Thoughts on Reconciliation: On God and Goodness
April 2nd, 2007 | by Scott |To say that God’s goodness may be different in kind from man’s goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?”
John Stuart Mill
But as we have already unearthed in the previous entries comments, the term “good” can be somewhat ambiguous.
However, I stake my entire life and my belief system on that one simple proposition: that God is good. That despite whatever evils, suffering and ills this world might throw our way, He is a good God. Great and greatly to be praised.
But the belief that God is good, however we in our finite minds might translate goodness, begs a whole litany of uncomfortable questions. Questions of theodicy, free-will and God’s Sovereignty abound. And just waving our hand and dismissing them or trotting out pat answers is theologically irresponsible.
When I first was confronted with the Epicurean Trilemma back in college I was nonplussed. I was ill-prepared for such an assault on my belief system. Over the years I dismissed it with the apologetic de rigueur. “God doesn’t give us more than we can handle.” “He doesn’t cause suffering, He just permits it.” And any other line of reasoning akin to disproving evolution by using peanut butter. Any answer was acceptable, no matter how flawed the reasoning, as long as it validated my preferred explanation.
But that trilemma always nagged at the back of my mind. The trilemma is essentially this:
If God could stop evil but will not, He is malevolent.
If God would stop evil but can not, He is impotent.
If God could not and would not, why call Him God?
In the 19 years since I first encountered that line of reasoning I have always countered it with the unshaken belief that God is good. If He is not good then…
It became easy for me to blindly embrace the Augustinian notions of reconciling evil and the existence of God. However, the more I study Augustine, the more I view him as the worst thing to ever happen to the western church (more on that later). Ultimately, Augustine’s theodicy is intellectually weak.
At the heart of this is still that contention that, based upon the sayings of Christ, that God is not only good, but intelligible. He does not operate in a way that is contradictory to His character and nature. Therefore, His ends, means and methods are ultimately good and He has placed within His creation the capacity to achieve, recognize and comprehend goodness.
With that understanding, though admittedly nowhere near fully-fleshed out, I began to look at the trilemma a little differently:
If God could save everybody but will not…
If God would save everybody but could not…
If God would not and could not…
Typically our views have fallen into one of those first two. The first argues for God’s Sovereignty and is the linchpin of Calvinism. The second argues for man’s free will.
It’s always been so easy for me to reject Calvinism. If honest, I know that part of that reason is because I wasn’t raised that way. But no matter how I look at option one all I see is a somewhat arbitrary God, choosing who He will cavalierly. There is no goodness or love there.
I have always argued from the free will side of things. But I must consider the possibility that I have made man’s free will the prime mover and elevated it to an idol status in my life. As if my free choice can dictate the power and sovereignty of God.
Is there another way to read this while staying true to the claims of Scripture? Is there a more fleshed-out biblical method of looking at issues of salvation that refuses to kowtow to all things Augustine? Is there a conservative interpretation that seeks a clearer path than the cruelty of Calvinism and humanism of free will?
I believe there might be.
Again, let me emphasize that I do not have this anywhere close to fleshed out in my mind. I know God, but not fully. I see something in the life, person and example of Christ that gives me far greater hope than I traditionally have.
I know that we will be wrestling with tough questions that kick against strongly held beliefs. I ask mercy and grace throughout this discussion. And, understand, I have not staked out a clear position, yet. That’s largely cause I don’t yet know where I will land.
If our foundations are unshakable, and I believe they are, then they can surely bear someone trying to shake them. Exposition coming up.
52 Responses to “Thoughts on Reconciliation: On God and Goodness”
By Jeff_R on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Scott -
I fully agree with the way you’ve framed the question. Just another plug here for Marilyn McCord Adams’ book, Christ and Horrors (as well as her previous book, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God).
She frames the issue of horrors and sin as two challenges for Christian soteriology and takes the position that most theology and theologians have focused on developing doctrinest to deal with sin, but not with evil and suffering. What she has done, between these two works, is attempt to reframe doctrine based on a more thorough understanding of evil and suffering, rather than purely based on sin.
I find her model not only compelling but incredibly liberating both in regard to my concerns over evil and suffering (and the shockingly poor treatment this is given in Christian theology and doctrine - the downright naivete of practically all the positions) and my concerns over the ideas of weak volitionalism and moral luck vis a vis soteriology.
A teaser from the book cover:
Who would the Saviour have to be, what would the Saviour have to do to rescue human beings from the meaning-destroying experiences of their lives? This book offers a systematic Christology that is at once biblical and philosophical. Starting with human radical vulnerability to horrors such as permanent pain, sadistic abuse or genocide, it develops what must be true about Christ if He is the horror-defeater who ultimately resolves all the problems affecting the human condition and Divine-human relations. Distinctive elements of Marilyn McCord Adams’ study are her defence of the two-natures theory, of Christ as Inner Teacher and a functional partner in human flourishing, and her arguments in favour of literal bodily resurrection (Christ’s and ours) and of a strong doctrine of corporeal Eucharistic presence. The book concludes that Christ is the One in Whom, not only Christian doctrine, but cosmos, church, and the human psyche hold together.
By Jeff_R on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
See also, Marilyn McCord Adams
By Scott on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
I’m putting that book on my list now.
