Discernment and The Word

[Bravus]

Moved from another thread.

Mods, I wanted to start this here in Town Hall since the discussion started here, but if you feel it needs to be moved to a Theology forum that's fine (especially if a pointer can be left here).

Originally Posted By: Bravus

{deleted stuff about Harold Camping's predictions}

The bottom line, to me, is that these predictions go against plain scripture...

Don't take this as an attack, Bravus, because it isn't meant that way. It's to find an answer for my curiosity.

In another thread, I don't even remember the name of it, you said you thought the stories about the Isrealites wiping out the Canaanites were simply wild tribal tales. IOW's you didn't consider that part of the Bible to be true.

How do you come to your conclusions as to what to accept, and what to deny? How do you reject something as non-Biblical when it's in the Bible, and is not taken out of context? (I'm not talking about the current subject as I consider these predictions to be nonsense also.) What's your baseline for deciding what is "plain scripture"?

Very important questions. The 'plain scripture' I was talking about in relation to Camping was 'no man knows the day or hour, not even the Son, only the Father'. Pretty tough to name a date in the face of that, though people keep trying.

I suspect my answers to the broader question will satisfy no-one, but maybe they'll be helpful to others struggling with some of the same issues. (Not to adopt but as food for thought.)

If I recall correctly I listed a number of possibilities for the tales of the Canaan genocide. One, as you noted, was that it didn't really happen but was a myth of the glorious warrior past of Israel. It wasn't the only one, though: another was that maybe it did happen, but the decisions were all taken by Moses who only ascribed them to God.

That second one is pretty plausible: George W Bush ascribed his decision to invade Iraq to God, and pretty much every Muslim terrorist claims to be acting in God's name. It's very, very tempting for national leaders in particular to claim that God is on their side and telling them what to do, and tends to gain better obedience and soldiers who are willing to do things they wouldn't on human say-so: like slaughtering babies.

The criterion I use is my understanding of the whole nature of God and who God is, which is drawn from the whole of the Bible as well as from the natural world and other people. The God I know, love and worship is a God of mercy, justice and love. Some people have invoked God's justice to explain the genocides (which they believe the Bible says he explicitly commanded), but what is just about murdering an innocent child? Nothing.

This approach could very easily, I freely acknowledge, be used as a way of just rationalising away any bits of the Bible that are inconvenient to my lifestyle or challenge me to change. I don't believe it does - God still makes very significant demands of me in my life.

It's not easy to explain and describe, and it's a lot tougher and less satisfying than proof-texting, but I believe it is an honest approach to understanding all the ways God has chosen to reveal His nature to us.

[phkrause]

Very important questions. The 'plain scripture' I was talking about in relation to Camping was 'no man knows the day or hour, not even the Son, only the Father'. Pretty tough to name a date in the face of that, though people keep trying.

I suspect my answers to the broader question will satisfy no-one, but maybe they'll be helpful to others struggling with some of the same issues. (Not to adopt but as food for thought.)

If I recall correctly I listed a number of possibilities for the tales of the Canaan genocide. One, as you noted, was that it didn't really happen but was a myth of the glorious warrior past of Israel. It wasn't the only one, though: another was that maybe it did happen, but the decisions were all taken by Moses who only ascribed them to God.

That second one is pretty plausible: George W Bush ascribed his decision to invade Iraq to God, and pretty much every Muslim terrorist claims to be acting in God's name. It's very, very tempting for national leaders in particular to claim that God is on their side and telling them what to do, and tends to gain better obedience and soldiers who are willing to do things they wouldn't on human say-so: like slaughtering babies.

The criterion I use is my understanding of the whole nature of God and who God is, which is drawn from the whole of the Bible as well as from the natural world and other people. The God I know, love and worship is a God of mercy, justice and love. Some people have invoked God's justice to explain the genocides (which they believe the Bible says he explicitly commanded), but what is just about murdering an innocent child? Nothing.

