Steven_J asserts...
There's no evidence that David saw death as anything other than dark and hopeless.
---
Steven, this would be true, of course, except that it isn't. There is evidence that David looks forward to eternal life beyond the grave. David says...:
No wonder my heart is glad, and I rejoice.
My body rests in safety.
For you will not leave my soul among the dead
or allow your holy one to rot in the grave.
You will show me the way of life,
granting me the joy of your presence
and the pleasures of living with you forever.
Psalm 16:9-11 (NLT)
You are free of course, Steven, to quibble over whether David's words here are figurative or literal, and carry on with your elaborate distractions from the truth.
But the meaning expressed in David's words here is clear: David looks forward to the pleasures of life forever with God, beyond the grave.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
foundation and cornerstone
Steven_J inquires
On the earlier-raised subject of literal vs. figurative language in scripture, does God in fact keep hail in storehouses (Job 38:22)? What is "the foundation of the Earth," and what is its cornerstone (Job 38:4-6)? Is this all figurative, or does it reflect the actual view of a flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology of many ancient middle eastern cultures? Or is the point that Job cannot even figure out when God is speaking literally or figuratively?
Steven, you ask...
does God in fact keep hail in storehouses (Job 38:22)?
God sure does seem to be asking a whole lot of "where were you when I did this" and "wasn't it me who did that" questions in Job 38. But these aren't questions an omniscient God doesn't already know the answers to. These questions appear to be asked for the benefit of Job.
It would appear that the main idea of Job 38 is that God is the creator of the universe.
What is "the foundation of the Earth,"
The author appears to be emphasizing who it is that laid down the foundation of the Earth. The foundation of the earth could presumably be the beginning of the universe and the physical laws that govern the universe. The author doesn't seem to be answering your question, but answering a fundamentally different question.
what is its cornerstone (Job 38:4-6)?
Again, the author of this passage appears to focus on who it is that laid the cornerstone. The author does not appear to be specifically identify here what that "cornerstone" is.
Is this all figurative, or does it reflect the actual view of a flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology
Those "ancient middle eastern cultures" you refer to may not have had the benefit of the scientific advances of our modern culture, and not have the benefit of our understanding of the physical universe.
But it's apparent that they did have at least some rudimentary understanding of building construction. They understood the need for a building to have a foundation which supports it, and the need for a cornerstone to mark the boundary and direction of a building while it is being constructed.
Or is the point that Job cannot even figure out when God is speaking literally or figuratively?
Steven, it's not clear what your point is.
It would appear that God is alluding to a particular truth, that the fundamental properties of the universe (space, time, matter, motion) and the fundamental parameters (physical laws) that govern the universe, were laid and set in place by God.
What Job actually understood about the physical universe (whether Job thought there was a physical foundation supporting the underside of the earth, even if a stack of turtles, or not)...
You are quite free to question what Job understood.
But this seems seems to be a distraction from the author's main idea. All of those questions God asks Job serve a purpose. But you choose to ignore the author's purpose. You disregard the answer to all of those questions. Instead, you quibble over "speaking literally or figuratively". The "strong implication" of your comment is that the meaning of Job 38 that the author intends for us to take away is a puzzled bewilderment, a confusion about the arrangement of matter in the physical universe described in the passage.
Mission accomplished, Steven, well done.
On the earlier-raised subject of literal vs. figurative language in scripture, does God in fact keep hail in storehouses (Job 38:22)? What is "the foundation of the Earth," and what is its cornerstone (Job 38:4-6)? Is this all figurative, or does it reflect the actual view of a flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology of many ancient middle eastern cultures? Or is the point that Job cannot even figure out when God is speaking literally or figuratively?
Steven, you ask...
does God in fact keep hail in storehouses (Job 38:22)?
God sure does seem to be asking a whole lot of "where were you when I did this" and "wasn't it me who did that" questions in Job 38. But these aren't questions an omniscient God doesn't already know the answers to. These questions appear to be asked for the benefit of Job.
It would appear that the main idea of Job 38 is that God is the creator of the universe.
What is "the foundation of the Earth,"
The author appears to be emphasizing who it is that laid down the foundation of the Earth. The foundation of the earth could presumably be the beginning of the universe and the physical laws that govern the universe. The author doesn't seem to be answering your question, but answering a fundamentally different question.
what is its cornerstone (Job 38:4-6)?
Again, the author of this passage appears to focus on who it is that laid the cornerstone. The author does not appear to be specifically identify here what that "cornerstone" is.
Is this all figurative, or does it reflect the actual view of a flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology
Those "ancient middle eastern cultures" you refer to may not have had the benefit of the scientific advances of our modern culture, and not have the benefit of our understanding of the physical universe.
But it's apparent that they did have at least some rudimentary understanding of building construction. They understood the need for a building to have a foundation which supports it, and the need for a cornerstone to mark the boundary and direction of a building while it is being constructed.
Or is the point that Job cannot even figure out when God is speaking literally or figuratively?
Steven, it's not clear what your point is.
It would appear that God is alluding to a particular truth, that the fundamental properties of the universe (space, time, matter, motion) and the fundamental parameters (physical laws) that govern the universe, were laid and set in place by God.
What Job actually understood about the physical universe (whether Job thought there was a physical foundation supporting the underside of the earth, even if a stack of turtles, or not)...
You are quite free to question what Job understood.