By jasonk on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Augustine intellectually weak? That’s easy for you to say, since he isn’t going to pop up on your blog and challenge you on it :>)
Honestly, I don’t know if I have ever heard anyone ever say that before. I am anxiously awaiting for you to defend that statement.
By len on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Some of my favorite preachers are Calvinist. I love John Piper and his passion for God, which is contagious. RC Sproul always finds a way to challenge me to be more like Christ. (I can do without John MacArthur, however) I cannot buy into Calvinism. In part, because I was raised Free Will Baptist. But the main reason is not unlike what you are experiencing Scott. I cannot accept that God, who is my Father and who loves me like a Father, could have chosen to save all of us, but decided not to. If I could save all 3 of my children, how many do you think I would choose?
By Scott on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
I think his theodicy is intellectually weak. There was great thought process put behind a lot of his other work. I just have major fundamental issues with a lot of his conclusions.
By Scott on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Len, I agree. And I couldn’t believe in a loving God who would love and choose some of my children and not all of them.
The idea that God might just exclude one, two or all three of them? No thanks. I can’t worship a God like that.
By Jeff_R on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Yeah - I was just going to point out that Scott didn’t say Augustine was intellectually weak, but that Augustine’s theodicy was intellectually weak.
In light of the ongoing dialogue here about what we can and can’t know and when to let Scripture trump reason, remember it was Augustine who took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and reason.
By Jeff_R on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
I would also take just a bit of umbrage to the characterization of Augustine’s theodicy being intellectually weak.
I think Augustine (and Calvin after him) simply came to the conclusions they were driven to by certain a priori assumptions about the nature and character of God. In that light, see also, Aquinas, they borrowed a lot of their thought from Greek philosophy. Their ideas of omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence are “abiblical” in the sense that they are reading their concepts about these ideas into the texts - not deriving them from the texts.
In other words, the God they take from the Bible is the God they brought to it.
Same for us. But we are now dissociating ourselves from classical Greek philosophy (as a culture) in many ways and are syncretizing Eastern and non-Latin ideas into our epistemologies. Thus, we are encountering difficulties with conclusions that were reached based on Platonic assumptions.
For example, the both the recent move toward and the reaction against the opennness of God, for example, is not really rooted in Scripture, but is rooted in our Classicist ideas of the perfection of God and the definition of omniscience.
By T.H. on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
I’ve enjoyed sitting in the bushes and reading your recent posts (and subsequent comments) on the Nature of God. This is something that greatly intrigues me.
One aspect of all of this that continues to perplex me is the already noted difficulty in reconciling the God of Hebrew Scripture and the revelation of God in the person of Jesus. For example, the proposition about a God who would not choose one child over another causes me to pause at the example of a God who choose one man in Abraham, and one nation in Israel over all other nations (and even particular “sons” within given families to be the progeny of that blessing).
I know that Israel was to be a blessing to ALL nations, but what is one to make of the destruction of the surrounding nations, and then the “meantime” of Israel’s blessing to the nations in the form of Jesus? It seems that innocent persons suffered via God’s choice of Israel.
Thanks again for taking on this most difficult “trilemma!”
By Scott on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
With Just War Theory, the precursor to Calvinism, and an unscriptural interpretation of hell, I have a great desire to see Augustine knocked down a notch or two.
As for his theodicy, as Jeff mentioned in a more general sense, the problem of suffering is poorly addressed in Augustine’s thought. And I believe that his rationale that suffering is payment for sin sets us on a dangerous track up to and including Falwell and Robertson’s pronouncements post-9/11. The conflating of natural evil and ethic consequences doesn’t completely wash with me.
And we are right back to square one that if all suffering is a result of our consequences that some uncomfortable questions emerge.
Regardless, the Augustinian theodicy is so entrenched within us that we cannot approach evil without dealing with him.
By Scott on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
T.H., I want us to look at the Hebrew Scripture problem as we progress. It is problematic. That is why a more progressive redemptive hermeneutic is in order.
By len on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Can’t stand Pat Robertson speaking for God or for me. But just to throw a monkey in the wrench, there are many Biblical examples which at the very least hint of the connection you mentioned. What do we do with these instances?
Scott, I was thinking. If you don’t quit posting all of this tripe and start getting into some deep subject matter here I am going to abandon this sight. (All obviously tongue in cheek for those who may not get it)
By KS on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
I seem to be in over my head here, but…
What if somehow the God of the OT and Jesus (God of NT) can be different. Could the Three Gods in One (Holy Spirit being the third) reconcile the different attributes being shown in the bible? And if so, which do we follow?
By len on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Another thought: you mention the word “good” and the various notions on goodness. Where does justice enter into the equation? Conservative Christians are all but ignoring the issues of justice/injustice in this world. Yet the one sin which is mentioned more in the Bible than any other is injustice. Idolatry is second, for whatever it is worth. As we try to understand all of these questions there will be much overlapping. We cannot speak of God’s goodness without the idea of justice (among other attributes) coming into play.
By Jeff_R on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
KS -
I think the problem would be whether there are different definitions of good or just. That is, if God was being good in the OT when he wiped our innocent children or slaughtered tribes of people, why is that not good for Jesus? Did God evolve from one level of goodness to another? Etc. I believe there is a need to reconcile, under one tent, the various activities and manifestations of all the members of the trinity - since they are all “God” and therefore consistent in terms of nature and character.
