Your choice of Jeremiah as an example is great since he, of all the prophets, directs broad accusation of sinfulness to particular people(s) in particular circumstances – and yet he also makes universal declarations of wickedness.
2 Likes
Non sequitor.
Whether God is controlling or not is down to God not us.
Why not take a single sentence of mine out of context and change the meaning? I mean you do it with Scripture.
Of course He expects us to sin. Not because we must but because it is almost unavoidable So the provision is to prove that He does not expect us not to sin, but also that He is not goin to hold that against us.
The whole problem is that you think God must have perfection. That is a purely human concept of God, not Scripture. Humans think that God is perfect and therefore must expect perfection. God shows us otherwise and you refuse to believe it!
hallelujah! (Except you were being incredulous!)
He doesn’t want us to feel guilty when we fail, as long as we are trying! The Jews weren’t trying!
???
what has that got to do with it? Is assessing your own behaviour boring to you?
And who says that we are always being selfish?
That is simplistic to say the least.
So you think sin is something we can do accidentally yet still it is intentional?
The whole point of knowing good and evil is the knowing part
We are back to this idea of God needing perfection for perfection’s sake. Nowhere in Scripture does God claim that.
That would mean God taking control of us. He doesn’t.
Oh, because Jesus said that it is impossible for us, you think That He meant we have to be under God’s control? He doesn’t say that. He just says that it is impossible for us, but not for God. (AKA Him!)
You misconstrue Scripture to keep you view of human imperfection alive while maintaining that God requires perfection.
Is that God talking? I don’t think so. Why would God make us incapable of repenting? That is self defeating.
Um, err. You have just contradicted yourself.
You ae still claiming that God is directly helping. How?
No, that is the human belief that God wants perfection. That is not what Scripture says. Scripture shows us what perfection is. That is not the same thing.
Forgiveness is the proof that God does not need or want perfection.
No they do not.
You are just reading that into the text.
At a single place in time. And only on the people the Psalmist knows about.
You are making it Universal.
Only Israel. Isaiah is not speaking to anyone else.
Non sequitor.
A universal cure does not indicate Universal corruption, only that any sin is covered, not just Israel.
Are you talking of Eccesisatese?
That does not mean that everyone is corrupt. It just means that perfection is virtually impossible and we are vane if we think otherwise.
???
No it doesn’t. It claims no one is righteous.
And it doesn’t say that matters to God.
I am not going to respond to that. I now what you will claim if I do.
Only in the human mind. That is how humans conceive God.
Which is what forgiveness is for!
You just do not get it.
OOh circular reasoning!
Rubbish.
God does not eliminate the standard, but He does not require it either. That is what forgiveness is for. The standard is there, but we do not have to achieve it . However we need to know it exists, It keeps us humble.
You really do not understand forgiveness, especially when it comes from Grace. All you can see is perfection.(And redemption_)
You have God all wrong. And you have humanity all wrong. And you have the meaning of life all wrong. Still, if you want to strive for this perfection, go right ahead. That is part of free will and choice. But it is for you, not God that you are striving.
Richard
That adds to the text something that is not there.
Failure to always to do is what corruption is.
I.e. all righteous men sin.
This is tiresome. You show no respect for scripture, twisting everything that comes along to fit what you think, regardless of logic or principles or context, you deny that something is true but then turn around and affirm it . . . . there’s no consistency
I lifted that from Paul. Oh course we already knew that you think that what Paul wrote is rubbish, so no surprise here.
1 Like
No more than you are. The text does not specify space and time, other than Now.
No it is fallibility.
Corruption dictates, fallibility is vulnerable.
That is not what it says. it says no one is righteous.
If you are going to define righteous as without sin, I can agree. if you are going to define righteous as adhering to faith, I would not.
Back to that are we?
I must read Scripture as you dictate?
sorry, I do not.
Paul was a human. He had human understanding. Paul was not God. He did not speak any more for God that any other human does. Scripture is not God’s words. Until or unless you get that into your head we cannot discuss rationally.
You cannot dictate what Scripture means or says. That is above your remit.
