Bible, I'm not saying there is a solution, I'm saying they work together for the good.
It's STILL a bad thing when murders and holocausts happen. It's still an evil when people abuse and oppress. And God does not author evil.
But God CAN take it and work it to the good, and God can do this in many ways - by softening our hearts, by strengthening our reserve, by being present in God's Spirit and in the body of the community, etc, etc. But it was not part of God's plan that people would decide to do evil and God did not CAUSE them to do evil.
Do we agree on that much? That God does not CAUSE people to do evil?
I would guess we agree to that, but then you would still say that it was part of God's plan. And, if that makes you feel more comfortable, I'm okay with that, I just disagree with it. I don't think God "plans" on people doing evil and, if God DID plan on it but God didn't FORCE them to do it, what does that mean? How does God plan something evil to fruition if God doesn't force it?
To answer your questions:
So I'm back to my question. On what do you base any sort of confidence that God will actually work all things together for good? (My Bible doesn't say "through us".)
Because the Bible tells us AND because I've seen it in practice. Could you answer my question - On what do you base your confidence that God will plan something evil without forcing someone to do evil and how will God work that together for the good?
If God only accomplishes that by people who choose to follow Jesus's ways, how can you be confident that it will happen? Or are you going to admit that it's more likely another piece of hyperbole?
Because, we've seen it in the Bible (for instance, despite Elijah's moaning about how he was the only God-follower left, God assured him there were MANY left who still walked in God's ways) AND in the real world (for instance, when my faith community - and even those I don't know! - pull together in times of tragedy).
Because I've seen God's faithful hand through the years in many ways and I don't have to have blind faith merely because a book told me so. Rather, The Book bears witness to what I see in the real world with my God-given senses.
Also, it's not JUST the community of God through which God works God's will. God also works God's will through the Spirit of God ministering to us, convicting us, calling us, cajoling us in God's Ways. And it's not just the community and God's Spirit, it's also God's very creation bearing witness to God's certainty and faithfulness and dependability.
Seasons come and Seasons go and the leaves fall off trees only to appear again the next year. God has designed the world in majestic and beautiful ways that attest to God's wondrous ways.
I'm sure you'd agree, yes?
Dan Trabue: "Do we agree on that much?"
No. Well, sort of. We agree that God is not the cause of evil. But you assured me that "God does not intervene to stop [sin], as a general rule" and I have no reason to believe that God does not intervene whenever God so chooses. You were confident that "God CAN take it and work it to the good" even though God does not intervene in people's lives, and I don't see any rationale to that. You have absolutely no doubt that "it was not part of God's plan that people would decide to do evil" and I see exactly the opposite. You know, like the verse I repeat so often: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good."
Dan Trabue: "Could you answer my question - On what do you base your confidence that God will plan something evil without forcing someone to do evil and how will God work that together for the good?"
Why should I when you ignore mine? (Slight humor. I said earlier, "God knew that these guys were going to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings, killing thousands, and He did nothing (according to your rules) because God does not interfere with human will. If Dad knew that his little Jimmy was going to get shot today if he went to school and did nothing to stop it, would he be a good dad or a bad dad?" You conveniently ignored that question.)
Still, I will answer. I base my confidence on God. I base my confidence on Scripture. I read "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" and see that there was intentionality on both sides, and God meant their evil for His good. I read about how the leaders of Jesus's time set themselves against the Lord and still it was said that they did "whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place." I read Jesus saying, "The Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!" So I see personal choices to sin on one hand and God's overarching plan on the other. I see Man's sinful choices playing directly into God's Divine Will. In none of these cases did God force sin. In all of these cases the people were guilty of their own choice to sin. In all of these cases God was behind the scenes with His own plan to use their choice to do evil for His good purpose. I also see God prevent sin that would counter His plan (Gen 20). Since it is clear that God works all things according to His will, and "all things" includes Man's choice to sin, I conclude that God does not force sin, but allows it when the evil they plan will produce something He sees as beneficial for His plan. ... And ... I've had times when God has made the choice for me. "No, you're not going there." "Yes, that is exactly where you will go." "No, you would have wanted that job, but I'm not giving it to you." "Yes, I'm actually giving you something better than what you would have chosen on your own." "Yes, it is evil that she is divorcing you, but, trust Me ... I have something better in mind."
