Inerrancy and mass slaughter

Mervin_Bitikofer · July 5, 2019, 7:09pm

I think we are reading the same bible! And yes, I remain to be convinced by scriptures (or you) that wrath occupies the same importance among alleged divine attributes as does, say, love, mercy, justice, and maybe other things too. Because I can find bible verses (both testaments) extolling all those latter things and exhorting us to emulate them …(be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect). But I search in vain for any verses (in either testament!) giving us general exhortations toward being wrathful creatures. What I find instead are verses such as in James 1 (…that we are to be slow to anger because our anger does not produce the righteousness of God), or in the Corinthians ‘love’ chapter we see all sorts of other great attributes that we are to chase - wrath doesn’t even make this list - except in this negative sense: that love is not easily provoked and does not take into account a wrong suffered. The closest I could come to finding something that might support the case for wrath was in Ephesians (4:26) where we are told to: “be angry, but do not sin” - but then even there our love affair with anger gets ruined as we read on: “…do not let the sun go down on your anger and do not give the devil an opportunity.” Do we ever hear those warnings attached to love? or patience? or any of the spiritual gifts at all? [I don’t recall anger being among those, by the way.]

So my conclusion is that God’s wrath (which you’ve amply shown to be a very present concept attributed to God by many of old) is significantly subordinate in an eternal sense to the other attributes that [I argue] the scriptures actually teach us about God. I.e. when God is wrathful, it is as a wrathful parent that loves their child and wants to protect their child from harm. I trust that you and I would agree that none of us (as parents ourselves) would want wrath to be the primary (or even any permanent) feature of our parent-child relationships. It is an occasionally necessary thing for the purpose of discipline - yes. But that is because we love. So even our wrath is never to be about the utter destruction of others, but instead to be about their salvation and redemption. How much more so from God?

But I’d better practice what I preach and refrain from even more provocation than I’ve already given here. You do force me to concede that (in sheer volume at least) the word ‘wrath’ is used in many, many places - which … okay I knew that, but it’s just how it’s used, and what it is teaching us about God’s ultimate character that I really want to attend to - as you do too, I’m sure. We’re probably not actually that far apart. Hope you had a blessed fourth.

Daniel_Fisher · July 7, 2019, 10:30am

A few thoughts…

Firstly, there would be a basic problem from reasoning that, because we are precluded or exhorted against acting or being a certain way, then it somehow denies that God could be or do so. Ought we reject the line from the Apostles Creed that Christ is returning to judge the living and the dead, since we are enjoined to judge not? Ought we suggest that all those passages enjoining us to worship God are faulty, since we are exhorted to refuse allowing anyone to worship us? There are countless other examples I could give.

Secondly, I think it would be unsurprising that great care is taken in not giving blanket approval to any wrath and anger we feel like exhibiting. We are fallen and our imperfect and corrupt anger and wrath is probably far more dangerous that our imperfect and corrupt love; that, and it seems that anger and wrath at others comes far, far easier to us than to love our neighbors… hence why I’d think it unsurprising that far more attention and emphasis is given to teaching us to love others than to encourage us to be wrathful. Our wrath comes far too quickly and easily, hence Jesus’ repeated rebuke to the disciples for so quickly seeking such.

Thirdly, the basic reason (in both testaments) that we are often enjoined to refrain from executing wrath ourselves is to trust that God will so execute his own wrath, better than we could ourselves. So I hardly see how exhortations for us to refrain from wrath since we’re asking him to do it instead can possibly translate to “he would never execute wrath.”

But even all that being said…

I search in vain for any verses ( in either testament !) giving us general exhortations toward being wrathful creatures.

So fourthly… Can I humbly and kindly suggest that either you aren’t looking terribly hard, or I’m not understanding what you mean by “general exhortations toward being wrathful”? Israel was certainly exhorted to carry out wrath (justice) all sorts of places, and we are certainly exhorted to have an attitude of wrath even when we don’t carry it out ourselves. Without doing a thorough study or word search, and just thinking off the top of my head, some passages that come to mind include…

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed…”

“I will sing to the Lord for he has triumphed gloriously, the horse and rider thrown into the sea.”

“The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.”