Richard
So you think Peter and Paul were lying about how the scriptures came to be.
Fine – but don’t expect me to respect that.
Yes, Pope Richard.
No.
So it makes no difference.
euorting to insults now?
Is your argument that week?
Richard
Then your statement that Paul’s writings are no different from those of any other human is false since the only way they are not different is if Peter and Paul lied.
One again you cut and paste the scriptures to your preference.
No insults, just a description of your communication technique – you never back things up, you just make pronouncements and expect us all to accept them.
Talk about the ot calling the kettle black.
You have a basic flawed view of what scripture is.
You have a singular and false view of how to read and interpret it.
You have made Gods out of the writers
And you have a conviction that yours is the only understanding possible.
Anything else?
Richard
I do not demand that you agree with me or that I am right, unlike some other I could mention.
(edited by moderator-Phil)
Reading it for what it says from within the worldview & context in which it was written, and according to the testimony of the apostles that the Holy Spirit is behind it, is a “singular and false view”?
Fine, Richard.
No, I have made God out of the Holy Spirit.
If you have differences, argue them from the text! Set out the grammar and syntax and vocabulary!
Otherwise you’re little different from those who used to say the NT was written in “Holy Ghost Greek” that was invented by God just to write the NT in – grasping at straws for lack of any solid ground.
That would validate your methodology.
Richard
My methodology is to treat scripture as inspired and as conforming to human use of language and thus that scripture has actual meaning.
1 Like
Except that you don’t. You don’t treat Genesis 1 in that manner. Instead you claim ANE, but when I claim Judaism you object.
So don’t get all high and mighty on me
Scripture has more meaning than just textual.
That is claiming that the Holy Spirit authored the text.
I have never even heard of that and as usual your analogy illustrates your view not mine.
Scripture is what it is, but you re making it more than just sacrosanct, you are claiming inerrancy and God’s own words, two of the worse heresies in Christendom.
And you are imposing that view on me (and all of Christendom).
Richard
I think dead people who cannot actually speak for themselves is a lot useful for twisting the text to mean what you want than a group of people still present in the world.
I would simply say God authored the text, with people as His writing instruments.
I would say that I agree, but perhaps you need to explain what you mean by this for me to be sure.
I think this deserves some explication for everyone.
First, noting the ancient near east context is a matter of letting the text speak for itself – it’s the core of the “historical” aspect of the grammatical-historical approach. It can’t be used to deny anything the text says because it is seeking to find what the text says and set that forth.
Second, applying “Judaism” in the same manner is a function, a subset if you will, of the ANE context; indeed if understood correctly it describes the ANE context because that context boils down to thinking like a Jew of the period from which a particular piece of writing emerges.
But both of these can be used improperly, effectively turning them on their heads: In the case of ANE context, it can be used to impose ideas from outside the Jewishness that is appropriate to the text; in the case of Judaism it can be used to denigrate and set aside the meaning.
One check on both is to compare each to how second-Temple Judaism treated the text. That is not definitive for the original context, but it serves to see the direction in which understanding of the text was moving.
Who is doing what I’ll let everyone decide.
This is quite true, but the “more meaning” cannot be used to set aside the textual meaning. Meaning begins with the text yet moves beyond it, while never contradicting the meaning of the text. The example of second-Temple Judaism is appropriate here; their thinking shows how thought among God’s people about the text was going, as well as pointing beyond to the ultimate question: what does it mean in/with Christ? This can be illustrated with a simple point: the prophets took the Torah and applied it in ways that on the surface contradict it, for example with the declaration that Yahweh hates and despises sacrifices and feast days; Jesus does the same (though more drastically) when He informs us that in order to be children of our Father in heaven we must disobey at least some parts of the Torah (e.g. the lex talionis; the Torah says take an eye for an eye, but Jesus says “No” to that).
And this progression is relevant to the question of the thread: this movement from the meaning of the text as it stands to its meaning in Christ can be seen as calling into question whether God will ultimately actually exclude anyone; as the Apostle quotes, “Who can resist His will?”, and we are told that His will is that all should be saved. Thus while the plain text of the Torah says only the seed of Abraham can be saved, that others can be included if they join the seed of Abraham, Christ and Paul say that all who believe count as children of Abraham, thus expanding the boundaries of God’s people, and that yields an arrow which points to the ultimate inclusion of all.