Scripture attests over and over. Experience concurs. God is Sovereign even over Man's choices, and He's very, very good.
God meant their evil for His good.
?
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding.
HOW did God do it? Let's take the 9/11 bombers. What did God's plan look like? Did God plant the idea in a bomber's head ("hey, why don't you go hijack a plane, take along a boxcutter and they won't be able to stop you...") and then the bomber agreed?
I believe you have indicated that God doesn't MAKE people sin, so I'm guessing you agree with me that God did not force the bomber, so how did it happen? I'm not seeing how you have free will and God's "plan" to have the 9/11 bombing and how God implements it without forcing it.
Why should I when you ignore mine? (Slight humor. I said earlier, "God knew that these guys were going to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings, killing thousands, and He did nothing (according to your rules) because God does not interfere with human will. If Dad knew that his little Jimmy was going to get shot today if he went to school and did nothing to stop it, would he be a good dad or a bad dad?
I'm sorry, I intended to but got sidetracked.
The thing is, yours is a VERY good question and one that people smarter than I have dealt with and not come up with any great answer. IF God sometimes intervenes to stop evil and yet, sometimes DOESN'T when God could, what does that say about God?
Tough question.
Tough question for my position AND for your position, seems to me.
My answer is that God does not intervene as a rule to stop such things because that is not how God made things. God made us to have free will and that IS God's will. And, since God does NOT force us to do things we don't want to do, people are free to make those sorts of decisions themselves, even when those things are horrible.
I think the reality of murders such as that are a powerful testimony that God DOESN'T interfere in our free will. It's not the way that things operate, it's not how God created the world.
Gravity holds things down, the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant over time and God created us with a free will and does not interfere with that.
That's my answer, sorry it didn't come sooner.
So, even though Scripture says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart when it came to letting the Israelites go free, God does not interfere with the choices of Man, even ones that we would consider evil? In the Bible, God has blinded (an active word) many from the Truth, which led them to do "evil" things, like execute Messiah, but if God doesn't ever interfere in Man's choices, the Bible must be either lieing or wrong. Even if it's hyperbole, it is quite an accusation to make of God who doesn't work in His creation, but merely watches like some perverse hedonist.
I'm not saying God "merely watches." I'm saying that we have freedom of choice and God does not make us do something against our will.
Which I think some here agree with. Maybe. Maybe not. I can't tell.
What does it MEAN that God "intervenes?" I believe FULLY that God intervenes. God woos. God chastises. God speaks.
It's just that God does not force.
What do you mean by that?
Boy...this conversation is going from one thread to the next...I posted on the last one, and now we're over here. Dan, if you wouldn't mind checking out the last stream (you can reply to it here if you'd like), I'd be grateful.
Based on your last post, Dan, do you believe in God being all-knowing (know the future, included)?
Ryan asked...
Dan, do you believe in God being all-knowing (know the future, included)?
I dunno.
Not trying to be cute, just honest. I tend to think of God as being omniscient, all-knowing. But does that mean that God knows each POSSIBLE path that might be taken by each individual and all the multitudinous ripples of consequences?
Does that mean that God knows each path that might be taken by each individual but that God also knows, even before we know which way we choose, what we will choose?
What of the places in the Bible where God expresses surprise or unawareness of a situation (I believe they exist, as I remember, although I'd have to look that up to be sure)? Does the Bible use the phrase "omniscient" or "all knowing"? I don't believe so.
And so, my answer is, I don't know. That's a question above my pay grade. If the bible hasn't told us so (and I don't believe it has) and if God hasn't told me personally (I know that hasn't happened), I would hesitate to make even a wild guess.
Do you know?