“God, break the teeth in their mouths… The righteous will rejoice when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”

“When he is tried, may he be found guilty… May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.”

“blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us!”

“Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?”

“Do not avenge yourselves, but make room for God’s wrath, for it is written ‘it is mine to avenge, I will repay.’”

“how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

We could also review dozens more… every imprecatory psalm, every exhortation to exact capital punishment, plenty more in Revelation, Paul’s own attitude toward God’s wrath on his enemies, and… (in case you’ve forgotten the basic point of this thread… ) the Israelite conquest itself??

Randy · July 7, 2019, 11:42am

This is without a doubt a big conundrum–and Greg Boyd found it so, resulting in writing first “Crucifixion of the Warrior God,” a two part, exhaustive series, and “Cross Vision,” the condensed version. The “crux,” so to speak, of his message is that Jesus is the “Sixth Sense” surprise twist of the story that turns violence on its head an reveals God’s intent. The entire NT is much different in sense from, say, the imprecatory Psalms (as in dashing infants against the rocks), speaking of turning the other cheek and warning in James that the wrath of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God.(1:20).

I’m posting a thread on “Cross Vision.” I’d appreciate your thoughts on it.

By the way, Greg Boyd strongly agrees with you that Ehrman overstates his case in “Misquoting Jesus” and has a series of videos critiquing the book. He studied, like Ehrman, under Bruce Metzger in Princeton. How do you respond to Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus"? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

Mervin_Bitikofer · July 7, 2019, 1:01pm

You raise good points about God judging and accepting worship (things which, for the most part, seem to be verboten to us). We are asked to judge for ourselves but in a highly tempered sense, and not in the sense of standing self-righteously over our brother.

Indeed. Including an invoked blessing on anyone who would dash his enemy’s infants on the rocks. Just as you don’t [I hope and presume?] invoke such passages as these to say that God is all about infanticide, and that expending murderous wrath on the helpless must just be “who God is”; in the same way I apply such progressive reasoning to let what is taught later help shape (and even selectively prune away) earlier understandings of how God acts in the world.

I’m intrigued by @Randy’s reference to Gregory Boyd’s book because it sounds like Boyd’s thesis will probably say better (and with more research) what I am trying to get across here. That is presumptuous since I haven’t read it yet. But just from what I’ve seen in the connected book summaries, it looks hopeful to me. So I may be as likely to use Randy’s new thread for additional comments as here - though I welcome more discussion in either place.

Daniel_Fisher · July 7, 2019, 5:12pm

But I imagine you’d object if I used Revelation 19 or Matthew 25 or 2 Thessalonians 1 or others to “prune away” all those earlier erroneous teachings about loving our neighbor or turning the other cheek. But if I were to do so, I’m not sure what objection you could raise? I’m simply applying your method but simply subjectively choosing a different interpretive filter, no? You would not claim that you alone have discovered the only true lens or filter by which we select which parts of the Bible are God inspired, and which are erroneous, no? If not, then I could select my interpretive standard, use Jesus’ violent parables, actions, and threats, alongside the final book of the Bible and Paul’s later letters, as the true “lens”, and prune away all those annoying, saccerine, archaic, “sweet” passages about a kind and nice granddaddy in heaven and discover the true warrior God who lives only to punish his enemies… pruning away anything in either OT or NT that reflects that archaic, family-oriented, emotional, sappy God.

I hope it is obvious this is not my position… but if it were, I don’t see how you would have any basis to critique it… I would have essentially followed your very method, having simply chosen a different interpretive lens consistent with my own preferences, no?

I apply such progressive reasoning to let what is taught later help shape (and even selectively prune away) earlier understandings of how God acts in the world.

Now, if interesting, i would go so far as to concur that other revelation (which may be earlier, not necessarily later) can and must most certainly shape, qualify, color, clarify, nuance, and expand our understanding of God. Absolutely. Thus I do not interpret the imprecatory passages or any other in isolation, understood apart from the nuance and lens of a self-sacrificing, supremely loving God incarnate in the sacrificial lamb of God.

(Though nor do I interpret God’s mercy and sacrificial kindness without allowing the revelations concerning his fierce justice and wrath similarly nuance, qualify, etc. if I think all Scripture is God-breathed, then I think I need to use all of it in such fashion).

