Help Me
by Stephen Foster
There is a recurring question that I have with regard to theism which no one ever seems to want to address. How does it make sense to believe that the God of the Bible exists at all, if you do not believe that what the Bible says about the God of the Bible is indeed true?
Please don’t misunderstand me; I completely understand why some people do not believe that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days less than 10,000 years ago.
I also understand why some people do not believe that there have been supernatural miracles, or that Jesus was actually God.
What I do not understand is how — or why — some people do not believe any of this, yet believe that God exists, and that He is good, and, further, that He is responsible for creation. From where did they get the idea that God exists, that He is good, and that He is responsible for creation?
Among the things that makes sense to me about the Biblical narrative — one of its probative features as far as I’m concerned — is that the plan of salvation, and arguably the theme of the Bible, as well as a microcosm of the great controversy is outlined in Genesis 3:15.
From where could that prophecy have come? What are the various options? The same might well be asked of the foretelling of the successive dominant kingdoms ending with the establishment of the eternal kingdom, to be established by God, in Daniel 2. What possible options are available (other than the famously porous Maccabean thesis)? The same might even be asked concerning the source of the information encoded in genetic material.
Again, so as not to distract from my point, I understand why people do not believe that there is a benevolent supernatural, self-existing, creative Intelligence who is responsible for everything and who demonstrated His benevolence and such responsibility by sacrificially dying for all of humanity. I totally get that.
What I don’t get, what does not compute, what makes absolutely no sense to me at all, is how and why those who do believe that there is a benevolent, supernatural, self-existing, creative Intelligence who is responsible for everything and who demonstrated His benevolence and His responsibility for everything by sacrificially dying for them, do not believe everything that the source — from which this information about Him was derived — has to say about Him. So, help me.
Stephen,
Help has arrived … perhaps …
The assumption that scripture is the sole (soul?) source of what we know about the God of scripture puts God into a box called, scripture.
Scripture doesn't do that.
Why would you?
Scripture is the record of people who imagined their world in terms of God. And thus we know that God dwelt among them long before there was scripture.
Even Paul recognized that God engaged with all of humanity before there was the law, the first several books of scripture.
What is a more intersting question to me is why there is such interest in exclusively trying to understand the God who today dwells among us by pouring over translations of dead languages cloaking the record of life experiences of people who like us were trying thousands of years ago to understand God.
With this view in mind, it seems that like days of old people can reichly believe in God apart from scripture. And withou scriptural dependency scripture can itself become more rich, and even practical.
Just thinking along here with you …
Are you perhaps confusing interpreting the Bible literally with taking it seriously? I take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus seriously, but not literally. Virtually all SDAs would say "amen". I also take the book of Job seriously, but not literally. That is where many SDAs either go very silent, or get very vocal. "You cannot take the book seriously if you don't believe it actually happened" is a frequent response. We are told we can't take the parable literally, because of what it says about hell. Yet we are told to take Job literally, despite what doing so says about God. So, I come back to my original question: are you perhaps confusing "believing" with interpreting literally? As SDAs, given our focus on prophetic boks, perhaps we should not have that problem.
Perhaps my question is not quite clear. I understand that God can, has, and does reveal Himself to people who have no access to scripture, and is not limited by circumstances, or by scriptural interpretation.
My question has to do with those whose knowledge of God and of His attributes, as Creator and Redeemer, is via their exposure to scripture, and scripture alone. That would include anyone who has ever read the Bible and whose knowledge of God is a result of the reading of the Bible; either directly or indirectly. (Some illiterate people have been told about God by those who have read scripture.)
Those who have not been exposed to scripture for reasons of time or place are not really subject to disbelieving that to which they have not been exposed.
Further, what we’re talking about is what the Bible has to say about God. Whatever is said in scripture about God is fair game it seems to me. That would include what is said, implied, or inferred in the book of Job.
If belief in God is limited to the Bible, why? Did God only reveal himself to a small group of people in the middle east and no one else? Or could it possibly be that these same writers believed that it was THEIR God and no one elses? This is the story in the Hebrew Bible. It's like believing what has been written is sacrosanct and should not be questioned.
This is the problem with reading the Bible literally: First, it must be accepted as the Word of God without errors and only the Bible tells the truth about the Hebrews history. Ask yourself: how many people in a given group, or nation do not describe their history as glorious, they always won the battles, and from the first, they wrote that their god told them that he was their god, and only theirs.
Pick up the Koran and read it. The Muslims are even more reverent of the Koran but they believe it 100%. Historians do not accept all the written records of any people or time, but because most western peoples have been taught from childhood that the Bible is holy; it is the Word of God; and is not to be questioned. Every religion has its writings, its teachings, but not all are so brazen as to believe that only their story is the true one and all else is false.
On what basis does anyone claim the Bible is the Word of God? Usually, one adopts this belief even before He can read. It cannot be questioned. But it is an a prior assumption with no basis in fact.
—
I'm sure Mr. Foster meant to write "What we're talking about is what a number of falible humans who wrote various parts of the Bible communicated about their understanding about God."
No, I meant to write what I wrote; but if it would help you to help me by interpreting what I wrote as such, then have at it.
Help me with those who believe what fallible men have written in the Bible concerning their concept or understanding of God—as the benevolent, self-existent, creative Intelligence who died for them—yet do not believe everything that their very source of this very information (the same fallible men if you will) had to say about God.
I'd like to answer one of your questions with a question. "Does God cease to exist if the bible is shown to be false?"The answer I believe is "of course not". There are scientific and philosophical arguments that demonstrate His existence. So why is the bible necessary then? Helpful yes, beneficial, sure, indespensable? No. I study the bible because I want to get to know Him really well. The bible is an easier way to do that.
It seems to me that there are a number of factors that play into this (1.) Not enough information (2.) Fear (3.) Disbelief (obviously). Sure there are other factors, but these seem to be pretty common.
If I believed in Deism I could state that I believe God created the earth and that He was good because if He wasn't how would we know what evil is? It seems like it would be impossible to quantify evil if the measuring stick was broken. It makes perfect sense to me that someone can understand His attributes and have scriptural exposure, disregard supernaturalism, and still believe in God.
I don't agree with that worldview but I don't see self contridiction in that idealogy. Maybe I still misunderstand your question?
Of course, we’re not talking about deism. Deism assumes (or believes?) that God is not necessarily good and doesn’t necessarily control or influence anything; and never intervenes supernaturally.
This concept of God simply has nothing to do with my question at all. As we know, the God of the Bible is not represented in this way.
Your question about whether God would exist if the Bible were proven to be false is suggestive of deism as opposed to the scriptural theism undergirding my question. I am asking what about those who believe that God is Creator and Redeemer.
That last paragraph in your article gets to the heart of the matter, Brother Foster. I feel the same way you do, and am disappointed to see Mr. Taylor take such a low view of Scripture. And they call that "higher" criticism. R i g h t . He fits the description you gave, and apparently doesn't believe II Tim.3:16 or II Peter 1:20, 21. II Peter flies in the face of his assertion that the Bible is composed of "what a number of fallible humans who wrote various parts of the Bible communicated about their understanding about God."
As usual, I'm stepping in here where I do not really belong, but I have some perspective on this issue. Some people (like me) grew up in the SDA church, believing The Bible to be holy and inerrant. As I grew into a more mature Christian, I continued to believe in scripture, but came to see that different people could understand aspects of the scriptures differently. Some passages seemed to be more ambiguous than others, and people who interpreted them differently seemed not to be able to resolve the differences. So, I studied theology and took koine Greek so I would be able to resolve those ambiguities. In most cases, I found that the translations (King James, Revised Standard, New World, etc.) were accurate. Passages that were ambiguous in the Greek came through as ambiguous in the English. So, perhaps I needed to study Hebrew and other languages to correctly perceive underlying meanings. Of course, I also perceived the importance of getting the Holy Spirit to open my eyes to the meanings of scripture, and I felt as if I wrestled with God and the Spirit through many nights seeking revelation of truth and direction. I came to believe that the fundamental messages of scripture necessarily had to be transparent to the simplest of people, and that it would be internally inconsistent for The Bible to not be easily understandable. It seemed to me that the main message was the good news that we are not lost and hopeless, afterall, and that we do not need to live desperate lives. If things are bad, they will get better. That we can have more fulfilling lives by simply believing. Even so, it remained clear that not every passage was so easy to understand or accept as absolute factual truth. But that is okay, because we do not have to understand God to believe in him. In fact, it seems clear that the scriptural account conveys the message that no matter how much we might try to understand God, we would not be able to do so.
So, then, fast foreward across years of studying scriptural origins, world history, travel, discussions with people from many traditions, study of geology and archeology, and geography and biology and research methods, and logic and epistemology, etc. The interpretation that the creation story in The Bible is factual and that the creation took place in six days less than 10,000 years ago cannot be accurate. It does not align with many different kinds of evidence. And, as one learns to think critically, one learns to question internal claims or claims where there is a conflict of interest. So, the scripture says it is the word of God. Is there some independent verification of that? The reasoning is circular. And, by the way, I dispute that there is any independent scientific proof of God. Science does not prove God or disprove God. Science does not deal in the "spiritual" realm. At all. Religious people can be scientists. Scientists can be religious.
So, many people, having had what they believe to have been a real relationship with God, even if they cannot explain exactly how that worked, may continue to hold onto a belief in God, no matter how much they come to doubt the authority of scripture. They may accept modern science as emerging truth that falsifies ancient writings, but they may still feel that there is an enormous and benevolent force. Or not.
My feeling is that there are some things we cannot know and many things we don't know. My wife claims that I am an atheist. She is probably correct, but I say I am not an atheist because I cannot know for certain that there is no God. I feel pretty sure there is not, but I am not so sure as to want to go around telling people they can't believe in God or that they would be stupid for doing so. I am sure enough that I am not the least bit concerned about there being an afterlife of any kind, heaven or hell. And that is pretty good news.
I've gone on too long, but I just want to mention that genomic studies have revealed some pretty amazing things in the last few years. Lots of the human genome, which works just like any other genome, is made up of information from viruses, especially the retroviruses that insert their DNA into the host's genome. Some of the sources of human DNA that have been identified also help with the understanding of the timing of interplay between viral and primate evolution. One can ignore that evidence, but that does not diminish its existence.
Joe,
While you should never feel that you don’t belong on a thread on this site, you and your experience, and philosophy or belief/non-belief system are, as you know, all but irrelevant to the question.
You have a perspective that is quite understandable. You have been persuaded that the scientific evidence trumps the Biblical record and have concluded that God probably doesn’t exist.
As you know, what I am trying to reconcile is the logic of believing that God exists, and that He is responsible for creation, and that he has made provision for our eternal redemption through Jesus Christ; while simultaneously not believing everything that the very source of that same information says about the very same God.
People who have a “relationship” with the God of the Bible who do not believe that some of what the Bible says about God is true got the very concept of a relationship with a personal God from the same source that they don’t necessarily believe to be authoritative/reliable.
Really Joe, what sense does that make?
I guess about the closest I can come is belief that God's Plan is for us to grow into self-sufficiency and self-reliance, and to help others do the same.
Funny, I always thought His plan was the opposite: for us to quit trying to be self-sufficent and self-reliant,and learn to depend on Him–and help others do the same. But, then, I'm just a simple layman, and these deep concepts sometimes escape me.
I too am just a simple layman, and I definitely think that God wants us to demonstrate faith and reliance on Him; and to help others do likewise.
Jesus likened Himself to a vine and us to the branches; and He said that without Him we can do nothing.
Timo,
I welcom a brief scriptural overview of 'informed consent, true choice' … I sense these concepts are brought to scripture rather than found there …
You are right Timo, in the sense that all that really matters is who do we say that Jesus is; or who is He to us as individuals.
My commenting about Jesus was perhaps distractive of the point of the blog (but I can’t say that I regret it).
The point is that we have yet to make sense of thinking that it is important to acknowledge Him at all, if in point of fact we do not believe the source through which we are introduced to Him to be reliable; unless, of course, we’re hedging our bets.
(Of course, if this does not apply to you…if the shoe doesn’t fit, you are not obliged to try wearing it.)
It seems we have to different agendas, Timo. It would appear that your objective is to permit those who are hedging the bets to continue to do so in relative comfort.
On the other hand, my purpose is clearly the precise opposite.
Stephen, what is you objective? To make others uncomfortable if they cannot accept your picture of God? How effective is such a message? "Scare 'em and dunk 'em?
Recall that Jesus welcomed into his kingdom those who had compassion, helped the poor and hungry which Jesus said they were worthy of heaven. So, how can one's belief in Jesus be the qualifying factor for heaven?
Jesus was most of all an ethical teacher: "Do unto others…." Care for the sick. When did he try to convince his audience that he was the Son of God? During his time here, he was considered a learned rabbi and a prophet. The later writers tried to depict him as God; in effect they created the picture of Jesus most people believe today.
I would say the Bible is authoritative, but not inerrant. That is those who wrote, copied, compiled, edited and translated were inspired, but not flawless. They had limitation of knowledge and understanding. Finally the point of scripture is to lead us to God and help us start a relationship. It is not to answer all questions. It is not to be factually correct in all statements. It is the Holy Spirits job to lead and reveal new truth. And sometimes that mean questioning old truth.
I would still like to know what Stephen means by 'believe the Bible'? In practifce, it often means "believe the Bible means what I believe it means by what it says". Does the person who interprets a verse literally and does what it says 'believe' the Bible more than the person who interprets the verse non-literally and does what it says? Perhaps the question is really "Why do people who say they 'believe' the Bible come to different conclusions on what it means than I do?" That may look like "why do people who say they believe in God not believe the Bible?" but it is in fact a very different question with different answers.
Kevin,
What I have said is that it is nonsensical to believe that the God of the Bible exists, that He is good, that He is self-existent, that He is somehow responsible for creation, and that He is has made provision for the redemption of mankind, yet not believe everything that the Bible says about God.
Is it possible to focus on this? Those who don’t believe the Bible’s supernatural claims and therefore do not believe in a supernatural God are not the issue. The reality that different people who consider the Bible to be authoritative often come to different doctrinal conclusions about Biblical pronouncements and prophecies is likewise not at issue. What is at issue is that it doesn’t make sense to believe the Biblically described attributes of God yet disbelieve other things that the Bible says about God.
Choice … Timo …
You did not have a choice to not be born a sinner according to Paul.
'Choose' as a word is never associated the word 'saved' in scripture.
Love is a response to in the other seeing aspects of one's own self, and in scripture definitely is not the result of some choice.
The story of the Good Samaritan is not about choice, but about love.
Grace as unmerited favor is in no way dependent on the object of grace choosing anything. It is why grace is called a gift. The gift giver doesn’t even chose to give the gift, but gives out of a heart of love.
Jesus does not say God chose to send him to save the world. The sending was inevitable.
Choice is indeed the result of force, not love. Choice forecloses on freedom.
Choice is a concept that we bring to scripture because we want so desperately to play a part in our own salvation. Why? Because it gives meaning to our human existence. If we are saved in the end without in any way participating in our salvation, what in the world are we here for? Choice is what we bring to grace in an effort to make sense of our human experience.
Find the meaning of human existence and you will quickly be rid of all need for the illusion of choice. I'm still looking … too. Genesis 3:14-19 is a good place to start …
Timo,
We have different agendas. Forgive me if you think that I have characterized you in any negative way; because it was not my intention to characterize you in any way whatsoever. What I did attempt to do, perhaps clumsily, was to characterize your agenda on this particular thread with regard to permitting those who perhaps hedge their bet (with regard to believing what the Bible says about God) to do so in relative comfort, as opposed to my attempt to expose the illogic of cherry picking Biblical claims about God.
It seems to me that we should both be “comfortable” with our respective agendas. We should also be comfortable the other guy’s agenda in this instance. I have no problem with your not wanting to make anyone uncomfortable and you shouldn’t have a problem with my seeking to make what appears, to me, to be an illogical position an uncomfortable one as well.
We’re trying to do different things. In pointing this out I meant no offense.
I too would be interested in the answer to Kevin's question.
Stephen, I would also be interested in who you describe below as "those who do believe…" that is a pretty definitively described mindset? I'm not even sure I know anyone like that?
"those who do believe that there is a benevolent, supernatural, self-existing, creative Intelligence who is responsible for everything and who demonstrated His benevolence and His responsibility for everything by sacrificially dying for them, do not believe everything that the source — from which this information about Him was derived — has to say about Him." eg "...those who believe God is Creator and Redeemer"
If such people do not actually exist, are you creating a staw man and your own confusion?
I am sure I discussed with one of you guys about my cousin's shift from atheism to theism essentially without the bible. You cannot just sit back and pontificate that this cannot happen. Nor can you demonstrate from history that people cannot find God or some form of belief in God without the bible. I think that point has been made earlier too.
You are absolutely correct that I am indeed describing “a pretty definitively described mindset.” To answer your question as to who these people are; again, I would describe them as people who believe the attributes of God that are ascribed to Him in scripture, mostly self-described Christians and Jews.
(Of course, this also would include those who claim to have found God or to be in relationship with God, as long as they perceive God to possess the attributes that I have mentioned numerous times above in this blog or thread. Any suggestion that this includes numerous individuals in western culture who have not been exposed to the Bible frankly strains credulity.)
What we disagree about as far as “such people” are concerned is that you believe “such people” to be rare, whereas I believe this to “definitively describe” many—and likely most who regularly attend church/synagogue. (Needless to say, our Jewish friends discount the New Testament as scripture; but God is ascribed most of these attributes in the Torah, and as redeemer in Psalms.)
As much as I try to defend science against those who choose to ignore the advances in knowledge and understanding that it produces, I am the first to agree that some of what is known today will be replaced tomorrow by more complete and/or precise information. The dynamic nature of the scientific process, and the willingness of scientists to evaluate evidence and change their minds accordingly, is a great strength.
It is astonishing that people are still having arguments about clashes between religious beliefs (accepted by faith) and hypotheses proposed by scientists a hundred or more years ago. In many cases, maybe most cases, scientific understanding has progressed dramatically during that interval. Discoveries made within the last 30 years–even the last 5-10 years–were not even anticipated 50 years ago. And, I think it is fair to say that most of us who finished school more than 30 years ago are not aware of many of the recent discoveries. I feel fortunate to have been exposed to some of this current information, and it leaves me wondering about what will be discovered next.
As for cosmology, I am extremely ignorant. I see no reason, however, to believe that the cosmos ever began or will ever end. However, it is quite clear that it is always changing. Recognition of dynamic change seems at odds with claims that everything (or anything) stays the same–including some ultimate truth. Perhaps some of the tension we see and experience is the clash between change and resistence to change as opponent processes.
Joe,
We are fairly clear that you believe that science/scientific discovery trumps whatever the Bible may have to say regarding origins, etc., and that you are in fact quite dubious as to the existence of God. No one is trying to change your mind on this as far as I can discern.
In this blog, I am referencing those who believe both that God exists and that He possesses the attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible.
Stephen,
While I appreciate that your comments were not directed to me, I sometimes feel that clairification is needed regarding characterizations of science or of conflicts between evidence and scripture. I suppose I keep trying to make the point that not everyone agrees on what the scriptural attributes of God are, or even that there is a cohesive and consistent cluster of characteristics. There are certainly various stabs at it, but scripture also informs us that we cannot really (or fully) understand God or his ways. Within that context there is a story of the beginning that seems just to be a story, and people who have estimated the timing of what is described as creation, have provided estimated dates that are far too recent to be corroborated by geological and archeological evidence. I keep trying to find some excuse for those who do believe in recent origins, but I cannot find it. Why people believe there is a spiritual dimension at all, is also mysterious, but science has no way of confirming or denying that a spiritual dimension exists. Okay. I'll lay off. You were not talking to me, and that is fine.
Joe,
Please don’t “lay off.” The fact is that you are probably correct in that “not everyone agrees on what the scriptural attributes of God are, or even that there is a cohesive and consistent cluster of characteristics” upon which "everyone" agrees.
However, I am talking about those who do agree and/or believe that the scriptural attributes of eternal, omnipotent, creator, good, loving, and redeemer are those that characterize God (not to mention that He indeed exists).
It makes no sense at all to believe these widely held scripturally based things about God, yet not believe everything else that scripture has to say about Him.
All the attributes ascribed to God found in the Bible were MAN'S OWN IDEAS! No man has seen God. Why are the ancient descriptions superior to those men have today? Do you believe the Bible is both inerrant and infallible? Then you must also believe that humans are equally inerrant and infallible because it was mere humans that wrote everything within the Bible.
Whether “the attributes ascribed to God found in the Bible were MAN’S OWN IDEAS” or God’s ideas is not germane Elaine.
The point is that many, many Judeo-Christians believe these scripturally-derived attributes to be true. For those that do, it makes no sense to do so and yet disbelieve any of what their source of information regarding these very attributes says about God.
So, whether man wrote the books is not germane? From where did the writings come?
Because "many Christians believe these scripturally-derived attibutes to be true" makes just as much sense as "many Muslims are convinced that all of the Koran is true."
"Believing makes it so"? Believing in first century knowledge made it so? Believing in 17th century medicine made it so? If belief is the criteria, how can any book claim to have it all?
Stephen,
mmm …self described Christians..who perceive God in the way you describe…
Cool, that leaves me out because I describe myself as a Christian (I like his "cup of water to your thirsty neighbor/golden rule), but I do not perceive God in the way you describe.
Was it Thomas's post that spoke of nature and a modern Christianity?
Can I suggest it is time fundamentalist type Christians, who think the bible is the authority in these matters, and believe they have the right interpretation of it, make room for a new type of Christian or faith.
What kind of Christian or Faith?
* People who can look at what IS (nature in all its shades, shapes, and intricacies as seen through reason, observation and science) and accept that life, earth, and universe are very, very old.
* People who can accept that there does not "have" to be a God, and that to answer the ultimate question of the source and origin of all matter and life with the belief "God caused it all" is just as much a statement of faith as it would be to answer the question in any other way. We don't know.
* People who can accept that if they are to believe in God it must be through the lens of what IS, not through what is not. A God described through what is not would be a "god of the gaps", or even worse, a God who's supposed attributes and actions do not fit reality (what IS)
* People who can collect shafts of light from spiritual, religious, and sacred writings and believe it offers a glimpse of God. Remembering that all such writings are a result of man's effort to see beyond what IS.
* People who can admit that their faith in God ultimately comes down to a personal choice or experience, which cannot be scientifially proven and therefore must NEVER in its conclusions about who or what God is deny the reality of what IS.
* People who may describe themselves as theists because they believe God IS, but would reject the narrow set of claims you describe above.
* People who may describe themselves as Christian because they like the thrust of Jesus's teachings.
Stephen, if I can ask tactfully: on what basis can you pontificate a discinction between "self described Christians" and "Christians"?
Does not Jesus simplify the whole thing when he describes the "sheep" as someone who has simply reached out in kindness to another in need (cup of water) because they cared? That "sheep" seems to be one with Jesus because of his attitude, not because he subscribed to a whole bunch of things about who God is, or even knew Jesus!
Perhaps that is the kind of Christian we need more off. Perhaps that and something like I have described above should be the modern Christian?
I wonder that to the degree Christianity does not make room for this "modern" Christian, will be the degree to which it loses its impact on growing sections of society?
In looking back at the commentary on this blog, I see that this is one that perhaps I should never have allowed to “slide,” as we would say in the vernacular of my native culture.
Had I responded we might have saved some energy spent (below) on the differences between everything, not everything, and everything else.
There is no hope—none at all—for there to ever be any common ground for Christians who believe the Bible to be authoritative as relates to what it says about God and those who don’t believe that there is a God.
Mark 16:16, John 3:18 and Hebrews 11:6 are dispositive for the former. There simply is no other way out; and there is no escape hatch. That said, “accepting God through the lens of what IS” is certainly feasible in the Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:16-25 sense, but “liking the thrust of Jesus’ teachings” while not believing/rejecting who He IS is a non starter.
… I never said I believed there was no God… if that is what you are implying…I cannot let that slide.
I never said YOU didn’t believe that God exists. However your enumeration of the types of Christians we should “make room for" in “a new type of…faith” included “people who can accept that there does not ‘have’ to be a God, and that to answer the ultimate question of the source and origin of all matter and life with the belief ‘God caused it all’ is just as much a statement of faith as it would be to answer the question in any other way.” Now any such worldview is antithetical and incompatible with that of those who believe what the Bible says about God.
Stephen,
1. "to answer the ultimate question of the source and origin of all matter and life with the belief ‘God caused it all’ is just as much a statement of faith as it would be to answer the question in any other way.”
I seriously think you would be the only person on AT who believes that "God caused it all" is NOT a stetement of faith. It is absolutely and uncategorically a statement of faith. Just as it would be to declare belief that it all came to be through no cause or anything else.
You are SO hung up on what the Bible says about God, that you are logically and philosophically blind.
2. Why should people be able to accept there does not "have to be a God"? Because there is no logically defensible reason to state otherwise. eg If you say "all this (the universe, the laws within it, life, beauty, intellignece) cannot come to be without a cause (God), you have only moved the problem sideways. Now you have to either accept that God can always be, or come from nothing, (or similar arguments) in order to cause everything. Which is the greater statement of faith? To say the universe has always been, or God has always been? To say it just came to be, or to say God came to be? Either is a logical dead end and one must end up accepting their answer on faith.
3. Where then do we look for evidence of God, if we should not use Him to explain what we cannot. eg how universe and life came to begin? Look at what IS. If there is a God there should be some pointers within what is. What we observe of the universe, life, nature etc.
Did you know that evolution can be useful in suggesting an answer to the God question: It makes more likely than less likely the possibility that God also could have arisen. Creationists say "God just Is and has always been". Evolution suggests how he too could have come to be. I'm half serious!
cheers
The fact that the church argued for over 4 centuries over just who (or what) Jesus is, and the debate continues, would suggest that 'who Jesus is' may not be as clear in the Bible as you believe. I suspect we believe the same thing about 'who Jesus is', but that isn't because it is laid out clearly in the Bible.
Show me a Christian who doubts who, or what, Jesus is and I’ll show you someone who is operating from illogic. Such a Christian doesn’t believe something the Bible says about God (or His Son).
How do you explain the grat variety of beleifs about who Jesus is within Christianity? All claim to believe what the Bible says about Jesus, yet they disagree with each other. The fact is that the Bible is not clear, and it can be read in different ways. You cannot point to a verse that says clearly that Jesus is "God the Son", or that he is 'of the same substance as the Father', nor that he is 'truely God and truely man'. Those who see Jesus as the 2nd person of the Trinity, those who see him as 'the firstborn of creation', those who see him as 'god' but not 'the eternal God', those who see him as merely a human 'son of God' all claim they are simply 'believing what the Bible says'. That is the problem with your question: the Bible is not as clear as you believe. Either that or everyone with a different view to you is deceived or willfully blind.
Someone doesn’t necessarily have to come to the same conclusion that I have concerning Jesus in order to believe what the Bible says about Him. That’s not the point. The point is that if they derived their belief that there is a Savior Jesus from what the Bible says about Him, it is logical that whatever they believe/understand/acknowledge about God/Jesus must be based on what the Bible says about Him.
Whether they believe what I believe is totally immaterial as long as they believe what the Bible says to be true. This point has somehow been repeatedly missed. (As was stated earlier, the annihilation versus torture differences between “believers” is another example.)
Likewise, those who don’t subscribe to or understand (to the extent that anyone does) a trinitarian doctrine, yet believe that what the Bible says about Jesus is in fact true, represent another example of this.
Not surprisingly I don't agree once again with anything Stephen has said. But let us look at the point where he tries to emphasis the purpose of his article:
"What is at issue is that it doesn’t make sense to believe the Biblically described attributes of God yet disbelieve other things that the Bible says about God."
I can find texts which make out God to be arbitrary…does that mean He is arbitrary.
I can find texts where God sanctions genecide and the murder of children…is God as murderer of Children one of His attributes?
I can find texts where God is foolish, as when Moses talked God out of destroying Israel and starting over with Moses, because Moses said what will the neighbors think. Does that make God foolish?
The real problem here is that there are some who don't allow their thinking to move past the ancient texts to incorporate the idea of progressive revelation. They insist that whatever is claimed about God if it is in the Bible must be factual, because after all it is in the Bible and the assumption is that God dictated the Bible, it is the Word of God, even of course when it makes no such claims. (I can hear it now "I don't believe it was dictated by God"…the excuses always come like that…the claim that it is the word of God but not really the word of God but if you don't believe it is the word of God you don't believe in God)
So what he refers to as the Biblical attributes of God is a rather narrow list of things that he accepts as atributes of God (generally the things he thinks are good attributes). Others may see other things but since he does not accept them they are not Biblical attributes. It becomes a rather vicious circle where his view is always correct and no other view can be correct or it would be his view and he just can't understand how any other reasonable person given the understanding that Stephen has could come to a different view. Of course that can only make sense if you hold all of Stephen's presuppositions.
While reading your post I found myself nodding affirmatively thinking that—despite the opening salvo/warning—you were at least seeking to address the thesis of the blog…until the avalanche of ad hominem circumstantial points commenced…and the army of straw men suddenly appeared.