"To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, as though we were alike? Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales— they hire a goldsmith, who makes it into a god; then they fall down and worship! They lift it to their shoulders, they carry it, they set it in its place, and it stands there; it cannot move from its place. If one cries out to it, it does not answer or save anyone from trouble.
"Remember this and consider, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention,' calling a bird of prey from the east, the man for my purpose from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have planned, and I will do it. Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from deliverance: I bring near my deliverance, it is not far off, and my salvation will not tarry; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory." - Isaiah 46:5-13, emphasis mine
If one is uncertain about God's omniscience, how does he approach the Bible's repeated prophecies? Are they just lucky guesses? Speculations that happen to be right? Is even Isaiah's prophecy of Israel's liberation and Babylon's destruction by Cyrus the Great BY NAME a coincidence?
Or does Dan believe that everything that the Bible claims to be prophecy was really written after the fact? Considering how much Christ fulfilled, does that mean that the Old Testament was largely written after Christ's earthly ministry, or is the problem of messianic prophecy resolved by dismissing the specific claims of fulfilled prophecy? To say nothing about what Scripture records as the claims of His earliest followers, does Dan also dismiss Christ's own broad claim to have fulfilled everything that was written about Him in "the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms"?
Let's not forget the claim is recorded in Luke 24:44, written by a man who claimed to have carefully investigated everything, and a gospel that Dan otherwise likes very much, when, for instance, Christ preached about the day of Jubilee.
(He claimed to have fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy there, too.)
While I certainly believe that there is room for different conclusions, the Bible completely precludes any doubt about God's knowledge of future events.
Along with other beliefs about, for instance, the causal connection between Christ's death and our salvation, and even about the nature of death, this ambivalence that Dan has about God's knowledge of future events demonstrates that -- whatever else he means by it -- Dan's stated love for the Bible and deep respect for its teachings do not actually mean that his beliefs result from its contents.
Bubba,
This is not about Dan specifically, but just some info for you. There is a (not insubstantial) group who follow something labeled "Open Theism" or "Free Will Theism". They are trying to fix the "problem" of God's omniscience. You see, if God knows all things, then our choices are predetermined because God already knows what they are. (That's their complaint, not mine.) In order to defend Man's Free Will (the capital letters are not used lightly), they have this other version where God is only "omniscient" in the sense that He only knows what can happen, but not what will happen. They argue that God cannot know what Man will choose until He chooses to do it. Of course, it boils down to "That's not the God of the Bible," but they still cling to it.
(Let me repeat. This is not about Dan. I've never heard Dan suggest anything like this.)
Thanks for the clarification, Stan.
Bubba said...
If one is uncertain about God's omniscience, how does he approach the Bible's repeated prophecies?
Once again, I am not willing to say that God is omniscient because the Bible does not make that claim and because I respect the Bible and attempt to take it seriously, I am not willing to make a claim about God that I don't know.
As I said, I tend to think of God as being omniscient, but that's just a hunch on my part.
Do you have some reason to say authoritatively that God is omniscient, or are you, like me, just thinking that your best hunch is that God is omniscient? If so, we are in the same place, aren't we?
Or perhaps some are more willing to make presumptions about God and say (with their own authority?) that this IS how God is, no doubt about it!
For myself, I'm not that bold to presume to speak for God something I don't know and something that Jesus did not teach and the Bible does not say.
I hope you can understand that position, even if you disagree with it.
Bubba said...
Or does Dan believe that everything that the Bible claims to be prophecy was really written after the fact?
We are probably straying from the topic, but I'd be interested in knowing what Bubba thinks the "Bible claims to be prophecy?"
In places like Isa. 46, that Bubba quoted...
I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intention...'
Is the one and only possible explanation for a line such as this is that God is omniscient?
I read that passage and don't see it as saying "God is omniscient." Am I wrong for thinking this? Why?
Dan Trabue: "Is the one and only possible explanation for a line such as this is that God is omniscient?"
