A Christian’s Duty: “Tell Someone Else What They Need To Do”
by Ervin Taylor
It appears that Mark Kellner, the News Editor of the Adventist Review, sometimes reads the blogs on the Adventist Today website. He characterized these blogs as “Adventist-related weblog[s] or blog[s].” However, he does not specifically reference the Adventist Today website as such. Clearly, he thinks he can’t come out and state clearly from where he obtained his quote. I think I understand why. But that’s another topic.
On May 26, 2011, under the headline “Judgment Time? Yes,” Mr. Kellner quotes a comment by ‘Anna’ who was quoted in a blog by Melissa Howell, posted on the Adventist Today website. The title of Ms. Howell’s blog segment was: “Teens Speak on Abortion in SDA Hospitals.” The context of her blog was an article which had recently appeared in the Washington (DC) Post newspaper with the title “Seventh-day Adventists and Abortion.” Anyone interested in the contemporary views of Adventist students on abortion should read the entire text of this excellent blog.
In a footnote in his Adventist Review editorial, Mr. Kellner referenced his web source for Anna’s comment as http:/bit.ly/fuwPwv. Anyone interested in documenting for themselves where Mr. Kellner obtained the text of the blog may wish to enter that address in his or her browser and see what pops up. Wonder of wonders, it is the Adventist Today website. I had to ask a computer guru what the 'bit.ly' thing was all about and he indicated that it was a way to shorten domain names for use, among other things, in social media contexts. I wonder how many readers of the Adventist Review know that?
I propose the reason Mr. Kellner used that code is to hide the fact he was getting his information from the Adventist Today website. However, that is not the main point of my comments.
On her Adventist Today blog Ms. Howell wrote: “On the 38th Anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case, the [Washington] Post noted that although many religious groups marched in protest of the decision to legalize abortion in America, Adventists were somewhat…missing. Was our absence due to the fact that we perform abortions in our hospitals across the world? The Post questioned "Is this practice inconsistent with their otherwise strong emphasis on health? While the Adventist world balked, protested, or cheered over this PR break (or disaster), I myself immediately took the article to a group of over 150 teenagers and young adults, and discovered an emerging reality for Adventism that I wasn't even looking for. Here is a summary of what I found.”
In part, the responses of students revealed that, “Those who stood strongly against our hospitals performing abortions under any circumstances were definitely in the minority, but still spoke with strong voices” and “amongst all who found abortion to be completely wrong, almost none were willing or even desiring to enforce this belief on anyone else.”
It is an answer of a student illustrating the last response that got the attention of Mr. Kellner. The student, Anna, wrote: "I think abortion is wrong. I would never get an abortion, even in the worst of scenarios. But neither am I angry at or opposed to people who think abortion is okay. I don't have the need to force my beliefs on anyone else. It's not a Christian's job to tell someone else what they need to do. All of us have to follow our own conscience." I would think that most readers would say that this is an entirely reasonable point of view, even if they might not totally agree with it themselves. But not Mr. Kellner.
To what does he take exception?
It is the statement of Anna: “It's not a Christian's job to tell someone else what they need to do. All of us have to follow our own conscience.” Mr. Kellner states that, “I would propose actually, this is the believer’s duty to tell someone else what they need to do [his emphasis]." "We need to tell someone else they need to repent. We also need to tell someone else that there’s a right and a wrong way to live…we can advise someone else that following his or her own conscience can be hazardous in the extreme…it’s an essential task for the Christian. And if others are offended, I’m sorry about that, but they must still be warned. The Lord expects no less.”
What immediately sprang into my mind was a phrase that is not used in polite conversion. My wife – a usually very mild-mannered lady – reacted with “Who made him God?” I must say I have not read anything recently – even in the Adventist Review – so obviously and patently self righteous as Mr. Kellner’s statement. Can any reasonable Christian really believe that it is his “duty to tell someone else what they need to do?” Some self-righteous types might constantly be thinking that, but to put it down on paper suggests a Pharisaical mind set of monumental proportions.