However, once we move from shaping, nuancing, clarifying, expanding, qualifying, or augmenting to “pruning” (rejecting, discarding, or effectively doing the same by complete reimagining or reinterpreting), this is where we would part, for reasons which I’ll describe in greater detail later as they’re related to an observation I want to share with Randy later. But bottom line being that if I reject (very large) parts of the Bible on the basis that they are not revelation from God, but the erroneous tribal accretions of faulty and hostile religious speculation… on what exact basis do I have confidence that the parts of the Bible with which I resonate are not likewise just the erroneous tribal accretions of faulty religious speculation?

Whenever we start to “prune” Scripture by some standard, it still seems to boil down to, “all those parts of the Bible that I personally approve of are in fact inspired by God and inerrant and reflect his true and eternal character; those with which I disagree are merely the erroneous accretions of faulty man-made religion and represent baseless and corrupt human speculation about God. (And what a fortuitous coincidence!)” I’m not accusing you of doing this intentionally, but I simply don’t see how any approach willing to so “prune” Scripture is not in essence or in fact doing this very thing?

Daniel_Fisher · July 7, 2019, 5:43pm

After working through the “five views” book, I need to get caught up, with work… but I am interested very much in the topic, and as mentioned I do have this terrible enjoyment of reading perspectives that challenge my perspective, so I will try to get hold of this and read through before too long, and we can add this to the discussion, but may be a bit.

But off the top of my head, for what it is worth… my gut instinct (my “critique-the-book-before-I-read-it” observation) would be that his approach, from the little reviews I’ve read, would struggle to explain why, after the crucifixion, the apostles continued so much of the same theme. Revelation in particular, but also Peter and Paul and Jude in particular. They often repeat with approval the same examples of OT judgment that theoretically ought to have been transformed by the cross…

“O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
“And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
“From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written…the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
“…grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”
“I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.“
“if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,”

…these are not pre-cross viewpoints that are subsumed and understood differently upon the crucifixion, these are all well post-crucifixion perspectives of the New Testament apostles. I confess at the outset am skeptical of any perspective wherein I am tempted to say, “Gee, it is too bad that neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John, nor Jude had opportunity to read Boyd’s book… perhaps if only they had understood redemptive history, and understood Jesus’ work and mission and the purpose of the cross as well as Boyd does, perhaps they wouldn’t have written with such “violent” language. It is too bad that this obvious message was completely lost on all Jesus’ apostles and only now recovered by Boyd. ”

Invoking Lewis once more, it reminds me a bit of his observation…

All theology of the liberal type involves at some point—and often involves throughout—the claim that the real behaviour and purpose and teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood and misrepresented by His followers, and has been recovered or exhumed only by modern scholars…The idea that any man or writer should be opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language, shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion preposterous. There is an a priori improbability in it which almost no argument and no evidence could counterbalance.

But I will certainly try to get the book before too long, work through it carefully, and read it with an open mind, and try to give you some organized thoughts.

Randy · July 7, 2019, 6:52pm

Thanks for your willingness to consider this. Boyd does say he is not an inerrantist, though he does believe in inspiration.

It’s been a few months since I read the book, so I’m going to have to go back and see what he says abou that question.

Lewis was well meaning, but I think there’s a nondistributed area that he does not catch. Again, he’s not inerrant and in other spots admits that he doesn’t believe God did horrible things to innocent people, as I’ve quoted above.

I’d really like to review Rachel Held Evans’ book, “Faith Unraveled,” as it’s empathetic and cuts to many of these questions well (though Boyd does a very academic review–the Crucifixion of the Warrior God, the two-tome series, is more in depth about your question, I think. You may want to listen to the Onscript podcast about those books to get a better idea).

Thanks.

Daniel_Fisher · July 7, 2019, 8:01pm

There’s an important distinction here very significant to our larger discussion… yes, I also love Ecclesiastes because of the blessing it gives us to wrestle with God, to ask him questions, to ask why, to cry, to yell, to honestly wrestle with God. Enns discussed this in “The Bible Tells Me So.”