Ummm, yes. The only way to declare the end before it happens is to know it before it happens.
Why could it not be considered a metaphor or hyperbole?
Again, because of passages like this and just because of my general impression of God as well as I can understand an infinite God, I tend to agree that I think God would be omniscient.
All I'm saying is that I don't know that the bible teaches that specifically or that we have to believe that or what that even means.
Ummm, yes. The only way to declare the end before it happens is to know it before it happens.
Literally taken then, that would indicate a mystically knowledgeable God. I don't know that it demands "all-knowing."
And yet again, I'm not arguing against God being all-knowing, seeing as how I said that is how I tend to think of God. I'm just saying I'm not sure the bible teaches it or that logic demands it.
How my unwillingness to presume to know something about God indicates that I don't love and respect the Bible, as Bubba suggested, I don't know. That does not even seem to make sense.
We've jumped off the topic, to be sure. Quickly, though, and knowing that you said you tend to think of God as omniscient ...
Dan Trabue: "I'm not sure the bible teaches it or that logic demands it."
The Bible teaches it and logic demands it. From the Bible, for instance:
God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything (1 John 3:20).
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; His understanding is infinite (Psa 147:5).
The list goes on and on.
Logic, however, demands it. We know that God doesn't change. We know that because 1) He says so and 2) change would require either for the better or for the worse and God can neither decline or improve. If there is something God doesn't know, when He learns it, He changed (if only "acquired new knowledge"), and God is now mutable.
Simply FYI.
Dan:
As Stan and I both show, God's omniscience actually is a clear teaching of Scripture.
I bring up your implausible claim to love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings because, if you aren't sure you defer to what the Bible clearly teaches, and if you even find such deference to be presumptuous, then it's clear that your beliefs don't come from what the Bible teaches but from, well, somewhere else.
Are you hung up on the word "omniscience"? I ask because the Bible does clearly teach in I John and elsewhere that God knows everything.
There's a theological term for knowing everything -- omniscience -- but, quite trivially, the lack of the technical term doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach the concept.
"Does the Bible use the phrase 'omniscient' or 'all knowing'? I don't believe so."
Why would that matter unless you don't think it's enough that the Bible clearly teaches the concept even if it doesn't use these particular phrases?
If you want to go that route, I must ask, does the Bible explicitly teach "God's existence"? If it doesn't use that phrase, is there really any doubt that the Bible teaches that, indeed, God exists?
(All this reminds me that I asked at Craig's whether you can even bring yourself to say whether an outright atheist is a Christian. So far as I can tell, you still haven't answered that question.)
If the Bible can teach God's existence without using that phrase -- and it can, and it clearly does -- then it can and does likewise teach God's omniscience without using that particular bit of technical jargon.
You ask, about the Bible's claim that God declares the end before it happens, "Why could it not be considered a metaphor or hyperbole?"
For one thing, it's not figurative language: it's not a metaphor, and you're misusing the term when you repeatedly invoke to dismiss passages' clear meaning when you find it inconvenient.
"God is a shepherd" is a metaphor. "Christ's disciples are salt" is a metaphor.
"God declares the end before the beginning" isn't a metaphor: it's a literal claim whose meaning is straightforward and is either true or false.
Second, if the claim is hyperbole, then the passage no longer makes sense. If God does not literally declare the end before the beginning, then His assurances that what He declares WILL come to pass is no longer trustworthy.
It is not sensible to suggest metaphor or hyperbole here, and I sincerely doubt you could present any reason -- from the text or from logic -- that would justify your invoking the terms even speculatively.
Brother Bubba, I could argue why I think it COULD be hyperbole or some other imagery, but seeing as how I basically agree with your position - just not with the degree of certainty you do - I think I'll pass. Why "debate" something when I don't even really disagree with you.
My only caveat is that I'm not as certain as you are that omniscience and ONLY omniscience is the ONE AND ONLY way these passages can be taken.
It's the way I tend to take them, but I can see that there might be others. Nonetheless, on this point, I basically agree with both you and Stan.
