I absolutely appreciate the candor of your thoughts here…. But even so, it still strikes me as a variation of the kind of thinking I have oft encountered in discussions with committed atheists. I call it the “argument against God’s existence by personal preference.” It essentially follows the basic format:
If The Christian God existed, I wouldn’t like him.
Therefore, the Christian God doesn’t exist.
This is of course my caricature of the reasoning involved? But it is essentially the argument. They put forward various things the Christian God is said to be, or have done; register their personal disapproval; and then conclude that this God could not exist. I struggle to see how your perspective is not simply a variation of the above.
If the traditional/evangelical understanding of God were true, I wouldn’t like that God. Therefore; the traditional/evangelical understanding of God is false…?
We’ll, we can agree that he would not be a monster in any case, subjective judgment as that is. So please permit me to leave that word out of the discussion. But if so, and I modify your statement above, I find….
I can only say that Scripture taken as a whole doesn’t strike me as the revelation of an wrathful being.
And that seems absurd to me, and I would think it would to any student of Scripture, no? ( It would certainly be the revelation of a being that is more than wrathful, to be sure. )
Unless our strong, iron-clad arguments entail our belief that God is not wrathful? Then that is axiomatic, self-evident, unassailable logic that proves that assertion beyond any doubt, and nothing in Scripture could or should ever make us doubt or have second thoughts about _that belief??
That is the core difficulty I have with this modern deconstruction of Scripture and theology that those like Enns, Boyd,and others have undertaken. For all the claims, words, arguments, elucidation that is used to undercut the unpopular traditional doctrines, for all the guidance for us to question, reimagine, reinterpret, modify, or otherwise reject the image of God in Scripture… the net effect is that once we remove Scripture all those faulty doctrines, the doctrines that are left are those that -oh how conveniently- align absolutely perfectly with the preferred view of God that fits the ideal image if God in the mind of our interpreters.
Enns as I’ve pointed out before, for instance, wants us to question the idea of a judging, wrathful God…. That idea of those Bible writers that authored the Canaanite conquest were simply the erroneous views of a violent tribal people that we should “reimagine.
But the views of Ecclesiastes’s author, that tells us that God wants us to wrestle and question him??? ABSOLUTELY AND INERRANTLY TRUE, AND WE MUST NOT DOUBT OR QUESTION THAT UNDERSTANDING OF GOD.
No “reimagining” of that view of God, no doubt. Reimagining doctrines or parts of Scripture seem limited only to those traditional doctrines or claims of Scripture that the interpreter personally finds difficult or problematic. The doctrines that the modern interpreters personally like or find to be agreeable? Those are clearly inerrant revelation from God that are clear, true, axiomatic, and not to be doubted, questioned, or reinterpreted, no?
We would still believe in a six day creation, gelcentrism, a three tiered cosmos, that heaven is in the sky and hell in the earth, that the earth doesn’t move and thoughts originate in the kidneys. We would deny evolution, astronomy and chemistry and physics, all which point to a billion year old earth and a very different set of origins for life. Not to mention a few other snippets of the Bible that defy science. The problem is it also defies common sense, sensible morality, history, the law of non-contradiction and Archaeology in some other places. Those of us who take the Bible seriously take it very seriously. This is the fruit of Biblical criticism. This is where following the evidence inevitable leads.
Inerrancy is an a priori and requiring it denies God’s sovereignty. It’s quite clear either the evangelical interpretation of Scripture is egregiously wrong or Christianity is intellectually worthless, a purely made up fiction. For those of us who experienced Jesus and salvation the choice isn’t that hard.
And one does not have to use your reasoning about “personally finding them difficult” alone even though I fully admit that is part of the reasoning. But it stems fully from the person and character of Jesus, the incarnation and his suffering death. A hermeneutic that rejects everything inconsistent with God’s love as displayed by the Incarnation and Cross is a better hermeneutics than blindly believing everything inside the Bible is true and its genre is fact-literal history.
Why do you find an inspired but errant and accommodated scripture so unlikely or impossible? An inerrant Bible is something which no one has ever possessed. We believe scripture is accommodated because 1) it’s the ONLY viable option and 2) we have 2,000 years of the Holy Spirit and Human progress and knowledge at our disposal. It’s time for evangelicals to get on the bus and leave the dark ages.