This approach could very easily, I freely acknowledge, be used as a way of just rationalising away any bits of the Bible that are inconvenient to my lifestyle or challenge me to change. I don't believe it does - God still makes very significant demands of me in my life.

It's not easy to explain and describe, and it's a lot tougher and less satisfying than proof-texting, but I believe it is an honest approach to understanding all the ways God has chosen to reveal His nature to us.

Some very good points Bravus. For me, yes I do have a problem with reading about all the mayheim in the OT, but its there. I choose to give God the benefit of the doubt, that when we finally get to heaven all this will be explained to everyones satisfaction. I know there are many things that are not so easily understood. I do believe in Scripture it states that, and that we will someday understand.

[BobRyan]

A few people over at Spectrum have stated that they read the Bible in this or that chapter and toss it out the window saying "Well I do not believe in that kind of God so that part of the Bible is not true".

Ok -- well that is one way to invent an "every man - his own Bible" system of Bible study.

The more objective way to read the Bible (instead of making one your own image) would be - the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic for rendering the meaning of the text accurately. Exegesis beats eisegesis any day.

in Christ,

Bob

[karl]

It is pretty daunting to try and sell Bible study to us Adventists who know just enough to make us dangerous.

We can't even get together on the 9th fundamental belief.

Quote:

9. Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ:

In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (John 3:16; Isa. 53; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21; Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3, 4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2:6-11.)

A lot of Adventists think it is only Christ's death that provides the means for atonement. And notice that even this fundamental leaves out mention of Christ's heavenly sanctuary ministry.

[karl]

This approach could very easily, I freely acknowledge, be used as a way of just rationalising away any bits of the Bible that are inconvenient to my lifestyle or challenge me to change. I don't believe it does - God still makes very significant demands of me in my life.

It's when God goes from "very significant" to "all encompassing" in our lives that things get really exciting.

[Gary K]

Bravus,

Thanks for your explanation. It was enlightening and reasonable. I disagree with your conclusions, but then we all disagree with each other over something.

You pointed out elsewhere that you think anyone who justifies the stories about conquering of Canaan has a broken moral compass. It seems to me that you take your viewpoint from a one-sided picture of God and that most of your perspective comes from the idea that the here-and-now, rather than the perspective of eternity, is what decides whether those stories are true and whether they are justifiable. You also seem to view them from only the Canaanites side.

Here's another perspective, a high overview.

First, the Isrealites only had to militarily conquer Canaan because of their unbelief, their lack of trust in God. They could have walked in unopposed and neither side had any loss of life if they had trusted God. So, the military actions were not God's ideal.

Second, take a look at this from the results of the Isrealites not killing off all the Canaanites. Unspeakable evil and suffering resulted from the Canaanites not being completely removed from the land. The Isrealites intermarried with the Canaanites, worshipped their gods, made human sacrifices of their own children, and generally lived in disobedience towards God for many centuries.

I believe that God was being merciful long term by wanting the Isrealites to have their own country that was free from all idolatry. Had Canaan been free of that influence it is very possible that the Isrealites would have stayed faithful to God, and that they would have been a major influence for good in the world. Had they been faithful their influence would have alleviated a lot of evil in the world, and drawn nations to God.

We most often take a short-term view of things, but God looks at events and situations from the perspective of eternity and thus we fail to see things the same way God does. Then because we don't view things from God's perspective we see evil where only mercy and justice are at play.

Also, these stories ought to tell us that our lack of faith in God has very serious consequences for the world around us. We should be learning lessons from these stories for I believe that is why these stories are included in the Bible. Paul says as much in I Corinthians 10:11.

[Bravus]

Similarly, good points well made but I'll have to disagree with your conclusions. And that's OK.

It's not only the massacres, though... as John317 has noted elsewhere, I also have issues with the Bible texts on homosexuality, at least as they are read and applied these days. Again, it's very easy to explain them as human additions based in human prejudices, and very hard to reconcile them with the nature and character of God.

And so on...

It's not that I don't *understand* the historical-grammatical approach, it's that I don't *accept* it. I understand the choice I'm making.