Let’s try to address your points about God. If there are texts, or passages, or narratives that have you concluding that God is “arbitrary,” or a genocidal “murderer of children,” or “foolish” then that is something you have to reconcile with God.
Such cases would have little to no effect on the point of the blog; which again is that once you conclude that—based on the texts and Biblical narratives in question—your impressions about God are true (whatever they are), that it makes no sense to believe some of what the Bible has led you to conclude about God yet not believe that what other texts and Biblical narratives say about God are true (whatever they are).
Either the source of information on which you base your conclusions about God is reliable and authoritative, or it is not.
Hang in there, Brother Foster. Some of us understand what you're saying and we agree with you. Don't let the comments of skeptics bother you. They're only saying what we expect them to say. Jesus asked a pointed question: "When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" Not much, apparently.
Just in case I haven’t previously mentioned this, you are sincerely appreciated Brother Butler!
Stephen,
You ask a practical question with a very simple answer: those degrees of belief (or unbelief) are merely points along a continuum line with complete and total belief in God and atheism at the other. Recognizing that those variations exist leads us to the next question: How do we encourage them toward greater belief? This is the greatest challenge for modern Christianity because of the many influences that have been besmirching God's reputation.
My God is infinite. Yes, and eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.
And doesn't fit in one book. There are many books and many traditions that have some fraction of understanding of God, but any finite fraction, no matter how large, is zero compared to infinity.
I actually have some sympathy for Stephen Foster's questions in the blog post, in that there are quite a few people who nickel-and-dime away bits of the Bible but keep other bits. Perhaps what he's failed to recognise is that he is one of them, since *no-one* 100% keeps all of the Bible literally. Different people just explain away different bits.
Or *does* Mr Foster still sacrifice animals? Or, if that's not a helpful example, does he really believe Lazarus was conscious in a burning hell? And so on.
My approach, actually, is internally consistent: more so than mr Foster's own, as it happens.
Easy to set up the straw man and knock him down, isn't it? You have either not read and understood the Bible as a whole, or you have chosen to ignore some basic principles. Anyone familiar with the sacrificial system should know that it pointed forward to the Messiah, and was unnecessary after the true Passover Lamb had been sacrificed. Neither Brother Foster, nor myself has maintained that anyone should understand every verse of the Bible literally. There is poetry, symbolism, allegory, prophecy, and historical narrative. It is usually quite evident which is which. Since Scripture does not teach an eternally burning hell, it is clear that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was just that: a parable to illustrate a particular point; in this case the truth that our status in eternity is based on what we do here.
You’ve create a problem where one didn’t exist.
And yet, Mr. Butler and others defend as literal the creation narrative that is clearly and obviously falsified by real world evidence. So, according to Mr. Butler, he and Mr. Foster agree that not all of the Bible is to be understood literally. Why is the creation myth accepted as literally accurate, when it obviously is not?
Well, I wonder how long we will continue to talk past each other before we tire of this merry-go-round. There will obviously be no consensus on this issue. What you call "the creation myth" which is "clearly and obviously falsified by real world evidence," many of us see as an obvious conclusion based on the evidence we see all around us. You say that the creation narrative is "obviously" a myth, but we see it in an opposite way–obviously true. We also see a lack of real world evidence for the alternate theory. But, as I said, we will continue to disagree, and I will gladly be considered to be part of the lunatic fringe by those such as yourself, who have apparently reached a higher state of enlightenment.
Many of us who have come to this conclusion have not done so blindly. I'm just stubborn enough to be skeptical of what I'm told. I like evidence. I've studied this issue for decades, as have others. We just don't see any evidence or any logical reason to reject the creation narrative, as it has always been understood, especially when all alternate theories are even less logical and devoid of concrete evidence.
David you can't tell Stephen that he failed to recognize…he will see that as ad hominem or a straw man. True it makes it hard to dialog with him but I think the "Help Me" in the title was more to get our attention that an actual call to help him understand anything.
Stephen, (I'm putting this as a reply to Ron's, and Joe's great points, even though its not a reply to them.., just tired of my points going upstairs for no reason. Reply seems to help that)
You are welcome to ignore my description of a theist/Christian who does not fit your narrow description of one. I personally think it demonstrates, as have other posts, your puzzle exists only because you refuse to accept that others can believe in God (theism) differently than yourself. However, I would appreciate an answer to the question I placed on the end. Perhaps I did not word it well, so I will try to get it clear:
My question is based on your reply to me as to whom the people were/are that you describe as believing the narrow set of descriptions you gave but don't believe the bible.
You describe them as "self described Christians and Jews". I still have no idea who that is as opposed to whom? Hence my question:
"…..: on what basis can you pontificate a distinction between "self described Christians and Jews" and WHO?
eg does that statement mean you are NOT a "self described" Christian? Do you get my point?
Horace Butler, what you have done is to illustrate my point rather than rebut it. There are bits of the Bible that you do not take literally, or that you consider to have been superseded. You correctly say that people don't take all of it literally.
But the premise of Stephen Foster's blog post is 'I can't understand why people still believe in God but don't take the Bible literally'. Or, perhaps to phrase it a bit more precisely, 'don't take the same bits literally that I do'.
If you don't like those two examples, there are many, many more. Here's one: the texts about not wearing clothes made of mixed fibres lie right between those about not eating shellfish and those about homosexuality being an abomination. Almost all SDAs cling to the latter two but don't adhere to the former. There's no good exegetic logic for doing so – it's about how the Bible relates to our own prejudices.
Look, it's not my intention to impugn the Bible. Nor believers. My point is simply that Stephen Foster's post is logically incoherent on its face. And even that is not meant as an attack: it's taking his request for help… literally.
Timo,
You caught the concept! I would totally agree except that the end of the continuum away from God ultimately ends in eternal destruction so it had an end that is indefinite only in time where spending eternity with God will truly be an unending learning experience.
David et al,
This should help clarify things, then again, perhaps not. My concern is not that everyone believes and/or perceives God as I do; or for that matter that they regard the Bible as I do, or that they read the Bible literally, or not.
The point, again, is that whatever your perception of the God of the Bible happens to be, if you believe it to be true and if (any of) your perception of God has been derived from what the Bible says about God, then it makes absolutely no sense to believe that perception of God to be true while simultaneously disbelieving anything else that the Bible has to say about God.
Again, for emphasis, were talking about what the Bible has to say about God. On what basis is this to be partially believed?
It’s interesting how hard it is for some to focus in on that point without introducing extraneous points of interest with reference to the authority or reliability of scripture in general, which is beside the point.
Cb25,
Self-described Christians and/or Jews are people who actually describe themselves or consider themselves to be either Christian or Jewish. If you were to ask such people about their religious affiliation, they would tell you that they are either Christians or they would tell you that they are Jewish.
You may want to read the post in question again. I made no value judgments nor insinuated any, nor intended any. Although I have tried to be clear, you clearly misread or misunderstand my intentions.
"The point, again, is that whatever your perception of the God of the Bible happens to be, if you believe it to be true and if (any of) your perception of God has been derived from what the Bible says about God, then it makes absolutely no sense to believe that perception of God to be true while simultaneously disbelieving anything else that the Bible has to say about God."
Consider this Stephen. The bible says about God that He is love, and it gives examples of this thay may appear as historical, metaphorical, parable or other forms of thought. The bible says about God that He is just, and it gives examples that again appear as historical, metaphorical, parable etc. The bible says about God that He is the creator, and it gives an example which some read as historical, others read as metaphorical, yet others as parable etc. Examples are used to illustrate that which the bible claims about God, namely that He is love, just and creator. No one requires all the examples to be historically, literally true with regard to Gods love or justness. For some reason some people insist that all examples of Gods creatorship must be historically and literally true for the claim about God to be true.
I realise that this is turning into a game of semantics, but you are very energically insisting that it must be such..
Thomas,
With all respect to everyone who has disagreed with the premise of this blog, you are the first one of those who disagree to directly address it, and actually try to “help me” with it.
As you say, God is described in the Bible as love, as just, and as creator. If the examples used in the Bible to demonstrate and illustrate each of these attributes are not, among other things, historically and literally true, how do we know that they are true?
The point, of course, is that those who believe that this God of the Bible exists, and believe that these attributes appropriately describe Him, received the information upon which their beliefs are based, and from which their beliefs are derived, from the Bible. What is their basis/motivation for not believing what the Bible says about God?
Why do illustrations need to be literal to be true? A fictional story can illustrate a point as well as a true story or Jesus would not have used parables.
That’s a good point! I stand corrected. Demonstrations of God’s attributes must be literal whereas illustrations are just that; by definition.
One example in the bible which illustrates Gods justness is found in Matt 18:23 ff. A king makes an audit of his treasury and finds that one servant has a dept with him that may well approach one BNP. The king decides to recover what he can by auctioning off the servants possessions, including wife and children. However, the servant pleads for time and mercy and the king writes off the entire dept. The servant then collects a couple of days wages from a fellow servant by auction. The king hears about this and puts the first servant back to plan A for his ressurected dept problem.
As Kevin pointed out and you agreed to above, this lesson about God does not require the generous king in the story to be a historical character.
You wrote that "demonstrations of God´s attributes must be litreal whereas illustrations are just that; by definition".
Webster definitions:
Demonstrate: to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence
Illustrate: to make clear by giving or by serving as an example or instance
I am not sure that the dictionary corroborates your distinctions of the words as both seem to have literal and non-literal aspects. However, your distinction seem to be where demonstration is exclusively to make clear by evidence, whereas illustrate is exclusively to make clear by giving example. The question here is, does an event which you did not personally witness really serve by making clear by evidence? For example, perhaps the rescue personell who worked in the collapsing towers in NY 911 motivate you to show greater love for the other by the example they gave you through their actions. But if you were one of the persons who would have died had not these rescue workers saved your life, would not the motivation be of an entierly different sort, based on the evidence which their actions left on your life. Does not every demonstration by evidence turn into illustration by example the second that it leaves the person who experienced it as a story told to someone who was not there?
What I am wondering here is, is it even possible to demonstrate God´s attributes to more than one person at a time, through each person experiencing them personally in their life, whereas illustrating God´s attributes can be done en mass. Theoretically, up to 1.8 bilion english-speaking people could access our thoughts in this thread which attempt to illustrate God´s attributes. For none of them would it demonstrate any of God´s attributes.
It is in this sense that I use the word “demonstration”: noun 1. the act or circumstance of proving or being proved conclusively, as by reasoning or a show of evidence 2. something serving as proof or supporting evidence. An account that demonstrates an attribute of God has to be literal to be probative of it.
On this we might agree to disagree.
Stephen, I would still want to know why you think that proving conclusively by showing evidence is something that applies to historical sciences at all. And knowing what happened two thousand years ago does appear to be a historical question. Stricktly speaking, conclusively proving something belongs to the realm of theoretical mathematics.
I realise that you may be intending that the bible is the conclusive evidence for its own claims, but I would then point out that this would be an attempt at proving conclusively by reasoning rather than by evidence. A schlastic approach to truth perhaps. (scholastic here used as the art of reasoning yourself to the truth based on the infallible writings of the giants of knowledge that came before you). To be generally valid as a demonstration of the truthfullness of a claim resulting in conclusive proof, the demonstration must be either personally experienced or readilly available to be personally experienced. Am I making sense here?
What you appear to be saying is that even historical and literal biblical demonstrations of God’s existence, power, love, whatever…must have been witnessed in person to have validity and that therefore everything in the Bible is up for grabs in the sense that no one alive has personally witnessed any of what the Bible has chronicled.
On the other hand, I am saying that demonstrations of God’s attributes in the Bible are (for those who believe them) necessarily historical and literal; and that there are illustrations used in the Bible, such as parables, that are not necessarily historical or literal—yet both historical and literal demonstrations and allegorical parables illustrate God’s attributes.
(This historical approach to demonstrations of God’s omniscience and omnipotence are referenced in the blog via allusions to the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 and those of Daniel 2.)
Whether you are right or I am right has no bearing whatsoever on the point that for those who from the Bible were introduced to the concept of God, and who believe that this biblical God exists, and that the attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible are correct (whatever they perceive those attributes to be and however they were illustrated to them therein), it is totally illogical for them to arbitrarily believe only some of what the Bible has to say about God.
Thanks, Stephen, that does clarify the issue, and my apologies if I have been unfair in challenging … well, my assumptions rather than what you were actually saying! I should also have noted that it's a very good and thought-provoking post.
I guess my own reaction – which does go beyond the scope of your discussion – is that my view of God *started* with the Bible, and was formed by it, since I grew up SDA, but has since grown beyond that. My view now of who God is is much, much bigger and broader than the God represented by the Bible. And, as it happens, my present view does overlap in some places with the God of the Bible and not in other places.
But since the Bible is *not* the sole foundation on which my view of God stands, there is no illogic in recognising that some parts of the Bible give a flawed, partial, human understanding of an infinite God, nor in believing that some parts of the Bible are being read in a literal scientific way that was not only never intended but impossible to conceive for the writers at the time.
I tried earlier to express my agreement with you, and got side-tracked, for which I apologise. Remaining as a Bible-only Christian and picking and choosing from the Bible is a tough one to make internally consistent.
Stephen,
Thanks for the clarification. What you have said to David also helps clarify. As you know, my journey has a similar pattern to what David describes in his response to you.
Like him, my view of God has overlap with the Bible in some places.
I did understand you were making some distinction between groups, but obviously this was not the case. Apologies.
Where I seem to remain in strong disagreement with you is on the possibility that people can indeed become theistic in their belief without the Bible. This may be to varying degrees, and the "overlap" may be small, but I stand by the position that it can and does happen. Granted, the picture they have of God will not be the tidy package you presented, but it can be theistic!
For me, I have no problem with this because I do not take the Bible as the final or sole authority from which I glean my picture of God. That I have come from the starting point of Christian does not mean others cannot come from an opposite "end" or starting point and move to a theistic position. (eg my cousin)
I think perhaps you only consider this kind of position "illogical" because you cannot grasp how viewing the bible as "a" source of information changes things?
There are, of course, and have been in human history, *many* gods. A majority of people in the world are theistic without believing in the big monotheistic Jewish/Muslim/Christian God. So *of course* people can be theistic without basing their view of God/god/gods/godesses on the Bible.
Stephen
I am still somewhat confused about what exactly it is you don't understand. If I believe God is all the things you describe in your last paragraph, but believe that Job is an extended parable because to take it literally says things about God I do not believe are supported by the rest of the Bible, am I in your group of those who do not believe? Or am I a believer because I still believe/hope that Gensis 1 is, in some way, literal? Just what do we need to believe to be a believer?
In the end, I suspect your question does come down to what can or can't be 'interpreted' in a non-literal way. Because, if you accept that it is possible, or even necessary, to interpet some passages non-literally, then the answer to your question, at least it seems to me, is that some people choose, for whatever reason, not to take passages literally and therefore do not see them as saying what you believe they do.
The other alternative is that you refer to people who believe the whole Bible is merely a human document, and therefore its veracity is pretty much 'hit-and-miss', so they only believe what they consider to be accurate portrayals of God. That also is a logical POV. It doesn't deny God exists (although they probably believe that on other grounds than because 'the Bible says'), but it does say that the evidence of the Bible needs to be evaluated by reason and human knowledge. To believe the Bible contains truth does not necessitate a belief that it only contains truth, or that it contains all truth. It seems you are working on an 'all-or-nothing' approach, whereas many people don't approach the Bible that way. We are actually used to dealing with sources of truth that are not all truth, and so have to sift the truth from the non-truth, therefore treating the Bible the same way comes naturally.
Kevin,
Treating the Bible the same way that you treat other “literature”/information is, needless to say, your prerogative; but it doesn’t account for the fact (or the presumption) that your introduction to the concept of God, and your perception of Him, is heavily influenced (to put it mildly) by what the Bible has said about Him.
If the Bible is treated or evaluated as any other source—wherein you can sift what you believe to be true from what you do not believe to be true (like the Internet or a newspaper), or even before doing so, you can decide or determine that it (may) contain some truth but not be full of truth (as with the Internet or a newspaper)—at what point, and under what circumstances or criteria, can you possibly make the determination that what the Bible says about God is in fact true?
You say that treating the Bible as any other source of information comes “naturally.” This may be part of the problem. This may in fact be the problem.
Stephen,
You have described well how so many people approach the Bible. Unfortunately, a great many of those claiming to be "believers" actually also believe only the minimum set of facts about God to minimize their discomfort on the topic before pursuing the rest of their life without Him. Making what we read in the Bible (or think it says) "true" requires that it not conflict with what we see in our lives. Hopefully that grows into seeing God at work in our life. The challenge I see is helping people move beyond the mere facts into a living relationship with God where they experience His power and are changed by it. Unfortunately, traditional Adventist outreach methods are largely failing to be effective in addressing this challenge.
I have spent a lot of time with people who were Muslim or Jewish, and, of course, Christians from diverse traditions, as well as nonbelievers/skeptics. Also, Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto-ists, Taoists, etc. I've been around quite awhile (70 years) and traveled a bit. I have met and talked at length with people from all these backgrounds and have found most of them to be kind, considerate, and generous, regardless of the tradition from which they come. The Muslims and Jews acknowledge that they worship the God of Abraham, and see Him as the same God worshipped by Christians. Muslims and Jews also recognize that destructive fragmentation has occurred within their own faiths. My feeling from experiences discussing faith with people of many traditions, is that the biggest problems originate with people who come to believe that they and those of their fraction (of whatever group) have the one and only true religion–that they are correct, and everyone else is wrong. Others I have met across the faith and non-faith spetrum seem to share my impression on this. Of course, the people I have met and talked with have been a select group. They have been the ones who were open enough to actually talk with someone not just like themselves. And most of those seem to agree that there is plenty of room for diverse belief.
I have written about this more extensively elsewhere, but if we take at all seriously the notion that God is infinite, then God contains all possibilities of race, sex, age, species, location, time, and the negation of all those possibilities, and that's an infinitesimally, negligibly small fraction of God. God contains all of the billions of galaxies with billions of stars in the entire universe, and all the empty space in between, throughout all of time – and *that's* an infinitesimally, negligibly small fraction of God.
Therefore, God contains the truth in all religions, and the negation of those truths as well. God cannot be truly infinite and do otherwise.
Given that, no one religion and no one book can contain all of God. To claim so is to blaspheme and to take God's name in vain, because it is to minimise an infinite God to fit in a finite (tiny) container made with human hands.
Everything on this earth contains something of God, who made it and permeates it, and something of corruption. And that includes the Bible. And the Quran. And the Baghavad Gita. And the Dreamtime stories. And the Greek mythos. And so on. We crave God, and seek God, but when we seek to contain God then we begin to make God in our image.
Right on, David. I am reminded of something a wise man once told me.
"There are only two kinds of people–those who believe there are only two kinds of people, and those who don't."
I imagine the two kinds imagined by some are "us vs. them," "good vs. evil," "saved vs. lost," "SDAs vs. non-SDAs," "Americans vs. foreigners," and all like that….
Joe,
Good point! We've got to grow outside that limited view if we are to become effective at touching people where they are and showing them from our experience with God how letting Him work in their life is a good option to pursue.
It seems to me that Kevin has got it right, Stephen then writes in response:
"You say that treating the Bible as any other source of information comes “naturally.” This may be part of the problem. This may in fact be the problem."
Which brings up the question how do you read or interpret this Biblical literuature other then any other literature. Other literature is tested by history, facts science, type of style philosophy etc. How can you not to that to the Bible? But you clearly do not follow the Bible because in the old testament we find orders from God to kill sabbath breakers, but yet I don't think Stephen does that, so upon what method that is so different from normal literature does he decide not to stone sabbath law violators?
David,
Your definition of “infinite” as it relates to God is of course your definition/description. Understandably, that which you have written (about the concept of God being infinite) defines the parameters (or, per your definition, the lack thereof) of what it means to be infinite—according to your definition/description.
What it sounds like you mean by "infinite" is that God is inclusive of any and everything. This may be correct, or may be incorrect; but nonetheless it is, in the final analysis, your concept. To the extent that your concept is derived from the Bible (which only you can know), if you believe it to be true, then it makes absolutely no sense to believe what the Bible says about God on an arbitrary, discretionary basis.
(To the extent that the Bible describes the attributes of God and/or reveals the Divine character and/or nature, it may in fact “limit” Him to love; but that is beside the point of the blog.)
Timo,
(As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, “there you go again.”)
The problem is we all come to the Bible with our “natural” prejudices, presuppositions, and proclivities. According to 1 Corinthians 2: 14, when we naturally filter what the Bible has to say with our individual natures, we can’t/won’t understand it at all.
(The treating of the Bible as any other literature or source of information is not a problem if one regards it merely as any other literature or source of information.)
As to your question about how Adam came to know God; I would have to say that it appears from the Genesis account that God spoke to Adam directly, and gave him specific instructions. Is this by any chance a trick question?
Of course Stephens use of 1 cor 2:14
14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
Is in no way a statement about understanding the Bible. But of course scripture twisting has a long tradition in Chrsitainity, some feel that their twist is simply taking the Bible as literal or correct.
Stephen,
There have been some excellent points made since your reply to Kevin above, and I don't wish to diminish their weight, but can I ask YOU just one question?
"At what point, and under what circumstances or criteria, can YOU make the determination that what the Bible says about God and everything else is in fact true?"
To put it bluntly with a twist on your own words: Why should the Bible NOT be treated or evaluated as any other source?
As you will notice the first point is your question to Kevin slightly altered. It does not seem to matter how we try to avoid it, the problem underlying the theme of your blog is Biblical Authority. As has been often pointed out above, among those who give the Bible full authority there is a minefield of disagreement on how to interpret it and what and how to apply it etc.
It seems to me that the question within your blog falls within BOTH these areas: That of actual Authority (if any) and that of Interpretation once granted authority (if any).
It appears to me that you have not, perhaps will not, or possibly cannot, honestly and fully face the question of Authority. You are not alone on that on AT!
I should add: The question of Authority is THE primary question of those two. Only after that has been answered should we attempt to deal with the issue of interpretation
One thing was predictable: the further we got away from the thesis of the last paragraph of the blog, the further afield into philosophy we would inevitably go.
Understanding what the Bible says about God to be primarily literal or figurative is clearly germane to whether we believe Him to be literally existent or literarily fictional. However the point of the blog is that those who believe God to be benevolent, self-existent, and responsible for creation and eternity—and who believe this as a result of what the Bible says about God—have no basis for not believing anything/everything else that the source from which their beliefs about God says about God.
In a sense this question may well be about the authority with which the Bible is invested by those who believe that the God of the Bible exists. But how and why in the world would you believe that the God of the Bible exists unless you believe what the Bible itself says about this God?
Stephen,
You ask:
"how and why in the world would you believe that the God of the Bible exists unless you believe what the Bible itself says about this God?"
If you are going to demand that to believe in God I must believe in "the God of the Bible" as you define Him – then I don't believe in God – in your eyes, because I DO NOT find anywhere evidence for the narrowly desciptive God you present.
Nor do I find any substantive, a posteriori reasons why I should take the Bible's descriptions of God (as interpreted by you) as the ultimate description or statement about who God is.
Those descriptions you give do not all fit the reality I see, and I don't think any God would demand I believe his attributes to be something which do not fit very observable life and matter around me. At the very least I would expect my God to be non contradictory.
The God of the Bible you present and most often presented IS contradictory of nature, reality and life.
Stephen,
I just read your reply to Thomas. Mate, you have lost me… I no longer think I understand your blog (I once thought I did). One of my children have a saying "I'm confused". I'll joing my kids. ….Now I need help!
Admittedly, the wording in my response to Thomas could have been a little clearer. I’ll italicize the changes from the parts of the post that might have confused me (had I not written it myself):
“As you say, God is described in the Bible as love, as just, and as creator. If the examples used in the Bible to demonstrate and illustrate each of these attributes are not, among other things, historically and literally true, then how do we know that the attributes that these examples demonstrate/illustrate indeed accurately describe Him; or that He in fact even exists?
The point, of course, is that those who believe that this God of the Bible exists, and believe that these attributes appropriately describe Him, received the information upon which their beliefs are based, and/or from which their beliefs are derived, from the Bible. What then can be their basis/motivation for not believing everything else that the same Bible says about this very God?”
Stephen,
OK tks for that info…let me try a couple of suggestions to see if we are now on the same page:
1. "If the examples used in the Bible to demonstrate and illustrate each of God's attributesa are not…historicallly and literally true, then how do we know that …these accuratelly describe Him; or that He in fact even exists?"
My answer for what its worth: There is no certainty that He in fact does. We cannot prove God's existence whatever our source.
If there are in fact no philosophical, logical, or observable reasons outside of Scripture why God may, or does exist, then we have a double problem. That problem is that we must first demonstrate why the Bible is in fact historically and literally true. That is a serious problem because there is so much in the Bible which when held up against science and observable data is for some very hard to accept as true.
2. I believe God Exists, but based on your criteria I obviously do not believe in the "God of the Bible". I do not believe that "these attributes appropriately describe Him". Yes, I personally began from a Bible base with my faith in God, but as noted, I know people who are theistic (believe in God) but did not begin from that position.
Now, I would probably partly agree with you that the very specific and narrow list of attributes you have given are fairly "Biblical" and therefore less likely to specifically describe the views of someone who has NOT come from a Biblical base.
However, where I have disagreed most strongly from the beginning is that you identified your issue as a question in "regard to Theism". One can be a Theist and believe in God without subscribing to the attributes you describe. I still think that when you describe a "group" who believe the attibutes you list, but don't "believe everything else" the Bible says, these are rare.
3. What then can be their basis/motivation for not believing everything else that the same Bible says about this very God?
My answer: Their basis is that they interpret the Bible from outside in not inside out. What do I mean? To interpret the Bible from inside out is my way of describing people who accept without question that the Bible is "the Word of God". Issues of interpretation aside, they give it absolute, unquestioned authority. It is ONLY a matter of interpretation. The question whether it has authority is not asked nor ask-able to them.
Someone who interprets the Bible from outside in is the opposite. They view the Bible as a source of information, not an authoritative rule of information. They interpret through the lense of science, logic, nature, observable data. That is their basis.
What is their motivation? To be as rationally consistent and logical as possible. Their informed minds (that will get some going) seek to avoid cognitive disonance and if the Bible makes claims which create internal logical conflict it is considered a secondary source (another person's word) and interpreted or ignored accordingly.
For what it is worth, some may be aware there was some discussion on AT late last year about world views. Someone who interprets the Bible from the inside out shapes their entire world view through that lense. I have lived that world view and it is comfortable, safe, intoxicating, and potentially incredilby blind.
Someone who views the Bible from outside in has a world view from that perspective. I now live that world view. It is not comfortable, it is not safe, it is not intoxicating, but it is potentially incredibly awakening. As little as I now understand, I am blown away by how much human knowledge and wisdom falls into place when one can step back and take in a bigger picture than I seemed able to do when I was an inside outer!
Chris,
Your point is well taken.
Joe
And as stridently atheistic as Dawkins is, it seems to me that most of his concern over conceptions and portrayals of God has to do with internal inconsistencies, and the contrasts between characteristics attributed to God and the real, tangible, material world.
There is, perhaps, some similarity between the message of Dawkins and that of Jesus. The message might be: "Religious authorities are misleading you. Their concept of God is wrong."
I happen not to think it is constructive to declare, as Dawkins does, that there is no such thing as God. There is a sense in which God exists, even if only in the imaginations of humans, there is a certain reality to that, because that image or belief has consequences for human action.
Ah yes Timo, what if I and Joe agree with your statement. Those like Stephen will simply declare us unspiritual and thus incapable of understanding the God of the Bible. Will we have helped Stephen answer his question…or can we ever help him answer his question. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned is the trite Adventist saying (probably all fundamentalists as well) Where to discern is only implied as meaning understand the Biblical interpretation in a fundamentalist way.
JIMS Seven,
I may be "confused" but not in the way you suggest.
My point in the post to which you refer about the question is this:
Why In God's name can I NOT believe in God. Full stop. Why, to believe in God, do I have to subscribe to Stephen's definitions from the Bible, as he seeeems to be saying?
That is where I am confused. I will italicise this for emphasis:
IT IS POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN GOD, without believing the descriptions of God that Stephen gives. And NO, I don't care what Stephen says otherwise…..people can believe in God without necessarily coming to it from a biblical start. Beyond that I don't get what he is really trying to prove. I actually had come to the view that either I am crazy or HE is beating round that bush you describe. I don't particularly care I can be shown to be wrong on something. That is called learning:)
Cheers
last sentence should read: I don't particularly care if I can be shown to be wrong on something. That is called learning:)
cb25,
Perhaps it is because I know him well, I am lost as to why Stephen's question is hard to answer. Stephen is a lot of things, but subtle is not a frequent description. It seems that, again and again, responses to the question assume something that is not being asked or implied. As a middle child, my role is frequently that of interpreter. So I will try, only once, to "help" here. To your questions:
Q. "Why In God's name can I NOT believe in God(?) Full stop."
A. Of course you may believe, with conviction, any conception of God you choose.
Q. "Why, to believe in God, do I have to subscribe to Stephen's definitions from the Bible, as he seeeems to be saying?"
The question that you and others raise is that of motive. Why is Stephen asking these questions? He can answer for himself (and I thought he did), but I believe he is trying to engage those who believe in God because of the Bible AND, also, depend on logic and an intellectual rubric to understand God — and employ that rubric to discount some things that the Bible says about God. This is not about literalism, or a "one-way only" interpretation, but about questioning the verity of the source itself (however one interprets it) — when and only when that source is the foundation of belief.