By Scott on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
I think God’s justice is defined within His love. We try to distinguish those two but I will argue later that that is a mistake.
By krister on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
The possibility of the God of the Hebrew scriptures being different than the Christ of the NT brings up the whole Marcionist controversy on the 2nd century (I think Wikipedia will have a cursory overview of this). It also calls into question the assumed continuity within the pages of scripture. If God and Jesus as the Christ (and the HS) are not “one,” does that make Christians polytheists? I wonder if much of the writing in the Hebrew scriptures is not a case of revisionist historical writing whereby human projections are placed onto God to support a course of action that a “good” God would logically never support. Something’s gotta give in this conversation, and for me the nature of scriptural inspiration is where I have to go to make sense of the schizophrenic picture of God we get in between the pages of our holy text.
James Cone has some interesting stuff on the nature of God’s justice as the an expression of God’s love. Of course, he seems to stray a bit from a pacifist approach, as do most adherents of liberation theology, but they are remarkably biblical in their theology compared to the more metaphysical musings of open theists and process oriented thinkers.
By Jeff_R on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
“I wonder if much of the writing in the Hebrew scriptures is not a case of revisionist historical writing whereby human projections are placed onto God to support a course of action that a “good” God would logically never support.”
I agree. I would also recommend Webb’s concept of progressive revelation wherein God leads a society as far as they can go until they evolve further. Thus, He didn’t take on slavery in the ancient civilizations, but led the church to ultimately see it as sin when society had evolved to the point of being able to “handle” this degree of truth. God works with what he has pragmatically and within the confines of human free will.
By Jonathan on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
If God as revealed in the OT was a faulty, inaccurate, and deceptive account and, therefore, in conflict with the true description we get in the person of Jesus and the teachings of his followers that we read about in the NT, then why didn’t Jesus and his followers correct this confusing and contradictory situation by addressing the inferiority of the OT directly? To the contrary, I see nothing but respect for the veracity of the OT account from Jesus and his followers…all the while (of course) distinguishing between life lived under law vs life lived under grace, the role of the law, the “fullness of time”, etc.
Speaking of “revisionist…writing whereby human projections are placed onto God…”, it seems to me that WE are tempted to form God and scripture in our image. Yoism and other examples of “open source religion” are available. That is not an exercise that interests me.
By krister on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
The manner in which Jewish people relate to the text is not like those of us who see things through the lens of post-Enlightenment thought. We (as modern Christians) are obsessed with factual truth whereas Jews seemed (and continue) to allow for a flexible reading of scripture that doesn’t require that they accept everything literally. Even the concept of law was not abrogated by Christ, especially considering the distinction between the halachic (the 613 specific laws) and hagaddic (the storied aspect of Jewish history) functions of “law.” Law is a much richer concept that has been emptied of its power, partly due to Luther’s law vs. grace distinction. The Jews I know see the law as full of grace.
From my reading of the NT (and I will admit that it has been a little while since I’ve really read much from scripture), there is very little that shows a respect for the historicity of Hebrew scriptures. The majority of quotes or references seem to be to the book of Psalms, appropriations of language and prophecy from Isaiah, the concept of being in the belly of the whale for Jesus, etc. but very little that says: “Do you remember ___________? That literally happened.”
All theology is an exercise of trying to understand and form God and is therefore susceptible to idolatry, but if we look at scripture as an exercise in theology, of wrestling with real questions and trying to answer the incongruities within their own faith (see Job as an example of the Jewish people’s need for the answer to why Proverbial wisdom didn’t seem to work out as cleanly as they had hoped) we will recognize that we are merely part of a larger conversation that has been and always will be full of discontinuity in search of continuity. This was the genius of Christ. So I don’t see this as an exercise in open source thought but as an honest, critical take on the more confusing portraits of God as presented by a number of authors, all of whom were products of different environments, experiences, etc. Any attempt to describe God will necessarily be symbolic or metaphoric outside of a reference to Jesus.
By Jeff_R on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Jonathon -
Not to be provocative, but don’t you find it at least a bit thought-provoking that even if the initial writers were inspired, we don’t have any of their original writings? And that “mere humans” - frail, sinful and often mistaken - were responsible for the transcription, the preservation, the assembly of the letters and books, the rejection of some and acceptance of others (all by popular vote)? I don’t think anyone is suggesting open source religion here, but isn’t it possible to cling to God’s written revelation while also recognizing that in his infinite wisdom he chose flawed humanity to relay his message - and that with that flawed harbinger comes the possibility that we have to think critically even about the texts we receive?
By Jeff_R on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
I like Krister’s response better!
Much of what we claim to be the “hard facts” of Scripture were oral traditions, metaphors and pregnant cultural references invoked, quoted or included for illustrative purposes in the narrative - not necessarily as precise accounts of nature, history or science.
In our post-Enlightenment culture, we have a hard time differentiating facts from truth.
By Scott on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
I think, ultimately, where each of us come down on Scripture is almost beside the point. What is really at issue and stake here is getting at the character and nature of God.
And if there is this biblical assertion that He is the same yesterday, today and forever then our wrestling with the Hebrew Scriptures and their seeming contradictions takes an added weight. At the end of the day I am able to say there is much that I don’t understand and one day God will give me fuller understanding.
However, I do believe that we must wrestle, struggle and kick against our presuppositions, traditions and interpretations.