I hope you'll allow me to maintain my humble position of not being certain, if it pleases you (or not).
Perhaps you shouldn't expect a wide berth for your supposedly humble uncertainty, Dan, when you seem so quick to attack us for not having the same difficulties in reading and understanding Scripture.
"Once again, I am not willing to say that God is omniscient because the Bible does not make that claim and because I respect the Bible and attempt to take it seriously, I am not willing to make a claim about God that I don't know."
With statements like this, you seem to imply that those who disagree with you do not "respect the Bible and attempt to take it seriously."
I'm curious, why do we keep quoting Scripture passages at Dan T as proof texts of our beliefs? According to Dan T, most of the bible is hyperbole, metaphor, or imagery. (I can't help but think of a line from Princess Bride, "I do not think that words means what you think it means.") Dan T's default response to EVERY passage presented is either that's not what he thinks it means, or it is not meant to be taken at face value. Augustine (I think it was Augustine) probably went a little far when he said that every passage has 4 meanings, but Dan T has removed 2 of those meanings and is only left with ethereal passages that may or may not mean what they say, based on what he feels that they say. He both stands on the power of Scripture as authoritative for faith and practice, yet denounces it as not really meaning what it says. Is there anything beneficial coming from debating unbelief with him? He obviously doesn't believe in Scripture like we do. It just seems like an exercise in futility. It is the same as when a young earth creationist looks at scientific evidence and an evolutionist looks at the same exact evidence. The 2 can NEVER agree because they are coming from 2 separate basis. Dan T 90% of the time when you ask, "Can we agree on that?" I personally say, no.
Dan,
I appreciate your desire to know truth. You've constantly asked questions, been willing to admit when you're not sure of things, and been patiently responding to the many questions thrown your way. I also appreciate your desire to not come across as a know-it-all and you seek to remain humble. You are to be admired for those things.
I am concerned, though, that what you call your "humble position" to not be certain of what God clearly reveals to us in Scripture does not come across as humility. The Bible is God's revelation to us of Himself. We can't know of Him if He doesn't reveal himself to us. So when the Bible makes such plain claims about his ability to know all things, including those things which haven't yet happened (and not only that, in Revelation, he calls Himself the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, so it's not just that he knows it, He is it), isn't it somewhat of a "slap in the face" to God? Forgive me if maybe you just aren't familiar with all of the passages that speak clearly of this (I don't know you well enough to know and this could very well be the case), so if you'd like me to make a list, I'd be glad to.
You've been frustrated with Stan because you feel He's misrepresenting you and your position, though you feel you've been as clear as you can be. It's frustrating and hurts a little to feel like you're communicating plainly and not being understood. It can be perceived as an affront (I'm not taking sides in this, nor am I suggesting that all if this is actually the case, I'm just using this as an example).
God has done the same thing. He's the master communicator, and when He repeats over and over something about Himself, and then we turn around and suggest that my "humble position" is that we can't know that for sure, is that really a humble position, or an admission that we're not sure we trust God's Word on that?
What if I said that all those passages where Jesus talks about loving our neighbor are just hyperbole? I mean, I only have a couple neighbors anyway...one across the street, and one next door. I think He might mean others, too, but I just can't be sure. I hope you can respect my "humble position" that, though I think that's what He's saying, I can't be sure. It doesn't make sense, and to say that would be to suggest that Christ, well, may not have meant what he said (though I think He did, probably).
Your constant reach to hyperbole is a slippery slope and concerns me, Dan. What if my moral intuitions cause me to think the cross is just hyperbole? What about hell? Just hyperbole. Where do you draw the line? You can't just reach for hyperbole every time you either a) don't understand something and others claim to, or b) when it disagrees with what you think seems to be right in your own mind.
I don't want this to be taken wrong, in any way, Dan. I hope it is taken in the spirit in which it's intended.