Some years ago, one of Cliff Goldstein’s obviously extremist columns was publicly disavowed by the previous Adventist Review editor. A responsible editor of the Adventist Review would be expected to disavow this editorial by Mark Kellner. However, the present editor might actually publicly praise it. A dark cloud has indeed descended on the denominationally-controlled Adventist press.
I think you have missed the real point of the editorial. The editorial’s point is that we must do what God says without thinking, without the aid of our conscience. It is the Traditionalist view that people should not be able to interpret the Bible that the religious organization should interpret the Bible in this case we should do whatever the traditionalist says we should do on whatever issue is involved.
Notice what Kellner says:
“We also need to tell “someone else” that there’s a right and a wrong way to live. “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death” is how it reads in Proverbs 14:12.”
Therefore we cannot trust to what someone thinks is right because the end is death…never-mind that in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs everything ends in death. this is a kind of proof text that is used to show we can’t interpret information we must only accept certain information. Which is of course a ridiculous concept.
“And we can advise “someone else” that following his or her own conscience can be hazardous in the extreme. Jeremiah warns: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure” (Jer. 17:9). My apologies to Jiminy Cricket, but we mortals cannot let our conscience “be our guide,” else all would be anarchy.”
Here the conscience is equated to the heart. The heart however is generally associated with feelings and emotions whereas the conscience is usually the seat of deciding right and wrong and analysis of choices. He should be more concerned with apologizing to Jeremiah then Jiminy Cricket. But if you can’t follow your conscience which some of us think is the area of the mind to which God communicates to use through what is left? Authority…unquestioned authority, the authority of the traditionalist in the religious denomination.
This is a serious article, and I think far more troubling than just the idea of Christians telling other people what to do.
All that I can say: “Dear God, deliver me from such pious and authoritative
Christians who have all the answers.” Tragically, there are multitudes of Christians who truly believe that the authority figures are there to define every possible situation in glaring black and white.
If Mark Kellner was saying that we have a duty to warn people when they are heading for trouble I would have no problem with the article. But, unless I am misreading what he is saying, the article implied going beyond drawing attention to a different way of looking at things. To say we should tell people what we believe they ought to do is one thing, but can we really tell people what they *need* to do? I also thought we agreed with most other Christians that our consience is to be followed above any church teaching? If our consience cannot be trusted, then where do we turn?
Anna’s point was about not forcing our beliefs on others. Does Mark Kellner really believe that we are to do so? If so, it represents a very different form of Adventism to the one I grew up in – and that was very fundamentalistic – where forcing people to believe was the work of the Antichrist and his henchmen. I still hope that the point was that we have a duty to share our beliefs, and that point was simply expressed somewhat badly.
I certainly agree with Ron that an equally serious problem with the Kellner article is exactly what he and Elaine have flagged. Kellner’s idea that you can’t trust your own thought processes and must rely on what a religious organization says is the truth is, at best, totally misguided and at the worst, . . . I hesitate to use this language, but it fits . . . “the Mark of the Beast.”
John McLarty’s comments are a great surprise. As befits a former editor of Adventist Today, he usually is usually the most reasonable and rational of individuals. Perhaps, in this case, he is speaking exclusively from a pastor’s perspective. But is he really serious when he says that it is ones “duty to tell others what they need to do?” Duty? And who are the “others” he is talking about? Everybody? And if we don’t do this, he says that it is “dangerous to the social order.” What seems to me to be dangerous is the moral superiority that comes with believing that it is your “duty” to tell someone else what he or she should do.
The only “others” which we might consider our “duty” to suggest certain courses of action are those who personalities and characteristics we know very well. For example, it might be considered a “duty” when considering close family members or people we have interacted with for many, many years and where there is mutual respect and trust. Under such rare circumstances, I can understand the possibility of it being appropriate. But I would suggest that those situations are very rare.
Erv,
Are you in fact suggesting that we should not tell anyone that they should think for themselves? This line of reasoning is dizzyingly self-contradictory, is it not?