But this seems seems to be a distraction from the author's main idea. All of those questions God asks Job serve a purpose. But you choose to ignore the author's purpose. You disregard the answer to all of those questions. Instead, you quibble over "speaking literally or figuratively". The "strong implication" of your comment is that the meaning of Job 38 that the author intends for us to take away is a puzzled bewilderment, a confusion about the arrangement of matter in the physical universe described in the passage.
Mission accomplished, Steven, well done.
why should we believe
[C]an you give me any reason why we should believe the Bible is true in the first place?
Or, more simply...
Why should we believe the Bible is true?
And that question really boils down to
What is truth?
We might think that only a brilliant philosopher would dare wrestle with this puzzle of a question. But it really doesn't take a "rocket surgeon" to answer the question:
Truth is what corresponds with reality. So, what is real is true. What is unreal is untrue.
The Bible makes numerous truth claims, among them: God exists and God created the universe, God communicates with us (his creation) through our moral conscience and the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and so on.
These claims that the Bible makes either correspond with reality or they do not.
Christians believe the claims the Bible makes correspond with reality, so, they believe the Bible is true.
Their belief is supported by physical evidence: copies of copies of manuscripts that show the Bible has been preserved and transmitted accurately through history. The internal consistency and coherency of the Bible also attest to its claims, and its consistency with archaeological finds is also evidence.
Or, more simply...
Why should we believe the Bible is true?
And that question really boils down to
What is truth?
We might think that only a brilliant philosopher would dare wrestle with this puzzle of a question. But it really doesn't take a "rocket surgeon" to answer the question:
Truth is what corresponds with reality. So, what is real is true. What is unreal is untrue.
The Bible makes numerous truth claims, among them: God exists and God created the universe, God communicates with us (his creation) through our moral conscience and the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and so on.
These claims that the Bible makes either correspond with reality or they do not.
Christians believe the claims the Bible makes correspond with reality, so, they believe the Bible is true.
Their belief is supported by physical evidence: copies of copies of manuscripts that show the Bible has been preserved and transmitted accurately through history. The internal consistency and coherency of the Bible also attest to its claims, and its consistency with archaeological finds is also evidence.
blameless and upright
Guestus Flavious asks...
If Job wasn't good, why did God tell the accuser that Job is "blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
That's a good question. You highlight a paradox here, an apparent contradiction. According to the Bible:
1) Job is human, so he is imperfect and guilty of sin.
2) God declares Job is blameless and upright.
So what gives? Both of these statements can't be true. Or can they?
(Steven_J would lead us to (erroneously) believe that at least one of these statements is "figurative language", hyperbole. But as Steven_J is so frequent to do, he leads us down the wrong path, distracting us away from understanding.)
When we admit the possibility that both of these statements are true, what is revealed is a deeper truth.
We take notice that God says that Job is "a man who fears God and shuns evil." What we find the author is saying is that Job has a "right relationship" with God. Job reveres God and Job shuns evil, Job turns his back to sin, and turns towards God with a right attitude.
The deeper truth here is that God imputes his own righteousness to Job. That is, God attributes to Job characteristics which are God's alone. God is not declaring that Job's blamelessness and uprightness has been "earned" or "merited" or is a "work" of Job. Rather, God deems to attribute aspects of His own character to Job.
1) Job, imperfect and guilty of sin, turned towards God with a right attitude.
2) God imputed righteousness to Job.
At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction. But a closer examination shows us that it is a paradox (a literary device of a seeming contradiction) which actually reveals a deeper truth.
---
(Let's be sure to get a right understanding that the "fear" here is not a feeling of being afraid due to impending danger, rather the word represents a specific meaning:
v. to have reverential awe of. Synonyms: revere, venerate, honor.
n. reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.
If Job wasn't good, why did God tell the accuser that Job is "blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
That's a good question. You highlight a paradox here, an apparent contradiction. According to the Bible:
1) Job is human, so he is imperfect and guilty of sin.
2) God declares Job is blameless and upright.
So what gives? Both of these statements can't be true. Or can they?
(Steven_J would lead us to (erroneously) believe that at least one of these statements is "figurative language", hyperbole. But as Steven_J is so frequent to do, he leads us down the wrong path, distracting us away from understanding.)
When we admit the possibility that both of these statements are true, what is revealed is a deeper truth.
We take notice that God says that Job is "a man who fears God and shuns evil." What we find the author is saying is that Job has a "right relationship" with God. Job reveres God and Job shuns evil, Job turns his back to sin, and turns towards God with a right attitude.
The deeper truth here is that God imputes his own righteousness to Job. That is, God attributes to Job characteristics which are God's alone. God is not declaring that Job's blamelessness and uprightness has been "earned" or "merited" or is a "work" of Job. Rather, God deems to attribute aspects of His own character to Job.
1) Job, imperfect and guilty of sin, turned towards God with a right attitude.
2) God imputed righteousness to Job.
At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction. But a closer examination shows us that it is a paradox (a literary device of a seeming contradiction) which actually reveals a deeper truth.
---
(Let's be sure to get a right understanding that the "fear" here is not a feeling of being afraid due to impending danger, rather the word represents a specific meaning:
v. to have reverential awe of. Synonyms: revere, venerate, honor.
n. reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God. Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.
Friday, February 3, 2012
spoil the child
Dan asks...