And I do not believe this is off topic, at all. God's attribute of omniscience (and omnipotence and omni-presence, for that matter) are tied to His Sovereignty and how we understand it. That's why I asked the question in the first place. If God is all-knowing (including future events) then that means that God knows who will come to Him and who will not. Does God really 'woo' those who He knows won't come to Him? If He does, why? Why did He create them if He knew they would end up in Hell? And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg...
Bubba said...
With statements like this, you seem to imply that those who disagree with you do not "respect the Bible and attempt to take it seriously."
My apologies if it sounded that way. It was not my intent.
David said...
I'm curious, why do we keep quoting Scripture passages at Dan T as proof texts of our beliefs? According to Dan T, most of the bible is hyperbole, metaphor, or imagery.
David, we have not discussed "most of the Bible," so don't you suppose it is unfair for you to suggest that is my position? On several topics (a dozen maybe?) and passages (a couple of dozen, three dozen?) I have stated my opinion that some passages sound like they'd best be interpreted as imagery (whether poetry, metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, etc).
In these relatively few instances, we don't hardly have the whole of the Bible or knowledge, surely you'd agree?
On the other hand, I have stated quite clearly that some passages that some here take as metaphor or imagery (Jesus' "blessed are the poor," for example) OUGHT TO be taken fairly literally NOT as metaphor. Would it be fair, then, to accuse Stan (for instance) of taking "most of the Bible" as imagery?
I think not.
In truth, we ALL take SOME of the same passage as imagery, SOME passages you take more literally when I take it less so and SOME passages I take more literally and you take less so. Fair enough?
David also said...
He obviously doesn't believe in Scripture like we do. It just seems like an exercise in futility.
How so? Just because we disagree on some passages or how even best to read them, does that mean we ought not talk with each other? How would you EVER talk to someone who is lost or from some other faith tradition besides Christianity? Are you suggesting it would be even HARDER to talk to, for instance, a Muslim or a pagan than it is to talk with me, someone who probably agrees with you on 90% of things?
Y'all sometimes seem to me to take disagreement to seriously. We disagree. That's okay.
Even if we disagree on some things, we agree:
1. That we are sinners in need of God's grace;
2. That we can be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus;
3. That we are to throw our full trust and lives on Jesus' mercy and prayerfully strive to walk in Jesus' steps;
4. That God created this world, created us in God's image, that this whole world declares God's glory!
5. That the Bible is God's revealed word to us, and is good for education and instruction;
6. That God's Spirit speaks to us, calls us, reaches out to us, strengthens us;
7. That the church is God's body, God's hands and feet in this world;
8. That Jesus is the son of God who humbled himself to become one with us, living a perfect life amongst us,
9. That Jesus came preaching good news to the poor, healing for the sick, liberty for the captive, the day of God's good favor;
10. That Jesus life and teaching was an affront to humanity and that we crucified Jesus and three days later, he rose from the dead...
How long shall I go on about how much we agree upon? Because I am truly just starting...
Ryan said...
I appreciate your desire to know truth.
And I, yours. And your graciousness with me.
Ryan also said...
I am concerned, though, that what you call your "humble position" to not be certain of what God clearly reveals to us in Scripture does not come across as humility.
Would you agree that it is possible that what you find to be "clearly" revealed, I find less clear and that some things that I think are as clear as could be, you might find less clear? I am relatively certain you agree that none of us are sole holders of all knowledge, yes? None of us are experts on all things, none of us are wholly capable of understanding all of God, yes?
It may well be that you understand some things better than I do. Perhaps, it's even possible I understand some things better than you do. And equally possible is that neither of us understand as much as we might think, yes?
Ryan said...
The Bible is God's revelation to us of Himself. We can't know of Him if He doesn't reveal himself to us.
Okay. Agreed. And God DOES reveal God's Self through the written Word, through all of Creation, through God's Spirit, through the community of faith, through the least of these, through God's Word written upon our hearts, wouldn't you agree?
And would you not also agree with me and with the apostle Paul that now, we see as through a glass, darkly? We are finite beings trying to understand an infinite God. I think we could all benefit from a little humility in this endeavor and none of us moreso than myself.