This fits, BTW, with what Paul says about the Torah, that not only is it obsolete but that it runs contrary to salvation, only making our situation worse!
There’s a Latin term of which I was reminded recently that applies here: auctor. It is often translated “author”, but it bears the larger sense of “originator” and even “guide”. An analogy might serve: an author would be like a construction worker, one who sets in place every detail of a building’s design, an auctor would be the architect, the one who sets out the vision and intent of the building.
The difference is important: God as author is often used to argue for the inerrancy of every word (with alien worldviews then imposed), but God as auctor leaves room for the failings and foibles of fallen men, with the result that scripture mirrors Christ not in His glory but on the Cross: simul iustus et peccator, at once saint and sinner – and just as on the Cross Jesus as sinner (or as Paul says, as sin) points to us and includes us, so in the scriptures the writers as sinners points to us and includes us. The very nature of scripture thus proclaims the Gospel message: the sinner is included by God!
In writing terms perhaps we should regard God as the editor, one who requests a work from a writer and then who assesses its value, and the human writers as the authors.
1 Like
Seems to me “people as His writing instruments” is sufficient to reject inerrancy. The point is that the Bible accomplishes His purpose perfectly while denying that it is perfect in any other way irrelevant to that purpose. It refutes the notion of “true if interpreted correctly” to uphold instead that nobody should think they can do better – a more reasonable understanding of Sola Scriptura.
I was tempted to say God as author is the higher view of scripture than auctor, and I thought that curious considering you gave scripture a higher score in this thread. But I think it is more complicated than this. In a literal treatment of both metaphors, the author sounds like he has the greater control. But I didn’t understand it in this way because unlike pens, people are alive and make their own choice, and I don’t think God controls them like a tool, especially in doing good (when I think people are more free). This is probably why you like auctor better since this an analogy using people rather than an inanimate object.
And how exactly does/did God edit Scripture?
You are still back to God having some sort of physical presence to do it. The ony specific physical presence of God on this earth was Jesus. So Did Jesus vet Scripture? Including stuff written later?
Or was it some sort of human committee! (rhetorcal)
(And even then tthey did not actually edit, only compile)
either it was written by humans or God directly controlled the wrting. Take your choice. (But the latter is clearly fase) The text has too many simple errors to be written by God! Not to mention the ambiguity, that causes forums like this to exist.
Richard
So you think all the prophets were liars when they said God spoke to them? and that Jesus joined them in lying when He said the Holy Spirit would guide the church?
That a physical presence would be required is a denial that God communicates at all.
False dichotomy. That’s like saying that either a book was written by the author or that the editor directly controlled the writing. Anyone who has ever actually been an author or editor knows it doesn’t work that way. Heck, anyone who has written a graduate thesis knows it doesn’t work that way!
Why? Lots of books get published where there are elements that are less than perfect, but since the work as a whole meets the editor’s standards those books did get published.
As one of the rabbis I knew in grad school mused one day, have you considered that God may want ambiguity? After all, it is in wrestling with ambiguity that a lot of thinking about a text is done.
2 Likes
How do you draw such a conclusion from what I said?
Guide, not control.
It is yur dichotomy not mine.
And you analogy sucks as usual. Besides you are arguig against your own view, not mine.
What are you talking about?
I am not the one claiming that Scripture is perfect, or to be accepted without question, or that God somehow vetted it!
Then why are you claiming a definitive interpretation!
You can’t have it both ways!
Besides, you are making God devious or diminishing the text that you hold so dear.
Mke up you mind! Is Scripture to be taken as Gospel or is it to be understood?
And, if it is to be understood, why must there be one understanding?
Richard
I’m talking about the way an author-editor setup works.
If God didn’t vet it, then it’s no more reliable than One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Because words have meanings.
No, I’m saying He’s a good teacher – He’s making people think.
1 Like