Q: If we are to take David and Goliath metaphorically then why can't I take the spare the rod spoil the child verses in a figurative sense?
A: There is no general agreement that Goliath of Gath was a purely metaphorical figure. It's possible that Goliath was an actual champion on the battlefield. If so, the description of Goliath's great height and size are likely somewhat exaggerated, most likely, to highlight the author's theme.
Either way, the theme of the passage remains the same.
It is quite clear that the author is describing the Goliath figure as an experienced and imposing warrior who intimidated the Israeli army.
The popular "'spare the rod spoil the child' verses" (as you put it) does not appear in the Bible.
I believe you are suggesting that this popular phrase was inspired by a verse from the Bible:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline. Proverbs 13:24 NIV
You are quite correct to point out that many words and images in the Bible carry symbolic meaning.
When we study the word shebet in the Old Testament, we find that it sometimes represents a Sheperd's weapon (used against wolves and bears). But we also find that it is more frequently used as a symbol of authority: symbolizing man's authority, symbolizing God's authority, or symbolizing the authority of a nation.
The shebet which you refer to (in the passage in Proverbs) symbolizes the authority of parents of a child. We see the emphasis of this passage is not on causing physical harm, but rather on the exercise of parental authority for correction and discipline.
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that some read the words "rod" and "discipline" here only to mean that physical beating is the best (or only) form of training and correction.
Rather than promulgating (what you view as) a popular misunderstanding of what the Bible says, we would better serve by offering up a clearer understanding of what the Bible actually teaches.
Q: If we are to take David and Goliath metaphorically then why can't I take the spare the rod spoil the child verses in a figurative sense?
A: There is no general agreement that Goliath of Gath was a purely metaphorical figure. It's possible that Goliath was an actual champion on the battlefield. If so, the description of Goliath's great height and size are likely somewhat exaggerated, most likely, to highlight the author's theme.
Either way, the theme of the passage remains the same.
It is quite clear that the author is describing the Goliath figure as an experienced and imposing warrior who intimidated the Israeli army.
The popular "'spare the rod spoil the child' verses" (as you put it) does not appear in the Bible.
I believe you are suggesting that this popular phrase was inspired by a verse from the Bible:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline. Proverbs 13:24 NIV
You are quite correct to point out that many words and images in the Bible carry symbolic meaning.
When we study the word shebet in the Old Testament, we find that it sometimes represents a Sheperd's weapon (used against wolves and bears). But we also find that it is more frequently used as a symbol of authority: symbolizing man's authority, symbolizing God's authority, or symbolizing the authority of a nation.
The shebet which you refer to (in the passage in Proverbs) symbolizes the authority of parents of a child. We see the emphasis of this passage is not on causing physical harm, but rather on the exercise of parental authority for correction and discipline.
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that some read the words "rod" and "discipline" here only to mean that physical beating is the best (or only) form of training and correction.
Rather than promulgating (what you view as) a popular misunderstanding of what the Bible says, we would better serve by offering up a clearer understanding of what the Bible actually teaches.
what was Adam's sin
dougsinc said..
And what, exactly, was Adam's sin? He disobeyed God once, and ate a fruit.
dougsinc,
One wonders why the author bothered with all of those other details in the passage, if the account can be so succinctly summarized.
If you read the passages about how sin entered the world a little more carefully, you will see that your summary is missing some key ideas. In particular, you omit any mention that Eve was deceived by the serpent. We note that Eve has some understanding of the command that was given to Adam. But when she recites it, she changes some of the words. Eve:
- identifies the tree not by what it was (according to God's word), but by it's location in the Garden. (Gen 2:17, 3:3)
- omits the words 'any' and 'freely' (Gen 2:16)
- adds the phrase 'You shall not touch it' (Gen 3:3)
Possibly emboldened by Eve's misrepresentation (?), the serpent directly contradicts the word of God. And it is by deception that sin enters the world.
We should know what these passages actually say. When we omit ideas and change words, we are at great risk of misrepresenting what the Bible actually says. And that misrepresentation leaves open the door for us to be deceived.
And what, exactly, was Adam's sin? He disobeyed God once, and ate a fruit.
dougsinc,
One wonders why the author bothered with all of those other details in the passage, if the account can be so succinctly summarized.
If you read the passages about how sin entered the world a little more carefully, you will see that your summary is missing some key ideas. In particular, you omit any mention that Eve was deceived by the serpent. We note that Eve has some understanding of the command that was given to Adam. But when she recites it, she changes some of the words. Eve:
- identifies the tree not by what it was (according to God's word), but by it's location in the Garden. (Gen 2:17, 3:3)
- omits the words 'any' and 'freely' (Gen 2:16)
- adds the phrase 'You shall not touch it' (Gen 3:3)
Possibly emboldened by Eve's misrepresentation (?), the serpent directly contradicts the word of God. And it is by deception that sin enters the world.
We should know what these passages actually say. When we omit ideas and change words, we are at great risk of misrepresenting what the Bible actually says. And that misrepresentation leaves open the door for us to be deceived.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
commentary concerned wealth
Steven_J said...
When Jesus confronted the rich young ruler, though, he didn't insist "no, you can't have followed the commandments; have you ever told a lie? lusted after a woman in your heart? Stolen anything no matter how cheap or trivial?" Nor did he tell the young man that a perfectly just God was obliged to punish him with an eternity in Hell, but that Jesus was going to take his punishment (an admittedly really bad weekend) for him. Rather, Jesus told the young man to sell all that he had, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus. Jesus' commentary on the event to his disciples concerned wealth, not lust, angry words, or even pride, or even evolution. I'm not convinced that the point of this story is quite the point you wish to place upon it.