What do you think?
Ryan said...
isn't it somewhat of a "slap in the face" to God? Forgive me if maybe you just aren't familiar with all of the passages that speak clearly of this (I don't know you well enough to know and this could very well be the case), so if you'd like me to make a list, I'd be glad to.
I would hope that my honest admission that I don't know for sure that God would call God's Self omniscient would not be a slap in God's face. I suspect God recognizes my poor mind's limitations. Don't you think so?
As to how much I do or don't know about the Bible, I've been a Christian for 36 years now and a student of the Bible for all my 46 years, inasmuch as my parents were reading and singing it to me from day one. I can certainly stand to know and understand a lot more, but I am fairly well-versed with what the Bible says. Understanding what it means, well, I'd suggest my 46 years are just a beginning.
Ryan said...
Your constant reach to hyperbole is a slippery slope and concerns me, Dan. What if my moral intuitions cause me to think the cross is just hyperbole? What about hell? Just hyperbole. Where do you draw the line?
As I noted to David, my "constant reach to hyperbole" would, itself, be a hyperbolic statement. We've talked about a relatively few topics and passages here. I don't think it would be a fair conclusion to reach that I have a "constant reach to hyperbole." Just on some of the topics we've touched on here.
Here are some topics that I think the Bible and reality support us taking these topics fairly literally:
1. Jesus said and meant, "Blessed are the poor."
2. Jesus said and meant, "Woe to you who are rich!"
3. James said, "Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries... Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts."
4. James said, "You [rich folk] have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance."
5. Leviticus tells us, "When you come into the land which I give you, then the land shall keep a Sabbath to the LORD"
6. Leviticus tells us, "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not be so thorough that you reap the field to its very edge, nor shall you glean the stray ears of your grain. These things you shall leave for the poor and the alien. I, the LORD, am your God."
7. Jesus commanded us, "Do not take an oath at all... Let your yes be yes and your no be no."
8. Paul commanded us, "Don't worry about anything, but pray about everything."
9. Jesus commanded us, "turn the other cheek," and Paul expanded saying, "Overcome evil with good."
10. Paul says, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink."
And I'm just scratching the surface here. I believe each and everyone of these teachings ought to be taken fairly literally and extremely seriously. Do you?
If you don't take each of those teachings literally (as I do), are you denying God's sovereignty? Are you rejecting God's authority or questioning the Bible, indicating a lack of respect for it?
Can you see now that just because I may not take each line literally, I'm not the only one who does this and in some cases, we're absolutely right not to take them literally and in some cases, we'd be wrong NOT to take them fairly literally and in some cases, it's hard for some of us to tell. Shall we beat up on one another when the other doesn't agree with us on which ones are "obviously" to be taken literally?
Or shall we show some grace, even as we have been shown grace? (Another idea I take quite literally).
And thanks for your concern that I would take what you had to say the wrong way. I haven't and I appreciate the conversation.
I agree with David and Ryan, why keep engaging him in these matters? The Bible is a storybook full of metaphors and hyperbole...I've never seen someone continue to discredit the Bible (in the most sincere way).
Maybe some (not naming names) should just read the Bible for fun, and stop going to blogs to try and convince others the Bible cannot be taken at face value. And please quit saying their is high respect for the Bible when there clearly is not.
I'm starting to think it's all an act. Time to move on. Dust, dust.
Dan Trabue: "Would it be fair, then, to accuse Stan (for instance) of taking "most of the Bible" as imagery?"
Nice. Another fine misrepresentation there, Dan. Funny thing, though. You've also misrepresented yourself.
You see, humans always act on what they truly believe. If I believed that the pure in heart were truly blessed, then I would seek to have a pure heart and encourage others to do the same. If I believed that people who are good are blessed, I'd seek to be good and encourage others to do the same. You claim to believe that it is a blessing to be poor and yet you are middle class, not trying to become poor yourself, and you are certainly against others being poor, preferring instead to help people out of poverty.