Of course, most of us believe that we should think for ourselves—within the context, or under the premise, that we are inherently flawed (“desperately wicked”), do not know everything, and are necessarily dependent upon seeking and finding the will of Someone who is inherently perfect, and knows everything.
I don’t even tell my very adult children what they should do. If they ask for advice, or suggestions I am careful to say that since they are the one most closely involved they should look into their heart for answers. There is nothing more unwanted than to have someone offer advice when it has not been asked.
Professional counselors are paid to help clients discover their own minds in order to make good decisions. Deciding for another is not only undermining their ability to carefully consider all the possibilities, but robbing them of learning how to make decisions. We make decisions for immature children; never should we attempt that with adults, and most particularly when it is not asked.
This is a tricky issue because it depends so much on the circumstances. Ron is correct that each person needs to think for themselves. Ellen White says “They are letting other men be brains for them, letting another man search the Scriptures for them, and accepting his decisions as authority; and yet that man, whom they depend on and trust in, is compassed with the same human infirmities and weaknesses, and his defects really are regarded to be virtues to be copied. The Lord wants ministers of the gospel to search the Scriptures” (1888 Materials: {1888 836.1}.
Police tell us what to do. Teachers tell us what to do. Our doctor tells us what to do. We tell our children when they are small what to do. When Peter preached his first sermon the people asked what they must do and Peter said, ““Repent and be baptized, every one of you” (Acts 2:38).
On the other hand Adventist have tended to be far too prescriptive. I am coming more and more to the conviction that when it comes to the gospel our role is to love people and God’s role is to convict people, tell them what to do.
I believe humankind’s main fault is self righteousness and pride. Biblical revelation, I suggest was to give means ing to what sin is in God’s eyes and offer a solution. Without the HS’ kindness in the conviction and enabling of the individual and individual reception/response no concept of sin is acceptable to the “dead in tresspasses and sin” or desire to repent and change.
No desire to accept the remedy which is Christ who died for the forgivenes of sins.
The “sequence” needs to be the HS acting on the individual so that when hearing the word of God delivered by “sound doctrine and teaching” one responds.
We are to be taught to desire the “sincere milk of the word that we may grow thereby.”
Where scripture is explicit, the church should be. Where scripture is “implicit” it must be less “dogmatic.” Where scripture is virtually silent the church should be.
To often in the “church” there are always personalities that try and be “Little EGW’s with testimonies” on the non-explicit. To often, rather than the broad brush principles there are those who wish to micromanage everyone elses life without a true vision of “looking at oneself in the mirror.”
The church’s role is proper discipleship through the Word within it’s proper parameters, which is not micromanaging or the rules and commands of man/woman, with reliance on the HS to “grow the fruit” to fruition.
regards,
pat
Now you know why I quit subscribing to the Adventist Review more than 30 years ago and the monthly edition that comes because I’m on the conference mailing list makes a quick trip to the trash.
Doctor and David,
I suggest, When one is blessed with a “biblically sound teaching Elder/pastor” then it allows the local congregation to be discipled as to the meaning of biblical love as being a combination of both truth spoken and longsuffering/patience towards one another.
When either of these aspects are omitted by a pastor either from deliberate omission, fear of offending or biblical discernment, I suggest, we will have a dysfunctional church community.
WN: Do you throw out the newspaper when you don’t like what it says? Have you nothing to learn?
I would say that only McLarty and Newman give a reasonable response here–the rest seem to miss the point.
First, the teen, Ann, doesn’t want to take a stand on a public issue, because it would be telling someone what they should do. I don’t think taking a stand for what is right is forcing one’s belief on others. That’s absurd. Just taking a stand not to take a stand is OK but don’t say everyone with an opinion is forcing their beliefs.
Second, on the matter of advice, there are people who want to “control” or boss others around, but that isn’t the point. Such people are annoying. And no one likes authoritarianism or institutionalism. But we live by principle and have to learn from others to grow. It seems obvious that only losers disregard counsel.