It makes me uncomfortable and stretches me in untold ways. I still cling to a high view of Scripture but there are questions. Oh, are there questions.
I still believe that we can know God through the person of Jesus. He is the standard and measure. At least He said He was.
Thanks to all of you for raising the IQ of this blog.
By len on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Jeff said: “In our post-Enlightenment culture, we have a hard time differentiating facts from truth.” Great quote Jeff. Is that original with you or should I give credit to another source when I use it?
By Jeff_R on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Someone (
) once said, “What is originality? Undetected plagiarism”!
I don’t think I picked it up - so it must be original!
Of course, the idea came from the intellectual linchpin of the late-20th Century - Raiders of the Lost Ark - when Indy tells his archeology students that he is in search of facts - those seeking truth should go down the hall to the philosophy department!
By len on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Then in the spirit of all good preachers, I will quote you the first time, make reference to some vague source the second time, and claim it as my own the third.
By Jonathan on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
I was traveling today and wrote the following (long-winded!) response to Krister and Jeff_R while I was on the road. I’ll respond to Scott in a separate comment. I also want to make clear (as if it isn’t already) that I’m not a professional. I’ve been an informal student of the bible as God’s revealed for most of my 34 years, but I certainly lack much of the formal training that many of you likely have. So be it. Forgive me if I rehash well-worn and settled ground.
At the risk of setting up another false dichotomy and generalizing beyond what is helpful, it seems to me that we have a fundamental conflict between two points of view regarding the reliability of scripture:
1)
The biblical texts that we possess are generally unreliable.
We can imagine many reasons why the texts we possess today are either not accurate representations of the original texts or are accurate representations of original texts that themselves were fundamentally flawed representations of reality at the time of their writing. There were obviously many subjective decisions that were made in the historical process by which we arrived at a set of texts that are generally reputed to be authentic and authoritative. We know that we don’t have the original manuscripts (often what we have dates many hundreds of years later), so there are many opportunities for deviations from the original to occur either by unintentional errors in copying or by intentional introduction by the copiers of manuscripts of what they considered to be “improvements” upon the text more consistent with seemed true to them. Finally, the original authors were themselves human. Perhaps the writings were inspired by God in some sense, but it doesn’t seem to have been a case of direct dictation. Therefore, the original authors themselves might have been biased or mistaken as a result of their own incomplete understanding and interjected their own ignorance into scripture.
Even at the level of general themes and the overall picture that emerges from the Old and New Testaments, we can not have confidence that the scripture we currently have are generally accurate. Therefore, anything I read in scripture is subject to dismissal or rejection if it doesn’t fit neatly in my understanding (which, admittedly, is itself subject to many potential imperfections and subjectivities) and theology.
***In my opinion this option reduces, in practice, to a situation where (whether I like it or not) there is no objective standard by which we can learn about God and his interaction with humanity…and in the end the standard becomes whatever seems right to me.
2)
Scripture is generally reliable. This does not mean it is always (or even usually) trivial to understand and interpret definitively. It was written by humans (inspired by God in some sense) thousands of years ago in languages that are foreign to me, in cultures that are foreign to me, in specific historical contexts about which I know little or no details independent of the texts themselves. In the NT, for example, much of the teaching relates to remedying specific problems, the details of which are unknown to me. It can be very difficult if not impossible to separate the eternal, culture-transcending truths from the practical solutions tied intimately to the original culture and/or situation. In a different culture or practical situation, what is applicable and relevant and what isn’t? The language is often figurative or allegorical or part of a literary style that is foreign to me. These are problems of interpretation…of determining what the underlying principles are that I should struggle to apply in my own life. However, I can generally have confidence in the reliability of the texts themselves regardless of the difficulty of their interpretation. The text itself, not whatever seems right to me, is still the standard.
Obviously, I hold the viewpoint of #2.
Though I’m certainly concerned about the reliability of the manuscripts we have, my impression is that our experience so far is that newly discovered manuscripts dated before those that were known before tend to confirm the reliability of what we had before especially on the macro level and that differences are generally on the micro level details that most would deem not to be particularly significant in answering the big questions about who God is, how he engages us, and how we can be in relationship with him.
That is not to say that I have no concerns. Regardless of whether or not I personally deem the evolution to be significant, it is true that our best estimate of the details of what is scripture evolves as additional manuscripts are discovered. This exposes some level of weakness in my claim that scripture is generally reliable. Also, I don’t think you have to try all that hard to find examples of apparent contradictions in the details when comparing the parallel accounts given in the gospels, for example. I also get the impression that Paul isn’t above ripping a text out of its context and applying it to support his point regardless of whether that is what the text was originally intended to say. Another interesting anomaly is Ephesians 4:7 where Paul quotes Psalm 68:18 but Paul’s quote says “gave gifts to men” but Psalm 68 says “received gifts from men”. According to Bruce (”Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesisans, p 342), the version Paul quotes matches a 1st century AD “targumic rendering” (Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible, typically reflecting rabbinic interpretation)…i.e. Paul appears to be quoting a later (1st century?) interpretation rather than the original text (”so far as extant copies go”).
Based on the above, I would be very hesitant to be too dogmatic about any point that hinged on a single verse with little other evidence or consistency with the whole of scripture. However, I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here. I think that you’re proposing that OT scripture in the bulk (the historical accounts, the writings of the prophets, etc., much of which is very disturbing and uncomfortable to me) is unreliable.