For one, I don't believe resolving this is possible, as 1 Corinthinans 2:14 says, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised," and that understanding God is, according to the Bible, an intentionally faith-based, sequentially-dependent pursuit, per Hebrews 11:6, "And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him."
Again, dependencies. According to the Bible (again, you are free to conceptualize Him differently), to approach God (and to seek understanding of Him), one must FIRST believe that He exists AND sincerely (as opposed to skeptically) seek Him. This construct is very different than most human, logical, or scientific processes. To prove, you must FIRST believe.
The point is that this conversation, and many others like it, takes place between people with (at least) two parallel belief systems — which employ opposite approaches to detrmining "truth." Stephen's question seeks to challenge the logic of these parallels which, somehow, end at the same point: Bible-based belief in God.
Again, if your concept of God is not Bible based AND Bible defined (in terms of testing other perceived truths about God — sola scriptura), then the question is not directed at you (neither does it indict or seek to convert your thinking).
Oh well, I tried . . .
Preston and Stephen,
Preston: Perhaps you had not read my earlier, longer reply to Stephen where I put down an "answer" in 3 points. A lot of what you seek to clarify is covered in that. In light of what you have said I think I had understood him reasonably well, but tks for the input.
I will come back to another point you made shortly.
Stephen:
It may be worth me noting, when I answered your question in my point 3: what is "their basis/motivation for not believing…?", I understand your "their" is the self described Christians etc who believe the things you list about God. As you know, I think this "group" are rare in realilty because of the tight list of beliefs you give. This is my point of disagreement, and Preston's points only hightlight it: You are having a "beef" with and calling "illogical" a group which for all intents and purposes does not exist. I do think the group exist with "overlap", but to find such who subscribe to your tight definitions AND accept the Bible as the full authority AND then "deny" everything else it says? NO. However..
I answered the question at face value in spite of our disagreement on that point. BUT, by default, my answer really describes what I think is the larger "group" of "self described Christians, (like me) who are Theists, but would understand and describe God in ways which may include some of your list of characteristics of God (overlap), but not be limited to them. Bigger if you will.
Preston: You say this may be unsolvable and speak of natural vs spiritual etc. I spoke of inside out and outside in world views or approaches to the Bible. I would equate the "spiritual" with the "inside out" thinking.
There are at least two major problems with what you suggest.
1. To say I cannot approach God or understand God without First believing He exists, is imho so untrue. It is neither logical nor Biblical. The Bible depicts a God who comes seeking, looking and reaching out. What, only to the guy who already believes He exists? No.
2. The other problem is that if one "blindly" (for want of a better word) grants the authority you describe to the Bible. HOW and in WHAT way can that person ever genuinely evaluate whether that "trust" is warranted? This is crucial. As I have asked others, what is the difference between this person and any person of another faith who "blindly" grants the same authority to "their" sacred, "authoritative" book? The position is totally indefensible.
So, can it be solved? Only if people's minds are open to examine all things a posteriori. Including the Bible's claims about itself, and their claims about the Bible.
Preston (and Stephen)
Yes the first question is likely to create a circle. I have to say I think you are trying to "have your cake and eat it too". Seems to me that if there is anything to the Gospel it is this: God comes seeking. To make "faith" or "believing He exists" prerequisites of "acceptance" to or with God seems to seriosly undermine that. Can we really have it both ways?
You ask regarding the knocking "how else would I hear the knock" ie if I did not first believe he existed! Are you serious? Do I have to "know" some stranger exists BEFORE I can hear them bash on my door if their car is broken down along the road? No. In fact the very act of knocking suggests that "someone" can know more about my existence and location than I do about theirs!
I think this "bit both ways" interpetation just illustrates the nonsense of taking too much literally in the Bible perhaps?
The second question. One question to clarify first:
WHY is the process for testing things in the natural world different to those applied in the spiritual realm? Please give me a concise, a posteriori reason this is so. (Yes, I know you say faith is the "catalyst" and "pre-requisite" – possibly another cake and eat it too imho, but this does not explain "why" different processes for testing apply to natural vs spiritual realms.)
You must know the answer to this because you state: "in the spiritual world things are proved by a process that "ratifies" faith".
I'm also unclear what you mean by "the dubunks scepticism"?
Thanks…
Cb25,
I'm not so sure that you are aware that you also seem to be having a wanting "to have your cake, and eat it to" moment.
First of all, the premise of this post is the God of the Bible, and the characteristics of the God of whom the Bible describes and talks about. The Bible describes itself as a holy book, inspired by the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of REVEALING to man the God who created him, lost him in sin, redeeemed him from sin, and has promised to restore him to God's original intent with some extra benefits. Your question belys the fact that you are struggling with the idea of the God who exists as described by the Bible. Why? Because you can't prove it scientifically. At least that's my take on your stated positions.
As for how it is that man becomes aquainted with the God of the Bible. It is clear that it is God who iniates the contact. Genesis 3 is the standard which is fully supported throughout scripture. But there are preset determinations that must be taken into consideration. Titus 1:1.2 says God, who cannot lie, promised the hope of eternal life before time began. 2 Timothy 1:9 says God called us and saved us before He created the world, not because of anything we would do, but according to His purpose. Ephesians 1:4 says that God chose us in Christ from before the foundation of the world. And Revelation 13:8 tells us that there was a Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. So when Adam / man sinned God showed up to unpack all of these plans that were already in place: Genesis 3:15
By what means does man use to respond to God when He initiates the contact? God has His hand in that also. Romans 12: 3 says that He has given to every person a measure of faith. So it is God who actually gives man what he needs to respond to God's invitation to accept the program / plan for his eternal destiny. There is another passage that outlines the order in this process:
As for the "knocking at the door", there is a reasonable expectation for recognizing the one who is seeking entrance. How so? The statement is in the context of Christ's spiritual evaluation of the church of Laodicea, which really indicates a larger issue.
Natural vs. spiritual realms, here's one:
Laffal,
No. I don't buy your opening premise at all. In fact, the majority of the central section of your "sermon" demonstrate the searching God. NOT the God whom I must believe exists before I can please him.
You also offer me something that few have been willing to put in words: "The Bible describes itself as a holy book,.." EXACTLY!! So does the Koran, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, etc. You have just demonstrated why the issue of authority is critical. You hava also demonstrated the attitude so likely to render even the asking of the question impossible.
Am I struggling with the existence of God because I cannot prove it scientifically? NO. I just object to anyone making claims for God or god which can be DISSPROVED scientifically.
eg That he snapped his fingers 6k years ago and up popped our world, (and universe for some). That he flooded this entire world in one cataclysmic event 4k yrs ago. That the sun stood still, no make that went backwards!
You and Preston, and Stephen, and I can make any claim we wish about God, but let it not be something that causes me to deny the reality of what we see, live, experience, study. As someone pointed out earlier someplace…If, as we (you) claim he created nature, then that is more demonstrably his handwriting than are the words of any book. Why take the book as an authority over what you can read all around you!!??
As for the "knocking" at the door. I agree that is in the context of laodocea. But your following point is dependent on an "interpretation" of that passage which seems to counter the points you made in most of the post? "a reasonable "expectation" of recognizing? What on earth does that mean or prove? Sorry, I'm being a little blunt in trying to make my point.
Cheers
Cb25,
"Reasonable expectation"? Christ is knocking on the door / heart of the church / His people… they've heard His voice, but for some reason, which Christ makes clear, He is on the outside of their spiritual exercises (I know thy works). This includes you and I.
I do beg to differ in regards to your being able to disprove what the Bible claims for God scientifically… instintaneous creation / the flood / the sun standing still / the sun moving backwards 10 degrees… etc… If you could prove what God can and cannot do scientifically… He wouldn't be God… How can the fininte explain, muchless prove the infinite? Proof and faith are not always synonymous. Oft times they tend to be in opposition.
Why take the book as an authority over what you can read all around you? Because it speaks of the character of the One who created it all, not by the snap of His fingers, but by simply speaking. Nature truly speaks of God's power, but not His person… and I do believe this is what Stephen is reaching for in this blog… Why do we say we believe in God, and yet struggle / resist to believe the attibutes of the person of God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) as illustrated in the Bible. Could it be we want God to be who we want Him to be? That sounds alot like wanting our cake, and eating it too.
Laffal,
As I noted. Saying loadicia is you and I is an interpretation. It may or may not be correct. Not all would agree.
I may not be able to prove what God CAN do scientifically. BUT, I believe there is massive evidence to "prove" what He has NOT done. eg YEC YLC.
You take the Book as authority over nature because it speaks of the One… etc. Circular reasoning! Who said that THAT character of the One is correct? Could it in fact be that that is, precisely what YOU want Him to be?
In reality this would fit because what you and most of us humans "desire" God to be would logically become an underlying motive or expectation in the Bible – because it is written by people just like you and I. Perhaps even the Bible has created God in a way to meet the deep desire of what we think God should be?
Yes, I suspect so. I will agree to disagree with you, and continue reading the more amazing book of nature, which can speak of beauty and blood, majesty and misery, love and loneliness, happiness and hopelessness, compassion and cruelty, the microscopic and the mammoth, the controlled and the chaotic. ..and so on…
And you know…somewhere deep inside all of that seems to be this picture that the beauty, the majesty, the love, the happiness, the compassion, the microscopic, the controlled…all are at their best for all life when one looks out for the other! As selfish as the lion might be, even he does that for those that matter to him. Why do they matter? Perhaps selfish reasons, but is it any different for us sometimes?
Is there a "love your neighbor" theme lurking within the chaotic precision (deliberate oxymoron) of nature? I think so. Is there someone behind it? I like to believe so.
But just let us never claim for Him things that nature clearly does not say…
Cb25,
It's not about what I desire God to be… It's how I understand the Bible declaring Him to be, character and all. Here again, you prove Stephen's point in this blog… you want to declare your belief in God… yet… you choose to deny the God of the Bible… who's making God out to be who one want's Him to be? Who's going around in circles? Help me?
If you choose not to accept the Bible as authoritative when it comes to the revelation of God revealed in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ… that's your choice, and my belief that it is so, is my choice. But at the end of the day… your issue is not with me because of where we differ, you like I will have to account for ourselves to Him / God alone for what He has revealed to us… yes in nature, but more specifically / personally in His word… but that is what the Bible says.
And what of people who accept the authority of the Bible, but read it differently to you? Don't we all believe our way of readign the Bible is the 'right' way, and therefore those who read it differently are just 'making God in their own image'?
Kevin,
I will say this, I believe that we all see things differently because we do not understand all things alike, but that does not change what we are looking at. To me the issue is not how we read the Bible, as much as it is how we understand what it's saying.
For the most part differences are due to predispositions that cannot be discounted / ignored, we all have them. But to say that we are "making God in their own image" because they read the Bible differently is a reach in terms of the general population of Bible readers, yet I do realize there are excecptions. The problem is that we have the tendency to fight over what we see at the expense of what somebody else sees in the Bible, which devolves into stife and debate rather then unity and collective enlightenment.
Cb25,
The books that claim that they are holy books have one central issue in terms of authority… when you compare the attributes of God / god as set forth in these books in direct comparison with the Bible, there is a clear difference, if not a clear contridiction, while having a relative harmony in themselves. You are right, man can claim anything to be true and authoritative, but only God Himself can claim that which He accepts as authoritative… His own Word… For that matter Jesus says it is that word that will judge us all at the end of the day… John 12:44-50
cb25,
If God is seeking communion with us, does that not make the engagement of that communion dependent on us (individually)? Entering into that communion is an act of faith — believing that it is, indeed, God Himself seeking to lead our lives. As God has given us free will, it is our choice whether we choose to lead our lives in the flesh (meaning in our own strength, intelligence, will, and physical power), or whether we will be led by His Spirit.
Is it hard to fathom that sacrificing one's will requires faith — first? It is, admittedly, not the way of the world. It is, however, the way of the Kingdom.
The natural world is evidence driven. Things are measured, tested, and ratified through "proven" processes. The scientific meathod, systems theory, et. al., exists to ratify what was here-to-fore in doubt (i.e. "de-bunking skepticism").
This is not a dodge. Perhaps if we talk about "inspiration," rather than the spiritual (in religious terms), you will see the difficulty: Can you explain why "Thriller" is the best selling album of all time? It would seem that if the success of pop music could be measured, "Thriller" would, by now have been analyzed, and then purposefully and predictably surpassed. What inspires people is amourphous, asymmetrical, and intangible. Measurement, in traditional terms, invites frustration — and failure.
You have asked me to give you a rational, a posteri reason why the methods of the natural world cannot be applied to the spiritual. I cannot. "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." The ways of the world are not the ways of the Kingdom. To explain how and why would to be to explain the spiritual by natural — which is what Hebrews 11:6 implies cannot be done, and why faith is required. As laffal points out, the spiritual is counter to natural observance (2 Corinthians 4:18 ESV).
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
This, along with Job 38, may give you a sense as to why any attempt to explain our ability to explain God, in natural terms, is a fools errand.
Correction: the last sentence should read, "This, along with Job 38, may give you a sense as to why any attempt to explain God, in natural terms, is a fools errand."
That is funny, because what you come up with as a defense would boil down to: Believe in the Bible and you believe in God. That puts belief in a set of writings as more important and as the source for any belief in God. Something Paul would object to and rightly so. God no where asks us to believe in the Bible, the call is always to believe in God and you have twisted it around.
"He is saying that 1) IF you believe in God 2) BECAUSE of the Bible and that 3) you believe in Him to be the way He is described in the Bible — however YOU DETERMINE those attributes to manifest themselves (note, there are THREE dependencies to his premise), THEN it is (to Stephen) illogical NOT to believe the entire BIBLE (since IF 1,2, and 3 are true, it would not make sense to arbitrarily discount the SOURCE of beliefs 1-3)."
So, if I believe in God(1) because of what I read about Him in the bible(2), and I believe Him to be the creator of the world and that His creatorship is manifest in the poem in the first chapter of Genesis where the author goes about debunking the local pagan creation poems(3), then there is no conflict because how I here determine the creator attribute of God is not in conflict with the view that Genesis 1 is not historically accurate description of any particular seven consequtive days in the history of planet earth. There may still be a conflict between Your determination of Gods biblically described attributes and My belief about the entire bible, but my view remains coherent and consistent. If I am no longer forced to make my belief concerning the entire bible consistent with your view of 1, 2, 3, then the problem seem to disolve like a light morning mist under a sunny sky, does it not?
Thomas,
Bear with me, but frankly it is somewhat unclear what you are saying by “…and that His creatorship is manifest in the poem in the first chapter of Genesis where the author goes about debunking the local pagan creation poems.”
As I look back at the comments to this blog, and as you have been among the very few who have directly addressed the premise of it, I see that part of the problem may be that some fundamental questions posed in the blog have not been addressed; and I am wondering if by chance you are tangentially addressing one of them with this reference to the Genesis narrative of creation.
One of my questions concerned the Genesis 3:15 prophecy; the first prophecy in the Bible. Did this foretell the role of Jesus? Are we to believe that this happened? What was the source of this? If we are to believe that this happened, why wouldn’t we believe Genesis 1?
Again, so as not to confuse or distract, there are those who believe that God exists and that He has certain attributes. These same people were introduced to the very concept of a God with certain demonstrated attributes directly from the Bible. To believe that this God exists for these reasons and yet disbelieve anything that the very source for this belief says about the very same God is illogical.
Regarding your first question, there is one reading of genesis 1 where it is compared with other local creation stories and where the author of genesis is basically saying: your myth claim that the creator god had to fight the chaos monster and built the earth from its body. Our God didnt need to fight chaos, He could defeat it by His voice alone. And He didnt need its body to creat. Your myth says that the sun god gives light to the world. Our One God provided light before the sun object existed. …
This is similar to reading exodus 7:14ff as: you egyptians trust in the nile god? Our God will make the nile bleed. You trust the frog god? Lets see if your frog god can turn away this frog convocation that our God will cause to convene in egypt. …
In genesis 3:15, we read that God will cause enemity between the seed of the snake and the seeds of the woman. The snake will cause the womans seeds to stumble and they will crush the snakes head. Does this prophecy about Jesus? Its certainly possible. But again the question you really raise is "why wouldnt we believe genesis 1". Your assumption is again that those who believe different things about genesis 1 than yourself disbelieve it. The people who accept the view of genesis 1 that I present above believe in genesis 1, that it had a true message for those who heard it first and for us. They just believe that message to be different from the message you find in the text. They read that our God is greater than all others who claim that title whereas you read that God took xy hours and minutes to speak one aspect of creation into existance, and then xy hours orminutes to speak the next aspect of creation into existance. The views are different, but not in the way that one beliefs the text to be true whereas the other does not.
Not so fast, Thomas. If the Genesis 3:15 prophecy foretold the role of Jesus, then the Genesis account was, shall we say, clearly on to something; wasn’t it? If it did indeed foretell the role of Jesus, does it not lend some credibility to that which immediately precedes it?
In any case, from where did that prophecy come; especially if it was accurate?
It says no more and no less than that the seeds of the woman will crush the head of the seed of the snake. God could have fulfilled this rather vague prophecy is any number of different ways. None the less, the above scenario does not rule out God as the ultimate source of the text if we assume that:
A) God provides each generation with the information that they need to reach salvation;
and
B) For the anicents, this information need consisted of a reply to pagan religion rather than to agnostic science.
Why is this "enmity" between people and snakes not merely a story saying "so that is why, to this day, people kill snakes," explaining the nearly universal human fear of and antipathy toward snakes? It really is not obviously more than that.
Joe, the snake is probably the only character in these early chapters of Genesis that All SDA agree is a metaphore for someone else, specifically the devil.
I do not make up verses out of whole cloth. I simply refer to them and, in this case, take them for what they say.
If Paul, in Hebrews 11:6, lays out process for approaching God that includes sincere belief as a pre-requiste, I do not quibble with it. I accept it by faith, which is, admittedly, antithetical to the rubrics of men. If prior to that, in 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul implies the predicted gap between the skepticism of the "natural" man and speaks to the "sincerity" of the spiritual, predicting a disconnect between the two, again, these are not my words, but those of what I believe to be the Divinely inspired Word of God.
The logic, science, and logic applied to these words were predicted to make them seem foolish — to the natural man.
And so it is — seemingly . . .
If I were to write something that I wanted people to believe uncritically, I might very well attempt to inoculate it against doubters by stating that those whose hearts or souls or spirits or minds were "not right" would not understand the instructions correctly.
Some people are prepared to accept and defend what they read, whatever it might be, scriptural or something else; others are prepared to examine critically and hold information very gently and tentatively. Arguments between "true believers" and "skeptics" usually generate more heat than light.
I've always been interested in comments which use the term "natural man" (I hope they mean "natural human", but that's another topic). What pray tell is the oppositive of a "natural human"? Would this be an "unnatural human"? 🙂 (Sorry, I could not resist my "natural" tendencies) To those using the term, they seem to wish to contrast it with "spiritual human." Is this the same as saying "bad human" vs. "good human"? I have never understood what the idea of the "natural" vs. "spiritual" idea was exactly getting at. I guess this is another illustration of Joe's point about arguments (hopefully, "discussions") between "true believers" and "skeptics" usually getting nowhere. Regretfully, that seems to be correct.
Erv and Timo,
Why is it that quoting scripture as the basis of one's beliefs results in the embrace victimhood and the not-so-subtle accusation of self-righteousness? It avoids directly dealing with the language employed by Apostle Paul and diverts attention, rather conveniently, to the motives or assumed self righteousness of the writer. It serves to further avoid the purposefully narrow question asked by Stephen.
Erv, the term "natural" is contrasted in the text with "spiritual." The connotation of "bad" is simply yours, bereft of any explicit or implied value statement by others. As a well educated man, I'm sure you have at least a pedestrian acquaintance with the difference between the terms "natural" and "spiritual." For the sake of conversation, let's go with that.
Whose words are you quoting when you put quotation marks around the words "not right" in the context of implying that some debater has judged the minds and hearts of those with whom they disagee?
Timo, the "not like them" prayer that you "almost hear" being whispered (in the spiritual realm?) is not one posited by anyone here, but you. I spoke only to my beliefs and the specific biblical basis for them — in the context of Stephen's question and the different approaches taken by those who embrace logic and skepticism as a good way examining spiritual things. It would seem that to the logical, to the science-driven, the term "skepticism" who be a badge of honor, rather that a loaded, better-than-thou term. I interpreted your skepticism to be, in that context, a "healthy" one, in contrast to the non-linear, belief first, requirements of faith — as defined in the texts I referenced. If I have misread your position, please help me understand.
But, if you will, let's focus on what was offered — a quote by Paul, not by Preston, rather than morphing the words that were referenced into what you wish was said to buttress your argument against a point that was not posited.
Timo,
So 1st Cor 13 calls you to free moral action, free of self interest bias? Good luck with that. If someone believes that god will destroy them for not believing then believing is a choice of self interest. Inventing a blissful afterlife and creating a salvation theology to obtain the afterlife is the summit of self interest.
There is no evidence of divine intervention in the lives of humans by a god. So what is this absorption with salvation and the afterlife? Humans can intervene in the lives of others but alas god does not seem to do so. The arguments for god staying on the sidelines are legion. But in the end these arguments represent apologetics for a god that may not exist, may exist yet is impotent and if the latter is true then the creature is not a "god" as we have defined it.
" If someone believes that god will destroy them for not believing then believing is a choice of self interest."
I would agree with this statement, and it probably describes a lot of belief, but God calls us beyond that to the attitude of Jesus who risked all and Moses who was ready to give up eternal life to save his people.
"There is no evidence of divine intervention in the lives of humans by a god." I don't know where you got this idea, but millions would disagree with you. One would have to live in a closet to believe this statement or base all on their own experience and ignore the experiences of others.
Timo,
What seems amiss, from my perch, is to project negative values, neither implied nor stated, from quoted texts (i.e. "sincere" or in Erv's case, "natural" and "spiritual") or stated contrasts (i.e. "skeptical"), and use them as a pivot point from the discussion point (e.g. the differences in the scientific/logical approach and the faith-based spiritual approach to understanding the God of the Bible) to anoint others with the motive of self-righteousness.
The point of the blog is to discover if there can be intellectual consistency with those who are self-described believers in God and who, at the same time, initiated their belief via the Bible and believe the Bible's description of God's attributes, and, yet, do not believe all of the Bible (regardless of their interpretative preferences). That is, likely, a relatively small set — to which that many, who reject the premise of the blog, do not belong. Along this strand, there are those who say God may be discovered a posteri or through other means. Although no one disputes this, it is argued as though it is, in fact, in dispute — and those who dispute it (although a null set) are self-righteous literalists. Others reject the notion that everyone must believe the same way, although the blog says nothing of the sort.
There seems be a resistence to focusing on the oft-stated premise of the blog and, at the same time, a reflexive rejection of the apparition of a sterotyped theology. Perhaps if the blog is read without the presumed motive of an insistent theology, we can actually talk about Stephen's question. There is a real difference between theological and intellectual consistency and theological and intellectual insistence (fill-in the shop-worn cliches about the dangers of consistency, as you will).
Certainly, Stephen's question has intellectual implications. That is, I believe, how the notions of science, logic, et. al. entered the conversation. It was to that point that my Bible texts were directed, noting the difficulties in deconstructing spiritual things through natural means. That, according to the Bible, is a non-starter.
"The point of the blog is to discover if there can be intellectual consistency with those who are self-described believers in God and who, at the same time, initiated their belief via the Bible and believe the Bible's description of God's attributes, and, yet, do not believe all of the Bible (regardless of their interpretative preferences). … Others reject the notion that everyone must believe the same way, although the blog says nothing of the sort.
Perhaps if the blog is read without the presumed motive of an insistent theology, we can actually talk about Stephen's question. There is a real difference between theological and intellectual consistency and theological and intellectual insistence (fill-in the shop-worn cliches about the dangers of consistency, as you will). "
Preston, I have tried to adress the points I quoted from you above, although as the thread moves along they are increasingly far away. The problem is that it has yet to be showed that the person in your first quoted paragraph is indeed inconsistent within his/her own interpretative preferences and that he/she disbelieves in any part of the bible under those stated conditions. The persons views may be inconsistent with a larger framework of beliefs or they may be inconsistent with your or my interpretative frameworks, causing you and/or me to question their theology. As you point out, the often repeated question claims to operate in the realm of self-consistency, but I yet wonder if such a premise would allow the question to be asked. It appears that the root problem "why do they not accept the bible in its entierity" is based on the inconsistency, not within each persons theology, but between the theology of the Other and that of he who asks the question, in this case your brother Stephen.
Therefore the objection in your second quoted paragraph above can only be laid to rest if and when it is acctually proven that the theology of the Other is indeed self-inconsistent.
You are right Thomas in that it is very likely that, at least in significant part, my reputation as a fundamentalist of sorts has prejudiced a fair reading of the blog’s premise of intellectual consistency; if indeed I have understood you correctly.
This is of course why I had to repeat the thesis in so many of the posts, over and over again. It is not clear to me where theological consistency and intellectual consistency diverge however.
Stephen,
As a resident "down under" I was unaware of your self claimed "reputation", so you can discount that influence in my reading of your blog.
Thomas,
Maybe this will help. I don't know, but I'll take a shot (it's just a blog):
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we first heard of Mark Twain because of the book Huckleberry Finn. Let's also assume that the book Huckleberry Finn was the only book attributed to be authored by Mark Twain (though he informally collaborrated with many others in the development of the book). We question whether Mark Twain was a racist because he wrote of Huck and "Negro" Joe, with passion, humor, allegory, and a heavy dose of reality. But, those of us with an interest in Twain can only reference this single book to understand Twain's sensibilities.
After reading the book, many of us have wildly divergent opinions of Twain, his motives, worldview, and such. Some read other books about Huck Finn and Twain, which provide divergent, yet plausible conclusions about Twain. Faculty chairs are endowed, museums are opened, and texts written to discover what Twain really meant in this book. The answers remain in dispute. However, two things are certain: 1) without the book Huckleberry Finn, most would have never heard of Twain, and 2) although Twain may have used allegory, comedy, and seemingly supernatural events to make his points, all of those points came to us from Twain. However we interpret the lessons of the book Huckleberry Finn, all that is in the book, Twainites believe, came to us from Twain.
Some will, undoubtedly, question if Twain had editorial approval rights. No one can prove it, either way. But, if we are to understand Twain, from the single book (in this example) he wrote to us, those who call themselves "Twainists" because of the book Huck Finn, must and seek to understand the book, Huck Finn — all of it, as Twain's purposeful product (there are Twain doubters and skeptics who, lacking details of the editorial process and related details, see Twain, or whoever wrote Huck Finn, as having literary value, but will not, lacking evidence, give Twain his due).
There are, of course, holes in this example. Mark Twain was imperfect and had human motives, so his followers could respectfully question all of his motives and, more importantly, his word. And there are pictures Samuel Clemmons.
However, the point I am making is that it is not neccessary to come to the same conclusions about Twain to be Twain devotees. But, it would seem that those who became acquainted with Twain because of his singular work product (again, for the sake of example, only) would study and embrace the entire book of Huckleberry Finn as being vital to knowing Twain.
In other words, in order to critique Twain's character and authorship, from the only direct, commonly available evidence, we, self-described Twainites, would have to read the whole book of Huckleberry Finn and embrace Twain's claim as the writer of the book. Some might conclude that he is a racist, some might think he is a kind genius, and would come to various other conclusions. But they would do so as partakers of a common source.
This example does not directly address Stephen's question, but attempts to show how belief in the integrity of a common source is not incompatible with different conclusions by others about the character and attributes of the author of that source.
If the water is muddier, rather than clearer, feel free to throw it out.
. . . but, to Stephen's point (I believe), it would be illogical to be believe what Twain said about Huck and to disbelive what he said about "Negro" Jim (apologies to those not familiar with this 19th century American novel).
Preston, there is one additional difference between God and Mark Twain that you missed. Twain was an author of at least one book. God has many different attributes, but author is not one of them. Twain wrote Huck. Finn and the book may therefore be used to analyse his mind directly. The bible is more like a collection of biographies. Where God ought to be most clearly understood is where He is the author. That would be His work of salvation, and His work in nature.
If your analogy of studying the persons own work to understand his mind is to be taken at face value..
Thomas,
I (by faith) interpret 1 Peter 1:21 as meaning God (in the person of the Holy Spirit) is the author of The Bible.
Thus, the "twain" meet.
Cheers!
CORRECTION: that is 2 Peter 1:21.
Context Preston, context. 'do not make private/careless interpretation of prophecy, because no prophecy is given through human will but by the Spirit. A text warning about making light interpretation should give pause, rather than be used to defend it.
Also, it says that God is the author of prophecy, so for you to use this to claim God is the author of all scripture you are claiming that every word of it is prophecy. Not unlike Mohammad receiving the koran directly from heaven?
Yes, Thomas, there may be a parallel claim by Mohammad re: receiving the Koran directly from heaven. What is authentic will be manifested by its fruit.