Steven,
I'm quite convinced that the point of this account is not the point you wish to make of it.
Jesus identified something that the rich young man placed priority on before Jesus. The young man was unwilling to put Jesus first. The man placed his first priority on his material possessions. Jesus was pointing out that following him required the rich young man to re-order his priorities.
The account tells us that the man came to Jesus wanting to know what he should do "to inherit eternal life". The man knelt before Jesus, and called him "good teacher". It wasn't described in the account as the kind of confrontation ("when Jesus confronted") that you make it out to be in your retelling.
Jesus tells the man what he must do: "follow me".
Before Jesus says "follow me", he first points out that no one is "good" except God. He also points out that the commandments are the guide by which we can evaluate whether we can consider ourselves "good" or not.
Jesus lists five of the commandments. (The same five commandments are listed in the three gospel accounts, Matthew's account has one additional commandment, as does Luke's account. Clearly, the point is not that there are exactly five or six commandments that must be kept.)
One commandment Jesus does not list verbatim here the "greatest" commandment of all: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind." (Matthew 22:37), the whole of the Law summed up: "You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind." (Luke 10:27)
This is the commandment that the rich young ruler sees that he cannot keep. He goes away saddened, not because Jesus has not told him what he must do, no, but because he has chosen to break this greatest commandment by putting something else first before his obedience to God.
Jesus remarks about this event to his disciples was not a comment about "wealth" as you suggest.
Rather, if you read the account a little more carefully, you will see that Jesus is actually commenting on the difficulty that rich people have in making Jesus their number one priority. The rich young ruler chose first to hold on to his accumulated material possessions, rather than first choosing to follow Jesus.
When Jesus confronted the rich young ruler, though, he didn't insist "no, you can't have followed the commandments; have you ever told a lie? lusted after a woman in your heart? Stolen anything no matter how cheap or trivial?" Nor did he tell the young man that a perfectly just God was obliged to punish him with an eternity in Hell, but that Jesus was going to take his punishment (an admittedly really bad weekend) for him. Rather, Jesus told the young man to sell all that he had, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus. Jesus' commentary on the event to his disciples concerned wealth, not lust, angry words, or even pride, or even evolution. I'm not convinced that the point of this story is quite the point you wish to place upon it.
Steven,
I'm quite convinced that the point of this account is not the point you wish to make of it.
Jesus identified something that the rich young man placed priority on before Jesus. The young man was unwilling to put Jesus first. The man placed his first priority on his material possessions. Jesus was pointing out that following him required the rich young man to re-order his priorities.
The account tells us that the man came to Jesus wanting to know what he should do "to inherit eternal life". The man knelt before Jesus, and called him "good teacher". It wasn't described in the account as the kind of confrontation ("when Jesus confronted") that you make it out to be in your retelling.
Jesus tells the man what he must do: "follow me".
Before Jesus says "follow me", he first points out that no one is "good" except God. He also points out that the commandments are the guide by which we can evaluate whether we can consider ourselves "good" or not.
Jesus lists five of the commandments. (The same five commandments are listed in the three gospel accounts, Matthew's account has one additional commandment, as does Luke's account. Clearly, the point is not that there are exactly five or six commandments that must be kept.)
One commandment Jesus does not list verbatim here the "greatest" commandment of all: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind." (Matthew 22:37), the whole of the Law summed up: "You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind." (Luke 10:27)
This is the commandment that the rich young ruler sees that he cannot keep. He goes away saddened, not because Jesus has not told him what he must do, no, but because he has chosen to break this greatest commandment by putting something else first before his obedience to God.
Jesus remarks about this event to his disciples was not a comment about "wealth" as you suggest.
Rather, if you read the account a little more carefully, you will see that Jesus is actually commenting on the difficulty that rich people have in making Jesus their number one priority. The rich young ruler chose first to hold on to his accumulated material possessions, rather than first choosing to follow Jesus.
a top priority
DiscountDeity said...
Turns out it's easy for rich people to make Jesus a top priority once they find a way to profit from Him.
Discount,
Based on your comment, I fear that I have misled you about what Jesus said.
Jesus didn't say that "making Jesus a top priority" was difficult.
Rather, what Jesus said was that "entering the kingdom of heaven" was difficult.
Jesus uses an exaggeration to highlight how difficult it is.
His apostles take Jesus to mean that it is "impossible". But Jesus doesn't leave them hanging there. He tells his apostles that it is possible.
I apologize for my statement that misled you about what the Bible teaches. It was not my intent to mislead you.
Please don't feel bad about missing the point of this passage. You are in good company. Even our venerable Steven_J misses the point of Jesus commentary to his apostles, and instead summarizes the main point as primarily concerning "wealth".
Perhaps the difficulty some seem to have in understanding what Jesus taught might be due to their preoccupation with "profit" and "wealth". (If this was going to be a difficulty for people, you'd think that Jesus might have bothered to point this out to his apostles somewhere along the way.)
Turns out it's easy for rich people to make Jesus a top priority once they find a way to profit from Him.
Discount,
Based on your comment, I fear that I have misled you about what Jesus said.