Obviously teachers and counselors are paid for giving advice. The person who will not listen or learn or seek help is the most pathetic of souls and will never change an opinion or grow. On a personal level, we need to remember we only give counsel to people who know we are their friends.
The Bible says we are to spread the gospel. If that isn’t telling others what is to be done, I don’t know what it is. Where does biblical guidance come in this debate?
“It is the statement of Anna: “It’s not a Christian’s job to tell someone else what they need to do. All of us have to follow our own conscience.” Mr. Kellner states that, “I would propose actually, this is the believer’s duty to tell someone else what they need to do [his emphasis].”
The illustration was limited to abortion which is what Anna was answering. This is a very personal issue and no one should have the gall to tell another what she should do in such circumstances. This is what many Christians apparently would like to do: prohibit abortion and either they, or the government would make such a personal choice for everyone.
This is what gives some Christians a bad name: those who wish “less government” but more government interference in very personal decisions. This is an attempt to play God and deprive someone else in coming to her own decisions by making choices for her by government fiat. A very sad commentary on Christian living.
Given several comments on this thread, one question that might be asked is: “What does ‘spread the gospel’ mean? Some assume that “spreading the gospel” involves telling other people what they should do and that certain propositions are true. Really?
We all know that “gospel” means “good news.” So what is this “good news” we are supposed to share? I’m sure the theologians among us will have a long list of things that must be believed and a special set of words spoken to really “share the gospel.”
Having a simple mind, it seems to me that the “good news” that was being shared had something originally to do with the simple idea that no one had to perform any ritual or go to any temple to offer sacrifices to have confidence that, in the end, everything would turn out all right, if not in the present, than in some future reality. In the meantime, let’s treat each other as we would like to be treated and let God take care of the details.
Now quickly, of course, humans could not let that simple idea alone and all kinds of complicated theological ideas got thrown into the mix in an effort to solve problems in the community that arose. As time passed, more and more of these ideas accumulated and we know what happened.
Two thousands years later, we are still inventing all kinds of complicated theological ideas and use these ideas to define who is in and out of the hundreds of Christian groups who claim they have superior insights and understanding of the will of God. If so many people were not so serious about all of this, it would be humorous.
The Good News is not about telling someone what he should do, but assuring anyone who asks that everything will be alright in the end and then modeling in one’s own behavior what happens when you believe that. I know, it’s all too simple. And it’s just an opinion and nothing more.
Erwin,
It’s at least “this simple.”…and the focus is not on “our modeling” but on Christ. :>)
Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” Mk.1:14,15.
You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, a you will indeed die in your sins.” Jn.8:23,24.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, f that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
Jn.3:16-18.
Ms. Travis has provided an example of my suggestion that “Two thousand years later, we are still inventing all kinds of complicated theological ideas and use these ideas to define who is in and out . . .”
Erwin,
Doesn’t seem complicated to me. Rather straight forward in simple language that is hard for the most biased to “reframe” to mean other than it was meant to convey. Even n objective child could understand it.
regards,
pat
ET
“Two thousand years later, we are still inventing all kinds of complicated theological ideas and use these ideas to define who is in and out . . .”
Huh? You mean the Bible is an invention??? Where else do we turn if, being Christian, we believe it is inspired?
Many texts say that Christ came to save all humanity–very straightforward and simple. Yet others like Jn 3:16, say all who believe. However, you can’t believe without hearing about salvation through Christ. Where does that leave those who don’t hear? Does it mean they are all lost? That is hardly good news! For if that is true, then God is totally unfair–an idea that opposes his stated love, justice, and merchy. Then I have to assume that John 3:16 means all who have heard/learned about the real Christ, or we face a dilemma concerning the goodness and fairness of God. I would say the good news gospel is that God has saved us until and unless we reject Him (which is a “heart” choice most often displayed by behavior and words). The first is legal objective justification, and the latter a subjective choice. We can accept and love a God like that. It’s good news. The Gospel to the world: God has saved you! Only the proud would reject it. And they can’t bear to be told what to believe or that they need saving. They might even kill the messenger.