I, through faith, believe that all of the Bible is God's Word, purposefully given to us through his chosen prophets.
Stephen,
I thought our church had a long discussion over this a couple of decades ago and decided that the prophetic model could not be applied to the Bible as a whole? You also need to deal with Ellen White's denial of God being the author of the Bible.
"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers."
While inerrancy and verbal inspiration (not necessarily of the dictation kind) have probably been the most common views within the church, both have been denied by the church formally. Your question seems to assume both these ideas.
One other quote from Ellen White:
"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God."
It seems God accepts responsibility for the Bible, but not authorship, at least in EGW's view.
Kevin,
Not that I need it (as I am not an "organization man") in regard to my beliefs, but is is the verbatim text of FB #1, regarding the Bible:
Yes, I am aware of that, but don't see how it helps with your argument. It doesn't exactly say that God is the author, just that the Bible is 'the written Word of God'. No one seems to be in a hurry to define 'infallible', which is why we find it a much better word that 'inerrant'. I certainly would not put up a voted statement against a clear statement from Scripture or even Ellen White. There is a lot of politics behind the FBs, as there always is when a church tries to define its beliefs while not excluding too many present (or even past) members. This was the statement most could live with – with or without grumblings and reservations. Some read 'infallible' as 'infallible with regards to salvation' (a position I believe that WC White took and also ascribed to his mother), some as being essentially equal to 'inerrant', some as implying 'generally trustworthy'. It allows all of us who believe the Bible is inspired and authoritative to get on with life without endless arguments as we attempt to define each term. In this case, I believe that what is affirmed is that God inspired humans to write the Bible, and he accepts responsibility for the result, not that he is the author of the Bible. We may, of course, be undrstanding 'author' in different ways.
We can parse the meaning of ithe word "infallible" (which I interpret as "not failing," "unfailing," or "without fault"), legally. My point is that the SDA Church, faulty committees notwithstanding, views the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. EGW's views are notable, but, they are her views — not inerrant (or have we changed our minds about this?).
I was (and am) speaking for myself. I don't believe in other meditators (beside Christ). I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, spoken through man. As it is He who inspired them, I, for myself, view Him as the author.
BTW, exactly where and when did the SDA Church formally deny the Bible's inerrancy? That would be news.
Thanks.
I have looked for a formal action on inerrancy and not ye found one. Yet our theologians and historians seem to agree that we do not and have not accepted it officially, even though most lay members and many pastors do. Logically we should accept inerrancy if we accept infallibity. We use 'infallibity' as the weaker term, yet it is strictly a stronger term than 'inerrancy'. We are technically saying that the Bible cannot fail in any way, but it could be wrong. I have had a couple of people suggest that what we mean to say is that we recognise the possibilty of there being mistakes in the Bible, but in practice there are none.
If you believe Ellen White is inspired by God, you have a problem with ascribing inerrancy (or infallibity) to the Bible and not to her. For there to be a difference, the inspiration of Ellen White needs to be either quantitatively or qualitatively different to the inspiration of the Bible, if both are inspired by the Holy Spirit. We deny a quantitative difference, believing one is either inspired or not inspired. That leaves the question: in what way does Ellen White's inspiration differ from the inspiration of the Bible writers? I am not discussing canonicity, but rather authority. As an early GC session asked, if God inspires Ellen White's messages, how can they not be equal to the Bible in authority? I would also add in inerrancy and infallibility? Our response has been traditionally that both are not inerrant, but the Bible is infallible while Ellen White is not (in theory – in practice we usually treat her as if she is). To ask a topical question: how can we believe what God says by inspiration in one place (the Bible) while not believing what he says in another place by the same inspiration (Ellen White's writings)? If God inspired Ellen White to write her works just as he did Moses or Paul, is he not also the author of her works? The GC asked a good question all those years ago. I am not sure we can give them a good answer even now.
Thanks Kevin.
Although I believe EGW was inspired by God, it is not unarguably clear, to all who hold that belief, which writings were and which were not. Thus, I am a conservative sola scriptura guy — in the sensed that ALL writings and prophetic sermons must be proved by the Bible. It is the anchor of my beliefs. I, in no way, equate even what I believe to be inspired by EGW to the Bible, as I believe God's Word to be complete. As Mrs. White advised, if the Bible were read in prayer and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, there would be no need for to consult her writings.
Imagine that.
So how do you distinguish her writings from the Bible. Or is it simply a matter of "I just do"? I believe this is connected to the original question of why some people seem to believe some of the things the Bible says, but not others, even though the same God is the 'author' of all of the statements. Perhaps people are making the same distinctions within the Bible as you do betwen the Bible and other inspired writings.
From purely a logical point of view, it seems somewhat odd to decide some writigs inspired by God are authoritative because God is the 'author', but some which seem to have been inspired by the same God, and the same proces, are not authoritative. My point is not to say that EGW is equal to the Bible, but that a process which you claim not to understand in one situation you are also happy with in a different, but very similar, situation. In what way is God not the 'author' of inspired writings outside the Bible? And can that also be applied to some sections of the Bible? If enough people are not clear on whether a section of the Bible is or is not clearly inspired, can we then choose whether to believe it or not? Or are there 'special' rules for the Bible that cannot be applied elsewhere?
Kevin,
Just a reminder (to minimize confusion) that this is Preston, not Stephen — who authored the blog.
Yes, "I just do." Because the writings of EGW are not the Bible, I consider them as other writings, to be tested by the Bible. I do not use her writings as a test of anything, although I believe — because much of what she wrote (again, my opinion) aligns with the Bible and illuminates some of its prophecies, much of what she wrote were inspired. As the Bible is the source of (my knowledge of God), and the Word of God itself, it is (for me) superior to all other writings.
With respect to the logic challenge presented in the blog, it seems to me, would follow this way:
– My belief in God was initiated by the way God is described in the Bible.
– Because of this, it is logical for me to believe the Bible, in its entirety.
– I believe some of EGW's writings are inspired because, in my reading, some of them align with what the Bible outlines.
– Where EGW speaks on things not specified in the Bible or if I find questions or discrepancies between the two, my confidence is in the Bible, as it is the source of my belief in God.
Preston
Yes, I was aware you weren't Stephen, but you did say you understood his question and agreed with his position. I am still curious why, and how, you distinguish between two inspired writings. But I don't want to hijack this blog away from Stephen's original intention.
Kevin,
I thought I did. I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God, authored, through the Holy Spirit, by Him. It is, as such, superior, authoritative, and the test of all written descriptions of God's intent.
I do not believe all of Mrs. White's writings are inspired (either explicitly or as tested by the Bible), and, obviously, they are not the Bible. I believe that if God intended them to be a part of the Bible, He would have accomplished that.
My Help Me appeal would be almost the opposite of Stephen's.
How can anyone who believes in what is generally meant by the God of the Bible believe they have the capability as a mere human (and some would say fallen human) to be absolutely sure they know what the correct interpretation of scripture is in every case.
If God has foreknowledge as the Bible seems to indicate, doesn't it allow for some options that transcend human knowledge? What prevents God from using a story or portion of scripture to be interpreted by human beings in different times in different ways if the interpretation is present truth for the interpreter? When Paul said we see through a glass darkly, was he implying we see imperfectly or incompletely?
We would face human limitations in understanding God even if we had the original documents and could verify through hand-writing analysis that God wrote the Bible. Of course, we don't have that and most of us do not believe that God physically wrote the Bible any way. So, human beings who cannot fully comprehend the Bible cannot say with absolute certainty how precisely the scripture reveals God to us.
We have grown so accustomed to treating the Bible as if it were published by God that we forget that there was a time when men debated which writings should be included in the Bible. I have never heard anyone claim that God selected the writings to include in some supernatural fashion. So, one must presume that God permitted men of God to debate the issue and come to a conclusion. This process certainly tells us much about what God thinks we needed to know with absolute certainty.
Isn't it likely that there is some level of certainty about our knowledge that is incompatible with knowing God?
Rudy,
Excellent point! The solution to all uncertainty about scripture is individually discovering and cultivating a relationship with the Holy Spirit. That is what Jesus told us to do. We see the results of such a relationship in the Apostolic church. We need that same level of empowerment and guidance today. Such a relationship with God takes us beyond the uncertainties of human-copied texts and opinions into real knowlege and service.
Timo,
Whereas I once thought that we had two different agendas regarding the thesis of this blog, I now realize that it actually never made sense to you.
In any case, since you seem focused on everyone finding their own way to whatever they consider to be true about God, and because you have doubts about the motivations of some, it has occurred to me that you might be interested in this blog Seventh-day Atheists from 2010.
https://atoday.org/article.php?id=297
It certainly appears that the problem may well be that believing that something for which we merely hope is a tangible reality, and believing that we have undeniable proof of that which is not visible, or believing that an invisible God exists before we can even approach Him, or believing that this God’s ways are light years different than ours are, and accepting that “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” are so deep that His judgments are unsearchable, “and [that] his ways [are] past finding out,” are concepts that are all much too counterintuitive for us to grasp.
Where do we find such information anyway?
Stephen,
In a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit.
Yes William,
A relationship with the Holy Spirit is paramount; but from where did you get the idea that there is a Holy Spirit; much less that a relationship with Him is of paramount importance?
Stephen,
I think I know what answer you expect, but let me first ask you a question. Where did the people who are identified as receiving the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts get the idea that there is a Holy Spirit?
May I suggest by being introduced by a mutual friend? Lots of great relationships start that way.. Appreciatedly fewer relationships begin by one part reading about the other before taking measures to insure that they meet..
Speaking of being introduced by a mutual friend, many of those who received the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts—and were subsequently baptized—were introduced to Him by Peter, who was personally acquainted with the Jesus of the New Testament.
Lest we forget, what we’re talking about are people who believe that the Biblical God exists; but do not believe that the Bible is necessarily authoritative or reliable.
I think we still need to define what is meant by words like 'believe', authoritative' and 'reliable'. I suspect this all stems from the main topic of converstaion here – no matter where the discussion starts – of evolution VS creation. The question, while broader in its form as written, seems to be wanting to ask how can anyone believe God is the creator without accepting also that he created in six literal days, and how can you not beleive in a God who created in six days if you do believe what the Bible says about God being good, etc? I think the answer is that some people see the Bible in a 'flat' form – it is all either true or false, essential or irrelevant – and others see 'contours' where some parts of the text are more relevant or more 'essential' than others.
If someone takes the first view, then it is impossible to consistently accept some texts and reject others. These are people who claim to 'take the Bible as I find it' and 'read it without interpretation', which can pretty much be summed up as "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." From such a person, the only answer that can be given to Stephen's question is "it's impossible without self-delusion".
If you take the second approach, then accepting some texts 'as written' while reinterpreting others is the only approach that makes sense. Which is probably why most of our pioneers, and virtually all of our contemporary theologians, take this approach. The argument is really over which texts need to be re-interpreted and which don't. Most SDAs are entirely comfortable with this approach if we are talking about Jesus' parable abpout Lazarus and the rich man, or the imprecatory psalms, or any of the OT passages that make us squirm, but we have placed Genesis 1-11 off-limits. Perhaps it would be profitable not only to ask Stephen's question (which I hope I am beginning to understand), but also why we have placed Gen 1-11 beyond interpretation but launch into interpretation of various stories from Gen 12 onwards?
Kevin,
Well said – makes sense!
Stephen, exactly. These people in acts were introduced to God by someone who knew Him personally. If we restrict ourselves for a moment to those who recieved the Spirit after hearing Peter preach on the first pentecost, all of them had previously read and memorised large parts of what was written about God at that time. But it was not until they were introduced to God by Peter that they recieved the Spirit.
Again, are we talking about people who believe that the Biblical God exists but do not believe the same things about Him as you do or some other yet undefined group of people?
I am certainly not a New Testament historian or scholar (obviously), so it is news to me that “all” or perhaps even any of those who Peter baptized necessarily “had previously read and memorized large parts of what was written about God at the time.” From where do we get that information?
Besides, even if accurate, I am unclear about what that has to do with not believing some of what they might have read and memorized; particularly what they had read about God.
Stephen, It is part of learning and taking local custom of the day into account to understand the circumstances of the text of the bible, something which some adventists (you?) are perhaps resisting on principle? Maybe this will be helpful?
http://www.google.se/books?hl=sv&lr=&id=OuL-dqEKdsgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=ancient+torah+education+jewish&ots=URJ6hftv7p&sig=mUTVO8WZYywArciWWkkcEZJKCLc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ancient%20torah%20education%20jewish&f=false
It relates to the subdiscussion of this subthread:
1) How to learn the necessary information about God?
2) Through the Spirit!
3) How to learn about the Spirit?
4) By being introduced by a friend!
5) Exactly, the bible tells us about this process, getting to know the Spirit through personal intoduction by someone who already know Him.
6) And this applies to people who were well immersed in the scriptures.
In short, it is important because being introduced to God cannot be replaced by book knowledge about God.
Timo,
Please understand and remember that it was you who first said, “This is why Stephen’s blog makes no sense to me” before I concluded “it actually never made sense to you.” My statement was one of acceptance of your (initial) statement.
Again, there is no condemnation from me in your being focused on everyone finding their own way to whatever they consider to be true about God; as surely you would admit is certainly a/your focus.
If you read the 2010 blog “Seventh-day Atheists” in its entirety, I think you might agree that we are not nearly as far apart as you apparently think.
Where we may differ most, I believe, is in our approach to intellectualism; especially of the Adventist variety. You are perhaps much more tolerant and understanding (in the charitable sense) of it than I am.
Why would you consider that a criticism?
Now, we may be getting somewhere Kevin! I agree that it appears that indeed you do now better understand the question.
However in the interests of progress—which we are now making—toward actually addressing the question, please allow me to repeat it. The question has to do with the illogic of believing/understanding/acknowledging, via Scripture, that the Biblical God exists and possesses certain Scripturally described attributes (including benevolence and Creatorship); yet not believing/understanding/acknowledging everything else that the same Bible, from which they have derived this belief/understanding/acknowledgment, says about this same God.
This is why the Genesis 3:15 prophecy is so fascinating; if not probative. As I stated before, what that the Bible says about God is fair game. (So the two approaches to interpretation that you describe may not be applicable at all.) If the Genesis 3:15 prophecy is authentic (as opposed to mythological)—and predictive of events that actually subsequently transpired—then shouldn’t what the same Scripture says—contextually, before it and after it—about the Source of this prophecy also be considered authentic?
Stephen
You are still arguing that all verses in the Bible are equally relevant. If that is not accepted, then, no, there is no reason why verses before and after Gen 3:15 must be accepted as being equally relevant. Authentic? I was not aware anyone was arguing those verses were not authentic. Everyone accepts the text of Genesis as pretty much settled, and I have not heard of anyone calling their authenticity into question. There are times whn I suspect you are using words with different meanings/nuances to the generally accepted meanings. If you mean 'authentic' as in actually inspired by God, that is a different question. I don't believe we have any method for deciding what God did or did not inspire. I prefer simply to take the Bible as it is as being what God intends us to have and deal with it as it is.
You are still assuming that Scripture is to be taken as one unit, and therefore all verses are equal. That is not the way we have traditionally worked – nor has any Christian church I am familiar with. We all treat some verses as more central than others, and often interpret non-central verses by those we believe are central. You seem to be arguing that all of the first few chapters of Genesis are central, so how can we accept some and re-interpret others? The answer is simple: we don't all view these verses as central. It is probably a matter of what each person sees in these chapters. Some see history, a basic, somewhat condensed version of what an eyewitness would have seen. Others see a story which sets out to make a point or three, using what may have been historical events in a creative way.
Before you ask 'why would the author do that?' and move to the conclusion it would be dishonest, I would ask you to meditate upon the gospel writers for a while. There are so many parts of the account that can't be reconciled between the 4 gospels that we are forced to conclude that the actual events were re-organised to make the point each gospel writer wanted ot make. Reading each gospel separately, would you ever conclude that it is not an eyewitness acount 'as it happened'? If you allow for the same process elsewhere, why not in Genesis? You need creation, you need a fall into sin, you need a promise that God will set everything right. But do you need any of the details? The fact that Gen 1 and 2 present very different accounts (and not, as we are so often assured, merely the same account from different perspectives) leads me to suspect that the details are not the point. I like the idea of God creating everything in 6 days. There is both logic and poetry to the way it is presented. But the necessary element is that God created. I find evolution a very unsatisfactory alternative to simply speaking everything into existence, but whatever the method, what I require for belief is that God did it. The manner of his creating and the time it took is not that important.
Stephen,
There is some good dialogue taking place in the comments above. However, I find this comment you make rather, dare I say it, rude. Here's your point:
"However in the interests of progress—which we are now making—toward actually addressing the question, "
Seriously? There have been many, many posts which I believe have addressed your question. I am still waiting for your's and Preston's response to my last points in reply to his and your statements to me!
I am not so sure as it is actualy a problem of "us" not understanding the question, as you two being unable to "hear" input that does not fit your perceptions. I had an interesting example of this on the Sex thread. Early on I made a comment about guidelines for sexuality. I couched it in very evolutionary terms with an application comment at the end. Joe picked up on it, but silence was deafening. Later I re posted the application comment almost word for word, and people "got it". Quite amusing.
So…I don't think we are not getting your question as much as you may not be getting some of the "answers". Perhaps you are not ready to "see" them yet, but it is frustrating:)
Cheers
Back to the original question–as I interpret it at least:
Some of you may have touched on this, but many believe in God and the Bible and its truth without demanding that every story or event in it happened as described. Though this is not my belief in most cases, I can understand it.
Truth is beyond the factual happenings of stories, parables, metaphors or allegories–whatever you want to call them. Stories can tell real truth without being physically factual such as the story Jesus told of Lazurus and the Richman. T he descriptions of everlasting hell are in the same category. I think the OT stories happened, but it is quite significant that they have parallels in every age and every life. Therefore, the person who might think they are allegories can have a right picture of God and His goodness and have a personal relationship with this God. The stories in the OT also point to Christ and His sacrifice—the sanctuary, the Exodus. There are great spiritual lessons and stories throughout the Bible that are truth but possibly not factual in every literal detail.. If we demand too much for literal interpretation, we can lose our focus on the meaning. It could lead to making the Bible a thing to worship rather than the One it was about. Jesus said to the Jews: You search the scriptures for eternal life when it is me that they point to.
By “authentic” I meant (per dictionary.com) 1. Not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique. 2. Having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master. 3. Entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy: an authentic report on poverty in Africa.
If Genesis 3:15 was authentically uttered by God as the writer indicates and if it does indeed foretell the role of Jesus, then the writer was truly privy—via inspiration—to exclusive authoritative information that is worthy of being called “the word of God.” But the larger point is that I’m not necessarily arguing that it is authentic or that it isn’t (although I clearly believe that it is). My point, as we know, is that for those who believe that it is authentic, genuine, real, reliable, trustworthy, etc., that it would follow that since they believe God to have been either/both the Source of the inspiration for the retelling of this narrative and/or the Source of the prophecy of this narrative, that they would logically believe everything else that this same exclusively authoritative source material from which this belief/understanding/acknowledgement is derived says about this same God.
Now, my friend cb25 argues that this represents a null set of people, if I understand him correctly. Maybe he’s right; but for the sake of argument, let us pretend that there are such people. Would it not be illogical for them to believe/understand/acknowledge that the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator God of the Bible exists while simultaneously disbelieving anything that the Bible, through which the concept of this God is introduced, has said about this same God?
Some may have noticed by now that I have repeatedly emphasized (by underlining) the phrase “about God” (or "about this same God"). I have done so because I understand that there are parables that are allegorical by definition, and I don’t want to conflate/confuse them with what Scripture has to say about God; which I believe to be fair play for all purposes.
Ella, Kevin, cb25, myself and others have tried to answer your questio Stephen. Thus far to no Avail, as you are still asking the same question. Is it rethorical?
Thomas,
You and others have addressed important points. You have certainly answered why people believe significant parts of the Bible to be worthwhile, profitable, and beneficial; though not authoritative. You have answered why people consider segments of the Bible to be allegorical and not historical; and those answers have been enlightening.
However the question you have answered is not the one posed by the blog; which is how it possibly makes sense for an individual to have come to the belief/understanding/knowledge of the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator God via the Bible yet not believe some of what that same source says about that same God through which whose existence and attributes said individual was initially introduced.
This is not rhetoric or semantics; it is quite simply either logical or illogical.
What the Bible says about God is the question for discussion. For the purposes of belief or disbelief, it is either all true or it is not true.
Stephen, please explain to me how your question still retains any merit IF you take the assumptions I have presented.
Also, I have tried to answer why people believe significant parts of the Bible to be worthwhile, profitable, beneficial and authorative; though not litterally and historically factual. Therefore, IF some part of the bible fits all of the four descriptions in the first part while the second part also remaining true, how does such assumptions affect your question. Could it be that a person can to come to belief in God as an omnicient, benevolent creator God through reading the bible and believe what it says about God yet come to a different conclusion to the one you have reached concerning the "how" of Gods actions? Would it be possible for someone to believe in God as an omnicient, benevolent, creator God and for this person to believe what the bible says about Gods justice and yet believe that Matthew 3:12 means that the lost will burn in an unquenchable forever?
If you are prepared to say that, Yes, despite the fact that this person has reached a different conclusion on what the bible says about God in this case he still has a faith that makes sense and is internally consistent. If you can agree to that, then I have reached the purpose for participating in this discussion. But, as I fear you will say, you will continue to claim that a person such as the one described in my example has rejected some of what the bible says about God because he reached a different conclusion than did you about what that something is, then I do not know how to explain my mind any further. I will then have to conceede to agree to disagree on this thread, (or is it a mutual understanding of missunderstanding eachother?).
Stephen,
Are you sure you believe everything the Bible says about God? Do you believe he causes evil? Do you believe he hated Esau? Do you believe he hardened Pharaoh's heart so that not only did all of Egypt suffer the plagues, but also every Egyptian household suffered the loss of its first-born sons? Do you believe God allowed (or caused, if you accept the first premise) Satan to kill all of Job's livestock and children, then made it up to him by giving him double – (fortunately for Mrs Job, the children were not doubled)? Do you believe God takes delight in seeing the brains of Babylonian babies dashed on rocks? Or that he took delight in the sacrifice of the Canaanites – men, women, children and livestock? Or do you, perhaps, do a little interpreting to avoid some of these conclusions? But then, surely, you are consistent and believe everything the Bible says about God because it comes from God? If so, do you ever find yourself having a moment of doubt when you read "God is love"?
Thomas,
Thank you for addressing the question. While in the final analysis we may have to agree to disagree, I’ll try to explain my thinking on this also.
The ultimate basis for the Bible being worthwhile, profitable, and beneficial IS the fact that it IS authoritative, particularly in terms of what it has to say about God and what God has to say, through it, to us; and the understanding that what it says about God and what God has to say to us (through it) is factual and not fictional.
In other words the authority of the Bible is based on its being the officially sanctioned and/or authentic record of God’s dealings with human beings on this planet. It is worthwhile, profitable, and beneficial precisely because it is factual and historically reliable.
Now, needless to say, everyone doesn’t agree that the Bible is authoritative in terms of what it says about God or about what He has to say to us; and not everyone agrees on what determines authority, or that God even exists.
But for those who do believe that God exists, and that the Bible is authoritative because it is reliable insofar as identifying God as omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, and (the) Creator, it does not follow that they would disbelieve the Bible on the details that describe/delineate/outline His existence and attributes.
Kevin,
Thank you for addressing the question’s premise. I’ll try to answer your questions by saying that yes, I believe whatever the inspired authors of the Bible have said about God; although I do not necessarily understand everything that I have read, nor do I understand everything that God has done, is doing, or will do.
As to whether I have occasional momentary doubts about God being love, being human: I would think that under the right (or wrong) set of circumstances this would be natural for me and anyone else.
Stephen, you didnt address my question?
You might have noticed that the question of authority is not in dispute between us, only the question of every single part being historically accurate or historically factual.
You may wish to note also that the historicity of the main part of the bible is also not in dispute between us. Jesus living and dying and ressurecting, Abram visiting Egypt, Juda loosing a war against Babylon, the historical factualness of those and other simmilar events are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether events where the hard evidence speaks against them are historically accurate, and whether such events are included for other purposes than those which motivates researchers at modern university history departments.
So, would you mind answering the question I asked?
Thomas,
As I look back at your post, I see that you asked a number of questions; so to be safe, I’ll try to answer all of them.
First off, “the question of authority is,” in my view, “in dispute between us.” As I tried to explain, the Bible is worthwhile, profitable, and beneficial only because it is authoritative, and it is authoritative only because it is the historically accurate, factual, and "officially" sanctioned record of God’s dealings with human beings on this planet.
Therefore, we clearly have differing concepts and criteria as to exactly what constitutes Biblical authority—since you believe that “hard evidence” is in existence and available that (for you) disprove portions of the Biblical record.
“Could it be that a person can to come to belief in God as an omniscient, benevolent creator God through reading the bible and believe what it says about God yet come to a different conclusion to the one you have reached concerning the ‘how’ of Gods actions?”
This is, of course, at the very core of my question. Clearly, the answer to this particular question is that while it is possible “that a person can come to belief in God as an omniscient, benevolent creator God through reading the Bible and believe what it says about God yet come to a different conclusion” as to “the ‘how’ of God’s actions” than those that are described in the Bible, it is not logical to do so.
“Would it be possible for someone to believe in God as an omniscient, benevolent, creator God and for this person to believe what the bible says about Gods justice and yet believe that Matthew 3:12 means that the lost will burn in an unquenchable forever?”
Yes, because that’s what the words of the Bible say or imply. We are, in this instance, talking about how those who read and believe the Bible happen to interpret what the Biblical prophecies are saying about what God WILL DO, as opposed to believing or disbelieving what the Bible is saying about what God HAS DONE. This text, along with Revelation 14:11 suggest that God WILL DO one thing (torture), while Ezekiel 15:7, Malachi 4:1, and Revelation 20:9 indicate that God WILL DO something else (annihilate). I would think that differences in prophetic interpretation concerning what God WILL DO can logically exist between those who believe what the Bible says about what God HAS DONE. Predicting the future is markedly different than believing/trusting what is recorded about the past.
Stephen
This risks getting the discussion off on a new tangent, even though it is a central issue to 'believing' the Bible, but I will ask anyway. Do you believe, seeing you accept that the Bible is a record of things that actually happened, that it is legitimate to test the historicity of those things? I ask because it seems to me that a belief that the Bible is speaking of real history leads to the conclusion that such real history would leave evidence, and that it is legitimate for us to search for that evidence. That has traditionally been our position, but I notice lately some reasonably high-level calls for us to accept simply by faith and not evidence. I understand it is because our hope that history, archaeology, etc would vindicate our position, and in general that has not been the case lately. I am not sure how we can remove the Bible into a 'faith only' zone without in so doing making it 'mythical' in the wost meaning of that word.
"“Could it be that a person can to come to belief in God as an omniscient, benevolent creator God through reading the bible and believe what it says about God yet come to a different conclusion to the one you have reached concerning the ‘how’ of Gods actions?”
This is, of course, at the very core of my question. Clearly, the answer to this particular question is that while it is possible “that a person can come to belief in God as an omniscient, benevolent creator God through reading the Bible and believe what it says about God yet come to a different conclusion” as to “the ‘how’ of God’s actions” than those that are described in the Bible, it is not logical to do so."
Stephen, I notice that whenever I ask about your reading of what the bible says, you respond by "what is described in the bible". You seem to equate your understanding of the bible with the meaning God intended for it. Do you considder your understanding of the bible concerning its historical parts infallible?
My understanding of the Bible, though very fallible, starts with what the Bible says. What the Bible says is where the discussion should start about what God meant. The presumption, if any, should be that what God meant to have recorded, what He meant for us to understand and believe, what He meant to say, starts with what the Bible says. I do not assume, for example, that modern science can trump what the Bible says happened. Science tells us that a man dead and stinking for days cannot be resurrected; science tells us that fully grown men cannot walk on water (in liquid form).
When asked about my reading of what the Bible says, if I respond with what the Bible says (or describes), what is wrong with that? What’s the problem?
You might want to answer Kevins post above?
Once upon a time, a long time ago, when the world was empty, the great and powerful God made everything else, including all the plants and animals and two people. The people lived in a wonderful garden, full of trees bearing delicious fruit, and they were very happy. God showed them the trees and told them that the fruit of every tree but one was theirs to eat. They were told that eating the forbidden fruit could kill them. But one day as the woman was gazing at the beautiful fruit of the tree she heard a voice. There was a snake in the tree, and, you see, in those long ago times, even snakes could talk. The snake told her the fruit was very good and was not poisonous at all. But the snake was not really a snake. The snake was actually the Devil, that mean old liar who was formerly one of God's closest allies. He was a rebel and was at war with God, so he used powerful magic to assume the form of a snake. So the woman ate the fruit, and she liked it and brought it to her mate to try. The man did. All this made God very angry. He would not tolerate lack of trust and disobedience. So God made the people leave the beautiful garden, and made them live in a very hard place. Also, he caused them to hate snakes and never listen to what they say. So, even today, when we say that someone "speaks with a forked tongue" we mean that he is a liar. And people fear and kill snakes because the first woman was deceived by one. So the reason I am telling you this story is so you will know that being disobedient is very bad. You must always do as I say. If you don't, something bad will happen to you.