But Dr. Enns spent the majority of the same book reminding us that the Bible is a collection of human perspectives, invented by humans, for humans. not unerring truth or inerrant revelation. Hence he spent an earlier chapter reminding us that we can safely “prune” the sections of Canaanite conquest from our understanding of God, because these beliefs are not God’s perspective, rather the perspective of ancient, tribal people’s shaping a narrative of God according to their own immediate needs. Therefore, we need not take Numbers or Joshua as “authoritative”, as if they reveal an eternal or true perspective of who God is, rather, they are essentially the speculation of an ancient people, who projected their preferences and needs onto God they invented. But that God does not reflect who God really is.

Yet then he turns right around and presents Ecclesiastes as if it were evidence that God wants us or invites us to wrestle with him… as if he forgot everything he just wrote.

If Enns perspective is correct, then Enns needs to treat Ecclesiastes with as much (or little) validity as a perspective of God’s being and nature as he treats Joshua. Joshua is the erroneous speculations of an ancient tribal people projecting their needs on God, they don’t reflect who God really is. Just like Ecclesiastes.

As someone who embraces (or at least endeavors to) all of Scripture as God’s true word, I can look at Ecclesiastes as an absolutely true, inspired, God-approved and directed work that gives me explicit question to doubt, to wrestle. Same with the Psalms of Lament and Lamentations and Job. I can read the wrestlings, the doubt, the heartache, the ugly and angry prayers, the blunt and brutally honest language of disappointment, hurt and exasperation toward God… and I can say that God invites me, and any who so desire, to approach him in this way. God himself is affirming that he himself desires, and invites, his people to come to him and doubt, and wrestle, to be blunt in prayer before him, and the like.

But if Scripture is essentially what Dr. Enns believes, simply a collection of diverse human perspectives, then we have no idea if God does or does not invite us to so wrestle. God hasn’t spoken to that (or any) topic. All we know is that some ancient men thought this appropriate. The same kind of men from the same culture that thought all that violence and wrath and punishment was also appropriate of God. If we ought not trust the one perspective as true, why the other? Simply because we personally like the one and not the other?

To paraphrase from Dr. Enns book…

God never told the Israelites they were invited to question God and were welcome to rant to him.

Rather, the Israelites believed that God told them they were invited to question God and were welcome to rant to him.

Christians over the centuries need to be ready to come to terms with Ecclesiastes and other biblical poets’ view of God and move on. These ancient descriptions of God are not the last word.

Daniel_Fisher · July 7, 2019, 8:13pm

Not another book suggestion!!

I’ll have time (if I’m lucky) to work through one book over the next few weeks… so that I can focus, what would you recommend as the one best suited for our immediate discussion? Sounds like Boyd’s “Cross Vision”? Please advise, though, if you recommend another.

——

I’ve read some of Rachel’s work… I keep thinking of writing my own book that responds to her and many others of her approach. She asks many, many of the right questions, and does so with the empathy you observe, but fear she comes to the wrong answers.

For instance, my issue with her perspectives are similar to my frustration with Dr Enns as I just wrote… he doesn’t seem to notice that his approach undermines the credibility, authority, and power of Ecclesiastes and similar books that invite us to wrestle with God. I think it incredibly powerful, stunning, and life-changing that the very God who created our cosmos literally invites us to fight and wrestle with him in anger, doubt, and despair.

But if Dr. Enns is right, God has done no such thing. Rather, it is the speculative and baseless perspective of some long dead guys who had no real idea whether this kind of wrestling was endorsed by God or not.

I submit that my “inerrantist” perspective gives far more power and comfort to those asking the question as to whether God really does invite his people to wrestle with him honestly in their doubts, heartaches, pain and anguish.

Rachel and Dr. Enns and others seem want to give people that heart-warming invitation to wrestle honestly with God, but they end up cutting off the very branch they want to sit on. They cut off the very foundation on which our invitation to wrestle with God is based.