You told me that I could ask you any time to stop commenting and you would do so. I really think, in the interest of my other readers, in my interest, and, frankly, in your interest, it would be best if I extended that request and you honored it. I think it's time that I ask you not to bother commenting anymore. Frankly, we just don't need the constant conflict ... among other things.
You told me that I could ask you any time to stop commenting and you would do so. I really think, in the interest of my other readers, in my interest, and, frankly, in your interest, it would be best if I extended that request and you honored it.
I'll decide what is best in my interest, thank you. I would suggest that everyone here who has a problem with disagreement to relax a little bit, show a little more grace and not be so uptight about differences, for your sake.
But if this is your wish, I shall go away.
Thank you for allowing at least some discussion here. May I ask Ryan if he'd like to carry it on at his place or mine? Ryan?
God bless you all and grant us all wisdom.
Peace.
[dust, dust]
Is those parting words an allusion to this?
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." - Mt 10:14-15
"If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them." - Mk 6:11
"But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.' I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town." - Lk 10:10-12
I can't see what else it could reference, and if my suspicion is right -- and assuming he's not wholly ignorant of the reference; does Dan say "dust, dust" in all parting circumstances? -- it puts the lie to everything else that Dan wrote before that.
He writes that we should be less uptight about differences and disagreements, he thanks Stan for the discussion, and he wishes that God blesses us all.
And, then, in what is for him an all-too-common act of passive aggressive behavior, he seemingly alludes to and applies that command of Christ to renounce those who are not open to the Gospel, as a testimony against them because Christ compared them unfavorably to the wicked who were wiped out in Sodom.
How charming.
Bubba: "Is those parting words an allusion to this?"
Technically ... no. It is a reference to starflyer's comment above. Starflyer's comment above is a reference to a comment from Dan some time ago. That comment would be a reference to the passages in question, but not this one. This one was just a friendly reference to another's comment.
I'm up for it, Dan. I hope you don't mind if we slow this thing down, though, because I can barely keep up with the pace we've set on here!
Thanks for the clarification, Stan.
My apologies to Dan for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Interesting dialogue, fellows. A website I came across a few days ago gives one man’s opinion on why people believe the way they do:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/03/outsider-test-for-faith_20.html
*****************************
Changing topics--
Stan, do you take requests? I find that the topic on Christian broadcasts that catches my attention the most is the meshing—or the lack thereof--of the Bible with modern science. There is a wide range of positions that ministers take. One extreme is captured by the phrase, “The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.” To those ministers, the early parts of the Bible are allegorical and were never meant to be taken literally. They would accuse a creationist like Hank Hanegraaff of reading Genesis in a “wooden literal way.” At the other extreme are the Young Earth Creationists. (I suppose Flat-Earthers are even more extreme, but they are few in number in 2009.) Y.E.C.s say the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and that humans do not have any common ancestry with other primates, let alone with lizards or pine trees.
If time permits, would you blog on that topic? If you would like to structure your thoughts as rebuttals of points made by agnostic scientists, you could read any of these items to get fodder:
‘Why Evolution Is True’ by Jerry Coyne
‘Did Man Create God?’ by David Comings
‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ by Richard Dawkins
‘The Selfish Gene’ by Richard Dawkins
‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by Richard Dawkins
Periodicals such as ‘Scientific American,’ ‘American Scientist,’ ‘Astronomy,’ ‘Physics Today’ and ‘Discover’
The late D. James Kennedy said that the theory of evolution is “crumbling,” and it will not be long before the vast majority of scientists embrace Young Earth Creationism. Do you too see that as a trend? Do Christians, Jews and Muslims have a responsibility to protest in front of publishing houses where agnostic science is being disseminated as in the publications I listed above? Are you within your rights to pray that God will speak correction to leaders (the Christian ones, if not the Jewish and Muslim ones) who are wrong on the creationism vs. evolution issue?
Keep up the good work. I always enjoy reading your thoughts.
Post a Comment