I maintain that if the OT scriptures were wildly of the mark as you’re proposing, it would be natural for Jesus and the NT writers to make this fact clear in order to avoid the confusion that otherwise would be inevitable.
Not only is there no hint from the NT writers and the words of Jesus that they record that the OT is unreliable, there is much positive evidence that they considered it reliable. Here are a few examples that occur to me at the moment…there are many others.
- Multiple citations of fulfilled prophecy related to Jesus in the gospels, I won’t bother to cite them all, if you haven’t spent much time in the NT lately, I suggest that’s a good place to start
- Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 (as recorded by Luke) quotes a passage from Joel (identifying its fulfillment in the events on Pentecost) and quotes David twice in passages he applies to Jesus
- (As recorded by Luke) Peter quotes David in Acts 4:8 and Peter and John quote David in Acts 4:25-26 describe David’s words as being God speaking “…by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David”
- In Acts 7 Stephen (as recorded by Luke) recounts many of the stories of the OT as facts from Abraham to Jacob to Joseph to Moses to Joshua to David to Solomon, quoting specifically from Amos and Isaiah…including God’s promise to “punish” the nation that enslaves Abraham’s descendants and a description of the conquest of the “promised land” (lots there for me to be uncomfortable about) as God driving the nations out from the land before them
- The Hebrew writer in chapter 11 cites the stories of Cain/Abel, Enoch (and his miraculous exit), Noah, Abraham/Sarah, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, the miracles in Egypt including the death of the firstborn, the parting of the Red Sea, the destruction of Jericho, Rahab, “Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets”; and every chapter of Hebrews quotes directly from the OT including (Psalms, Samuel, Chronicles, and Deuteronomy in ch 1), (Psalms and Isaiah in ch 2), (Psalms in ch 3), (Psalms and Genesis in ch 4), (Psalms in ch 5), (Genesis in ch 6), (Psalms in ch 7), (Exodus and Jeremiah in ch 8), (Exodus in ch 9), (Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Habbakuk in ch 10), (Genesis in ch 11), (Proverbs, Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Haggai in ch 12), (Deuteronomy and Psalms in ch 13)
- In Galatians 3 alone, Paul quotes from Genesis, Deuteronomy, Habbakuk, and Leviticus. In verse 16 of that chapter, he bases his argument on the fact that a word (”seed”) in Genesis is singular rather than plural (even though Paul didn’t have the original manuscripts either)
- What was Jesus view of the OT? Do a search of the gospels for “it is written” and you’ll see how often Jesus quoted the OT scriptures, often citing prophesies about himself (don’t limit the search to the gospels and you’ll see Paul use the phrase many times to introduce OT quotes in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). In Matthew 12 Jesus quotes from Hosea and Isaiah and quotes a story about David from 1 Sam 21 as fact. Look at Luke 24:44-49…Jesus says that “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” before he “opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures”. Look at Mark 12:18-27 where Jesus criticizes the Sadducees for their lack of knowledge regarding OT scripture and makes a point about the resurrection by quoting a passage from Exodus 3.
- In 2 Tim. 3, in reference to OT scripture Paul claims that all scripture is God-breathed
This is of course not an exhaustive list as there are many other examples of OT quotes in the NT. I think I’ve cited at least a few examples that fit Krister’s template of “Do you remember ___________? That literally happened.”. To me this (lack of criticism of the reliability of the OT coupled with quote after quote and story after story cited) seems like overwhelming evidence that Jesus and his disciples (to the extent that their view of the OT is accurately represented by the NT scriptures that we have) had a very high opinion of the reliability of OT scripture that sounds nothing like some of the views I’m hearing proposed here.
If you’re going to argue that scripture is so unreliable that we can’t trust even these broad generalizations/conclusions, then I fear we have no common standard and common ground for discussion. This may the case. The fact that I strive to spend time in the NT on a daily basis while for Krister “…it has been a little while since [he] really read much from scripture” is pretty strong evidence that, while we likely have much in common, we fundamentally have a very different approach to scripture and how to grow in our knowledge of God…and I fear that these fundamental differences will come up again and again (as it has already) and stymie our progress in our future discussion.
To me, if you’re advocating a point of view that is (apparently to me) foreign to scripture, it is incumbent upon you to explain in detail why you believe the view is not actually foreign to scripture or why you think it is foreign to scripture if in fact the view is true…and have some plausible explanation for why contradictory evidence that I present from scripture is not in fact contradictory…otherwise, it is highly unlikely that I will find your arguments convincing.
By Jonathan on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
I don’t get this:
By Scott on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan, allow me to reword my original comment as I wasn’t referring to you. I too believe that scripture is reliable. I’ve never said anything about discarding passages of Scripture.
But, to me, the central character is God. It starts there. And I best see the character of God in Christ. I’m searching to find some common ground but I’m also wading into some uncertain territory.
I have to run but will weigh in more lengthily later.
By krister on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
I appreciate all the effort you put into explaining your perspective. It is clear that we disagree about the nature of scriptural authority. While I don’t have the energy to address everything you have said point by point, I will say that we may be talking past one another. I must also say that I have no desire to convince you of my arguments. I could care less if others adhere to my ongoing personal theological reformation.