Mark, the is Rob Bell’s thesis in “Love Wins.” Christians don’t have the lock on anything, despite its claims.
Adventism’s idol is the Bible; yet while professing to believe it all and follow it, there is very selective of the Bible, and no valid explanation of why the violence, genocide and oppression of other races and women are extolled. It is used prescriptively when certain rules are given, and in other places it is only descriptive. The product of human imagination which the writers credited as being inspired is like all the prison inmates protesting that they are completely innocent: self-claims are meaningless. Those who claim that they find inspiration from the Bible are no different than others who claim they find inspiration from the Koran or listening to classical music.
I was about to reply to Ms. Rydzewski, but Mr. Bauer and Ms. Nelson have responded much better than I could ever have. All I need to say is amen.
Well, perhaps Dr Taylor, (if I’m not asking for too much), would be kind enough to share with us the scriptures or source on which he has based his opinion regarding ‘what’ his take on the Good News is?
I do know however, that [Matt 28:19,20] state that: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
How would telling others therefore apply to Dr Taylor’s ‘easy going’ opinion of what the Good News really is in relation to “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you”?
One last thought. The last part of Jesus’ words: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” clearly indicates that this mandate remains an integral part of the Christian Church until ‘the end of the age’.
After two thousand years this mandate from Jesus still continues and will until He shall come…
T
The ‘it will all work out for the best in the end’ line of thought is very banal; and at best a shallow attempt to console, in terms of things turning out ok (Utopia style), in spite of God clearly warning that those who continue in sin will be destroyed (by fire). Yes, the Plan of Salvation offered by God to mankind in Christ Jesus will have a triumphant end but this ‘end’ will also include the annihilation of sin and those who have embraced its ugly agenda.
There is nothing wrong with ‘telling others’ what to do in terms of what God has done for us and warning them of what will soon take place if they choose to not DO what God requires of them especially those that have rejected the Salvation he offers this reprobate world.
Governments; civil society; constitutions; laws and by-laws; traffic laws and rules; politicians; educational institutions; fraternities; healthcare; welfare; lawyers; criminals; banks; employers; managers; bosses; and even children, parents and spouses are telling us at some time or another WHAT TO DO. “It’s in your best interest” they say.
What about God? Does he have a small say in what we do?
[Acts 16:31] They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.” This ‘what to do’ for example is evidently a good willed one and does not seek to force those addressed but appeals to them to ‘Do the right thing’ and I think that is what matters most. DO YOU?
T
Every time Mr. Hammond makes a comment, I must say that my suggestion that “Two thousands years later, we are still inventing all kinds of complicated theological ideas” is vividly exemplified. May I remind him of my last two sentences “I know, it’s all too simple. And it’s just an opinion and nothing more.” May I suggest another obvious, simple, point that this s what he is also writing–his own opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
May I suggest this question that the honourable Dr Taylor may wish to simply answer (nothing more nothing less): “Is God also then just an opinion?”
T
No one knows for absolute certainty what is God’s opinion. He hasn’t told us. Only humans, just the same as we, no brighter no smarter, no more intelligent, have written THEIR thoughts about God. The entire Bible is written by men, and ABOUT God. With regularity, we confuse the Bible as being God’s writing to us. It is no such thing. No more than anyone of us can write tomes about God with no more knowledge about God than the Bible writers had.
To believe otherwise, puts all those Bible writers as god-like and heeding their voices, while disregarding those who are alive today. None of them and none of us are omnipotent, that is limited to God and only He knows the past, present and future and we should exhibit more humility in giving any human the position of speaking for God. God can speak for Himself and needs no man to explain, interpret, or define Him. To exalt any human as having a special insight into God is blasphemy. All humans have equal access and equal ability to understand Him, else only those who claim to “speak for God” should be heard. This is the role the clergy played for most of religious history: only the “annointed” could be God’s spokespersons. Those who accept that will be the sheep who are both fleeced and slaughtered.