Mervin_Bitikofer · July 7, 2019, 9:15pm

I haven’t read Rachel either (but I have read a couple of Enns’ books) - but hearing of Rachel as I have, I think I’m safe in presuming that neither of these authors has done what you charge them with - at least not exactly! Perhaps it might be more accurately stated that they have noted that fundamentalist Christians who venerate the Bible as they do never did have any solid branch they were sitting on in the first place (insofar as they imagined that branch to be the printed Bible in their hands). It might be characterized this way (and I’m only presuming that these authors would roughly agree with what I’m about to say - the following words are mine, not theirs): It seems that fundamentalist Christians have a defacto hierarchy (as seen by outsiders, and not necessarily owned by those so described - but attributed to them in a “if the shoe fits then you’re seen as wearing it” kind of a way.) That hierarchy is as follows (from highest authority first - to lower authority later):

Bible (inerrant – no wrestling permitted)
Fundamentalistic approach to the above Bible (inerrant – wrestling still prohibited)
Spirit (Okay - you’re allowed to wrestle with Him [and yes - we insist on ‘Him’] - as long as you don’t stray outside of what is proscribed by the more authoritative categories above.)
Church (or certain approved denominations of it anyway)

I would turn that hierarchy on its head as follows:

God (still good for any wrestling match that any of us are up for!)
Church (messed up and highly fallible - but nonetheless God’s bride being prepared. Wrestling pretty much goes with the territory here.)
current Bible (written, assembled, and translated by the prophets, apostles, the early church leaders, and later translators all under the guidance and inspiration of God’s living Spirit revealed finally in Christ. That collection of testimonies is a present authority to help us know God as revealed in Christ and we should endeavor to understand what it teaches within the communion of the saints and the Spirit - in short, under the direction of the top two categories above.)

So while fundamentalists may want their allegedly inerrant understanding of the Bible to be their solid branch of secure repose, others observe them as not being on any solid branch at all, but on a foundation of sand. So far from denying the Bible its helpful and rightful authority, I suggest that those like Enns and Evans are helping to restore its rightful place to the church - not as an usurper to the true Word of God: Christ (the true authority - the head), but as a guide that can faithfully lead us to Him if we will attend to the Spirit and its work in these regards.

Finally then, I can pick up Ecclesiastes and truly appreciate and learn from it rather than having to force it through some grid of modern inerrantism that will instead force it into conformity with modern fundamentalistic ideas.

It may be fun playing in the sand and trying to sit on shaky branches, but when when we really get serious about ~~the Bible~~ [who the Bible points us toward], I would rather go join the wrestlers over on the Rock.

Yes! Yes! That.

[there is more needing to be said above when I mention ‘forcing the Bible through some modern grid’. It needs to be acknowledged (as I’m sure you will rightfully bring up in reply) that all of us have understandings of the Bible that are forced through one kind of grid or another. True enough. And if it must be so, then I would want my grid to be the best one it could be. And Truth will be one of the components I want in my grid, to the extent that I can take responsible self-awareness and ownership over it. So if somebody’s understanding of scriptures dictates to me that I need to accept a stationary earth, and I know that the earth is not indeed stationary; then I will reject that (as you do too!) as any clear teaching of scripture. We all have grids and none of them are infallible. But that doesn’t mean we throw up our hands and not work to make it the best grid as we can. The fundamentalistic grid fails (in my view) because it prioritizes its own status and self-preservation above Truth.]

[forget what thread or book this was in, but it bears repeating]:

People don’t walk away from the ~~faith~~ [church] because of doubt. They walk away because they weren’t allowed to doubt.

Randy · July 7, 2019, 9:25pm

Excellent point as always–there are other points in “Cross Vision” that I didn’t quite agree with, but suspected he fleshed out more in “Crucifixion.”

I found a reference/rebuttal from Greg Boyd for this point in his response to Copan! He does say (as I would) that the NT is still wrestling with remnants of resistance to a cruciform point of view of God; as do the apostles.

I do appreciate your interaction.

I don’t agree that we have to say that all scripture is inerrant. For example, imagine living as contemporaries to fallible prophets. Paul and Peter disagreed (and Paul won), but the writing of both is considered inerrant. Why? If I were their contemporary, I would have difficulty accepting what they wrote as more valid than their erroneous speech.

There is an African proverb that says that “people will travel days to touch a holy mountain, but local children play on it.” We have a tendency to worship the written word.

I agree with Enns that it ties us in knots to try to defend something for an unnecessary reason.