Having said that, I must make a distinction beween reliability and factuality. The OT is reliable to me in that it provides a limited portrayal of God’s involvement in the world and a people’s faithful/unfaithful wrestling with this God. It is possible (and likely probable) that much in the OT is historically accurate and can therefore be considered factual, but my problem has nothing to do with historicity, it has to do with divine characterizational attribution. My problem is not with the history but with the interpretation of history as located in the text.
If the problem has to do with norms, the person of Jesus as the Christ is the norm by which I judge all other norms, including scripture. If I must make a decision between the God who arbitrarially kills one who tries to steady the ark of the covenant and the God made known in Christ, I will side with the latter and consider the former a mischaracterization of God.
But ultimately, I do not believe this conversation (a debate over orthodoxy) has anything to do with a gospel that is primarily concerned with orthopraxy, with doing a truth that has been reduced to the acceptance of intellectual propositions. To get back to the original post, I think we could use the same equation but replace “God” with “humans.”
If humans could stop evil but will not, they are malevolent.
If humans would stop evil but can not, humans are impotent.
If humans could not and would not, why call them human?
By Jeff_R on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
I agree with Krister’s post. I’m not interested in convincing anyone, though I’m willing to share my perspective for whatever it’s worth.
I also do not agree with the characterization of Scripture being unreliable. I believe it to be very reliable. Jonathan simply seems to equate reliability with total factual inerrancy. I see no need for such a radical conclusion. I believe God’s revelation is woven into and through the fabric of human frailty - the truth is there, along with a lot of humanity. This doesn’t detract from the power and beauty of the truth at all - it just requires us to be discerning and careful.
I would say to Jonathon, if you hold a view that is prima facie contrary to common conceptions of the nature and character of God - and you use Scripture to defend such a view, you’d better be prepared to explain in a rational way how that interpretation of Scripture is coherent.
The only limitation to making progress is a closed mind - not differing perspectives.
By scott on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
I appreciate the tone and tenor of this discussion. I pray that it continues. I also greatly appreciate the fact that well-versed and highly intelligent people feel they have a forum to discuss these highly sensitive issues.
My original intent was not to impugn or question the veracity and reliability of the Hebrew Scriptures. I believe them to be extremely crucial. I don’t think you can fully understand the NT without a knowledge of the Hebrew underpinnings of the world of Christ.
However, I believe that this discussion must happen in some form. As I argued in the initial entry we have adopted at least a form of an Augustinian theodicy that fails to account for some serious problems. As we move forward to discuss the concept of soteriology and the problem of hell the issues that the Hebrew Scriptures bring up will continue to niggle at us.
But understand, I hold the Hebrew Scriptures, in high esteem. I recently spent a year laboriously preaching and teaching through the entire OT. But I still have issues with it. As I said, at the end of the day I can raise my hands and offer to God what I don’t understand but I must also wrestle with some glaring issues. Reconciling the existence of a loving, merciful and benevolent God to a world of suffering and evil is at the top of that list.
I reject much of the standard theodicies that are out there. So that leaves me asking some difficult questions. I’m not where Jeff and Krister are in this discussion but I can see that both sides are dealing with the same contradictions.
At the end of the day when it comes to understanding and knowing God I still feel that the only way that we can do that and the only way that it will ultimately make sense is through the person of Christ. He is the standard above all else.
By Jeff_R on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
BTW, the tone of my last sentence came across as too harsh! I only mean to say that no one, as far as I can tell, is on epistemologically superior ground here. If we want to be understood, we all are under an equal burden of proof. Claims to Scripture as an excuse for irrationality are no more acceptable that claims to science for irrationality.
In any case, no offense was intended!
By Jeff_R on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Errr…actually, my penultimate sentence was what I was referring to. My last sentence was rather nice, I thought
By Jonathan on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
I think I generally understand where folks are coming from and hopefully you understand me better too. As I tried to indicate with my “That is not to say that I have no concerns” paragraph, I’m not sold on “total factual inerrancy”. I am sold on “darn near close to total factual inerrancy”, which is probably why a statement like:
as made by Krister and seconded by Jeff_R touched such a nerve with me. Since it is clear to me that this is a very different view of OT scripture than was held by Jesus and his followers, I have a hard time understanding how holding this view can be consistent “Christ as the norm”. We don’t agree, but I think we generally understand each other.
Also, in response to this statement by Jeff_R
I think we’re still at an impass. You’re concerned that I might hold a contradictory set of views and use scripture to defend them. I maintain that there is a non-zero probability that scripture might require me to hold seemingly contradictory views that I cannot make coherent because my understanding is limited. Because God is God and I am not, I suspect that there is much about him that I cannot understand…and frankly I’m still a little surprised that such a view is so controversial.
Krister, I think you’ve made an excellent point about orthodoxy vs orthopraxy
Jeff_R, I think you’re right on this point:
As long I only rarely resort to “I’ll just have to accept that I can’t reconcile this apparent contradiction” and you only rarely resort to “that scripture doesn’t apply because it’s probably just a fabrication”, I think we can make progress together.
Scott, I’m requesting that you consider adding “Comment Preview” functionality
By Jonathan on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Jeff_R,
Thanks for the postscripts…I did feel that the poke was a little to sharp, but I assumed it was not intentional. I’m glad to see that my assumption was correct and ask that you assume the same when the roles are reversed.