Jesus didn't say that "making Jesus a top priority" was difficult.
Rather, what Jesus said was that "entering the kingdom of heaven" was difficult.
Jesus uses an exaggeration to highlight how difficult it is.
His apostles take Jesus to mean that it is "impossible". But Jesus doesn't leave them hanging there. He tells his apostles that it is possible.
I apologize for my statement that misled you about what the Bible teaches. It was not my intent to mislead you.
Please don't feel bad about missing the point of this passage. You are in good company. Even our venerable Steven_J misses the point of Jesus commentary to his apostles, and instead summarizes the main point as primarily concerning "wealth".
Perhaps the difficulty some seem to have in understanding what Jesus taught might be due to their preoccupation with "profit" and "wealth". (If this was going to be a difficulty for people, you'd think that Jesus might have bothered to point this out to his apostles somewhere along the way.)
by faith alone?
Caveman quoted Romans 3:19-20, and asked...
Is Salvation by faith alone?
Caveman,
Salvation is the work of God alone. Psalm 3:8
Faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. Romans 10:17
Caveman73 said...
FAITH ALONE!!!
ROM 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
NOT BY FAITH ALONE!!!!
JAM 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Caveman,
The process of "saving" (salvation) is provided by God alone. The process begins with the grace of God, which reaches down to a man and makes him recognize his sinfulness. A man chooses either to accept God's grace or to reject it. The grace of God cannot be earned.
Paul is correct. A man is not justified by the Law. The Law makes a man aware of his sinful condition.
James is not saying anything contrary to what Paul said in Romans. Your suggestion that he said something contrary shows that you have chosen to misread what James is actually saying.
James is talking here about two kinds of faith: a faith that saves and faith that does not save. He asks (rhetorically)
"Can such a faith save?"
The "works" that James is talking about are a product of a "faith" that is alive. The faith that saves is alive, and is evidenced by the works that stem from it. A faith that is dead does not produce works.
The analogy here is that a branch that is alive produces fruit, and a branch that is cut off will not produce fruit (cf. John 15:5) The fruit on the branch is evidence that the branch is alive.
What you are suggesting (erroneously) that James means is akin to saying that by our effort to attach fruit to a dead branch, that we can make the branch alive. You are suggesting that James is saying that attaching "works" to a dead faith that we can make the faith alive. A careful reading of James 2 reveals that this is not what James is saying.
Notice also that faith is not a human work.
Rather, faith is a gift granted by God (cf. 2 Tim 2:25, Phil 1:29, John 6:37,65)
Is Salvation by faith alone?
Caveman,
Salvation is the work of God alone. Psalm 3:8
Faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. Romans 10:17
Caveman73 said...
FAITH ALONE!!!
ROM 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
NOT BY FAITH ALONE!!!!
JAM 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Caveman,
The process of "saving" (salvation) is provided by God alone. The process begins with the grace of God, which reaches down to a man and makes him recognize his sinfulness. A man chooses either to accept God's grace or to reject it. The grace of God cannot be earned.
Paul is correct. A man is not justified by the Law. The Law makes a man aware of his sinful condition.
James is not saying anything contrary to what Paul said in Romans. Your suggestion that he said something contrary shows that you have chosen to misread what James is actually saying.
James is talking here about two kinds of faith: a faith that saves and faith that does not save. He asks (rhetorically)
"Can such a faith save?"
The "works" that James is talking about are a product of a "faith" that is alive. The faith that saves is alive, and is evidenced by the works that stem from it. A faith that is dead does not produce works.
The analogy here is that a branch that is alive produces fruit, and a branch that is cut off will not produce fruit (cf. John 15:5) The fruit on the branch is evidence that the branch is alive.
What you are suggesting (erroneously) that James means is akin to saying that by our effort to attach fruit to a dead branch, that we can make the branch alive. You are suggesting that James is saying that attaching "works" to a dead faith that we can make the faith alive. A careful reading of James 2 reveals that this is not what James is saying.
Notice also that faith is not a human work.
Rather, faith is a gift granted by God (cf. 2 Tim 2:25, Phil 1:29, John 6:37,65)
unquestionably true
JeffreyK622 said ...
Among the things you expect readers to accept as unquestionably true:
1) There is a God;
2) There is a day of judgment;
3) On the day of judgment, God will declare our eternal punishment for thoughtcrime unless we have put on the proper parachute;
4) No nonbeliever is aware of the Christian beliefs regarding points 1,2 and 3; we need to be reminded of these "facts" by "helpful" believers;
5) There is no such thing as a good question regarding Christian beliefs, only sinful challenges to God Himself.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Jeffrey.
But I expect nothing of the sort from you. Actually, I encourage you to ask questions as a way to seek after truth.
I myself was brought to the knowledge of the truth by seeking answers to questions. I encourage anyone who seeks truth to ask questions. I will respond to each of the points you make with an answer that I found.
Q: 1) There is a God;
A: 1) I know that God exists, because the Creator has provided ample evidence of his existence. The entire book of nature testifies to it. The Bible testifies to it. I recognize that not everyone has reached the same answer that I did.
Q: 2) There is a day of judgment;
A: 2) On the appointed final day, I will stand before the throne. I will be held accountable for all my words and deeds, and a verdict will be delivered by the perfect Judge.