Joe,
With all due respect, I do not recall anyone trying to convince you that God exists or that the Bible is authoritative or truthful; or that actually believing that Homo sapiens have evolved over billions of years, from whatever, is ridiculous.
Why are you attempting to ridicule belief in the Bible with apparent missionary zeal? We have acknowledged that your position is understandable/understood; and, in a sense, intellectually coherent.
It is just a story.
I apologize if it seems like ridicule. That was not my intention. And I certainly have no "missionary zeal." As I have said several times, I do not care much for the "evangelical atheists," anymore that others who are convinced they have all the truth that matters.
I don't quite follow the notion of humans evolving over "billions of years." The best evidence suggests that the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans (and numerous extinct forms of which there are fossil remains) existed up to about 6 million years ago. Within that interval there are many specimens in various places from various times up until the span of time during which modern humans have existed.
Exactly what happened BILLIONS of years ago when life on earth began, no one really knows. There are guesses and stories. Whether those stories are more plausible than the Genesis narrative seems to be a matter of taste. I'm afraid I am most interested in the evolution of primates across the past 65 million years, or so.
Anyway, I apologize for any offense caused by my little story.
Stephen,
Let me make a point and then answer your question.
1. You HAVE heard some of what we have been saying! How do I know?
I have pasted your last rendition of the question below. And here is a few words from the end of your blog where a key word (EVERYTHING) has now been replaced by the word "some".
" do not believe everything that the source …"
I will bold and cap the word
"…how it possibly makes sense …to have come to the belief/understanding/knowledge of the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator God via the Bible yet not believe SOME of what that same source says about that same God through which whose existence and attributes said individual was initially introduced."
My friend, that is a massive difference.
2. Answer to your original question: It would be illogical and stupid. Fortunately, as a statement on the sanity of the average person, no such people exist:)
3. In answer to your question as last phrased: It is the position of many Christians, and their explanation of the "some" things they do, or do "not believe", (interpret as allegory, or explain differently or whatever) would generally not leave you feeling sad over their absence of sanity.
Some above have used the term "overlap" to describe the variation of "some". Which means the last rendition of your question puts us on the same page. Can I safely presume that your "some" is more than my "some", but that we both understand that the "some" is a personal position and conclusion which we will all hold somewhat differently?
Cheers.
cb25,
I hope that this doesn’t upset or irritate you in any way, but there is no difference between not believing everything and disbelieving something; no difference whatsoever. They simply represent two ways of saying the exact same thing. Think about it.
I stand corrected Joe. Allow me to amend my statement: “…or that actually believing that Homo sapiens have evolved over scores of millions years, from whatever, is ridiculous.”
Oh…just when I thought we might be on the same page…only to discover we're not even in the same book:)
Stephen,
You said at one point: "What the Bible says about God is the question for discussion."
There is another way to look at this: Listening to a CD of two reputable SDA scholars, one in science and another in theology, they pointed out that the writer of Genesis had a quite different view of the earth than we do. This should not be surprising; it's common senese giving the thousands of years that separate us. Their understanding was that anything that happened was either from God or man. As another seminary scholar has said, the ancient people had no concept of a devil and so we do not find him in the early OT. (Now they are saying that Job was more recent.) There is much to be said about "knowledge will be increased" in the last days.
If this is true, then not all the "strange acts" of the OT can be attributed to God, and we cannot judge God's character entirely by them.
BTW Joe's recital of the Garden of Eden incident is quite superficial. I think part of our desire to know God needs to be revealed in the depth in which we study the record of our faith heritage. Again I say, it is more what the things mean than their physical reality (which can distort them if taken literally)–it is the sprituality reality that counts.
Stephen,
I am starting to think that this forum may not be the best place to find the answer to your question. It isn't a new question – something you are probably aware of. What you seem to be defending – or at least wondering why everyone does not accept – is often referred to as 'biblicism'. Narrowly defined it is simply 'proof-texting' on the basis that, if God inspired (or 'authored) the Bible, then not only is the message true, but every sentence or phrase should also be true, as 'God does not lie', so any verse is true in any context or no context. Our church officially moved away from that position decades ago, although it remains very popular, not only with lay members but also with trained theologians who should know better. More broadly, 'biblicism' refers to a whole system of thought relating to the Bible that is considered not only orthodox, but necessary, by large sections of conservative Protestantism. If you want to begin understanding why some of us cannot accept it, I would recommend you read "Making the Bible Impossible' by Christian Smith.
He summarises the main problem as 'pervasive interpretive pluralism', which he unpacks very well, unlike some writers who leave you wondering what they meant even when you have finished the book. The appeal of 'biblicism' is that it appears to take seriously both the inspiration and authority of the Bible. It really has only a few minor flaws: it isn't taught by the Bible; it isn't clearly and consistently demonstated in the Bible; the philosophical basis from which it has grown has been demonstrated to be flawed; and, not least, it just doesn't work. Smith, like many critics of 'biblicism', does not deny that the Bible is the inspired word of God, or that it is authoritative in the lives of Christans. He is arguing for a different understanding of biblical authority, not that it has none. I would suggest you read the book (on special at Amazon at the moment) and even if you don't agree with Smith I think you will understand why some Christians behave in a way you find illogical.
Kevin,
Clearly, I am not a theologian; so while it may seem that I am defending Biblicism, I assure you that I don’t even know that term means.
What I am questioning is how it is logical to believe that the Bible informs anyone about the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, creator God, and is considered authoritative for THIS information, yet NOT considered authoritative for everything it says about this same God. This isn’t an –ism, at least as far as I’m aware; but if it is, so be it.
Thanks for participating, and the book referral.
The book referral was to give you the context in which to understand why people do what you say you can't understand. The advantage a book has over discussion is that you can put the book down, come back and re-read it, throw it in the corner in disgust, come back later and re-read it – and it never gets offended no matter what names you may call it. For some reason, people don't act like that. It may also help you understand what some of us are trying to say – which seems clear to us, but not to you. No doubt you also wonder why we can't see what you mean when it is (to you) so obvious. It has been said that the English and the Americans are 'one people divided by a common language'. The same can also be true of different 'factions' within the church. We seem to be using the same language, but in fact we aren't. Sometimes that is good, sometimes not.
BTW Smith is by training a sociologist, not a theologian, so you do not require a degree in theology (or social science) in order to read and understand his book. Should you ever decide you would like a degree in either, I can recommend both as worthwhile pursuits.
I believe the short answer to how did God communicate with man during the 1,500 or so pre-written-law years is… in person… thru the Angel of the Lord. In many of the recorded cases where this being is communicating with man, there are attributes / perogatives attribituted to him that God alone has. And worship was often the end result of these interactions.
Timo,
Stephen's question, in my reading, in no way questions or critiques how one comes to Christ. The premise of the question pivots on a dependency — that is not insistent. That is, IF one was introduced to God by what the Bible says about Him, it seems illogical (a critique of intellectual consistency, not of righteousness) not to believe the rest of what the Bible says about Him. We all are free to come to the dialog, but since the question was narrowly focused, it seems helpful, for the sake of clarity, to question whether responses to the dialog come from a member of the described set, or from an observer of that set. Your insistence on extending the question to include literalism changes the question from one about logical and intellectual consistency to one about God's ability to communicate with us without the benefit of the written word.
That is quite a different question — and one that is not disputed here.
Preston and Stephen,
Can I follow on from one of Timo's points/questions above?
I know you describe this "group" or "category" of people as "self described Christians" "Jews" etc.
For the sake of clarity can you please identify even one individual person who represents this postion? The one you call illigical etc?
Whether you know of them through their writing, preaching, blogging, posting, or something else, you must know of them through some source because you are absolutely certain they exist. Surely one cannot be that certain without at least knowing of one of them.
With Timo I would love to know how you would "select" such a person. If you cannot outline how you would do this, at least identify one so we can assess it ourselves.
Thanks.
cb25,
If you are persuaded that there are no people who, as a result of reading the Bible, believe that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator God, yet who do not believe some of what the same Bible has to say about the same God, so be it.
This is perhaps yet another thing on which we must simply agree to disagree. (Remember, we are not in the same book; much less on the same page.:-)
Is it so hard to name one person who illustrates a believer whom you so clearly enuciate?
In observation of this curious request to name names, one tends to think of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s description of pornographic obscenity: “I know it when I see it;” or the disclaimer statement preceding the old Dragnet television/radio series episodes, “The story you are about to hear is true; only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.”
Perhaps you missed the hypothetical stipulation that you may be right in that there may be no people in existence who, as a result of their reading of the Bible, believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator God, yet do not believe everything that the same Bible has to say about the same God.
The point is, if (hypothetically) any such individuals did exist, their position about God and the Bible would be logically untenable.
Timo,
I have no issue with Adam being more "tabula rasa" then we might understand, or can conclude from the scripture. But I would say that to be created in the image of God does, by necessity, have to imply some sort of default programing from which intelligent reasoning and response can take place in terms of the communication process. But I believe it is an other matter when it came to the concept of death, there was no frame of reference by which to process what that consequence would actually entail.
I'm not sold on the vocabulary element when it comes to communcation between God and "ruddy man." Especially when the scriptures are clear that it is God who always is the initiator of the communique.
Neither am I sold on the importance of the unanswered questions that you posed. What I see the scriptures telling us about God's commication with man is based on specific formula that can be implemented according the individuals / group (s) need. That formula is: I created you in my image, sin seperated you from me (us), I've planned, promised, fulfilled a way for us to be reconciled, you to be redeemed thru the atonement by my Son's death, and ultimately will restore you to my original purpose in creating you in the 1st place. As it was in Genesis 3:15, so it has been ever since, God is out looking for lost sheep, calling them by name, wanting to bring back home with him.
If there is going to be any understanding of who God is, and what He is all about, he always makes the 1st move, and does so in a way that we can't miss it no matter who we are, or what set of circumstances we find ourselves in.
In other words,
I believe the Bible is simple in its framework and purpose. There is one purpose it does not have, that is to give us a detailed knowledge of God, eternity will provide time enough for that… experientially. The Bible's basic premise is to reveal to mankind their origin, the dilemma we all share, and the solution to that dilemma: creation, redemption, and restoration. The Bible reveals how God has interacted with man since sin entered the world, and His Son, has been the medium thru which this interaction has taken place, and the means of obtaining and delivering the solution to our common dilemma. I'm not so sure that questions outside of this basic framework are worth pursuing, in that it might lead to more questions that can not be answered, and I'm not one who enjoys trying to work out problems that have no answer…
Timo and cb25,
We have, WITHOUT identifying persons, already been accused of self-righteousness, bad faith, and dishonesty, simply by posing a question. It should suffice to let those who are the focus of the question identify themselves. For the sake of intellectual consistency, we can let "self-described" can mean just that.
Without "naming names," hypotheticals have always been helpful in unpacking ideas, positions, and theories. They are, in most arenas of thought, considered to be fair game. Perhaps thinking about it that way might allow you to focus on the question.
Or if you know anyone who fits the description (those who first came to know of God from the Bible, but don't believe other parts of it), you might invite them to join the discussion.
Preston,
You suggest if I know anyone who fits the description I could invite them to join the disucssion! As I have noted, I believe such are either non existent or rare. Very obviously, I don't know any such people, or I would not suggest that they do not in fact exist, or at best are rare.
If you cannot give me a name because of the reasons above, (not that I agree with them) then tell me, COULD you name one? If you and I were sitting down in the lounge in private discussion – could you name A person to illustrate the thinking you describe – just one?
Clearly, the premise of this blog has struck a nerve with those who believe certain things about the God of the Bible.
If, by chance, any of these individuals do not believe some things that the Bible says about the God of the Bible to in fact be true, they would qualify as members of this set of individuals (which may be null).
Per Preston, perhaps they have identified themselves.
Stephen,
Where I come from they call that "dry snitching" if I'm following your here.
One has to get up pretty early in the morning to get anything past you! Clearly, I got up too late.
This source, at Googling the subject, is introduced this way:
"This text presupposes the reader's belief in the Judeo-Christian God, but many … part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists. Q4. … Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so."
Apparently, per Google, there has been a rare sighting of the species:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Preston,
You are quoting all three points completely out of context are you not??? Read the whole article it says nothing about the issue you seem so keen to deal with, …
actually..I probably should rephrase that last bit..It does say something…Pretty much that there are less contradictions in believing in evolution and God than you think.
The quotes I supplied were cut and pasted, verbatim, from the Google search introduction to the article (e.g., the Google summary description of the article) . . .
Peace.
Yes, I know…I have read the article before and I read it again after you posted the link. I saw where you have lifted the bits from. I am just saying: if you read the quotes in their context they do not support your argument. In fact, at best they are pointing out that it is quite logically consistent to believe in the Christian God and evolution at the same time.
Cb25,
The question of this blog, as I understand it is, for those who believe in the God of the Bible, does the Bible teach evoutionary process as a attribute of God, or a function / process initiated by God? If not, then those who believe in the Christian God and evolution at the same time are examples to Stephen's hypothetical… whoever they may be, of which I do believe you claim to be on quite avidly.
Laffal,
Most (all) Christian Evolutionists ie theistic evolutionists, or whatever term you like to use, do not subscribe to the tight set of qualities, characteristics etc of God that Stephen gave. This does not mean they are not theists. I have also made that point: Stephen's original point was regarding theism, of which he then went on to give a very specific description of as he saw it. Theism is much wider than he outlined.
Whether one holds a view of God gathered from the Bible, elsewhere, or an overlap of both it can be described as theism. I think that was also one of the points I made early on.
If Stephen is wanting to ask the question: Can one believe in evolution and be a theist at the same time? Fine. That is actually much in line with the question on TalkOrigins where he quoted from.
Rather than that question, I understand him to be asking how it can be logical to beleive in God (with HIS tight set of descriptions of who God is), and yet reject EVERTHING ELSE the Bible says about God. If he is interested in how evolution fits into being a theistic Christian, then ask that question.
imho there is no place nor need to discuss a position which as I see it nobody holds because it would in fact be illogical. Such people (imo) only exist in Stephen's mind because (imo – again) he does not understand that a person who has grappled with the issues of who God is in relation to this world, nature and the descriptions given within the Bible etc will have come up with better ways of understanding the nature, interpretation and authority of the Bible in order to have reduced the cognitive dissonance one would experience if they tried to hold literal, black and white interpretations of the Bible in tension with observable reality.
Does the Bible teach an evolutionary process as an attribute of God? Fair question. Depends how one reads and interprets.
As has been seen in the inability of anyone on this thread to a posteriori defend the granting absolute authority to the Bible (as oposed to any other sacred writing), there is no defensible reason to hold the Bible as the first authority in answering your question. SO… before one can answer your question it must be turned around:
Is it reasonable to interpret an evolutionary process as playing a significant role in the world as we see it? The answer is an astounding YES. Now back to your question:
What does the Bible say about it? No room here to cover that, but I would posit the answer is YES.
Timo,
Maybe the practical side of Stephen's question is one of the translation of what God intended in inspiring the writers of the scripture, from, knowing / information to the experiential knowing. I have met countless people who have read the Bible, while saying they believe in God, yet they apply / appropriate very few, if any of the attributes of God in their personal lives. To me this is the disconnect.
If humanity was created in God's image, I believe God created man with the inate capacity to hear, know, and understand what God was saying in the God initiated interaction. As far as I'm concerned, God spoke to Adam verbally the moment he, Adam, became a living being. There is no reason to believe otherwise. And it is safe to conclude that God came to visit with Adam / Eve on a regular basis until that fateful moment when sin seperated us from direct communion with God. How God communicated with man after sin is not as mysterious as it may appear. Yes, we have the book of nature, but as previously mentioned there was this Angel of the Lord, and there are documented incidents where angels as well communicated with man. And even more directly, since God is god, He can / has communicated to man in his mind… I know of this from personal experience… the Bible happened to provide the confirmation… but nonetheless it was clear who was communicating with me. So again, who am I / are we to say how God can communicate with His creation… He's God.
What I believe Isaiah 50:4.5 are saying for an example is that God is the One who wakes each one of up in the morning, (or whenever our waking up may occur), for the express purpose of wanting to, not only talk with us, but prepare us to be a blessing to somebody else as He wants to bless us in the day. But the question is, do we recognize when He speaks to us, or is His voice muddled in the midst of all of the traffic noise that is resident in modern man's mind?
We all have our own personal learning curves, and God is more then willing to address each of us where we are in the way that we can at the end of the day… get it. Even though Stephen's scenario is hypothetical by construction, I believe that there is a great deal of validity to the premise in varying degrees with each one of us. Because when it is all said and done, if there is not standard provided by God for us to know about Him, and in a personal / experiential sense, then we are left to one degree or another to our personal opions which are informed by what? I don't like that option…
I am with CB on this one, The statement has the qualitfier "as a result of their reading of the Bible, believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator God, yet do not believe everything that the same Bible has to say about the same God"
I think there are not such people. Most people take in more information then simply the Bible, so they are not going to simply come to the statements conclusions, simply from reading the Bible. For example I don't think God got all ticked off at people and killed all those people living and all those animals except on a ark. Why because it is inconsistent with a God of love and is scientifically inconsistent with the evidence in the world. Logically if God really was mad He could destroy people easily zap, no more wicked people and not have to damage millions of animals who were not wicked. So most everyone has a reasoning portion of their mind which is seperate from simply reading the Bible. That is why there are various interpretations of the Bible.
So Stephen offers us a fiction that he wants help understanding. But since his premise is wrong there will never come understanding.
Stephen,
I know you consider yourself to be a friend of Adventism, so I doubt you know how much damage you are doing to your own cause. Many have objected to your premise and their objection has nothing to do with what they believe about God. I would object to the premise of your question even if we believed all the exact same things. Because, I do not believe I can be absolutely sure I am right. And, it would be foolish to stop listening to other points of view and miss the opportunity to learn something that would bring me closer to the truth.
I have a great respect for C. S. Lewis. His intellect and ability to elucidate the truth are amazing. But, despite his tremendous intellect, I dare to disagree with him regarding some important issues. At the same time, I can never forget that a man of great intellect who loves God deeply, would say I am wrong. I feel free to live based on my own convictions about the truth, but I would never want to be so arrogant and foolish as to believe my truth, is THE truth. My faith in God requires me to be true to my honest convictions developed by weighing the evidence. I know that with my intellect and sinful nature it is impossible for me to be right about everything even all the important things. I trust God to guide and eventually save me despite my fallibility.
We are tempted to believe that somehow God’s infallibility will rub off on us; if we are sincere He will show us the truth. But, there is an ugly underside to that logic. If I believe I am sincere and therefore have been led to the truth, then I must also believe that those who do not agree with me are insincere or perhaps spiritually inept in some way that I am not. Without intending to I have adopted an arrogant and self-righteous attitude.
Those who really want THE truth soon learn that those who are arrogant and dogmatic are not peddling THE truth, they are peddling THEIR truth. And there is a good chance that there is something much closer to THE truth than THEIR truth, because they lack the motivation to move toward THE truth. They discovered something that they were persuaded is THE truth and then their spiritual pride prevents them from resuming the search.
I am not accusing you of being arrogant and dogmatic. I don't know your motivations. I will say you give the impression of being arrogant and dogmatic, because you are so sure that people who see some things about God differently than you, have missed the boat.
This blog, in my view, could have been written by a Christian of most any denomination, or a Jew; and has nothing whatever to do with denominationalism at all, much less Seventh-day Adventism. It (hopefully) has more to do with the illogic of partial Scriptural belief than anything else; and, needless to say, it was somewhat predictable that it would strike a nerve.
I have engaged in the discussion that has followed and have enjoyed reading and responding to the thoughts of other participants. Sorry you feel that I have been arrogant and dogmatic; there’s not much one can say about how someone else feels. Then again, you really haven’t accused me of being arrogant and dogmatic, have you?
Let’s stipulate that I am dogmatic about my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture; especially relating to its claims about God. Would that help toward addressing the question?
Stephen,
What would help the most is if you could recognize that you are setting your own ideas of the Bible (whether there are for inerrancy or not) as the standard. I think it has been plain in several of my posts that my primary objection to your point is not your belief that Bible is inerrant, but the assumption that your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. Can you not see that such a claim is incompatible with being a finite (and fallen) human being?
Did you bother to read the comments about C.S. Lewis? You don’t seem to bother to give any real consideration to the points made in response to you. There have been cogent objections to your line of reasoning that go unanswered. Your dogmatism coupled with your not bothering to answer legitimate objections does appear arrogant IMO. I am not trying to insult you. Just give you an honest reaction.
My point about Adventism was to give you some incentive to avoid reflecting badly on your own church by dogmatically defending what is to many is an illogical position. Of course, Christians of other denominations can just as easily (and often do) take your position. If they do then it reflects poorly on their denomination.
The illogic of your position is extremely clear in this last post that says even Jews could ask your question. The last I knew, Jews do not agree with you as a Christian that Jesus is God and is the fulfillment of a boat load of OT teachings and predictions. Consequently they reject anything the NT and anything it teaches about God (trinity for one). odd that you don't have any problem with those who toss out Jesus and the NT, but can't understand your Christian brothers who interpret some portion of the scriptures differently than you.
I suspect as someone has recently suggested you have very particular ideas about God that are the basis of you comments, but you did not make that the point of your blog. It is quite revealing that in your dogmatic belief in the Bible, you are more comfortable with Jews who reject Jesus than you are with those who interpret other parts of the Bible as you do, but share your belief in Christ as God and the record of His teachings.
All I can say is, Wow.
Rudy,
Wow, is right; I suppose. Dogmatism is perhaps in the eye of the beholder…somewhat like the speck and the beam.
I do stand corrected in that the blog itself did mention a God “who demonstrated His benevolence and His responsibility for everything by sacrificially dying for them” which would eliminate the vast majority of our Jewish brethren. Once again, I stand corrected.
In response to commentary following, I did repeatedly mention omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, and Creatorship. I think our Jewish friends could, by and large, agree on those particular attributes.
I have attempted to answer questions raised in commentary to the blog’s thesis; I recognize that all answers are not satisfactory/satisfying.
I also notice that while this blog has indeed—and not surprisingly—struck a nerve with most, there are some who seem to understand, and even agree. Since this particular site is not primarily by and for conservatives, we feel we have shot about even par for this course.
My stipulation of dogmatism regarding the inerrancy and/or authority of Scripture, SHOULD have nothing to do with the question of the blog itself regarding the logic, or lack thereof, of believing that the God of the Bible exists, is all knowing, all powerful, loving, and Creator from the Bible’s delineation of those attributes, while simultaneously disbelieving something that the same Scriptural point of original reference about God says about Him.
I hasten to add the clarification that while God died for all, INCLUDING our Jewish brethren, the vast majority of them obviously do not necessarily agree with us. The word “eliminate” (above) can be misconstrued.
Stephen,
The issue that goes unaddressed in all your responses is at the core. Do you believe your interpretations to be inerrent? If not, then on what issues might you be wrong and which are you sure you are not?
No, I do not believe my interpretations are inerrant. I do however believe that what the Bible has to say about God is authoritative and inerrant and infallible.
But that’s not the point. The point is that for anyone whose source for believing/acknowledging the existence, omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, and Creatorship of God is the Bible, it is illogical to disbelieve anything that the same Bible has to say about God.
Rudy,
As to what things I believe that I am clear about and what things I do not think that I am clear about, allow me to refer you to a previous blog entitled “To Be (Sure) or Not to Be…Is that the Question?”
You may also be interested in the blog “Seventh-day Atheists” as well as “Faith Communities (By Definition) Must Believe—Fundamentally.” It can’t hurt.
https://atoday.org/article.php?id=287
https://atoday.org/article.php?id=297
https://atoday.org/article.php?id=300
Timo,
Two things can be true at the same time. I may be sensitive to accusation — and it may be a product of being accused. I don't believe what I said is unfair. To wit, your words:
– Re: self-righteous: "And so it seems, logic is used, even here between brethren, with implication one earned God earnestly through sincere seeking, and another skeptic (i can almost hear some pray the gratitude prayer 'not like them') is, seemingly, denied HIS God experience because it wasn't like the first ones."
– Bad faith: "Maybe my thinking is just too simple, hence I cannot understand the authors quandary logically, if in fact it is an honest one (as opposed to just another 'ism')."
– Dishonesty: "To me, the questions seems dishonest, and I don't mean this in demeaning way." (Is this to mean "just in the regular, good, dishonest way?")
You may qualify these words in whatever context you wish. Most people would see them as insulting, at best.
I alluded nothing regarding individuals on this post as "self-indentified." I said, when pressed (by cb25 and you) to "name names" that, "It should suffice to let those who are the focus of the question identify themselves. For the sake of intellectual consistency, we can let 'self-described' can mean just that."
As it was claimed by cb25 and Ron that these people don't actually exist, how is this statement about "individuals here on this post?"
I understand that even debate among brothers and sisters in Christ can be a contact sport. My hestitance to indentify, in any way, those who might fit the description of the blog's question was based on what were to me, quite pointed and clear accusations of self-righteousness (note Rudy's latest post, as well), bad faith, and dishonesty to a simple, but targeted question. Why is it ok to characterize the motives and attributes of the questioner? Would not an energized focus on the issue (thanks, Thomas) serve to frame your point, if, indeed, it has merit?
Cb25 and laffal,
At long last I think that we may have discovered a key to our disagreement on this topic. Lo and behold cb25 says that as he understands it, I have been “asking how it can be logical to believe in God (with [MY] tight set of descriptions of who God is), and yet reject EVERYTHING ELSE [sic] the Bible says about God.”
Now, of course, I repeated my question on many occasions so as to be clear on precisely what it was. I thought that we even clarified, the issue of not “of not believing everything and/or disbelieving something” the Bible says about God as being the same thing.
As it turns out, this was never understood. Instead, cb25 (and apparently Ron Corson) thinks that the people whose logic I question have rejected “EVERYTHING ELSE” that the Bible says about God, which is something I never wrote, meant, nor even implied.
Once again, laffal is correct. Those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God and also believe that Homo sapiens evolved over scores of millions of years are (prime) examples of those whose logic is hereby being questioned. Such people have rejected (thus disbelieve) “something” that the Bible says about God. Such people do not believe “everything” that the Bible says about God. Such people believe in the existence of the Judeo-Christian God—whose His attributes include omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, and Creatorship—and do exist themselves.
It is not that they have rejected “EVERYTHING” the Bible says about God, it’s that they don’t believe everything that the Bible says about God to be true.
Stephen,
In your blog you had this to say:
"What I don’t get, … is how and why those who do believe that there is a benevolent, supernatural, self-existing, creative Intelligence….do not believe everything that the source — from which this information about Him was derived — has to say about Him. So, help me."
Further on you said: "…yet not believe everything that the Bible says about God."
And again: "yet not believe everything else that scripture has to say about Him."
And more: "yet not believe that what other texts and Biblical narratives say about God are true (whatever they are)."
Yet again: "have no basis for not believing anything/everything else that the source from which their beliefs about God says about God."
And that is only a small sampling from the oft repeated theme.
I paraphrased this (and your oft repeated question) as:
"I understand him to be asking how it can be logical to believe in God (with HIS tight set of descriptions of who God is), and yet reject EVERTHING ELSE the Bible says about God."
You then take my point and say this:
cb25 thinks that the people "I question have rejected “EVERYTHING ELSE” that the Bible says about God, which is something I never wrote, meant, nor even implied."
NOW let's put what I said and just one of your oft repeated points together:
Yours: "yet not believe everything else that scripture has to say about Him
MINE: "and yet reject EVERTHING ELSE the Bible says about God"
Let me say as politely as I can. I have not misunderstood your blog. Please tell me..what is the difference in these last two lines – mine and yours? NONE. You wrote it, you meant it and often implied it.
I might get moded for this, but there is a saying "if you find youself in a hole – stop digging". It's OK to be wrong you know… and admitting it is a sign of humility not weakness…just a thought.
Stephen,
At risk of going on and wasting more of my time (and yours) let me now pick up on what you said to laffal.
You note "Those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God and also believe that Homo sapiens evolved … are (prime) examples of those whose logic is hereby being questioned."
Well, thank you for coming clean. After all this time you reveal your (or a) real target. Would that you had been up front long ago. Perhaps we could have had a more focussed discussion if you had not been, as appears to me, hiding your real agenda.
Now, you conclude your point trying to suggest that "reject" and "disbelieve" are NOT the same. Yet, part way through in the paragraph above it you say: "Such people have rejected (thus disbelieve) “something” that the Bible says about God. Such people do not believe “everything” that the Bible says about God…".
You are right! They have rejected it, or don't believe it.
Of course, before you could categorize ANYBODY who rejects, disbelieves, or otherwise understands differently (from you) anything, or something, or some point, that the Bible says about God – you must seek to understand why. Only when you know their reasons could you determine whether they were in fact being illogical or insane. As noted before – EVERYBODY has their reasons, usually quite logical (at least to themselves) as to why they hold a particular position, view or interpretation of a particular passage or point about God or whatever.