[quote=“Dale, post:143, topic:46331”]I
think the Bonhoeffer speaks to that quite well.
[/quote]
@Dale Most of that quote applies to both liberal and conservative interpretations of scripture. I accept much of it. None of us think God or everything has to make sense to us to be real. We just examine the evidence and find the a priori of inerrancy completely and unequivocally wanting.
I would say to evangelicals so convinced God must have and did inspire a completely inerrant Bible that isn’t accommodated to fallen humans that your quote applies to them:
“”“If it is I [inerrancy advocates] who determine where God is to be found, then I shall always find a God who corresponds to me in some way, who is obliging, who is connected with my own nature. But if God determines where he is to be found, then it will be in a place which is not immediately pleasing to my nature and which is not at all congenial to me. “””
Confining God to inerrancy based on an assumption is to deny his Sovereignty. God can speak to us in any way he desires. This is absolutely correct. Evangelicals determine God is to be found in-errantly in the Bible when instead they should be wrestling with scripture.
I am not sure how you intend to use this quote but I see it easily and fully supporting my position on scripture.
No no … I was very much including my own “neatly wrapped up conclusion” in that particular deprecation - in fact I uttered those words precisely with my own “neatly wrapped up conclusion” in mind. There are just too many scriptures nearly everywhere one looks that have helped to shape my own conclusion in this - which makes me rather suspicious that my argument is too easy.
I wasn’t talking about that, was I. Paul was a missionary, and so were the other apostles for we don’t know how long. There were letters passed around, too, I seem to recall. And there were first person witnesses, as well, some young ones who lived to ripe old ages, maybe?
Well then, I misunderstood your perspective and position and slandered you in the process, and I sincerely beg your pardon. I assumed wrongly you were furthering the similar position I have seen all too often which is open to that criticism, but I ought to have been more careful not to misconstrue or falsely assume your comments. But as often as people have assumed my beliefs based on assumptions of where I was coming from or how I sound like others, I should be more sensitive to that myself.
But that said, I’m still a bit confused, then, how you can claim something as you said below…
That is indeed a problem, as often we impute to other positions the idea that “that is totally illogical” when really, the position is simply that we don’t like it.
The position that I put forward above as a devil’s advocate kind of proposition (something akin to Westboro Baptist), I put forward specifically because it was embracing some of biblical truth while rejecting others - essentially, as I see it, the very same method used by Enns, Boyd, and countless others I have encountered - simply reversing using the arbitrary “hermeneutic of justice” rather than the arbitrary “hermeneutic of love” as the so-called justification for reinterpreting, reimagining, or rejecting whatever Scriptures we happen not to like.
So, inerrantist that I am, I can reject the position of Westboro Baptist on the grounds that they contradict Scripture. But once a position allows us to reinterpret, reimagine, or otherwise reject certain Scriptures in preference to others, I don’t see that we have much basis any more for claiming that one “hermeneutic” is right over and above another…
And to the point, if we allow that kind of hermeneutical approach, I don’t see that we can reject it on the basis of it being illogical. The Westboro Baptist approach (at least as I caricatured it) seems as logically consistent with that I’ve read of Enns or Boyd or others… given the basic hermeneutical approach that allows us to reject certain Scripture in deference to others.
I am probably guilty of attributing something too extreme (or too much of a caricature) onto you. And indeed I knew it was hyperbole in the service of a point even as I wrote it since I know you don’t charge the more critical or ‘progressive’ scholars with trying to claim such nonsensical, contradictory things.
I appreciate your allowance of a possible kind of symmetry in the situation at least (even though I know I’ve insisted there is none) - but nonetheless. My continued thoughts are to delve into your descriptor: “arbitrary” which you charitably put also in front of “hermeneutic of justice” as well as of love. But in the end, you don’t really believe it is arbitrary, do you? The hermeneutic that is? I.e. When we insist that God is a just God, we really do mean something by that - something potentially intelligible to us even if not entirely within our grasp as to its outworkings. At least we (who believe) think the Bible has something intelligible to say to us about it. And also then, why not love as well?