By Jeff_R on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan -
assume the same when the roles are reversed
Absolutely! Thanks for your graciousness regarding my ill-worded post!
Krister wrote,
I wonder if much of the writing in the Hebrew scriptures is not a case of revisionist historical writing whereby human projections are placed onto God to support a course of action that a “good” God would logically never support.
And I stated I agree. But I think I might replace, now in hindsight, the word “much” in that first sentence with “some“. And I would primarily limit that “some” to the texts that are often used by literalists to argue scientific points from OT Scripture (e.g., 6, 24-hour days of creation as the only possible interpretation in Genesis 1-3) and texts where God is seen commanding or endorsing the wholesale slaughter of innocents and non-combatants.
The differentiation is somewhat irrelevant since I believe it is possible for human invention to have crept into the texts at all is enough for some to label me a heretic!
Though I find it odd that most folks who would denounce me for such a position don’t observe feast days, ban women from wearing jewelry or require kissing in their religious assemblies, or tolerate slavery - though these are all the clear, unambiguous commandments of Scripture!
By krister on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
Wow, I never knew such an off the cuff remark would spark so much dialogue.
I would likely change “much” to “some” as well. I don’t spend much time laboring over my language (perhaps I should be more careful in the future). Also, as a point of clarification, my idea of Christ as the norm refers primarily to the manner in which Christ lived his life, not necessarily whether he completely accepted scripture as it was generally interpreted (which he did not obviously, or at least his interpretation was more nuanced than most). Again, the norm for me is Christ’s practice, which often flew in the face of some scriptural/cultural norms. Hopefully my poor choice of words won’t lead us too far out of the way in the future. peace.
By Jonathan on Apr 3, 2007 | Reply
I’m more comfortable with “some” than “most” too, especially in regards to Genesis 1-3 (and frankly, I’d prefer not to believe that God commanded the slaughter of innocents and non-combatants).
Krister, I have a few more comments and will preface them with an apology for not dropping this thread (but I did try to drop it early on and we are kind of killing time until Freeman throws us some more meat).
About “Christ as the norm”. I don’t understand the distinction between “the manner in which Christ lived his life”/”Christ’s practice” and what I’m referring to…I’m claiming that the evidence suggests the part of Christ’s practice, part of how he lived his life, was showing great respect for and reliance on OT scriptures as authoritative and, therefore, reliable. He was a maverick, but he didn’t buck against the scriptures themselves…but against the way the religious leaders twisted the scriptures such that the underlying principles were subverted…and he also took them beyond the surface of “doing” to the underlying and more fundamental problem within the heart that may or may not ever manifest itself in doing. I don’t think he accepted scripture as it was generally interpreted, but he did accept scripture. Somehow I feel something is missing and incomplete in the “norm” if that aspect of Christ is avoided, for example, because it is inconvenient.
By Jeff_R on Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
“he didn’t buck against the scriptures themselves”
But isn’t this exactly the point? Jesus was completely regarded by all the conservative, well-informed, properly-trained religious experts as having gotten the entirely of the OT completely wrong, whereas they were right!
The point being that, yes, Jesus clearly relied on at least selected source material from the OT to make points and claim authority, but he did so in a way that seemed to be completely distorting, disregarding and misinterpreting the OT in the eyes of the educated, conservative religious folks of the day.
So when I come to the OT texts and argue that slavery is sinful (because that seems consistent with God as revealed in Christ), I will have to take issue with a lot of OT scripture that glosses over slavery as a problem. Same thing for gender issues. Same thing for nationalism and violence. Same thing for creation accounts. In other words, Jesus completely reinterpreted (from the perspective of the accepted traditions of the people of his time) portions of the OT - in a way that seemed to dismiss the OT as authoritative!
That’s what I think I am talking about.
You are taking the “conservative” traditionalist positions WRT to the OT texts (which very well may be right) and I’m taking a Christological reinterpretation of the OT texts. Now, I’m certainly not Jesus. But, then, neither are you. You stake your approach to the OT based on the example of Jesus. But I’m saying that’s what I’m doing, too!
By Jeff_R on Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
I wrote,
“I will have to take issue with a lot of OT scripture “
But what I should have written is,
“I will have to take issue with a lot of traditional OT scripture interpretation“
By Jeff_R on Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
Having said that, there are some passages that I just can’t accept without a lot of interpretation. Primarily the passages related to nationalism, God-commanded or God-endorsed genocide, etc. seem to me to have to be interpreted as OT historians looking at political decisions and inferring God’s endorsement and blessing into human campaigns. I also think there may be legendary accounts or narrative parables included in Scripture that we commonly interpret literally that were intended to conview truth and meaning through narrative rather than through literal historic fact. Some possible examples would be the account of Job and the Noahic flood.
By Scott on Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
The victors write the history books, eh?
I was thinking about that this past week as I was teaching and preaching on Revelation (praise God, the book a week series is almost done. I just have to go back and pick up the poetry books now).
I believe that Revelation is utterly impossible for us to fully understand. Which is ok, because it wasn’t written to us. But to get close to even grasping it’s meaning we have to have somewhat of a familiarity with Hebrew apocalyptic literature. The style of writing, the language, the setting, the audience AND the original interpretations are key in our sussing out any meaning and import for our lives.