Can we just cut the semantics and agree that in the conext of this thread "reject" and "disbelieve" are, as you indicated in the earlier paragraph, completely interchangeable?
Again, this is not merely semantics; this is PERHAPS a miscommunication/misunderstanding or breakdown.
Instead of impugning motives (digging out of a hole, etc.) let’s try to understand each other. Each and every time that I say (or more precisely have said) anything on this thread about not believing everything (the Bible says about God) OR disbelieving something (the Bible says about God) I MEAN that there is something (in the Bible about God) that is not believed.
I do not MEAN that “EVERYTHING ELSE” is disbelieved or rejected, I MEAN that something is disbelieved or rejected.
I DO NOT MEAN that everything is rejected; I DO MEAN that NOT everything is accepted.
Maybe an example will help. Since you believe that theistic evolutionists (though included) were my “targets,” let’s use them for example.
They may believe everything that the Bible has to say about the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Creator God says about God that a six-day creationist does EXCEPT the six-day creation narrative itself. These people are not rejecting “EVERYTHING ELSE” (your words and emphasis) that the Bible says about God; they however do not believe everything that the Bible says about God—because there is something that they simply do not believe.
Whereas you APPARENTLY thought that I was referencing people who reject/do not believe EVERYTHING ELSE that the Bible says about God, I was actually referencing people who reject/do not believe every single thing that the Bible says about God—because there is something that they happen not to believe.
For the sake of further clarification and proper context, since you partially quoted (or misquoted) me when you juxtaposed your use of “EVERYTHING ELSE” with mine, allow me to cut and paste the paragraph from which I used it in a post: “Understanding what the Bible says about God to be primarily literal or figurative is clearly germane to whether we believe Him to be literally existent or literarily fictional. However the point of the blog is that those who believe God to be benevolent, self-existent, and responsible for creation and eternity—and who believe this as a result of what the Bible says about God—have no basis for not believing anything/everything else that the source from which their beliefs about God says about God.
This is different than what may be inferred through your juxtaposing your use of the phrase “EVERYTHING ELSE” phraseology with mine.
Correction:
I see another wording problem ripe for misunderstanding. I should have just said (above) “Whereas you APPARENTLY thought that I was referencing people who reject/do not believe EVERYTHING ELSE that the Bible says about God, I was actually referencing people who MAY reject something OR do not believe every single thing that the Bible says about God—because there is something that they happen not to believe and/or reject.”
Timo,
As I suspect that I am very left brained and that you are very right brained, I must candidly confess that I am seldom very clear as to what you are saying to me.
I’ll take the good game wishes/compliment; (mainly because) I invariably enjoy any golfing metaphors.
One thing I take from scripture as truth for me is that God is knowable. If that is true then it is probably more important to know Him than to know about Him. Trying to confine God to a box of our own understanding is probably a good indication we put a higher priority on knowing about God than knowing Him.
We can certainly agree that knowing Him is much more important than knowing about Him. However it generally enhances a relationship to know about the person, doesn’t it?
As far as confining God to a box or a book, that’s not possible (nor is it what we’re talking about).
At least your blind spot is consistent. The box (of our own understanding) is metaphor for the human mind, not the book.
As important as it might be the book doesn't believe anything and it doesn't mean anything except what mind(s) put in and mind(s) take out. I am convicted that God is involved in the putting in and the taking out.
Wow, let’s see arrogant, dogmatic…and now partially blind. It seems I’m on a roll. You must have read the other blogs.
I happen to believe we all have blind spots. I was just suggesting you consistently fail to acknowledge points of a particular type — a blind spot is a generous explanation.
You refuse to acknowledge that your fallible mind needs to be considered as a factor. You refer to the book (the Bible) and what it says as if what you believe it says is fact for everyone else.
Yes, I think if that is truly your position, it is arrogant. You have admitted your dogmatic. And the fact that you constantly ignore or sidestep the impact of your own fallibility in the issue you raised at the beginning gives the impression you have a real blind spot.
BTW, I think the nerve you have touched for me and maybe others, is that this is the attitude that I think is destroying Adventism. Lots of very well meaning people have been duped into believing they know more than they are capable of knowing.
We all have vulnerabilities to sin and pride is a common one. Those not blinded by their pride in Adventism (or their own Christian viewpoint) can easily see the foolishness of some of the beliefs (and corresponding attitudes) we cling to. For a long time I considered this ugly trait a normal result of our sinful state. But, I now believe it be the result of how Adventists and other fundamentalist Christians are taught to relate to inspired literature.
In an earlier statement you seem to be unashamed of being dogmatic about certain things in the same way someone would be unashamed of their faith. Perhaps you don't make the same distinction I do and so your words do not reflect it, but I see dogmatism and faith as two very different things.
In my view you cannot be dogmatic without thinking too highly of your own opinion. It is refusing to consider your own fallibility and entertain any doubt about your own conclusions about the truth. And it presumes you possess the absolute truth (in at least some area).
Faith on the other hand, holds tenaciously to what is the best understanding of the truth a finite mind can comprehend while remaining open to better understanding. Yes, there is a danger that the weak minded will be washed back and forth (the Sprit can solve this), but for many it means they plant themselves on some immature understanding of the truth and they cannot be budged. It my vernacular this is dogmatism.
Rudy Good,
You, my friend, have personalized this rather than addressing the issue of the blog. Ad hominem argumentation is an indication of not having a case to make in response/rebuttal to a given issue.
This blog may/possibly deal with fundamentalism versus liberalism, but you seek to make it about…something else, because—for reasons best known to you—it has struck a nerve.
The only personal dimension in the premise of the blog is in the sense that believing that the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Creator God of the Bible exists without believing some other thing this very same Bible says about this very same God doesn’t make sense to the blog’s author.
If believing that the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Creator (and Redeemer) God of the Bible exists while not believing some other thing that the very same Bible says about the very same God makes sense to you, you could/should have simply sought to explain—as some others have—how and why, and thus possibly have “helped me.”
Discretionary belief in the veracity and/or reliability of an authoritative source throws the entire concept of authoritativeness or authority into question, such that it ceases to have any meaning; and makes the reader the authority, and author and finisher of their “faith.”
You act as if YOU discovered something. I just explained that the ideas in the blog hit a nerve and gave an extended explanation. That might have been off the topic of the blog, but I offer it because you seem so bewildered. I was explaining why I persist in the discussion and was not trying to address the blog topic in those paragraphs. I even introduced it with BTW (by the way) to emphasize it was a departure.
However, the rest of what I have said… has been consistently an opposition of the idea that the scriptures authority transfers to you because you claim to know what it says or means (on topic IMO). If you cannot acknowledge that the premise of your blog is that YOU believe people are rejecting what YOU think the Bible says, then you are wasting everyone's time.
The subject of your blog is "Help Me" understand. One would presume this is an invitation to those who have a different perspective on your topic to offer you help (fairly personal proposition BTW). Many of those who have a different perspective than you have offered help, but it is clear now that you don't really want help. So, yes some of the responses take on a personal nature. Don't you think your topic, question and attitude invite personal remarks? My comments have been candid and personal, I do not think they have been unkind. They certainly were not meant that way and they were honestly offered with the hope of "helping" you see what you said you do not understand.
I suspect now that your question and blog are nothing more than a ruse to cast dispersions on those who relate to scripture differently than you. I don't believe you really want to understand as you say in your blog. So, I have reached the point where it is time to "shake the dust from sandals".
Rudy Good,
I thought that I had just acknowledged/reiterated that indeed it was me, the author of the blog, to whom it did not make sense to believe that the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Creator and Redeemer God of the Bible actually exists yet not believe something else that the same Bible says about the same God.
You may not have noticed, however, that not once in the blog did I specify what it was that those who I believe to be functioning illogically (i.e. those who do not believe every single thing that the same Bible—from which their belief/understanding/acknowledgement of God is derived—says about the same God) do not believe—other than to say that it is something that the Bible has to say about the very God of the Bible.
Much later, even after your initial comments, I did acknowledge that laffal’s identification of theistic evolutionists, as examples of those who could be numbered in this group, to be, in fact, accurate. But your personal derogatory—though not hurtful—comments preceded this. At that point, other than believing what the Bible has to say about God, you didn’t even know what aspects of relating to the Bible I may have been referencing. You could not have known specifically what I believed to be right nor what it was about the conclusions of others that I thought/think were (or are) wrong. Casting aspersions is one thing; questioning logic is quite another, my friend.
So now the defense becomes: "At that point, other than believing what the Bible has to say about God, you didn’t even know what aspects of relating to the Bible I may have been referencing. You could not have known specifically what I believed to be right nor what it was about the conclusions of others that I thought/think were (or are) wrong."
That defense being Stephen wrote a vague article without details and specifics so how can you know what he is even talking about, but he was asking for help by the title. But I would greatly disagree, when people write vague and unspecific things and then pretend they are dealing with logic…they are not.
What, pray tell, is vague, vague about believing what the Bible says about God? That is to say, what is vague about not believing something that the Bible says about God?
Then again, never mind. (I almost forgot what course I’m playing.)
Do you not pay any attention to what you write: "you didn’t even know what aspects of relating to the Bible I may have been referencing"
If I say I believe in superman, what does that tell you? That he really exists, that there are superman movies or cartoons or that superman embodies truth justice and the american way. Just what does that vague believe statement say?
I take by the course you mean that you have started out in the sand trap and are prepared to stay there and wallow about.
Stephen,
I give up. Your blog has sparked some good insights and feedback, so thanks for that. However, there comes a point at which we/I have probably said all that needs to be said and more would be unnecessary. All the best.
Just when I thought we were beginning to understand each other… (And I really do believe this is occurring).
You're welcome to jump back in at your convenience if this thing is still going on!
Stephen
I would suggest the answer to your question lies in the fact that not all people who believe in God, and believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God, believe what you do about the Bible. If you believe the Bible is the infallible, inerrant record of God's thoughts, where every word is true and to be believed 'by faith', then of course it is illogical not to believe everything that the Bible says about God – or any subject. And I would suggest that Chris is right and that the number of Christians who share your view of the Bible and yet don't believe 'everything the Bible says about God' is close to zero. But your view of the Bible is the view of a minority. I don't have figures for the US, but in various surveys in Australia, between 25% and 30% of SDAs agreed with your view. Most of the other 70%-75% agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the final authority (under God) for Christian living, but do not see it as inerrant in all it states. As that is what most of our publications say, they can hardly be faulted for being 'bad' SDAs. Most would also agree that God created the world in 6 days in the relatively 'recent' past. But they would not necessarily believe 'everything' the Bible says about God because they don't beleive that is how the Bible is to be used. A surprisingly high number would credit Ellen White's writings and SDA history as sources from which they derived their view of the Bible.
So I guess my answer to your question is that no one who agrees with your view of the Bible is likely to question anything the Bible says about God, but for the many who do not, questioning the Bible is not just logical, but actually necessary. For most of us, it isn't because we don't have faith in God, or in the Bible, but because we do. It isn't what the Bible says that we are questioning, but how we should understand it, and whether our current understanding is correct. If you believe what the Bible says is true, then questioning it does not cause any problems as it is assumed that the end of the process will lead you to a better understanding of the Bible and of God. Acknowledging contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible requires you to think about why they are there, it doesn't require you to conclude that the Bible is not inspired or that God is not real. The Bible is merely a tool to gain knowledge of God to aid in a relationship with God. It doesn't have to be infallible or inerrant to achieve the goal for which it exists.
Kevin,
Thanks for your well-considered and thoughtful commentary on the question. Of course we disagree on the number of people who may be included in the set of those who believe that the God of the Bible exists but do not believe something that the Bible says about God. If the reaction to this blog is indicative at all—and I have reason to believe that it is—there are plenty of folk who think this way.
Nevertheless you are undoubtedly right that how one views or regards the Bible is the key to all of this. Either you or Thomas V. has previously identified scriptural authority as the issue at hand. Personally of course, I don’t comprehend how the Bible can be considered selectively authoritative, or how we are, as “believers” can be the arbiters of what we believe about what the Bible says about God.
Why do we believe that Jesus saves, or that God is love, or that prayer is effective, or that God exists? The first song many children learn about God says “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” What is the basis for “believers” saying that although the Bible may say something about this God in whom we “believe,” it may or may not be true?
In discussing the predictable reaction to this blog, it occurred to a participant in the discussion that the main reason it has struck such a nerve is that some Christians and/or theists want to retain the prerogative/discretion to either believe or to not believe whatever they choose regarding what the Bible says about God (or some, to not believe that He even exists); but nonetheless want to be considered “believers.” Wishing to “have your cake and eat it too” is not logical (to me).
Confession time: one reason the reaction was predictable is because we (I) tested this exact same premise about a year ago on a well-known (but “unnamed”) social networking site, with somewhat similar results and commentary.
If you allow the Holy Spirit as a participant in the conversation between believer and the Bible – rather than a one-way interaction where the Bible 'speaks' and we listen and silently accept what is 'said' – then it is easy to explain how the believer can be an 'arbiter' of what is and is not accepted. It is not really the believer, but the believer plus God in the person of the Holy Spirit. Surely you would agree that the Holy Spirit both has complete understanding of, and the right to interpret, the Bible? In reality, the Bible has no authority of itself. Without the Holy Spirit at work behind and through the text, the Bible would be just words on paper. The 'correct' understanding of the Bible is worked out by the Holy Spirit and the Christian community in dialogue, with the Bible as the 'tool' with which both work. If the authority is inherent in the words of the Bible themselves, then neither Paul nor the other disciples had the right to reinterpret the Old Testament. But, inspired by the Holy Spirit, they did so, and led by the same Spirit the community recognised it as the work of God. It is God who is the final authority, and he is as willing to enter into dialogue today as he ever was.
Kevin,
How do know that the Holy Spirit is the key to understanding what the Bible says? By what means are we aware that the Holy Spirit exists?
The answer to these questions, of course, is because the Bible, which was authored by men who were moved by the same Holy Spirit, informs us of this.
It is illogical to believe that the Holy Spirit is the key to spiritual and scriptural understanding if this information/belief/understanding is scripturally derived, yet not believe something else that the same Scripture has to say.
It is illogical only if you first accept that everything in the Bible is to be believed 'as is'. Once you accept the need for interpretation, it ceases to be illogical to interpret the Bible.
You seem to want to discuss 'believing' the Bible without acknowledging that interpretation and authority are inseparable. You again assume that there is a one-way passage of knowledge from the Bible to the reader. It may be a convenient theory, but once you begin to look at actual practice you see that it just doesn't work. It is not at all difficult to find examples in the Bible of where the writers reinterpret a previous writer's words, sometimes in a way that it not possible if the original writer's words are to be acepted 'as is'. If a theory of how the Bible works cannot be demonstrated to be true from the Bible, why should anyone accept it?
Kevin,
The Biblical counsel that spiritual understanding would be confirmed by the community of believers is predicated on the members of the spiritual community all having a connection with the Holy Spirit as we see described in the New Testament. Unfortunately, that connected status is rare, as is evidenced by the variety of arguments on topics and labels being attached to groups of different opinions. Where the Holy Spirit is present these arguments disappear as believers become united under His guidance. Where the Holy Spirit is in control, people whose primary spiritual focus was defending a particular viewpoint find their focus changing to celebrating their newfound and ultimately intimate connection with Him. It is a beautiful thing to witness and experience.
Wiliam,
I guess you have not read Acts recently.. Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem seem to have had arguments on different opinions. Was it Paul or James and Peter who was lacking the Spirit?
Could it instead be that a lack of argument on topics indicate a general lack of study and searching for Gods truth?
It seems that, for whatever reason, the premise of this article is conflated with a "correct" interpretation or understanding of the Bible. That, in my reading, was never the premise. Neither is the premise that the Bible is the sole means of God's communication with us. Clearly, at least by how he is described in the Bible, the Holy Spirit leads us in the way God has charted for us. Still, the premise of the article is that it seems not logical to believe the Bible in part, regardless of how one interprets it.
How does one parse truth in the Bible? What or who is the controlling authority for determining what is true and not? If the Bible speaks about God in an untrue way, what about the book can be true? Don't all good deceptions contain an element of truth? Assuming there is more than one spirit, one what basis does one discern between the Holy and the evil?
Preston,
Perhaps the necessity of a correct interpretation or understanding of the Bible is not directly spelled out in the article premise. It is however foundational to the premise that such a "correct interpretation" exists, for how would you otherwise show that the premise holds together at all? To use an example that has appeared previously, it has been suggested that a person who does not view the first chapters of Genesis as historically factual is illogical in rejecting parts of what the Bible say about God.
But surely you can see that this is only true so far as the "correct interpretaion premise" that everything that looks historical both was intended to be read as history and must be read so by us is accepted. Not taking the first chapters of Genesis as litteral historical truth is by no means illogical for a person who has adopted an interpretation method which allows these early chapters to be read for other values than historical accuracy.
Therefore, lacking a "correct interpretation premise", the basic argument of the article must dissolve when it faces an interpretation method which is sufficiently different from that of you or Stephen. Your question only retains any validity with respect to those with whom you share the interpretation method, unless your interpretation method is understood to be the correct one against which it can be determined whether any other person is acctually disbelieving anything at all from within the bible or not. In short, without this premise of a correct interpretation or understanding of the bible being implied, the question itself becomes illogical.
Thomas,
With regard to the first few chapters of Genesis, in truth, we are not talking about interpretation or hermeneutics—we are talking about authority. Either it happened or it did not happen. The first few chapters represent a narrative, just as the stories of Noah, and Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob and Esau, and Joseph are all narratives; all with historic application and implication. The stories of the first few chapters of Genesis have detail, and genealogy, and chronology. Adam, who is undeniably integral to the first few chapters of Genesis, is recorded as having lived a certain number of years. This is not an interpretative issue; it is an issue of whether it is authoritative or reliable.
One can believe whatever one wishes to about Scriptural claims. I am not making a case for believing what I believe. However if the Bible is believed or perceived to be authoritative in its claims about/ descriptions of God, it is logically disingenuous to selectively believe that about which the initial/primary authority is believed to apply.
Stephen wrote:
"One can believe whatever one wishes to about Scriptural claims. I am not making a case for believing what I believe. However if the Bible is believed or perceived to be authoritative in its claims about/ descriptions of God, it is logically disingenuous to selectively believe that about which the initial/primary authority is believed to apply."
He says it is not about what you believe about the Bible in the first sentence then denies that in the third sentence. Scripture does not claim anything, that depends upon the meaning we place on the Scripture. We then make the claim. We went over this before but logic does not seem to apply to those who reject logic. And I think that is the fundamental problem here. But it really gives me a good understanding of why fundamentalist drive people from Christianity.
Thomas,
A "correct interpretation" is more a means to create a debate about theology and to avoid the article's premise: logic. But I do agree there is a connection to belief — which makes the connective dependecies of the Bible impossible to reconcile without making the God of the Bible into a different and purely symbolic being.
The interpretative method employed by some who do not see Genesis as being historical or The Flood as being literal is challenged by the words of the Gospel of John (John 1: 1-4) and the words of Jesus (Matt. 24:38-39), and the epistle of Paul (Colossians 1:15-17), for starters.
These examples point to the seeming inconsistency of identifying oneself as a Christian, yet disagreeing with the words of Christ and those of his apostles (I can find no way of saying that without, very likely, offending someone). Again, for the sake of clarity (and to avoid the diversion of "self-righteousness"), this is not said in judgment, but as an observation. Put simply, in terms of logical parallels, how can Jesus believe in creation and the flood, and his followers not?
To say Jesus is the creator says only that, it does not say that the Genesis account is literal. Perhaps John and Paul actually had Genesis 2 in mind, where the order of creation is different and the time taken is unspecified. References to stories work becasue of a link in ideas, whether or not the stories were factual accounts. The frequent references to Greek and Roman myths in English literature are not usually taken to indicate that the stories were factual, nor that the authors referencing them believed them to be factual. The logic of reference does not require facticity in the story referenced.
To understand the logic of those you are questioning – and your own logic – you need to go back to pre-suppositions about the Bible. Many of those pre-suppositions are often not based on how the Bible actually works, but on how each of us believes the Bible should work. To claim to be Biblical, a theory of how the Bible works must be able to be derived from the Bible and demonstrated to be exhibited consistently by the Bible. The more exceptions that are admitted, the weaker the theory becomes. That is the problem with much of Christianity's hermeneutics – they doesn't actually work when you go to the Bible and read it.
Preston’s question and statement is, of course, pivotal to this matter of hermeneutical interpretation. While I have personally never really understood (or bought) the supposed to discrepancy between the two, we know that Jesus, John, and Paul all had access to both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The implications of what Jesus believed to be true about those chapters, and the ensuing narratives of the fall of man, the curses and the Promise (in Genesis 3), the narrative of Cain and Abel (in chapter 4), the genealogy of chapter 5, and the corruption of mankind and narrative of Noah and the Flood (in Genesis chapters 6-9), the history of the families of Noah’s sons (in chapter 10), the Tower of Babel narrative and further genealogy in chapter 11, and the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph are inescapable.
After all it is His interpretation of Scripture that is definitive. His is the only hermeneutic that we agree is dispositive. How can we determine what Jesus believed?
Thomas,
Again, for the sake of clarity, I do NOT believe YOU are avoiding the point, and 2) my point ("These examples point to the seeming inconsistency of identifying oneself as a Christian, yet disagreeing with the words of Christ and those of his apostles . . .") is not directed personally to you.
Peace.
Timo,
Would you have any specific thoughts on the question presented?
Again, you divert from the issue at hand to motives of the questioner — and proceed to an oblique, but self-righteous accusation ("doorkeeping" and "unforgiveness" — of what?). At some point, it would be productive to speak to the substance of the ISSUE.
Often, you advocate that truth welcomes inspection. Then, when one asks a direct question, your responses consistently focus on your views of their motives and, then to an indictment of their Christianity — leaving the issue itself, wanting. You have, rather directly, declared my question to be sin, itself.
Do you have any thoughts on the question, as presented? That is: "Put simply, in terms of logical parallels, how can Jesus believe in creation and the flood, and his followers not?
Uh…no Timo; this is, of course, quite a mischaracterization what I said—if indeed you are talking about me at all. My friend, it would certainly help if you would use my words to interpret what I mean, as opposed to characterizing (at your discretion) what I say as a means of interpreting what you think that I might/should mean. Hey, come to think of it, that’s sort of what we’re talking about with the Bible, huh?
What I said in fact, my friend, was that the reaction to this blog was predictable because I previously tested this argument/premise/thesis out on a social networking site (in a conversation, as opposed to a blog, incidentally); with similar conversation and results.
It is safe to say (and here you will just have to trust me ) that the participants in the social networking site’s conversation on this topic were not at all identical to the Adventist Today online readership; so how (or why) this has been construed as a “set up” is frankly somewhat of a mystery.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; in my opinion, the reaction to this blog is merely indicative of the simple reality that there are plenty of people who fit the description of those whose logic is hereby being questioned. (Again, these are people who want the discretion to believe some of what the Bible says about God while disbelieving some of what the Bible says about God.)
There is only one way to God: Look to the Sanctuary–how many openings were there into His plan of salvation? ONE……..Pluralism is a poison creeping into Christianity today.
And we know that Christianity is the true religion.
Einstein called his theory of relativity "irritating". That was because space, matter & time are co-dependent. Einstein was a pantheist-thought nature was itself Godlike. But his theory pointed toward a theistic Being. One that trancesnds space, matter & time. When one looks at the creation, we see right down to the cellular level, motors more detailed than what is under the hood of your car. Whoever put that much thought into it must care. He would be, in some way, in touch with His creation.
So that leaves out the pantheistic religions of hinduism, buddhism, new-age, radical environmentalisim (i would go green-but i already have a religion), paganism, etc.
The theistic religions are the Jewish faith, Islam & Christianity. Setting aside the Jewish faith for a moment, both of the other 2 were born in blood. Islam in blood of others, as Muhamed himself wielded the sword of conquest. And Christianity in the blood of one man-for others. Which sounds more like one who "cares" about the creation? As for Jewish religion, Christianity is a mature form of it. (The Messiah has come). So you have to decide what happened to cause the tomb to be empty? If He rose from the dead-then Christianity is the true faith.
Timo,
I have always appreciated your editorial efforts to keep atoday conversations and debates civil; particularly as relates to the comments and responses of one of the participants that you mentioned (the others have all consistently attempted to practice civility and…restraint (?).
Your efforts, such as they are, at interpreting for others what I am saying have not been as successful however because we, perhaps, don’t quite understand each other; which isn’t a criticism at all, but merely an observation of the apparently obvious.
As an(-other) example, my insistence that you have mischaracterized what I said by 1) in your words, suggesting that I have “[admitted] that the question was somewhat disingenuous,” and 2) your understanding (or “reading”) of any discretionary characterizing of what’s been said as somehow “arrogant” is yet another example.
What I mean by characterizing “at your discretion” what has been said is that such characterization is done arbitrarily, not arrogantly. I would like to think that I have refrained from using such adjectives to describe those with whom I am exchanging thoughts and opinions on this site.
What you mean by a “secular dialog” versus a “non secular crowd” is unclear to me. While the participants in the social network site’s discussion participants were not at all identical—culturally or demographically or geographically or denominationally—to those of our readership; they were nonetheless similar in that both groups of participants include/included those who illogically exercise the discretion to arbitrarily believe some of what the Bible has to say about God and yet simultaneously disbelieve some of what the Bible has to say about God (thus the aforementioned predictability).
With all respect, it is difficult enough for us to understand each other when we use, or quote, each other’s phraseology.
It is certainly impossible to understand each other when we use a phrase, in quotation marks no less, that neither of us has used—and then indicate that we don’t conceptually “get” (understand) said phrase. When did I ever use the phrase “arbitrarily discretionary illogic”? Not even I (in my role as the would-be writer) could follow what that wording could actually mean.
What I did say is that certain participants in these discussions have insisted on “illogically exercising the discretion to arbitrarily believe some of what the Bible says about God and yet simultaneously disbelieve some of what the [same] Bible says about God.” (I think we’re both clear about that. You consider it logical; and I don’t.)
Timo,
In re-reading your post and my reply, I see that you are actually “unclear” to what “honest seeking” may mean to me. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
If I now understand this correctly; that would be a good question. Of course, in the final analysis, it’s not important whether I think someone’s seeking is honest—or logical. God looks on the heart.
Stephen in his own defense seems to always go back to a non existent opponent. We read it here:
"What I did say is that certain participants in these discussions have insisted on “illogically exercising the discretion to arbitrarily believe some of what the Bible says about God and yet simultaneously disbelieve some of what the [same] Bible says about God.” (I think we’re both clear about that. You consider it logical; and I don’t.)"
They arbitrarily believe some of what the Bible says!? Apparently this alleged opponent just randomly believes some things and randomly believes other things without any reason, evidence or knowledge needed or applied. Just arbitrarily believes or disbelieves. No wonder it is so hard to understand Stephen, he really makes no sense at all.
This from dictionary.com:
ar·bi·trar·y
[ahr-bi-trer-ee] adjective, noun, plural -trar·ies.
adjective
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
What I mean by arbitrary is that such people believe some of what the Bible says about God based on their own “individual will or judgment” and disbelieve some of what the Bible says about God based on their own “individual will or judgment…contingent solely upon [their own] discretion.
Now that you are aware that this can certainly include people who decide what to believe that the Bible says about God based on studies of literature, or language, or interpretive principles, or scientific “discovery,” and come to individually decide, "subject to [their] individual will or judgment," that they believe some and do not believe some of what the Bible says about God “contingent solely upon their discretion,” after having done (or after having accepted) the research they deem appropriately sufficient to make such a judgment, you now know that such people do indeed exist; one would think.
Then in the main you are using a relatively unusual definiton of arbitrary. As the first 2 defintions of the World English dictionary are much more common to the usage:
Granted the without restriction would mean that there is no reason behind a decision to restrict the decision. The second one decided by arbiter has little to do with the useage. An arbiter's decision is called a judgment, and to use an arbiter both parties have to agree to abide by the arbiters decision.
Your choice to say that their belief is subject to the individual will or judgment is true of every decision or belief even if someone just holds a belief due to tradition, their will or judgment is used to apply said tradition.
So yes people all make judgments such judgments are rarely arbitrary.
If you google arbitrary the first thing that appears is this:
ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
If you look at the synonyms and antonyms you see your usage is out of step with reality:
Of course, by Stephen's definition, those who choose to believe "everything the Bible says about God" also do so arbitrarily. I think what he is trying to say is that there is no logical reason to believe some things and not others, so to be logical you should believe everything a source says or else nothing at all. From the beginning he has refused to accept that people accept some things and not others because they do not believe that one must, or even should, accept everything. Even if that is "based on studies of literature, or language, or interpretive principles, or scientific discovery”, he still defines it as 'illogical'. I am not sure it is possible to explain how something is logical if the person asking for the explanation has already decided the action in and of itself is illogical.
Since we are seeking to communicate with each other, please allow me to choose the legitimate definitions of the words that I use to explain my own usage.
My use of the word arbitrary is in accordance with a definition that comports with how I most often use the word. Merriam-Webster also defines its most common usage as “depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law (the manner of punishment is arbitrary)”
There is, in fact, another Merriam-Webster definition; that being “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something (an arbitrary standard) (take any arbitrary positive number) (arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments – A.J. Toynbee)” with which I am also rather comfortable in this context.