Q: 3) On the day of judgment, God will declare our eternal punishment for thoughtcrime unless we have put on the proper parachute;
A: 3) The Judge's verdict will be perfect and just. The judge has made me personally aware of his standards, and his sentencing guidelines. So I know the verdict that he will hand down.
I will have no need for a parachute on judgement day. Sentence will be passed and payment of the penalty will be due. On that day, my hope is in the one who has already paid the penalty.
Q: 4) No nonbeliever is aware of the Christian beliefs regarding points 1,2 and 3; we need to be reminded of these "facts" by "helpful" believers;
A: 4) Some people have a desire to share their understanding of what the Bible says. Some demonstrate they have good understanding, others do not.
Some people egregiously misrepresent what the Bible teaches. Some do so out of an apparent ignorance, others appear to do so with a wilful malevolence towards God.
Some people will offer responses to what they view as misstatements others make about what the Bible teaches. Some of these people are earnest in their desire to be helpful. Their efforts are imperfect at best. People make mistakes.
Q: 5) There is no such thing as a good question regarding Christian beliefs, only sinful challenges to God Himself.
A: 5) Not all questions are equally good. Some questions are excellent. Some are better than others, and some are not really questions at all. Some statements punctuated by a question mark are really opinions and objections.
A good question is interrogative, and it's intent is to seek the truth.
Asking a question is only the starting point; finding the right answer is the ultimate goal.
A question asked sometimes receives an answer. The first answer received is frequently not the best answer. Very often, an answer serves to raise more questions.
If a Christian has chastised you, and discouraged you from asking questions, we owe you a sincere apology. We should all be encouraging you to ask questions, and we should all be striving to share with you the answers we have found.
---
I sincerely apologize to you if I have failed you by discouraging you from asking a question. Unfortunately, the only question I recall you asking me was what number (between one and a hundred) that you were thinking of. Apparently, you were under the impression I was clairvoyant, and had claimed an ability to read your mind.
I attempted to answer your question to the best of my ability.
I suggested that there were other things, some more important things, which you could think about instead. Again, I apologize to you if I discouraged you from seeking after the truth by asking questions.
Among the things you expect readers to accept as unquestionably true:
1) There is a God;
2) There is a day of judgment;
3) On the day of judgment, God will declare our eternal punishment for thoughtcrime unless we have put on the proper parachute;
4) No nonbeliever is aware of the Christian beliefs regarding points 1,2 and 3; we need to be reminded of these "facts" by "helpful" believers;
5) There is no such thing as a good question regarding Christian beliefs, only sinful challenges to God Himself.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Jeffrey.
But I expect nothing of the sort from you. Actually, I encourage you to ask questions as a way to seek after truth.
I myself was brought to the knowledge of the truth by seeking answers to questions. I encourage anyone who seeks truth to ask questions. I will respond to each of the points you make with an answer that I found.
Q: 1) There is a God;
A: 1) I know that God exists, because the Creator has provided ample evidence of his existence. The entire book of nature testifies to it. The Bible testifies to it. I recognize that not everyone has reached the same answer that I did.
Q: 2) There is a day of judgment;
A: 2) On the appointed final day, I will stand before the throne. I will be held accountable for all my words and deeds, and a verdict will be delivered by the perfect Judge.
Q: 3) On the day of judgment, God will declare our eternal punishment for thoughtcrime unless we have put on the proper parachute;
A: 3) The Judge's verdict will be perfect and just. The judge has made me personally aware of his standards, and his sentencing guidelines. So I know the verdict that he will hand down.
I will have no need for a parachute on judgement day. Sentence will be passed and payment of the penalty will be due. On that day, my hope is in the one who has already paid the penalty.
Q: 4) No nonbeliever is aware of the Christian beliefs regarding points 1,2 and 3; we need to be reminded of these "facts" by "helpful" believers;
A: 4) Some people have a desire to share their understanding of what the Bible says. Some demonstrate they have good understanding, others do not.
Some people egregiously misrepresent what the Bible teaches. Some do so out of an apparent ignorance, others appear to do so with a wilful malevolence towards God.
Some people will offer responses to what they view as misstatements others make about what the Bible teaches. Some of these people are earnest in their desire to be helpful. Their efforts are imperfect at best. People make mistakes.
Q: 5) There is no such thing as a good question regarding Christian beliefs, only sinful challenges to God Himself.
A: 5) Not all questions are equally good. Some questions are excellent. Some are better than others, and some are not really questions at all. Some statements punctuated by a question mark are really opinions and objections.
A good question is interrogative, and it's intent is to seek the truth.
Asking a question is only the starting point; finding the right answer is the ultimate goal.
A question asked sometimes receives an answer. The first answer received is frequently not the best answer. Very often, an answer serves to raise more questions.
If a Christian has chastised you, and discouraged you from asking questions, we owe you a sincere apology. We should all be encouraging you to ask questions, and we should all be striving to share with you the answers we have found.
---
I sincerely apologize to you if I have failed you by discouraging you from asking a question. Unfortunately, the only question I recall you asking me was what number (between one and a hundred) that you were thinking of. Apparently, you were under the impression I was clairvoyant, and had claimed an ability to read your mind.
I attempted to answer your question to the best of my ability.
I suggested that there were other things, some more important things, which you could think about instead. Again, I apologize to you if I discouraged you from seeking after the truth by asking questions.
what is it?
JeffreyK622 said...
I'm thinking of a number between one and a hundred. What is it?