What I’m getting at in the above pursuit is to then suggest that there may be good and scripturally based reason for any scholar or any of us to prefer certain understandings. That’s not to say that Enns and Co. are necessarily the right-minded ones here; maybe their scriptural reasoning can be shown to be faulty, lacking, or arbitrary as you’ve suggested. But can’t they be granted the same ‘dispensation’ of Biblically-shaped spiritual discernment that any of us would at times hope to presume we ourselves can exercise as well?
Your apology, while appreciated, might be somewhat premature; as my own concession might not have been quite as conceding as it could seem - and I might yet have earned at least some of your ‘slander’. Because when I said I was suspicious about my argument seeming too easy, while true - (I do indeed genuinely anticipate or fear ‘the fall’ when I think I’ve got something neatly sown up) I nonetheless also meant it when I observed that I have it easy - i.e. scripturally speaking. I am thinking of you as the underdog here who would have the harder labors ahead to build any scriptural defense for the primacy of judgment over mercy, rather than vice-versa. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong. But what I’m saying is that I don’t see that my so-called ‘neat package’ has been dismantled yet.
[At best - judgment and mercy may end up being flip sides of the same thing; and I think I’ve conceded as much - perhaps we already do agree on that, but I’ll wait for your thoughts.]
Mr Fisher, thank you for your note. I have been thinking of your kind and detailed response earlier, and have not found time to do it justice. However, here is one of the concerns I have.
What is the biblical response to Westboro? Is Phelps not working according to the OT (even more kindly, since they don’t stone those who are homosexual? )
I am very serious. I do not see how we can say God communicated to his people not to stone homosexuals, when the OT says He did (if we hold to inerrancy). It offends my sensibilities, too, but it is the way those outside the church see it. The allusion is to an apocryphal story, but it matters not. The NT took place at least several hundred years after the stoning laws of the OT were made, and there was no mitigation that anyone could see. It is our modern sensibilities, I fear, not the Bible, that contradicts the OT laws.
If I respond with indignation to the accusation that Phelps reads his OT Bible accurately–after all, Jesus said
He did not come to abolish the Law or the prophets–it does not help the outside questioner one bit. Rather, it puts them off Christianity. How then should I respond? I truly believe the only way is to say that the stoning and immoral laws were not inerrant. They were immoral. I am reading Randal Rauser’s “Jesus Loves Canaanites,” and find it interesting, though I can’t agree with it all. I don’t think modern intuition is at all perfect. Thanks.
I don’t understand. What is the nature of your concern? God lied? God is immoral? Our understanding is rejected by non-Christians?
Could you clarify exactly what troubles you?
I think I am torn up about the lack of clear moral teaching in the Bible in this respect. Don’t misunderstand me. I am strongly in favor of purity culture, anti-abortion, and am your dyed-in-the-wool Evangelical. However I do not see the clear direction here.
Well, my biblical response to Westboro would more more along the lines of observing what they fail to practice from Scripture in terms of taking seriously our commands to love our enemies, emulate Christ as a “friend of tax collectors and sinners” and the like. Secondly, I would observe the failure to classify their own sins as those which God hates. There is a reason why Paul could describe himself as the chief/foremost/prime/exemplar of sinners.
So I generally don’t particularly disagree inherently with their emphasis on God’s utter hatred of sin in all its forms… I disagree with their hermeneutic or narrative that seemingly blinds them to various aspects of Scripture: i.e., they seem to conveniently forget that A) God hates their own sin just like he does those they seem to enjoy speaking against, and B) God calls us to show, demonstrate, and preach his mercy to other sinners - in the same way that we recognize that we received mercy ourselves.
This is always a balancing act, of course, but their hermeneutic or narrative seems to be such that they aren’t even trying to apply the biblical commands to love, preach mercy, and the offer of forgiveness and repentance, the reminder that we who preach are also sinners who received the same mercy, etc., etc.
My point in the above is that, whether explicitly or in practice, they are essentially doing the same thing I see Enns, Boyd, and the like as doing - taking their preferred Scriptures that help form a certain narrative that conveniently aligns with their desired perspective, while ignoring the other Scriptures that would conflict with their preferred narrative. Enns and the like tend to do this explicitly - explicitly acknowledging that they are “reimagining” God by choosing certain scriptures and rejecting others, or the like… while the folks at Westboro are doing so implicitly - while “claiming” to embrace all of Scripture, they so obviously in practice are allowing the passages about God’s judgment, the sins of homosexual behavior, etc., to become the lens which essentially justifies them ignoring or discounting the Scriptures that command us to show kindness, longsuffering, and mercy, etc.