As has been previously stated, the key to this difference among us is the recognition, or lack thereof, of the intrinsic nature, if you will, of the Bible; being different than any other source material. For those who believe that the God of the Bible exists, the Bible is regarded as authoritative; at least on that score. For those who believe that the God of the Bible is the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Creator of the universe, the Bible is regarded as authoritative at least in so far as information/knowledge of these unique attributes of God are concerned.
If individuals hold these beliefs, and if they believe the Bible to be authoritative for the purposes of informing them of these particular beliefs about God, then to use their own individual discretion, based on individual preference or convenience—however they came to decide to exercise that discretion or however they arrived at their preference—to believe only some of what the authoritative source for information about the existence and attributes of God says about God, and not believe some of what the authoritative source for information about the existence and attributes of God says about God, such individuals are conveniently preferring/trying to have it both ways; or as it is said “have their cake and eat it too.”
Bruh (as we would refer to you in the vernacular; translation: affectionate abbreviation for “brother”),
When you choose disengagement, then you must disengage. If you say something else, even in response to what I have just written then, unless I am relative agreement, I will likely respond to it.
I’ll be as clear as I can, I do not for a millisecond consider the people who exercise a discretionary, arbitrary belief in some of what the Bible says about God while allowing themselves the option of disbelieving some of what the Bible says about God to be hypothetical.
That is to say, I fully believe such people to exist—and I believe it is equally clear that you believe that such people actually exist as well.
Hence the question of how I would treat such people is an important one—and why it is important to you. I tried to refer you to a previous blog that I wrote about how I regard such people relative to myself. Evidently it was not at all persuasive.
I happily worship with such people. Many such people are close friends of mine. Many more are political allies of mine. A few such people are favorite blood relatives of mine. I love them all.
The fact that they are illogical on this matter is not dissimilar to the fact that I am illogical on certain other matters; some of which are similar.
So by your definition of Arbitrary Stephen, you would say that God is arbitrary?
Timo,
Instead of wondering or speculating how God feels, why not ask Him yourself? Clearly though, you already have an opinion. Needless to say, so do I.
Like I said, we have two different agendas. At least neither of them is hidden.
Ron,
How do you read (or interpret) what the Bible says about whether or not God is arbitrary; or perhaps sovereign?
I would say that He is sovereign, as opposed to arbitrary; but I can see a case made for either concept.
This is the stuff of another blog!
Ok, Stephen, You have a God that you can make a case for being as the synonyms of Arbitrary are: capricious, erratic, fanciful, frivolous, inconsistent, injudicious, irrational, irresponsible, offhand, random, subjective, supercilious, superficial, unaccountable, unreasonable, unscientific, wayward, willful.
Sorry Soverign was not on the list of synonyms! (though I could say Hitler was soverign I would not say he was arbitrary) I can see why I don't think much of your theology as I don't think much of your God!
Please try, try to refrain from literally putting (your) words into my mouth, in order to make (?) your case.
We never agreed on the definition of arbitrary. I tried to explain my use of it according to Webster and dictionary.com. Nevertheless you insist on using either your preferred definition to interpret what I am saying; and, as if that were not enough, you now use a list of synonyms of your use/definition to describe God—and then accuse me of so describing Him, and criticize me for doing so!
I said I can see a case being made for God being arbitrary, not that I would make that case; because I said that that I would say that He is sovereign. But that did not fit with what you were attempting.
Think about this way; IF I were to attempt to make a case for God being arbitrary, why wouldn’t I try to at least use “my” preferred definition?
This was a distraction, but it goes with the territory from time to time.
I have heard it said that God has given to man absolute authority in one very important realm, of which He will not overrule or force, the freedom to discover truth for ones self.
I am amuzed, and amazed how it is that Stephen is being accused of limiting how God communicates to people. It's as though one perceives him to be saying that it is "illogical" to not believe what the Bible says about God and His attributes as "I do." Yet, over and over again he has sought to make it clear that the Bible itself declares that it is authoritative when it comes to revealing / obtaining a personal knowledge of God and His person / attributes. Yes, Romans 1 says that the created world reveals the power / presence of the godhead, but can nature reveal the attibutes of a person?
I have seen Stephen's premise to be rather simple: if you believe in the God of the Bible, why not believe what the Bible says about God in total, to do otherwise (in his mind) is illogical. It's my thinking that those who want to freedom to interpret the Bible as they see fit, as it pertains to the attributes of God, are not the hypothetical, but the target group of the question Stephen is asking "help" with.
FB #1 is clear, Adventists do not teach / believe that the Bible is word inspired, or literally true to the point there is no room / need for interpretation. We teach / believe in plenary / thought inspiriation of which is the by product of the Holy Spirit's conveyance of divine thoughts into human minds, for the purpose of communicating those thoughts in human language / concepts. Apart from the Holy Spirit any interpreatation of the Bible will be as it says, "private" or misplaced. The Bible is not for us to interpret, it is the Holy Spirit that makes it clear to us what is being said for the purpose of leading each one of us, who are willing, into ALL truth.
There is a group of people, of whom I know a few personally, that now say that the Holy Spirit will lead you without using the Bible as the means for inspiration / instruction / guidance. Yet the Bible says:
Personally, I believe this blog, with many of the responses / comments/ has demonstated Stephen's point clearly. Maybe we have something to learn from the Thessolinicans: "For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe." 1 Thessalonians 2:13 If we do not take the Bible for what it says of God / His Son, then it becomes rather obvious, according to the Bible, we are going to come up short somewhere in what God is working to accomplish in / with / thru us.
One of the questions that has been posed / prodded is that Stephen has apparently limited God (by his interpretation / understanding of the Bible) to how He / God communicates / reveals Himself (thru His Son) to man. But I would like to turn the question around and ask, who of us could speak for God to say He has chosen any other means then the Bible to reveal His person / attributes? …
laffal,
Thank you, again, for the clarity!
Yes sir… gladly… The truth must / will triumph.
Sigh.
I think we are still hampered by not having defined what Stephen means by 'believe'. Is the person who believes that God 'created the world in six days' but the 'days' were long epochs believing what God says or not? Is the person who believes that it was actually the Devil rather than God (and the Bible says both things) that made David number Israel believing what God says or not? We have been told the issue isn't interpretation, so I would assume that in both cases the answer is 'yes'. But if we exclude this group from the question, who are we left with? People who believe the Bible is only a human book? If so, why would we expect them to believe everything humans tell us? No one does that. I suspect there are very few people who actually only believe some of the things they are told about God in the Bible. There is a vast number who do believe, but their believing involves interpretation that takes them beyond the surface meaning of the text – but they would not say they 'disbelieve' what the Bible says. I am still wondering if Stephen wants the first group, or the second, or both, to explain why they believe as they do. If it is both groups, then interpretation is indeed central to the issue.
This is, I suppose, a Clintonesque question. (“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”) To a large extent, the meaning—or my meaning—of “belief” is clearly integral to the question.
If your reading of the Bible has caused you to believe that what the Bible says about God means something other than what it says, then I would trust that you have a Biblical reason for believing whatever it is you believe. If you don’t have a Biblical reason, i.e., Scripture that explains or interprets that which you believe means something other than what it says, then you have become the rule of faith and the Bible is not at all authoritative for you.
So, to my way of thinking, it is a matter of how you regard the Bible with reference to its authority. It isn’t a matter of interpretation—if you believe that the Bible interprets itself.
For those who believe the Bible is just another book produced by men, the entire question (yours and mine) is moot.
Stephen
On what do you base your view of the Bible? Is your view actually Biblical? You'd be surprised at how much of most Christians' beliefs about the Bible is actually based on philosophy or tradition, or just assumption. So what are the Bible texts that form your view of Scripture?
I believe the Bible must be interpreted simply because otherwise it becomes contradictory in too many places. I also believe that it is intended to tell the truth about the real world, therefore when read correctly it will not contradict reality. The only authority I give the Bible is that God stands behind it. Without that, it would indeed be nothing more than human wisdom. I do not give the Bible itself any authority. I believe it is a tool to facilitate dialogue between humans and God. I expect God to be perfect and completely accurate, I don't expect the same of the Bible. I don't believe it decieves us about salvation, but also don't believe it is inerrant or infallible outside the purpose of leading us to God. I believe it is dangerous – and a heresy – to ascribe to the Bible, or anything else, the authority that belongs to God alone.
I do not understand how you can possibly conclude/realize/recognize/understand that God is infallible, inerrant, and the final authority, without the Bible having informed you of this and the Holy Spirit having convicted you of it.
It is not possible to consider/regard the Bible as reliable for the dissemination of this information about God and how His Spirit leads us to, and convicts us of, truth if it is not also considered/regarded as reliable—and authoritative—in whatever it has to say about this God.
Now of course, I could endlessly proof text you in this regard, but if you don’t regard the Bible as authoritative about God, what would be the point?
The God who can invent/create vision for us to see, and brains for us to comprehend that which we see—and make sense of the languages through which He can communicate to us, and us to each other (in written form), would not reveal Himself, and His attributes, and His will, through any unreliable data source. You apparently think that He did, whereas I am convinced that He did not.
If you think that it is partially reliable and that we are the arbiters of what is reliable and what is not as regards what the Bible says about Him, you indeed make my point. This simply would not make any sense. God would then only be whomever/whatever we say He is; whoever we may be.
Kevin,
To a certain extent your explanation of your position on the Bible in terms of infallibilily / inerrancy / authority makes Stephen's point in this blog. At least from the standpoint of "I do not give the Bible itself any authority." Whether you intend to or not, it can be easily implied that you take issue with certain texts / passages… etc… because of what you would consider contradictions. But does that mean that we can't take the Bible for what it says in terms of who God is, and what He is all about, and how He goes about doing what He alone can do in terms of His interaction with humanity, past / present / future?
The Bible states it's own authority. But without the ministry of the Holy Spirit who interprets the Bible, the authority / power of God (His spoken word) will be seriously lacking. This is the only way for the so-called contradictions to actually be reconcilled as one is lead to what the scriptures are intending to reveal about God's interaction with humanity, His design / purpose. And I do not believe there is any contradiction when one concludes that God has all authority, and His word, the Bible is the expression / revelation of that authority… with the guide / inspiritation of the Holy Spirit that authority is active in the life of those who yield themselves to it.
The biggest problem we all encounter is when we intepret the Bible, apart from the Holy Spirit's leading! When we go there, our predispositions will with out question shade / twist the texts to our personal liking, whatever the reason may be. And history speaks well of the perversions that are the consequential result…
I think that one of the problems is that most people who accept the Bible really do accept what the Bbile says about God. What seems to have sparked Stephen's query is that people believe that God is good, etc, but question whether he created the world in 6 literal days. You can believe what the Bible says about God – that he is the creator of all there is – without necessarily accepting the literalness of six days. I personally like the creation account and would be pleased to discover that it did indeed happen in 6 literal days. But however long it took, I still believe God is the creator.
Yes, I do take issues with what are clearly contradictions in the details. When we are told in one book that God led David to number Israel, then punishes him for it, and in another that the Devil led David to number Israel, and then God punished him for it, I see the need for some form of interpretation. Progressive relvelation works well for me on that one. But when I read that Judah conquered Jerusalem, then that Benjamin conquered Jerusalem, then a clear statement that Israel did not conquer Jerusalem (I may have the sequence wrong, but the issue is clear), I feel the need to accept that there is a certain contradiction happening. The details of the Gospels do not line up – and cannot be made to do so without seriously damaging the credibility of the person making the attempt. I don't find contradictions on the big issues, just the details.
The authority the Bible has is derived from God. He inspired and claims responsibility for it, and the Holy Spirit interprets it. Apart from the actions of God, it has no authority in and of itself. That doesn't mean it can be made to mean anything you like. I personally prefer the Welseyan Quadrilateral as a method of interpreting the Bible, but in the end it isn't a private and personal reading that has authority. I actually see those who give the Bible itself all authority as the ones who end up making the Bible mean what they want it to. "What the Bible says" invariably ends up meaning "what I believe the Bible says". Bible interpretation has to be a communal activity. It is a dialogue between the community of faith and God. I don't understand why people beleive that if you don't give the Bible final authority you are left with no authority. God is not dead, and he is just as willing to guide us in understanding what hte Bible says as he was to inspire it to start with. Seeing the imperfections of the Bible should lead us to rely on God more, not less. The way some SDAs talk about "the Bible says" it can seem that God is at best an afterthought, and in practice often irrelevant.
So in the end, the dividing canyon is between those of us who recognise the Word of God as a person, Jesus; and those of us who recognise the Word of God as a book, the Bible. And those who say that the Word of God is Jesus cannot understand why the other group would build their faith on the Bible when God Himself is available as a foundation, whereas those who say that the Word of God is the Bible cannot understand why the other group would not put their faith in the Bible which after all is the main source of information regarding the life and teaching of Jesus.
In my view the Word which was God is a Person, whereas the book is comprised of the word(s) of God. However, I agree that some of us “cannot understand why [those who believe that Jesus is the Word] would not put their faith in the Bible which after all is the main source of information regarding the life and teaching of Jesus.”
That's easy to answer: some things are appropriate only for God. That includes worship and ultimate authority. I don't put my faith in the Bible any more than I do in the church. Both are good gifts from God, even if people at times misuse them. Both also have a degree of authority. But neither is God. Jesus is God. So when I hear people say that God has to obey the Bible, or that the Bible is equal to Jesus, I just don't believe them.
Because I have faith in God I am persuaded that the Bible is to be read and understood, and then followed. But it needs God to interpret it correctly. And discerning what he is saying requires listening to the Holy Spirit within the community of faith. God can, and I believe does, reveal things to us individually, but most of the time he works through others in the community – teachers, theologians, pastors, etc. That is the purpose of the gifts of the Spirit.
Obviously I tried to use Thomas’ words as much as possible so as not to mischaracterize what he was saying. To be clear, I have faith that God indeed inspired and purposed what is in the Bible. I therefore, by faith, believe what the Bible says; because my faith is in the God of the Bible.
Incidentally perhaps, you both represent one of the two options presented in my post above. Kevin, I think, put the spirit of the first group in clearer words than I had done. A group that accnowledges the contributions of those who came before us to the inherited faith we do have. The teachers we personally have known most closely, the adventist pioneers and thought leaders before them, then the awakening preachers of america with Whitefield and Wesleys, the Reformers, the medieval Catholic scholars, the church Fathers and the Apostles. All of whom through searching Gods will have left us an inheritance of doctrine and practise for our faith.
Thomas,
At least for me, it is a little different. The Bible isn't the end of God's communication with us, but the beginning — and, significantly, the means of testing truth and spirits.
How does one know that Jesus is The Word? Indeed, the Word is Jesus, as the Bible articulates in John 1: 1-4. The Bible is His authorative starting point for discerning which spirits are from Him, or not. As Jesus Himself spoke of other spirits and even of claims from others of other Christs, it is clear to me that some means of discernment is needed — and provided.
As that same passage identifies Jesus is the Creator, and other passages (discussed earlier in this strand) state that Jesus worshipped on the Sabbath (as a memorial to the literal 6-day creation), believed The Flood occured, and other disputed biblical teachings.
It is this gap, between what the Bible says about Jesus and what people who selectively believe (the "right" to do this is not in dispute here) what the Bible says about Jesus (i.e., "Jesus is The Word") — and about the Holy Spirit that was sent by Jesus, that confuses many of us who see the Bible as the authoritative Word of God.
God is either fully responsible for the Bible—as His Spirit inspired holy men who belonged to Him to write what is written therein—or He is not.
If God is not fully responsible for the Bible, then all bets are off concerning whatever is written therein; because we can’t know where to draw that line.
If God is fully responsible for the Bible, how can anything that the Bible says about Him be mistaken or inaccurate?
Jesus is the Word who was in the beginning, who was with God, and who was God. No one questions this. His followers, one would think, believe whatever He believed about He who sent Him. His followers, it seems, would also believe the data source that informed His beliefs.
“It is He who has made us and not” vice versa. How can we ever think that anything He believed to be true is, in fact, not true? Do we not acknowledge/believe/understand Him to have been infallible?
Clearly, the word “illogical” is a loaded one and it is obvious that no one wants to be considered that way. There may have been a better word; I just don’t know what it is.
Romans 10:3-17, 2 Peter 3:13-18
Stephen
That is the point you are not getting: we do not draw that line. God accepts responsibility for Scripture. If we want to claim Ellen White as a prophet, and so inspired by God, then we must also accept that he claims responsibilty for her works also. Yet we (or most of us) happily interpret her works, and at times even reject what she says – mostly for good reasons. The decision to reinterpret – which is far more common than rejecting – the words of Scripture, is made in dialogue with the Holy Spirit. The contradictions and disjunctions in Scripture lead us to believe that this process is necessary. You can reject the assertion, but most of us who do not read all Scripture literally would claim that we are led by God in doing so. So it is not accurate to equate not reading Scripture literally with a rejection of Scripture or of God. Even very conservative theologians remind us that the message of God is found in the whole Bible, not in any single text.
You assume that God accepting full responsibility for Scripture requires that it also be infallible. I think that is partly what Ellen White is addressing when she writes that God has not put himself on trial in the Bible. It would seem his focus has been on preserving the message, not the words. That is evidenced by the fact that there are multiple readings in our earliest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but none of them change the message at all.
You claim not to be a theologian, and perhaps you are right, but I would still encourage you to read a few books on biblicism – both for and against – as it is so close to your position that I doubt anyone could tell them apart. It may not change your mind, but it may give you the words to express the view you now hold a little more clearly. You may also find the answer to your initial question if you read some of the books written against your view. If your question was only a rhetorical question, then you may find this a waste of time.
Kevin,
In this blog you may not have noticed that I have not a) mentioned Ellen White or Seventh-day Adventists/Adventism; and b) strayed far, if at all, from the premise of the blog (and in fact have often repeated it so as to discourage responders to it from doing so).
You, my friend, may have made a classic error in prejudice or pre-judging. You may have assumed that because I am a Seventh-day Adventist and believe that Ellen White was given a prophetic gift that I believe what has been published in her name is canon equivalent. I do not believe this at all. It is claimed in the Bible that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Not all of what White has written can be, nor has been, thusly described.
The premise of the blog, again, is that it is illogical to believe that the God of the Bible exists and that He indeed possesses the attributes with which the Bible ascribes to Him, that of omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence and Creator, while simultaneously disbelieving something that the very same Bible—from which the concept of, and belief about, this God has been derived—has said about this very same God.
This blog is not about literalism per se or interpretation, except as it relates to what the Bible says about God; about which, again, everything is fair game.
I don’t think anyone doesn’t understand what I am saying, especially at this point. Clarity is not, now, an issue. Those who do not think that the Bible is authoritative but who yet believe that it is authoritative with regard to some of the things that it says about God are fully aware that I am talking about them. Some discomfort is evident.
This has by no means been a waste of (my) time, because my question is not at all rhetorical, and the people whom I am describing are not at all hypothetical; they are, indeed, numerous.
Remember, I am not a theologian and, for all I know, you may be. If you claim or feel that you are led by God to believe some of what the Bible says about Him (remember the blog’s premise) and are also led by God to not believe some of what the Bible says about Him, then who am I to say that you are not? I can only say—in keeping with the blog’s premise—that that doesn’t make any sense to me and appears to be illogical, prima facie.
I was not commenting on your belief in Ellen White, simply stating that if the Bible is to be seen as entirely the word of God because it was inspired of God, then surely the same must apply to any writer inspired by God. Inspiration surely is an all or nothing position. A person is, or is not, inspired. The GC in the 1860s asked – in more words, but the intent was the same – how we could believe the Bible was authoritative because inspired by God and not see Ellen White's writings in the same way. In other words, they were asking your question: how is it logical to accept some things God says as authoritative and not others? Ellen White does in fact claim that she is entirely dependent on God for receiving and writing her messages. In context, it is hard to read her as claiming anything less than full inspiration for all her works. There is, at least in terms of inspiration, no distinction between the Bible and Ellen White's works. Both claim to be the message God has inspired the writers to write. And yet Ellen White also clearly says her works are not to be put in the place of the Bible. You say you agree. Therefore you agree that not everything God inspires is equally authoritative. And that is something the Bible never says either. One of the ironies of Protestant theology is that teh doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot be proven from the Bible. The Bible actually says very little about how it should be used or interpreted, but quite a variety of methods is demonstrated by the writers.
While you say this is not about interpretation, you continue to elide the distinction between believing and interpreting. My contention is that most (certainly not all) of those you accuse of 'not believing the Bible' do in fact believe what the Bible says, they simply interpret it first.
Kevin,
Here is why I struggle with the premise of your last statement, while not being a theologian either, I do know that proper Bible study does not begin with interpretation. It begins with seeking to understand the where's / what's / why's / when's of what is said / written / narrated… looking for the principle of what God has to say about Himself and the people with whom He is interacting with. Only then is the interpretation as to how to apply the principle into our daily lives for the sake of practice… The Bible speaks / teaches in a past / present / future reality, so it is vitally important to get the past right to understand the future so we know how to live today, especially in terms of who God is, and what He is all about. To interpret what the Bible says about God by interpreting the text / passage first without understanding the backround / context is highly problematic, which happens to be the cause for many an opinion about what the Bible says about God and His interaction with man in Christiandom today… and yes even Adventism…
To interpret the Bible when a literal reading of one text leads to contradictions with another text, or with clearly observed reality (and I personally would not include theories of the scientific or theological varieties in that category) seems to me to be a necessity. Interpretation has to include an understanding of the background and context, otherwise it ends up as mere wishful thinking. In a sense, belief comes first. If one doesn't believe that God exists, or that he has spoken through and in the Bible, why study it as a guide to belief and practice? But if you acribe logic and consistency to God, then it is also logical to expect that the meaning of the Bible will be consistent (although not necessarily uniform) both with itself and with reality. If it is intended for humans, then it also should be understandable (within human limitations) to humans and those parts that relate to human history or observable reality should be able to be validated by humans.
But a mature belief, founded on study and reflection, comes after interpretation, not before it. That is what I meant by interpreting the Bible before coming to a belief in what is meant by what it says.
Kevin,
We may have hit pay dirt. Some of us start with belief and then, from there, perhaps interpret. Some of us start with interpretation before we, perhaps, believe.
Let us stipulate that I am, according to Wikipedia, a Biblical literalist:
“Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism) is the interpretation or translation of the explicit and primary sense of words in the Bible.[1][2] A literal Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to Scripture, and is used almost exclusively by conservative Christians[3] such as Baptist, Conservative Mennonites and other similar groups. The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text.[4] Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[5] Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage.”
“Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author. Who may appropriately decide when a passage is allegorical or literal, however, is not defined. Fundamentalists typically treat as simple history, according to its plain sense, such passages as the Genesis account of creation, the Deluge myth and Noah's ark, and the unnaturally long life-spans of the Patriarchs given in genealogies of Genesis, as well as the strict historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural interventions of God in history, and Jesus' miracles.[12][13] Literalism does not question that parables, metaphors and allegory exist in the Bible, but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention.[14]”
Perhaps the “who may appropriately decide when a passage is allegorical or literal…is not defined” is problematic for people who are not Biblical literalists; and that is addressed by the clarity of scripture or perspicuity holding that that "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and, therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."[1]
I further subscribe to the part of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that is also excerpted in Wikipedia “WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.”
So, that barrier is crossed. Now that it has, perhaps what I've been saying has more clarity to you. So again, as it relates to what the Bible has to say about God, how can you literally interpret the Bible to be saying that God is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, self-existent, and Creator yet logically interpret that which the same Bible has to say about the same God figuratively?
As for Ellen White, you make a good point. Inspiration is inspiration; but it seems perhaps I regard Ellen White the same way you do the Bible and you regard the Bible the same way that I regard Ellen White. I do not regard Ellen White’s writings as authoritative in and of themselves whereas I do regard the Bible as authoritative in and of itself. Ellen White’s writings have to be compared to the Bible as a test of authority/authenticity and not vice versa. (You may think that the Bible has to be compared to science or literature or something as a test of authority/authenticity.)
Stephen
I would say I have simply put God first, where you seem to put the Bible, then everything else comes after that. I don't question that you put God first, just that it seems you place the Bible on the same level. Or perhaps you simply don't distinguish between them.
I think the words 'literally' or 'figuratively' do not capture what I do very well. I see all words as an approximation of reality. So any word we use to describe God is at best only an approximation. Whether we look at 'omnipotent' or 'Father' or 'creator', there is both a 'literal' and a 'figurative' sense to them.
I can actually agree with the part of the Chicago Statement you quote, but as I don't accept the premise on which the whole statement is based – that of inerrancy – that may not mean much. I was once a biblicist, but I can't accept it anymore. In my opinion, biblicism is non-biblical and based on human philosophy rather than the Bible as it is. It also doesn't work, which is why even its staunchest proponents do not use it consistently.
I am curious – why do you regard one inspired work as authoritative in and of itself but not another – or all others?
Just to clear something up – I regard science, literary studies, etc as tools to understand the Bible, not as authorities against which the Bible is measured. The Bible is our authority for faith and practice – not in itself but because God stands behind it and the Holy Spirit works through it. As I said before, I prefer the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to biblicism. It is not the Bible that is judged by tradition, reason, or experience, but they are the means by which we test our interpretation of Scripture. A quote that sums it up well is "Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation." How do you test whether you have understood Scripture correctly?
Kevin,
Any test for whether I have understood Scripture correctly starts with believing that the Bible is in fact authoritative because it is the product of Divine inspiration.
What follows is the assumption that the Bible literally means what it is saying, because God wants to communicate to all of us the very words that He inspired holy men of His to write.
Things that are not clear in any one place should be clarified or explained or interpreted somewhere else in the Bible.
Some things I do not understand at all, and I accept that because I do not pray or study enough, and am not in close enough relationship with the Holy Spirit to understand many things.
Some things I may not understand simply because I am just not smart enough. I do know however, that God who is omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, self-existing, and the Creator of everything saw to it that that information is all in the Bible.
Since I believe that this God exists, first as a result of first having learned of Him from the Bible and then through various experiential means, it doesn’t make sense to interpret, at my discretion, anything that this same Bible says about this same God to be somehow untrue.
So where in the Bible do you find all this clearly set out? I have asked a number of times, and of people who not only claim to be theologians but actually get paid to be theologians, and they assure me there is one verse in Psalms that, if they understand it correctly (and the reading is in question), may 'clearly' support the idea of Biblical inerrancy and teh whole edifice of biblicism built upon it. They then go on to assure me that logically the Bible must be inerrant, there must be one, and only one, intended meaning of every verse, etc, because otherwise … well, God wouldn't be God, would he? I find it interesting that the beliefs (inerrancy, etc plus Sola Scriptura) on which others are condemned for not 'believing the Bible' has to be based primarily, if not entirely, on human logic. Wouldn't you expect that God, if he wanted us to read and interpret the Bible in a particular way, would have made that plain in the Bible itself? And that perhaps he would have inspired the writers to consistently use that method and only that method? I wonder if you are brave enough to do some research and see where your understanding of the Bible comes from? Looked at closely, biblicism soon starts to look like a house of cards. Please note that I am speaking of biblicism, not of the doctrine that Scripture is the inspired word of God, authoritative for faith and practice, which I believe we both accept as a Biblical teaching.
And yes, there are some things you don't understand because you are 'just not smart enough'. Despite the fact that Calvin was no doubt correct that in the Bible God is 'babbling' to us as if to children because we simply could not understand him if he spoke plainly, there are still things that all of us fail to grasp because we are 'simply not smart enough'. As we are dealing with God, we should not expect anything else. That is a good explanation of why we fail to understand some things, but never an excuse for not making the attempt. If God didn't want us to try to understand, he would not have mentioned it to begin with.
Kevin,
I was actually trying to gain some understanding—and impart some—by stipulating to the classification of a Biblical literalist.
Now, I’m beginning to see that this has merely taken this further into the deep rough on this course, or maybe into the woods; because I’ve no idea what you mean by “…Biblicism soon starts to look like a house of cards. Please note that I am speaking of Biblicism, not of the doctrine that Scripture is the inspired word of God, authoritative for faith and practice, which I believe we both accept as a Biblical teaching.”
That somehow seems awfully contradictory to me.
You now know how I view and approach the Bible; with the benefit of the doubt going to the actual words. This is because “Scripture is the inspired word of God, authoritative for faith and practice.”
We both accept this? I’m confused.
The fact that you can't see the distinction between accepting the Bible as the inspired word of God and authoritative for faith and practice and biblicism leads me to believe this is a good time to bow out of the discussion. There are many conservative Christians who accept the Bible as inspired and authoritative and yet reject biblicism. You started by asking how this could be so, and it seems no one has yet managed to give an answer you find acceptable. I will leave it to others to continue trying, should they so desire.
How do 1 Kings 17:17-24 and John 17:14-17 grab you in terms of demonstrating how/why the word of God represents truth?
What other construction is necessary if the Bible/Scripture is (also) the word of God?
Stephen,
How can the title premise of your blog be "help me" while you consistently and emphatically reject any and all attempts to do so, most recently in this subthread?