We can always fall back on a truthful and ultimately just God for refuge. The ANE view that groups were guilty by association was incorrect, but based functionally on a survival skill. Punishing the firstborn was a way to hurt someone who put all their hope for survival in their offspring; but it was not just.

This only reminds us that we, like they, interpret God through a lens, darkly. In the 20th century, the Germans, who were thought to be the most humane and modern, fell into darkness in the Holocaust. I’ve written above of the horrible things we do as modern humans. I think that relying on the OT and NT to be ultimately correct examples of what is right potentially warps us.

I appreciate that you have read some of RHE’s notes. The only hesitation I have to post on the book is that it is so close to her death that some may react inappropriately to criticism of her points of view (though I think she would welcome such critique, herself); it may be wise to wait a bit.

I think that Boyd’s writing is more scholarly. I certainly appreciate your time reading the earlier book; but I don’t want to take away from your work! Besides spending time with my kids, I enjoy reading this in the evening while doing work from home, as well.

Take your time; and if you have thoughts, or suggestions, I welcome them.

Thank you.

PS–Revelation and Jude have lots of troubles, in my opinion–like Luther, I think Revelation probably should not have been included in the canon (it was excluded, as I think Jude and II Peter were, for a long time). Jude relied on myths of Moses’ body being fought over by angelic beings. I memorized it in 7th grade and found it very odd; more so as I grow older. I was not impressed by Josh McDowell’s reasoning for inclusion in the canon in “Evidence That Demands a Verdict,” maybe you can comment on that sometime.

Randy · July 7, 2019, 10:12pm

that was “Faith in the Shadows,” by Austin Fischer–also author of “Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed.”

Mervin_Bitikofer · July 7, 2019, 10:12pm

I would raise the objection that those advocating for primarily wrath are being forced to discard or distort major portions of what the Bible actually teaches.

Whereas all that is required of those who accept clear teachings about a God of love is the realization that many passages can now be simply understood in their now rightful-seen sense: i.e. those instructions for the destruction of Amalekites - “Oh - so that was a specific or alleged instruction to Israelites for a certain place and time - and doesn’t apply as some general teaching about God for all time? Cool.” And there was nothing painful about that realization of a new understanding about an old scriptural narrative. Whereas you have no way to take exhortations towards love, mercy, justice, etc. and argue that those don’t apply for us now - at least not without a lot more violence against both testaments.

Now the Revelation verses where at the final judgment (2nd death) we see all those whose names aren’t written in the book of life being tossed into an everlasting lake of fire - I’ll admit I don’t know how to understand that (beyond that we need to fear our Judge and shudder for the seriousness of our situation). One thing I won’t do with it, though, is let that one passage (or the endings of several of Jesus’ parables) rewrite and contort everything else that is so clearly the predominant message of the entire New Testament. In the end if God’s Love doesn’t triumph over wrath, then what joy could anyone ever have in God’s presence? I’m hoping on that to eternity - and that is why I’m so glad to see nearly all of God’s people through history affirming that even through all the apparent wrath and calamity, that there is a loving and merciful God beyond, behind, and underneath it all.

Randy · July 7, 2019, 10:37pm

I think that it’s not just love; it seems to me an issue of justice. In order to put everyone under eternal condemnation, we have to posit that they are born eternally evil. But as God gives us life and makes us the way we are, it would be His fault; which turns back on five-point Calvinism to make God unjust.

It seems to me more of a justice and image of God issue; to be strictly Calvinist actually is a counteracting to God’s justice.

https://www.amazon.com/Young-Restless-Longer-Reformed-Calvinism/dp/1625641516

My 5 year old daughter loves to sing hymns at home in her play and enjoys worshiping God at church. However, I’m not sure she fully understands the Gospel. By strict Calvinist ideas, if she died tonight, she would go to Hell; at least, as I understand it. But those who argue that she would not because she didn’t understand, have to give the same leeway to the 4/5 of those who grow up in this world without a Christian parent; more, those who never heard.

It doesn’t make sense that one has to understand a given creed to go to Heaven; rather, doesn’t it make more reason that God would judge us according to our repentance from what we understand?