(If you're as good at mind-reading as you're implicitly claiming, that should be no trouble.)
Jeffrey,
What is it?
It's a number between one and a hundred. Unless, of course, it isn't, because you are actually thinking about something else.
I can suggest to you something else you can think about. Why not think about what is going to happen on the appointed day of judgement, when God returns to this world, to bind Satan forever, and to judge the living and the dead.
Think about your fate on that day, when you stand before the judge, to give account for all your thoughts, words, and deeds. That's something to think about.
I'm thinking of a number between one and a hundred. What is it?
(If you're as good at mind-reading as you're implicitly claiming, that should be no trouble.)
Jeffrey,
What is it?
It's a number between one and a hundred. Unless, of course, it isn't, because you are actually thinking about something else.
I can suggest to you something else you can think about. Why not think about what is going to happen on the appointed day of judgement, when God returns to this world, to bind Satan forever, and to judge the living and the dead.
Think about your fate on that day, when you stand before the judge, to give account for all your thoughts, words, and deeds. That's something to think about.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
potential political rivals
Steven_J says...
From the standpoint of the Gibeonites, it was "retaliation."
Yes, retaliation, as in meaning the Gibeonites were seeking just compensation for an evil done to them. Yes, we see that in the text.
Steven_J says...
From David's point of view, who knows? I personally suspect David saw it as a way to get rid of potential political rivals, but I admit I cannot prove that.
Not only can you "not prove that", Steven there is not any suggestion of that in the text. There is no verse or passage that supports your inference.
Rather, the text clearly states David's intent. David was seeking a blessing on Israel, he was seeking an end to the drought. But you disregard the statement that is made in the text, and you instead ascribe to David a motive of your own invention.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of God's principles of justice, when the text clearly tells us that David received word from God. You suggest that David's response to God's instruction is to "get rid of potential political rivals".
For some reason, you find it necessary to infer ideas that are contrary to what the author of the text says, and then use those ideas to bolster your other peculiar interpretations of the text. It's almost as if you are choosing to reject outright any reading which would allow the author's meaning to be represented by the author's words.
From the standpoint of the Gibeonites, it was "retaliation."
Yes, retaliation, as in meaning the Gibeonites were seeking just compensation for an evil done to them. Yes, we see that in the text.
Steven_J says...
From David's point of view, who knows? I personally suspect David saw it as a way to get rid of potential political rivals, but I admit I cannot prove that.
Not only can you "not prove that", Steven there is not any suggestion of that in the text. There is no verse or passage that supports your inference.
Rather, the text clearly states David's intent. David was seeking a blessing on Israel, he was seeking an end to the drought. But you disregard the statement that is made in the text, and you instead ascribe to David a motive of your own invention.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of God's principles of justice, when the text clearly tells us that David received word from God. You suggest that David's response to God's instruction is to "get rid of potential political rivals".
For some reason, you find it necessary to infer ideas that are contrary to what the author of the text says, and then use those ideas to bolster your other peculiar interpretations of the text. It's almost as if you are choosing to reject outright any reading which would allow the author's meaning to be represented by the author's words.
seems utterly ignorant
Steven J says...
David, for example, seems utterly ignorant of the principle when he kills many of the surviving descendants of Saul in retaliation for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites),
Actually, Steven, if you read the account a little more clearly, you will see that 'The LORD said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."'
In response to God's instruction, David sought atonement for Saul's sins. He offered to give the Gibeonites just compensation for the evil that Saul had done.
You opt to use the word "retaliation" to identify David's motive; I suspect that for many readers, that word has a familiar connotation which is beyond the author's meaning, which would really be rendered more accurately as "adequate compensation" or "atonement".
The account tells us that David was seeking a blessing on Israel; it doesn't tell us that David was satisfying some sort of bloodlust rage.
We also note that it was not David that killed Saul's descendants. Rather, it was the Gibeonites who put the men to death. David equitably satisfied the compensation requested by the Gibeonites.
You likely consider this a minor point, that David handed over the men to the Gibeonites to be put to death, rather than killing the men himself. You are likely to see this as a trivial distinction unworthy of note.
But I suggest to you that the author of the account does deem this particular point to be "worth noting". It's of sufficient importance to be noted by the author.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of the LORD's principles. Yet in the account we read that it is the LORD himself that gives David instruction, pointing out that there has been no atonement made for Saul's sin.
David, for example, seems utterly ignorant of the principle when he kills many of the surviving descendants of Saul in retaliation for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites),
Actually, Steven, if you read the account a little more clearly, you will see that 'The LORD said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."'
In response to God's instruction, David sought atonement for Saul's sins. He offered to give the Gibeonites just compensation for the evil that Saul had done.
You opt to use the word "retaliation" to identify David's motive; I suspect that for many readers, that word has a familiar connotation which is beyond the author's meaning, which would really be rendered more accurately as "adequate compensation" or "atonement".
The account tells us that David was seeking a blessing on Israel; it doesn't tell us that David was satisfying some sort of bloodlust rage.
We also note that it was not David that killed Saul's descendants. Rather, it was the Gibeonites who put the men to death. David equitably satisfied the compensation requested by the Gibeonites.
You likely consider this a minor point, that David handed over the men to the Gibeonites to be put to death, rather than killing the men himself. You are likely to see this as a trivial distinction unworthy of note.