What we know about God represents the opinions of many, many, humans over thousands of years. I know I will regret citing this, but may I paraphrase a well-known (to Adventists)19th century devotional religious writer with the initials EGW: God is not on trial in the words used by people to describe their personal encounters with the Divine. Again, may I quote Ms. Nelson: “To exalt any human as having a special insight into God is blasphemy.” Amen.
Erwin,
Two things. 1)Why do you suddenly respect EGW’s “words?”
A full understanding of her view would be consistent with what is theologically called “dynamic inspiration.”
2) My belief that scripture is the inspired word of God is part of why I have faith as a Christian. If I can not believe this is God’s word…it really doesn’t matter if one thinks it is blasphemey or not as all understanding of the “Christian God” are irrevalent.
regards,
pat
The 21st Century SDA detractor,illustrious blogger and writer, who goes by the initials EN and who has been quoted by Dr Taylor, has used the term ‘blasphemy’ out of its normal meaning.
blas·phe·my (blsf-m)
n. pl. blas·phe·mies
1.
a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
I would use it in its correct sense and say that the reference they make to the effect that the Bible isn’t God’s Word and that it is only a book ABOUT God is more in line within the context of the true meaning of Blasphemy.
I would sincerely hope and pray that they would prayerfully allow God to reveal His Word to them and that one day soon they will see the Bible in its entirety as God’s Holy Word — the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
[1Thess 2:13] And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
21st Century Bible is God’s Word Believer
T
We should be thanking Adventist Today for allowing to freely express our opinions.
Ms. Travis asks a very reasonable question: “Why do you suddenly respect EGW’s ‘words’?” It is not a sudden thing. I respect EGW’s words, just as I respect many of the words and actions of Isaiah, Pope John XXIII, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and a host of others of good will whose words and actions have sought to help people to live better and more fulfilling lives. I respect their words but I may not agree with their opinions on all kinds of topics, since they were all fallible human beings. Does that explanation help?
Trevor described blasphemy as:
“The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.”
Anyone who claims that he alone can discern what God is like by reading what others have written about him in the Bible and claim that it is “God speaking” fits the description above.
Erwin,
All I mean is “it is a pick and choose” obviously for you with EGW & scripture, which is fine with EGW but not scripture in my estimation.
Dt.29:29 and Dt.30:11 attach much more importance to the inspired nature of God’s Word revealed. Jesus confirms the Pentateuch and the prophets and the NT writers affirm their inspiration. We accept it by faith and as I said If “the faith delivered” ain’t so, why play church and accept Christ as savior? We serve an “unknown god.”
regards,
pat
May I suggest to Ms. Travis that we all “pick and choose” which passages of Scripture or EGW (for certain Adventists) we choose to focus upon and which we choose to ignore. We also all apply our own personal “principles of interpretation” to all passages of Scripture and (for certain Adventists) to EGW statements. May I further suggest that no one can read the Bible “just as it reads.” To insist that anyone can do that is intellectually dishonest (among other things) or worse.
Erwin,
I believe all scripture is inspired and I can not pick and choose from it.That different interpretations are understood is not the point. That the Bible is my final authority for faith and practice that always can correct my understanding is the point and those who say that scripture is not God’s Word never get past that. It simply isn’t authoritative to them regardless of the legitimacy of the interpretation of the “inspired Word.”.
Here is this text again that one can chew on in the context of the Bible as GOD’S WORD and not as some have proposed, just a book ABOUT God.
[1Thess 2:13] And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
T
If we get stuck on justifying the small details, we will never get to the main points the Bible writers were trying to make. There are things you can’t harmonise. There is no way to harmonise the list of Esau’s wives and their fathers’ names. If it ever becomes apparent that Esua having 3 wives and what their names were is important in understanding God or salvation, I will worry about that. I also can’t see the importance of whether Israel did or did not conquor Jebus ubder Joshua, and whether it was Judah or Benjamin who did/did not do so. I also don’t care how many times the cock crowed when Peter denied Jesus, or how many angels came to the tomb. There are in fact, a lot of details I don’t really care about. But, if God is not a God of love, if Jesus did not die for us, if he is not coming back – then I have reasons to worry. The story is wonderful and awe-inspiring, the small incosistenies in details are irrelevant. That’s the way I look at it, others are free to disagree and spend half their lifetime reconciling the details if they wish. I have better things to do.