My point was essentially that once we allow our own personal preferences, cultural preferences, or the like to allow us to stamp certain parts of the Bible as “true” and reject others as “faulty”, then Phelps has just as much right to reject or ignore certain scriptures, highlight others, and legitimately arrive at his “God hates…” narrative as Enns has the right to reject the OT Canaanite-destroying God in deference to one he prefers. And furthermore, the Bible could not tell us which of these perspectives is to be preferred.
Now this is entirely a different question - especially since I would be one of those who claim to embrace all of Scripture, but I also don’t apply every single OT punishment as written. So I can’t speak for Phelps, but the question addresses my consistency in using the OT, no? But the question of what does and doesn’t apply to us from the Old Testament probably would deserve an entire thread in itself. But as briefly as I can offer it here…
My briefest response would be to simply respond, “Are Christians who don’t sacrifice lambs not working according to the OT”? but to expound further…
I think it safe that we all can affirm that the OT laws as written were clearly, unquestionably, and indisputably a mix of some laws and principles that were eternal and unchangeable moral laws, and some laws that were provided based on the current situation. I know of no one who would or could dispute that basic observation. For instance:
-Exodus goes into great detail on the specific construction of the tabernacle, a structure which use was limited to Israel’s desert wanderings and which became irrelevant upon the establishment of the temple.
-The OT goes into great lengths to detail proper worship to include animal sacrifice. The NT, especially the book of Hebrews, makes this pretty apparent.
-While at the same time, some laws as presented are clearly eternal and unchangable. Do not murder, have no other Gods, etc.
Based on these obvious distinctions, Theologians, especially of the Reformed variety like myself, have long clarified the categories of the OT law into three basic categories: moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. Moral law, such as the basic principle to not steal, do not covet, not commit perjury, are understood as eternal principles that directly apply to all people at all times. Ceremonial laws are those that applied to Israel’s particular worship for the purpose that God had for them at that time. The priesthood and its regulations, the cleanliness laws for entering the tabernacle/temple, and the animal sacrifices. Thirdly, are all sorts of laws that dealt with civil society in ancient Israel, including those that dealt with capital punishment, treatment of prisoners of war, adjudicating civil matters, and the like - and further would have to be understood that ancient Israel was a theocracy - i.e., the church and the state were one and the same. One could not be simply “excommunicated” from the people of God but remain a member in good standing of the state.
So this is a very cursory treatment, but in short, those of us to take the OT seriously and inerrantly, I do indeed take everything it says seriously and inerrantly, while recognizing that while everything must inform me, and that while everything communicates to me about God and his principles and values, not everything directly applies to me in a simplistic fashion. I do take the OT inerrantly but I haven’t sacrificed a lamb recently, because I understand from the whole of Scripture that while this was indeed the absolute command of God for his people of the OT to do, and was not intended as an eternal practice for all people at all times… that this was something he had only intended for the Saints of the OT to do to illustrate justice, blood sacrifice, atonement, hatred of sin, forgiveness, reconciliation through penal substitution, and all the rest - that were illustrations, foreshadowings, or presages that were entirely fulfilled, completed in the lamb of God that took away the sin of the world.
So no, I don’t think I am “not working according to the OT” by not having sacrificed a lamb recently. It is in the same larger category that I would reject the idea that I am “not working according to the OT” by demurring against the idea that an incorrigibly rebellious child should be stoned at the city gates. While at the same time, I would note that I do indeed attempt to the best I can to live, embrace, apply, teach, and practice the underlying principles behind both of those aforementioned OT laws that I yet maintain do not “apply” to me - not directly, at least.
Much more I could discuss here if interested, though it may deserve its own thread.
I wasn’t aware you responded. To me the answer is easy. Love as He loved. Forgive as He forgave. He also told people not to sin anymore. That was as important as anything else He said or did. Don’t keep doing this same thing. God forbid!
What we miss all the time is that God knows us individually and He works with us individually. He knows if we long to be one with him. He knows our digestive problems, our sleep apnea, our own damaged sense of self. He knows if we are playing at this thing for show. And He cares.
"It is doubtful whether God can bless a man greatly until He has hurt him deeply.”
A.W. Tozer