But I suggest to you that the author of the account does deem this particular point to be "worth noting". It's of sufficient importance to be noted by the author.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of the LORD's principles. Yet in the account we read that it is the LORD himself that gives David instruction, pointing out that there has been no atonement made for Saul's sin.
create something imperfect
Joshua asks...
How does something perfect like God create something imperfect? How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin? If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Joshua,
God creates things that perfectly suit his purpose. What you view as imperfect, God sees as entirely complete and suitable, with the capacity for being re-made perfect. God is a maker. God has the ability to re-make things, in a way that perfectly suits his purpose.
For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:14 NLT
Perhaps it is in the process of re-making tin soldiers into men that God sees perfection.
How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin?
God did know.
You aren't suggesting here that eternal God, creator of time, beyond the bounds of time... you aren't suggesting here that there was something God did not already know, before there was time.
If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Because it did not suit God's purpose to "stop him". God's purpose was served by allowing Adam to disobey. God's purpose was served by allowing sin to enter the world through Adam's disobedience.
How does something perfect like God create something imperfect? How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin? If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Joshua,
God creates things that perfectly suit his purpose. What you view as imperfect, God sees as entirely complete and suitable, with the capacity for being re-made perfect. God is a maker. God has the ability to re-make things, in a way that perfectly suits his purpose.
For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:14 NLT
Perhaps it is in the process of re-making tin soldiers into men that God sees perfection.
How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin?
God did know.
You aren't suggesting here that eternal God, creator of time, beyond the bounds of time... you aren't suggesting here that there was something God did not already know, before there was time.
If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Because it did not suit God's purpose to "stop him". God's purpose was served by allowing Adam to disobey. God's purpose was served by allowing sin to enter the world through Adam's disobedience.
never heard of
Steven_J says...
God acts as if He's never heard of Deuteronomy 24:16, and still thinks that it is fair to punish children for the sins of their fathers.
This is because the injunction given in Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a description of any eternal principle of God's justice. Rather, this instruction pertained to human affairs adjucated by a human court.
We note that Saul's offense to God was not brought before the judicial system. Rather, God himself was dealing with Saul's affront.
There many accounts in the Bible you could choose to point to, Steven, and to which you could say that Deuteronomy 24:16 appears to have had no bearing on whatsoever. But if care to take a closer look at those accounts, you will also note that in each of them it is God himself (and not a human court) that is dealing with offenses against him.
You suggest that the account of David illustrates a "contradiction". You attempt to resolve this contradiction by concluding that David was "utterly ignorant" of Deuteronomy 24:16. "More to the point", you say, God appears to be utterly ignorant of it.
Of course a more plausible explanation is that David is not only familiar with the injunction against vicarious punishment, but that he was also completely aware that this rule constrained only the human judicial system, and that God himself was not bound by this rule.
David was fully aware that this instruction was given specifically in the context of human affairs. David did not share your illusion that this instruction was given as an illustration of God's eternal principles.
Steven, you seem keen to read into verse 16 ideas that are just simply not there. You read into this verse "reasons" that this rule is given to Israel, variously, because it is "fair", or because this is a principle that governs God's dealing with people. You choose to inject your own meaning in place of what the author actually said.
You have failed to demonstrate that it is incumbent upon God to be governed by every rule that he has given to Israel. And you have failed to show any reason (beyond wishful thinking) that we would even imagine this might be or should be so.
Yet you insist that this specific instruction is somehow applicable to God, and should govern how God deals with affronts against him.
In short, there is no real contradiction.
In spite of your claim to the contrary, the simple fact is that Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a repudiation of God's principle of corporate responsibility.
God acts as if He's never heard of Deuteronomy 24:16, and still thinks that it is fair to punish children for the sins of their fathers.
This is because the injunction given in Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a description of any eternal principle of God's justice. Rather, this instruction pertained to human affairs adjucated by a human court.
We note that Saul's offense to God was not brought before the judicial system. Rather, God himself was dealing with Saul's affront.
There many accounts in the Bible you could choose to point to, Steven, and to which you could say that Deuteronomy 24:16 appears to have had no bearing on whatsoever. But if care to take a closer look at those accounts, you will also note that in each of them it is God himself (and not a human court) that is dealing with offenses against him.
You suggest that the account of David illustrates a "contradiction". You attempt to resolve this contradiction by concluding that David was "utterly ignorant" of Deuteronomy 24:16. "More to the point", you say, God appears to be utterly ignorant of it.
Of course a more plausible explanation is that David is not only familiar with the injunction against vicarious punishment, but that he was also completely aware that this rule constrained only the human judicial system, and that God himself was not bound by this rule.
David was fully aware that this instruction was given specifically in the context of human affairs. David did not share your illusion that this instruction was given as an illustration of God's eternal principles.
Steven, you seem keen to read into verse 16 ideas that are just simply not there. You read into this verse "reasons" that this rule is given to Israel, variously, because it is "fair", or because this is a principle that governs God's dealing with people. You choose to inject your own meaning in place of what the author actually said.
You have failed to demonstrate that it is incumbent upon God to be governed by every rule that he has given to Israel. And you have failed to show any reason (beyond wishful thinking) that we would even imagine this might be or should be so.
Yet you insist that this specific instruction is somehow applicable to God, and should govern how God deals with affronts against him.
In short, there is no real contradiction.
In spite of your claim to the contrary, the simple fact is that Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a repudiation of God's principle of corporate responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)