Apparently, such “small inconsistent details” as God killing all his created children in the flood; the first born of Egypt; the complete genocidal killing of tribes so the Israelites to take their territory, and more. If this is the “God of love” you are referring to, what would such a god have to do to be cruel? Those are simply “minor details”?
I’d be more worried about a God who saw all that happens and does nothing.
If God “saw all that happens and does nothing” what did the firstborn of Egypt do to deserve killing? What wickedness did every single soul, including innocent babies and children, do to deserve being destroyed in the flood? If that is one’s idea of a Loving God, what does it take to make a despicable God? This is the god like the pagans worshiped: if proper sacrifices are not offered, I will kill them. This is a better god?
Something is so wry, so absurd, so wrong, sad to say, when some start to ‘put God on the Dock’ as it were. The God of John 3:16 is consistent. His character above reproach. He did what he had to do to provide Messiah – the Anointed One – who came to ratify the Covenant of Love with His Blood – the Great Plan of Redemption.
Oprah Winfrey, in a movie some time ago, plays the part of a loving mother who goes to the extent of killing her children, to prevent them from been taken away as slaves. As cruel as this may seem the motives of the character she plays came out of love, fear, maybe even anger or whatever; but we get the message that her actions and decision was difficult and came out of sheer ‘protective’ love.
Those who were destroyed in the flood had many, many, years to ‘come into line’ or ‘go into the ark’ so to speak – but they refused and arrogantly scorned God and His Word. That’s the ‘marks’ of Sin for you: it is destructive, hurtful, deadly and always – always leads one away from God, by doubting and rebelling against this God of such immense Love. “Sin destroys the desire and capacity of knowing and loving God” (guess who wrote this – name starts with E).
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” Mere Christianity [C.S. Lewis]
“We are in no position to draw up maps of God’s psychology, and prescribe limits to His interests. We would not do so even for a man whom we knew to be greater than ourselves. The doctrines that God is love and that he delights in men, are positive doctrines, not limiting doctrines.”
(CS Lewis, God in the Dock, p.43).
In God we Trust…?
T
Response to:
“Apparently, such “small inconsistent details” as God killing all his created children in the flood; the first born of Egypt; the complete genocidal killing of tribes so the Israelites to take their territory, and more. If this is the “God of love” you are referring to, what would such a god have to do to be cruel? Those are simply “minor details”?”
That depends on what you consider death to mean. If it is only temporary–only an instant away (since there is no passing of time same as before we were born), then it is only terrible to those who live and won’t accept the truth about it. As for children and babies, this is where I believe evangelical religions do not have the good news of the gospel, that Christ died for all, even for those who can’t choose.
Another point is that the Hebrews blamed God for everything since they did not seem to have a concept of Satan early on.
The best reason for the first death is that there wouldn’t be room for everyone on the earth if there wasn’t death. The wicked would increase evil and selfishness and suffering.
But let’s imagine that these wicked were not destroyed or allowed to be destroyed. What if they infiltrated the people of God. After so many years, God’s voice/inspiration would no longer be heard and the earth would be void of all Godly influence and everyone lost–they would finally destroy themselves. This is the reason, I believe, for the story of Noah. The earth would have been totally cut off after Noah and his family died. Then imagine what sort of violence and sin you would see. As time goes on, what starts out good turns evil. An example of this might be seen even in the dynasties of China when a good leader with compassion begins his dynasty but everything goes downhill when he dies.
Rational answers are there, if you want to search them out. I happen to think that Adventism offers some of the best answers for those who need them.