How could God be any worse than a good parent who teaches their children right and constantly reproves them lovingly to the point that they finally repent and understand?

Daniel_Fisher · July 8, 2019, 11:20am

For what it is worth, I learned to wrestle with God as a fundamentalist because the Bible tells me to do so. Fundamentalists that refrain from or prohibit such wrestling may be fundamentalists in name but are not living what they preach and not living the implications of Ecclesiastes, , Lamentations, psalms of lament, Job, etc.

But not to belabor the point, but i want to make sure I’m clear:

If the Scripture is truly God’s revelation, in some inerrant (fundamentalist) sense as I hold, then it is a legitimate conclusion from those premises to say:

“God literally invites us to wrestle with him…”

If we follow Dr. Enns or Rachel’s perspective, however, we simply cannot say that. The most we can say using that model of Scripture is

“Some ancient people believed that God invited us to wrestle with him… (but take that for a grain of salt, since they also believed God invited people to kill canaanites.)”

The category difference between these two, not to mention the difference in real life comfort and power therein, is much larger than I think you portray.

Randy · July 8, 2019, 12:09pm

Your points are always good for my thought and humility. Well put.

But doesn’t the opposite stance–that we must have inerrancy–stand on something like Mohler’s prima facie error that we have to have this because we need the definition? Isn’t there a middle ground? Greg Boyd, though I don’t agree with him in all points, argues there is one–I look forward to an easy going discussion (there is much too much to swallow on a week’s overview–this may take a while). Thanks for your discussion.

Addendum: “Inspired,” by Rachel Held Evans, is a book on the same topic that I’m going to re -listen to; I don’t think I absorbed enough to comment well the first time round. She was a bit less conservative than Boyd.

Mervin_Bitikofer · July 8, 2019, 12:49pm

I suggest that this is exactly what Dr. Enns does and promotes - take it [prior Scriptural understandings] with a grain of salt. Especially when the Spirit [Christ himself] leads in doing this: “You have heard it said … but I say unto you …” [which is not to reject scriptures any more than Jesus did. It is to engage with scriptures; indeed, to wrestle with them.]

Let me ask you this: Do you believe, then, that killing human enemies is at the heart of what God is all about?

Marshall · July 8, 2019, 4:37pm

My own suggestion is shorter than a book and freely available. Matt Lynch, one of the co-hosts of the OnScript podcast, has a 7-part series of blog posts about the violence in Joshua. Here’s the second-last post, which has links to the earlier ones so they can be read in order:

And here’s the final one. It also interacts with Boyd’s work in a general way:

Randy · July 8, 2019, 4:53pm

Awesome! I likeOnscript; I did not know of Matt Lynch’s blog post. I read that he teaches at Westminster and one of his focuses is divine violence. I’ll look into that. Thanks for the reference!

Daniel_Fisher · July 8, 2019, 5:13pm

That interpretation of the sermon on the mount I simply will never share… Jesus goes to such great lengths to qualify what he’s about to say to clarify in case anyone may miss his point that he is not abolishing the law, and that, in his perspective, the law is intended to last forever… that I can’t embrace the idea he is suggesting I take “do not commit murder” or “do not commit adultery” worth a grain of salt. He plans on deepening them and further qualifying, but goes out of his way to clarify he’s not changing or disregarding, rather goes out of his way to specify that anyone who relaxes the least of these commands will be called least in the kingdom… I don’t find that compelling evidence that Jesus wanted us to take those commands worth a grain of salt.

Certainly not. I’m a biblical literalist fundamentalist, after all…

“I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked…”

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten, that whoever believes in him would. It perish.”

“not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

I would never say that God’s judgement or wrath is the core of who he is, or that it is the central message of the gospel or Scripture. God is most certainly far more than that in more ways we can imagine, and his glory as expressed in his kindness, sacrifice, long suffering mercy and love are the central theme of the Bible. I have no issue with any of that, of course. The gospel shows the stunning lengths he was and is willing to got onto save his enemies from said wrath and consequences of justice.

So yes, God is far, far, far more than wrathful, I have no disagreement there. My objection is only when it is suggested, against overwhelming, obvious, and pervasive biblical teaching, that he is less that wrathful, or that he is never wrathful.