I don’t believe that literal angels were dumping out bowls of sores on people worshiping a ten horned, seven-headed beast.
Now I understand the difference between apocalyptic literature and the narratives and other forms popularly employed in the OT but even in the Hebrew scriptures there is the use of metaphor, symbolism and imagery that might leave us somewhat nonplussed in trying to transfer to our life-setting. I believe the obliteration of opposing armies might just be language that might be interpreted differently with greater wisdom and discernment.
By Jeff_R on Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
While understanding the literary category of the texts is certainly critical, there may be more to it than that. It’s common in ancient literature to attribute everything beyond direct human activity to the activity of the gods - floods, harvests, disease, etc. But I don’t think God gave or is giving people cancer or leprosy or AIDS - I think those kinds of characterizations are humans - fearful, frail and finite (the 3 F’s to alongside the 4 F’s?) - ascribe to God(s) when we are looking for meaning.
The question is whether there is room for those kinds of cultural practice to get into Scripture along with the kinds of cultural syncretism in Scripture we mostly all agree on - like the Scriptural ban on wearing of jewelry and makeup; injunctions on modest dress; etc. that are commanded in Scripture but mostly (entirely?) disregarded by us as cultural artifacts.
By Scott on Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, I think that is what I was trying to say. The world in which it was written, the culture and mores of the people are critical in our understanding. So, how much of Hebrew Scripture was influenced by a monotheistic, nationalistic “my God can beat up your god” writing style?
On a side note, I’m reading a book right now entitled The Vatican’s Exorcists: Driving Out the Devil in the 21st Century. It’s about the tenfold of increase in exorcisms over the last decade. Make of that what you will
By Jonathan on Apr 4, 2007 | Reply
Jeff_R,
In response to comment 41. To me there is a difference between saying:
1) a scripture is fundamentally sound and true but the common interpretation is probably wrong and needs to be corrected
vs
2) the common interpretation is probably wrong and needs to be corrected because a scripture is wrong and not true
I feel like I’m hearing both option 1 and option 2 being cited in this discussion, almost interchangeably. Personally, I feel that there is an important difference between the two, and the second option is the one that makes me most uncomfortable.
Also, as an additional observation, I think this paragraph:
works well (except perhaps for the issue of creation) after replacing OT each place it appears with NT. This is not because the rest of the NT is in conflict with God as revealed in Christ, but because it is preoccupied with how the Christian reacts in the situation he/she is in (rather than explicitly establishing wrongness of slavery or nationalism or whatever).
I guess I’m just trying to speak up for the OT since it seems to be getting a bad rap.
By len on Apr 5, 2007 | Reply
I’ve enjoyed reading this discussion. Some good thoughts and I am glad that we are allowing some variety of opinions. That’s why this is such a good site.
Yesterday I was reading in 2 Peter. In chapter 2:4-11 Peter is speaking of God’s judgment on false teachers. He then speaks of the flood as if it were a real event, citing it as an example of God’s judgment. Next he mentions Sodom and Gomorrah using these words that God turned them “…into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;” (New King James)
I bring this up because we see here Peter’s interpretation of a couple of controversial OT events. This same Peter spent as much time with Jesus as anyone. He was a main teacher in the early church. And we have here an interpretation of events which goes against what we many times want to believe about God in the OT. He believed in a flood that was survived by only 8 people, and in God’s judgment on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. His belief seems to be that God was responsible for both of these events.
So what do we do when we have a part of the Bible that explains the OT, but the explanation may not necessarily be to our liking?
By Jonathan on Apr 5, 2007 | Reply
len,
that’s another good example of what I’m struggling with…the difficulty (lack of comfort with actions attributed to God) that we (me included) have with much of the OT doesn’t seem to be supported by Jesus and the other NT writers (who provide the basis for what we know about God through Jesus which seems to us to contradict God’s attributed actions in the OT).
Earlier, Jeff_R cited “wholesale slaughter of innocents and non-combatants” as being especially problematic, but I think many of us have much discomfort with God directing a military conquest of the promised land (regardless of whether only combatants were killed)…but the promised land and its delivery is so integral to the OT narrative!
And when I read the OT text, I don’t get the impression that the people prefer the wholesale slaughter of everyone and everything. I think think they generally prefer to keep the women and children and livestock as plunder. But God sometimes mandates total destruction and is angry when he isn’t obeyed. What motivation would the historian have for “adding” the total destruction as God’s order if total destruction isn’t preferable and in need of an excuse?
Since this stuff is so relevant to the non-violence discussion and the current one, maybe it warrants a discussion of its own at some later date.
By Scott on Apr 5, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, we will have to take a closer look at the OT in the coming months. I did talk about it in the non-violence thread:
http://scottfreeman.info/2006/10/12/thoughts-on-non-violence-part-iv-the-old-testament/
By matt tapie on Apr 6, 2007 | Reply
Have you considered Thomas Aquinas’s view of the “problem” of evil. It is a premodern and patristic view that avoids the modern assumptions we often bring to the “free will-determinism” debates. Another helpful book is Peter Kreeft’s Making Sense of Suffering (don’t fear the title, because Kreeft’s major premise is that this is ultimately a mystery and he works this term out in helpful ways).
God bless your search. God is good and his love endures forever.
By Scott on Apr 9, 2007 | Reply
Matt, thanks for the book rec.