Stephen, I have missed most of this discussion as I have been away from the website for too long. Your challenge is excellent, but it seems to me you have allowed some to put you on the defensive, diverting attention from the question you originally posed: From what other source than the JudeoChristian Bible does one get a notion of a transcendent and loving, creator God? Certainly one can understand believing in a willful, capricious, and mostly destructive God. This is the natural order of the world as seen through present reality and evolutionary theory. Would we not logically and rationally conceive of a God who is consonant with that evidence? Without the revelation of the Bible, how can anyone invoke God as willing love, peace, liberty, freedom, justice and human rights? How, apart from Scripture, can those ideals be anything more than reactionary, egoistic sentiments that fuel the will to power of the "fittest"?
Rather than attacking Stephen for his literalistic view of Scripture, I would love to hear his detractors, who seriously claim a belief in God – not just god as a metaphor for reason – defend their belief, and tell us the authority for the content of their belief about God. I suspect that Bill Garber, in his initial response, had the most honest answer: God is nothing more than a projection of the experiences and aspirations of the human mind. In other words – there is no God. Which of course leads to the next question: If not, what makes atheists and agnostics so confident about their Truth claims? And by what metric do they calibrate the scales on which they weigh competing truth claims? And why do they continue in heated dialogue with Christians about the care and feeding of unicorns, rather than with Roswellians about the nature and morality of aliens who visit earth from the cosmos?
Their dirty little secret is that, despite their misgivings about God, and despite their unwillingness to surrender to Him, they need Him. For without Him, they have no moral authority.
No. Just no.
This is an incredibly common and fundamentally flawed notion.
Just spend a little time with Kohlberg's theory of moral development. A morality that requires an external guarantor is a *low* level of moral development.
Don't project your authoritarian fantasies onto the rest of us: morality is not the kind of thing that *requires* authority to underpin it. I could expand on this but it's kind of off topic for this thread.
Just very tired of seeing people post their own narrow frameworks as though they were The Truth.
While I sincerely appreciate your complimentary remarks about my premise/challenge, I did not intend to introduce a moral dimension to the conversation, as it would likely—as has been demonstrated—further distract from the question.
My question wasn’t about the moral implications of selectively believing what the Bible says about God. My question was about the logical rationale, or lack thereof, for selectively believing what the Bible says about God.
David, I just want to express support for the concept that morality imposed by external decree is a very shallow kind of morality by comparison with an internalized commitment to treat others with respect and due consideration–essentially, to treat others as one would wish to be treated. That is a very widespread standard and it is widely held by atheists and agnostics, not just the religious, or Christians, or SDAs. The notion that all morality springs from God or belief in God is just baseless, like so much of the narrow "wisdom" of those who are so sure that their vision includes The Only True Way.
Dear Joe and D.G.,
My last comment to Nate was deleated…. a good thing. 🙂 As a young PK in my dads church, there were many who spoke to me as he speaks above. They were adults and had power over me and I thought they spoke with gods authority. This talk can still push deeply seated latent buttons.
I appreciate your posts.
Regards, Dave L
Dr. Dave L., it is always good to see your comments. I've been meaning to write you a note, and will do so soon. I am often amazed to see how some people are anxious to claim that they and those with whom they ally have some exclusive corner on morality. It strikes me that such a narrow view, with the attitudes it fosters about others, are very nearly immoral in themselves.
And David G., that is a good point about looking into the ideas of Piaget and Kohlberg on the development of human moral sense. An especially important point is that cognitive immature children lack the ability to see the world from the perspective of others. They are selfish and do not appreciate what is just or fair for others. Fortunately, many adults develop a more mature awareness of others that enables them to at least attempt to apply the "golden rule" to their interactions with others. Sadly, it appears that some adults never reach that stage of cognitive competence. Building social systems that assume the ideal of mental maturity from all citizens necessarily falls short, but not as deficient as systems built on a commitment to authoritarian rule based on the mental immaturity of all its citizens.
I didn't mean to suggest that, without God, there is no morality. Nor has Stephen made that argument. The point is that the moral qualities we attribute to God require external authority – The Bible. Obviously, the Greeks, Mayans, and countless other cultures have had a sense of the moral without any indebtedness to the Bible. The goddess of reason inspired Robespierre's "moral" reign of terror. But generally, those who reject, or are ignorant, of the Bible, don't make their moral claims in the name of God.
Rather than reacting with angry personal attacks to a proposition that most Christians would find self-evident, why not refute the assertion that authority for a God of love, goodness, mercy and justice cannot be found outside of the Bible? Of course, if you do not believe in such a God, then Stephen's challenge is not directed at you.
I am always bemused by the high dudgeon generated in the moral do-it-yourselfers when those of us who believe in a Higher Power challenge the provenance of their moral claims. Somehow, talismanic adjectives like shallow, simplistic, authoritarian, and narrow-minded always seem to have a therapeutic value that creates an aura of intellectual and moral superiority, and obviates self-questioning and self-doubt.
"Talismanic adjectives?" "Aura of intellectual and moral authority?" "High dudgeon?" "Angry personal attacks?"
Nate, I regret to say that you seem to project your own inclinations onto others. Why bother with such pseudo-intellectual and passive-aggressive nonsense? What, in the name of a loving God? Is this your way of attracting others to your view of the world? So, you didn't mean to suggest what you actually suggested?
I'm sorry to have pushed your buttons, Joe. I guess my buttons are pushed when I am condescendingly attacked as being a narrow-minded, shallow, pseudo-intellectual. Perhaps I would do better at attracting folks to my views if I adopted your adjectives.
I did not suggest that morality per se depends on God or the Judeo-Christian sacred texts. My point was that moral authority in this country is largely the product of a Judeo-Christian world view. Ghandi knew that; and Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that. Their ability to speak to consciences formed by that world view was the reason for their success. Secular morality (if there be such a thing) has little purchase in the minds and hearts of the American people. So those who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, yet want to be persuasive in the moral arena, are forced to bring a God they do not believe in to their moral bully pulpits, at least until they are successful in ridding God from the moral fabric of the nation. They use God in a cynical way to discredit the authority and morality of those who believe in Him.
You may disagree with my point. And I would love to hear you do that. If you feel that it would be beneath your intellectual station to respond to such "puerile nonsense" or to actually address Stephen's question, well that's fine. But it is unfair of you to twist my argument, insisting that I said and meant something I clearly did not so that you can justify the use of disparaging epithets.
While I sincerely appreciate your complimentary remarks about my premise/challenge, I did not intend to introduce a moral dimension to the conversation, as it would likely—as has been demonstrated—further distract from the question.
My question wasn’t about the moral implications of selectively believing what the Bible says about God. My question was about the logical rationale, or lack thereof, for selectively believing what the Bible says about God.
Well Stephen, you may not have intended to introduce a moral dimension. But I think it is clearly implied by your question. How can people who do not believe in the Bible speak as if they believe in some reasonable facsimile of the God of the Bible – loving, forgiving, just, merciful, etc.? Your question can hardly be explored without asking why they invoke the God revealed in a Book they don't believe in? And my hypothesis is that they claim a belief in God so that they will have moral credibility among those who do believe in the Bible. I suspect you will find very few actual believers in the God you describe who do not also believe in the Bible as a reliable source of information about Him – at least on some level. So I wonder if you have not posited a bit of a straw man.
Kevin, the U.S. remains far more religious and Christian than Western Europe. Overwhelmingly, Americans believe in the Bible and accept it as a primary source of moral authority. God is regularly invoked to advance moral causes by those who do not accept the divine provenance of the Bible. Why? And what authority do those who claim a belief in God, apart from scripture, have for the attributes they ascribe to Him?
Joe, you seem pervidly resistant to actually addressing any substantive issue. Why do you presume that by dismissively belittling and trashing what others say, you have refuted it or advanced a contrary position? Does the fact that something appears self-evident to you make it so? I'm glad you are resisting the temptation to condescend (LOL). I reread my comments to try and understand why they evoke such obvious hostility in you – such a fusillade of epithets. If I knew you better, I would hopefully be more sensitive to how personally you take things that I do not intend as personal. I guess I easily overlook the fact that we seem to have militantly anti-Christians participating in these dialogues who still carry around a lot of baggage from their experiences with the church, and get quite riled when believers argue that the sources of their moral authority are superiority to those of nonbelievers.
I apologize, Nate. I have not intended any hostility toward you or anyone else here. It feels to me like you are the one who is being hostile, but, please, let's de-escalate this and be civil to each other.
Now, don't take this as a shot, but can anyone tell me what "pervidly" means? It surely was not my intent to be "pervidly resistant to addressing any substantive issue," or to dismissively belittle or trash what others say. It does not seem to me that many others here feel as offended by me as you do, but, it could be that they are just being polite and considerate.
Nate, I apologize for getting off track with this discussion. It is not fair to Stephen and others who want to stay on track. I want to assure you that I do not think I am too good or too bright to talk with anyone. BUT, when you make such bizarre assertions as you sometimes do–e.g., "Secular morality (if there be such a thing) has little purchase in the minds and hearts of the American people)," how can one conscientiously let that pass? I suppose I could condescendingly suggest that you should not be held accountable for such statements because you just can't help it; but I won't do that, because I think you could avoid saying such things if you really cared to, or if you were at all considerate or thoughtful about how that sort of thing sounds. And, I imagine, since you write that stuff in a public forum, you may actually believe what you say.
Nathan
The end of the Christian worldview in Western Europe and Australasia is dated to the 1960s. Is that not also true of the US? I can see from what I see in films and on TV that it is true for some Americans, but haven't really considered the question in terms of all the US.
Timo,
I understand that our (yours and my) communication styles are different; as perhaps are our thinking styles. Live and let live! (By the way, I am a native New Yorker; but live in the South.) Why make this personal?
I have exchanged thoughts on the premise of this blog with various individuals of varying perspectives. A few of those in disagreement have shed much appreciated light on the subject. While others of these individuals have vigorously disagreed with the premise of the blog, I have not initiated aspersions of character or Christian deficiencies toward any of them. (Some cannot say the same in reverse.)
You clearly recognize breaches in atoday etiquette in others, because you have previously properly exercised your responsibilities as moderator. You clearly recognize when responders stray from the author’s subject in ways that lead to nowhere.
Is this your way, as moderator and editor, of saying that you do not wish this conversation to continue any further?
If not, then you may want to remember that I have acknowledged on this thread that my purpose was to make those who do not actually believe some of what the Bible says about God to be in fact true, yet who believe that He exists and possesses the Biblically ascribed attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, and Creatorship, uncomfortable from a logical perspective.
Thank you for the opportunity. Happy Sabbath!
May I offer a profound observation on this subject from Kenda Creasy Dean's book, The Godbearing Life. "Believing in God is not the issue. Believing God matters is the issue. The signature quality of adolescence is no longer lawlessness, but awelessnes. Inundated with options and the stress that comes from having to choose among them, contemporary adolescents have lost their compass to the stars, have forgotten the way that points to transcendence."
Dean was writing for youth ministers and teachers. But the adolescent minset she describes unfortunately thrives in churchified baby boomers as well.
Nathan,
In using Dean's quote to illustrate a mindset which you believe thrives beyond the group she describes, I am wondering if you have (perhaps inadvertently) pointed out a cause rather than simply highligthed a problem.
Note this: "Inundated with options and the stress that comes from having to choose among them…"
A wider context may illuminate us what options and stresses the writer had in mind, but the outcome is clear as she sees it: They have forgotten the way that points to transcendence
Why? Does she say in the book?
In the absence of that answer, I am going to make a suggestion:
It is because much of contemporary Christianity has failed to present its option in a way which makes it either attractive or easy to choose. There are no doubt many facets to this failure, but need I point out that our inability/unwillingness to reshape our "message" in a way which can give credence to the compelling evidence for evolution, ancient earth, universe and life is certainly one. A key one.
Perhaps you misunderstand the "churchified" boomers you describe: Maybe they are the ones attempting to present a better way to point to transcendence than has been traditionally used. I think the Kootsey essay may have had some pointers in that area too.
Cheers
So in other words, if you can't make the square peg fit in the round hole… use a bigger hammer? Isn't that what you have been tryng to accuse Stehpen of?
Laffal,
Were you addressing me? I fail to see the relevance of your point?
"Change the hammer" is the last thing I would be saying. If anything I am saying change the peg, NOT the hammer.
Indeed, as I see it, those who hammer a fairly fundamentalist peg are responsible for both honing the corners of the peg and hitting it with a repeatedly bigger hammer. (finer and finer arguments and louder and louder objections ad nauseum)
Stephan asked:
[quote]There is a recurring question that I have with regard to theism which no one ever seems to want to address. How does it make sense to believe that the God of the Bible exists at all, if you do not believe that what the Bible says about the God of the Bible is indeed true?
Please don’t misunderstand me; I completely understand why some people do not believe that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days less than 10,000 years ago.
* * * *
What I do not understand is how — or why — some people do not believe any of this, yet believe that God exists, and that He is good, and, further, that He is responsible for creation. From where did they get the idea that God exists, that He is good, and that He is responsible for creation?[/quote]
One answer is that some people do not believe that the Bible teaches what you seem to believe it teaches.
I do not believe that the Bible teaches a time for creation in ths sense that you seem to believe it teaches. Yet, I believe in God, I believe in the authority of the Bible and I believe in God as creator.
In simple terms, you and I seem to disagree on exactly what the Bible teaches.
You make a good point, Gregory. That was certainly poor writing on my part; it would indeed “seem” that I was making a case for “less than 10,000 years ago” from what I wrote in the blog. The Bible doesn’t provide a date for creation; yet I can see how it can be inferred that I am indicating that it, in fact, does.
With that line, I meant to convey that I understand why some people don’t subscribe to a Young Earth Creation perspective. I should have been somewhat less precise.
Thanks for carefully reading, and good catch!
Forgiving, huh? Let’s see brother, I have “come clean” by “confessing” that I had first discovered this premise to be controversial in a social networking site conversation, AND by acknowledging that my purpose, my agenda, was to discomfort those who believe that the Scriptural God exists, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, and responsible for creation, but yet don’t believe something that the Bible says about Him to be factual.
Yet the “dishonest” charge remains. What gives? Or do I still somehow misunderstand you?
One more try…
cb25 doubted that many, if any, people existed who believe that the God of the Bible exists, and that He is omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, and the Creator, but who yet do not believe something (he and I initially mis-communicated/misunderstood believe/do not believe “everything”/ “anything” / “something”) that the Bible says about Him to factually true. I believe(d) them to be numerous, but stipulated for the sake of argument, to them being hypothetical or few so as to advance the point that this position is illogical; regardless of how many people hold it or don’t hold it.
I am convinced that the position of believing the Bible to be authoritative for information about the true God’s existence and attributes, yet not believing it to be necessarily reliable or accurate regarding what it says about Him, is illogical. I made that perfectly clear in the blog itself.
Asking for help to understand how a position can be considered logical that I made absolutely clear that I believed to be illogical was rhetorical. It is not possible to make an illogical position logical.
This is why I readily admitted that my purpose was to make those who hold this position, who clearly are in existence (as opposed to only existing hypothetically) uncomfortable in their illogic. Are we clear? (Never mind, that was a rhetorical question.)
Stephen,
I shall stick my nose in to pick up a point you make about those who believe the Bible to be (1) authoritative for information about the true God's existence and attributes, yet do not believe it is necessarily (2) reliable or accurate regarding what it says about Him.
I have highlighted the two key contradictions. That is your problem. The people who hold the position (2) DO NOT hold (1)! People who hold the Bible as "authoritative" in the sense you seem to understand do not exist.
I would probably be somewhat representative of a Theist who rejects many things the Bible says about God and I do so with no compromise of my logic because I DO NOT view it as authoritative. There is no contradiction. I think this is probably how it is for all the people you so willingly condemn as illogical and (implied) stupid.
The reason your blog here and (obvioiusly in the past) has triggered response is not because it is a valid argument, but that it's very logic is so flawed it frustrates people. And, I have to say, so does your continued repetition of the point with no apparent recognition of the veracity of counter points made to you.
Cheers
clarification: should be "people who hold the Bible as "authoritative" in the sense you seem to understand and hold position (2) do not exist. That was implied, but not clear enough:)
I agree there are very few people who accept the Bible as authoritative in the way Stephen defines it (which is classic biblicism) who then go on to question some of what the Bible says. But there are people who hold the Bible as inspired and authoritative in a non-biblicistic way who do question or re-interpret some things the Bible says about God, because they believe the Bible not only requires interpretation, but demonstrates that it should be done by providing the example of later writers re-interpreting earlier writers. I suspect that Stephen genuinely does not understand that point of view. If he did, he would not need to ask his question. We are not discomforted by his question so much as our own inability to find a way of expressing an answer that he will understand. I remain unconvinced that he actually wants to understand, which may be part of the problem in providing an answer he will find acceptable.
It’s good to see you back, cb25!
I understand your frustration; although I’m sure you will not be surprised that I don’t agree with the reasons for it.
You may, or may not, recall that early on in this conversation I came to the conclusion that this was essentially a matter of the difference in the authority with which we invest the Bible, as opposed to an interpretative approach difference.
You and I are (again) disputing whether there are (many) people who actually believe the Bible to be authoritative for purposes of informing them of the existence of the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator God but not necessarily authoritative for information about this very same omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator God. (You may want to read that again.) If they actually believe that the Bible has accurately informed them regarding the existence of this God, how can they consider the Bible to be inaccurate with regard to information about the very same God? This includes a good number people, my friend; although it may not include you.
Frankly, you have little choice but insist that such people do not exist; because if you acknowledged that they do exist, you would likely acknowledge such a position to be illogical (which is not stupidity).
Since all that matters is that the people to whom I refer actually believe that the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Creator God of the Bible does in fact exist; the “sense that [I] seem to understand” the Bible to be authoritative is irrelevant.
Kevin,
You are right to the extent that I do not understand a) how the Bible’s “example of later writers [of the Bible] re-interpreting earlier writers” of the Bible has anything to do with you or me (re-)interpreting the Bible, especially since later writers of the Bible did not deny what earlier writers of the Bible said about God; and b) what this would have to do with those of us who, in any case, are not the holy inspired writers of the Bible.
Stephen
Do you really believe you can isolate what the Bible writers say about God from all the other things they say? I would also suggest that at times the later writers do implicitly, although not explicitly, deny what earlier writers say about God. What this has to do with us reinterpreting the Bible is that if later writers felt the need, or at least believed it was OK, to reinterpret the Bible, then it follows that interpretation is possible, perhaps even necessary.
Kevin,
I need just a little more clarification on "Do you really believe you can isolate what the Bible writers say about God from all the other things they say?"
I can assume you're talking about the "contradictions" so oft mentioned in previous posts. Apart from Genesis 1 to 11 issues, would Isaiah 45:7 be an example of your last point to Stephen:
How would you interpret this text?
I would argue for progressive revelation. At a time when the existence of the devil was either unknown or not commonly accepted, God accepted responsibility for all that occurred. If he is the only God – a position the Bible is consistent on – then he must be, ultimately, responsible for everything. Those who take Stephen's view tend to 'flatten' the Biblical landscape, making all statements equal. If you allow for historical and cultural developments, then you can use later information to reinterpret earlier statements, while still allowing them to stand as orignally written. So Isaiah meant what he said, and God inspired him to say it, but when God led later writers to a clearer understanding of the work of the devil, then they (and we) not only could, but should reinterpret what Isaiah wrote. That is why one inspired writer can say that God caused David to number Israel and then God punished David for that, but a later writer could say that Satan was the one who incited David to number Israel.
Kevin,
My friend, you would do well perhaps to re-read the originating blog. I am indeed isolating what the Bible has to say about God from everything else. (Besides, everything else depends on that anyway.)
Now, with that in mind, keeping the premise of the blog in mind (and context), you can address what I’ve posited:
Where is the logic in believing the Bible to be sufficiently authoritative for information regarding the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator God, but not authoritative regarding its information about the very same God?
As I and others have attempted – obviously without success – to answer your question, I find I have nothing to say other than what I have said: if you don't start with Biblicism, there is no problem. I would say, though, that if you were indeed hoping to 'discomfort' those who disagree with your view of the Bible and make us rethink our view, that hasn't been successful. It has rather made us more inclined to believe that attempted dialogue with those who hold your view is a waste of time.
We struck a nerve, that’s for sure.
I know that repeating the premise is irritating, but it is necessary when it has been directly addressed so very seldom.
Of course I believe this to be the case because the position is illogical. So, to the extent that it has been addressed, it has been surmised that no one actually holds this position, or this is “Biblicism,” or we shouldn’t try to discomfort those we disagree with, etc.
You have occasionally addressed it, but classifying the position with an –ism without addressing the question is not really addressing it. For instance, you just now have addressed/acknowledged the “what it says about God” perspective, which has been the position all along.
How to set up a win-win game in ones own favour in a blog.
1) Present one side of a controversial topic.
2) Pretend to ask for help to understand the other position/s.
3a) Win – by people changing from the oposite view to adopt yours.
3b) Win – by claiming that anyone trying to respond to your "asking for help" has in reality had a nerve struck, ie insinuate that anyone who appears to disagree with you does so despite secretly knowing that you are right.
4) Lose – by people identifying your trap in time and refusing to participate in this dance.
You have struck a nerve Stephen, but not regarding your question.
Stephen,
If there is no information, "evidence", or philosophically rational arguments regarding the existence of God OUTSIDE of the Bible – then the more fundamental, Bible based religions, will continue to decline. The reason is the growing gap between their positions and serious intellectual integrity.
I like the way David Geelan put a point about this gap on another thread:
"In most walks of life and on most issues, saying 'most educated people disagree with my opinion' is a good signal that it's time to take another look at that opinion."
If I read him right, he is suggesting the religious "walk of life" seem unable to do this.
All this is a round about way of saying: The Bible is not actually the authority you make it out to be in either identifying God or all the other things you seem so hung up on.
Nobody on this thread, least of all yourself, has even attempted to present a clear argument from outside of the Bible why it should be considered the authority.
Cb25,
Alas, it was not a complex proposition at all, was it? The authority with which we invest the Bible is and was the key to this question.
You have made a case, indeed the only one possible, that the way out of this logical conundrum is to not regard the Bible as the authoritative source for information regarding the existence of the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Creator God who is described and talked about in the Bible.
“All this is a round about way of saying: The Bible is not actually the authority you make it out to be in either identifying God or all the other things you seem so hung up on.”
“Nobody on this thread, least of all yourself, has even attempted to present a clear argument from outside of the Bible why it should be considered the authority.”
Of course, what I am “so hung up on” is (“only”) what the Bible has to say about God.
Candidly, I know of no argument, nor can I personally make one “outside of the Bible why it should be considered the authority.” That’s not to say that there isn’t one to be made, but in any case, that wasn’t the question. The question, as you perhaps now understand better than most, is how those (few/many?) who do regard the Bible with authority with respect to information regarding the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator God do not regard the same Bible as necessarily authoritative for information about this God.
Thanks for your clarifying contribution(s) to this!
Stephen,
You seem to have missed the multitude of times I have referred to the issue of biblical authority above. That point has not been lost on most of us.
What I think you are missing on that point is this: Dig deep enough into the thinking of the people you accuse of accepting the Bible's authority about God's existence and characteristics, but rejecting other things – and you will discover they WILL have a different view of the Bible's authority than you do. Call it interpretation, call it what you want. But, at the end of the day the authority, or at least methods of interpreting it, will be such that there is NOT serious logical inconsistency.
As for not having or knowing any reason outside the bible why it should be considered in the manner you do..(authoritative)..does not that cause you to wonder? You would have a "field day" with a Mormon, or Muslim who stood on their chosen position/faith with even half the dogmatism you do – with no justifiable reason for doing so? Would not you agree with me – they would look illogical?
How are you any different?
Then we have agreed that the authority with which we invest the Bible—which I have also stated repeatedly—is key.
Here’s the rub, I have also repeatedly said that these people DO CONSIDER the Bible to be sufficiently authoritative with regard to NOT ONLY information concerning the existence of God, but also His omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, and the fact of His Creatorship. That is more authority than it appears that you may be prepared to acknowledge.
It is, in fact, enough authority to make it illogical for these same individuals to NOT CONSIDER the same Bible equally authoritative with regard to information about God.
So, again, I only need dig deep enough into the authority with which those to whom I refer invest the Bible to understand that they regard the Bible’s authority sufficient to inform their belief in His existence, omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, and Creatorship.
As for why the Bible is regarded by some, including myself, as authoritative and how that differs from someone else regarding another book as authoritative without any outside-the-book reason that would qualify as an argument for said beliefs (if I understand you correctly); I can candidly admit that, in my opinion, there is no discernible difference.
In both instances it’s a matter of faith/belief that the source of the books in which authority is vested is reliable. I can understand why someone—to whom the books are not authoritative—might consider those to whom the books are authoritative as being illogical for (perhaps) not considering the information or factors that have led them to conclude that these books are not authoritative. That is completely understandable.
What is not understandable, what does not make sense, what does not compute is how those who consider any book to be authoritative with regard to information concerning the existence…well, I think you get the point.
Stephen,
Yes.. I get your point: There is none so blind as those who do not want to see. Nor so deaf as those who do not want to hear.
You will think that is me…I will leave you to figure who I think it is. ..When you understand the big picture of authority issues get back to me…
(have a read o Elaine's point below too)
Now cb25, you have to know that I would not leave Elaine unattended. I am nearly always interested in her perspective.
I am wondering did I not address your point on authority to the point at which you at least can see that I understand what you are saying? Clearly, we are not quite in agreement, but did I restate your point and respond to it in such a manner so as to at least let you know that understand what you are saying about the authority ascribed to the Bible?
For the last time. You state:
"It is, in fact, enough authority to make it illogical for these same individuals to NOT CONSIDER the same Bible equally authoritative with regard to information about God."
That is such an arbitrary, judgmental statement which cannot be any more than your subjective, unprovable, and (ilogical) assesment of another's thinking! I personally do not think you understand the gamut of issues related to authority and interpretation etc. But even so, how can you determine that for another?
So..whatver you mean.. and whether I get you or not…I have simply had enough of this thread.
We will catch up again someplace I am sure, but till then ..all the best.
Well, I understand. However, the next time you get back to this (if indeed there is a next time) consider the position of anyone, relative to the level of authority—whatever it is—with which they would have to had to invest the Bible, for them to even consider it reliable for information regarding the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator God!
That level of authority—whatever it is—cannot possibly be insignificant, given that it has given rise to a belief in an invisible, supernatural, benevolent, creative, intelligent Being.
For those individuals in question, the consistency—or more specifically—lack thereof, of the application of THAT level of authority—whatever it is—is what lacks intellectual integrity.
One must accept the Koran and the Bible similarly: by faith. However, the Muslims endow the Koran with far more reverence than Christians regard the Bible: the Koran can not be translated; it is perfect in the original language in which it was written–no interpretation whatsoever.
Now, compared to the Bible, each Christian must interpret it for himself for it to be relevant. Someone else may reach a different conclusion but it should never be imposed on others.
As for the authority of the Bible. It is not like the Constitution or civil laws that are written explicitly and allow little interpretation, unless the courts rule otherwise. There are as many interpretations of the Bible as readers. And to vest it with "authority" means exactly what? Every word is written as authority? The contradictions; the errors, the unfulfilled prophecies? Can something be considered authoritative if some writings are vague and subject to various interpretations with no "correct answers"?
Does authoritative also mean inerrant and infallible? Men wrote the Bible and humans are both fallible and subject to errors. Bestowing more on the Bible than was originally believed, is a late phenomenon not addressed in the Bible itself. This becomes fearfully close to Bibliolatry.
The notion that each Christian is an interpreter for him/herself is intriguingly disputable, if not controversial; since Biblical literalists (such as myself) tend to believe that 1) when in doubt, it is best to give the benefit of said doubt to the words of the text; and 2) that the Bible is its own interpreter. (For example, Kevin Riley’s answer to laffal’s question, above, concerning Isaiah 45:7 perfectly illustrates this.)
In any case however, the authority that the reader understands or accepts the Bible to have would be crucial to how he/she understands—or interprets—what is written.
When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, He didn’t answer him with “As I understand it…” or “As I interpret it;” but rather “It is written…”
Had what was written been, to Him, a largely/totally subjective matter, that response (“It is written…”) would not have made sense.
“Authority” in this context, speaks to the reliability of the Source as it would relate to the information that the Source is relaying; and given the Source, what our individual response to the information is. If sufficient authority is given to the Bible by some to accept its information regarding the very existence of an invisible, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, Creator of the universe, it is an incoherently inconsistent application of THAT SAME authority which would cause such to not accept some information ABOUT this same Being from the same Bible.
cb25 provided a crystal clear statement on this thread cutting to the heart of the matter in candidly stating his view that “The Bible is not actually the authority you make it out to be in either identifying God or all the other things you seem so hung up on.” For people (such as him) who do not believe the Bible to be necessarily authoritative in either identifying God or providing reliably accurate information about Him, the question of the blog does not apply.
"God said it; I believe it; that settles it."
What (EXACTLY) are you implying that the logical position actually is, “God inspired men to write it, I don’t believe it; yet I believe that He is omniscient”?
If so, you are making my case.