[Gary K]

Similarly, good points well made but I'll have to disagree with your conclusions. And that's OK.

It's not only the massacres, though... as John317 has noted elsewhere, I also have issues with the Bible texts on homosexuality, at least as they are read and applied these days. Again, it's very easy to explain them as human additions based in human prejudices, and very hard to reconcile them with the nature and character of God.

And so on...

It's not that I don't *understand* the historical-grammatical approach, it's that I don't *accept* it. I understand the choice I'm making.

I don't accept the Bible's statements on homosexuality as a "historical-grammatical" approach. I accept them because of how God views sin according to the Bible.

I think we often see sin as not as bad as it really is. We don't really see how terrible sin is. Sin is all we've ever known. It's the only paradigm to which we've been exposed. We grow up and form our opinions through the filter of sin. It is our reality. Therefore it is next to impossible for us to recognize how destructive it really is.

Is there some genetic aspect to homosexualty? I am not sure, but I do know there is a genetic aspect to sin itself. How do I come to that conclusion? Adam and Eve passed their sinful nature down to their posterity. All of their posterity was born with a sinful nature. That can only be genetic.

Do I believe sin can be overcome? Yup. Any sin.

Does God look at homosexuality as a particularly bad sin according to the Bible? Yup. God must see a special destructiveness in it because of the way the Bible talks about it. However, no where does the Bible say a homosexual cannot repent and overcome. No where does the Bible say God will not grant a homosexual the same mercy he grants the heterosexual.

So, is the Bible ultimately any harsher on homosexuality than any other sin? Nope. The wages for all sin is death.

[Bravus]

We should avoid having this thread head off into a discussion of homosexuality. That's all been done to death before, while the question of how we understand the Bible is fresher and more interesting.

Having said that, your fundamental assumption in the comments above is that homosexuality is sin. But that's what I object to. Not 'harsh' treatment of sin, but calling something sin that isn't.

Right, back on topic. The Bible's revelation of God is progressive. Jesus expands on the Old Testament and clarifies and applies it, in Matthew 5 for example. He doesn't overturn it, but does change the emphasis and focus. There's the old covenant and the new covenant. But God is eternal and unchanging. So what changed? Humanity.

The changes in us didn't stop 1700 or so years ago when the Bible finished being written, so God's revelation of himself to us now will have moved on even further. Not that God has changed, but that we have.

[Gail]

Very interesting topic, indeed- that of discernment!

[Bravus]

Very interesting topic, indeed- that of discernment!

It's the one thing I pray for more often than anything else.

[Gail]

Originally Posted By: Gail

Very interesting topic, indeed- that of discernment!

It's the one thing I pray for more often than anything else.

Well said! I remember Corrie Ten Boom's reply when asked what the greatest gift of the Spirit is. She said it was discernment, because it's a poor soldier indeed who can't recognize the enemy.

Over the years as I see people's lives unfolding and surprising us in different ways, I am quite humbled, just floored, that I am still here in the faith. How does that happen? How do people "see" (get, understand) in the ways that they do?

[Gail]

I think what I hope for is that the various parts would join together better to make a whole than tear the machine apart...

[Christopher]

We should avoid having this thread head off into a discussion of homosexuality. That's all been done to death before, while the question of how we understand the Bible is fresher and more interesting.

Having said that, your fundamental assumption in the comments above is that homosexuality is sin. But that's what I object to. Not 'harsh' treatment of sin, but calling something sin that isn't.

Right, back on topic. The Bible's revelation of God is progressive. Jesus expands on the Old Testament and clarifies and applies it, in Matthew 5 for example. He doesn't overturn it, but does change the emphasis and focus. There's the old covenant and the new covenant. But God is eternal and unchanging. So what changed? Humanity.

The changes in us didn't stop 1700 or so years ago when the Bible finished being written, so God's revelation of himself to us now will have moved on even further. Not that God has changed, but that we have.

Sin is based i the carnal mind,the mind of flesh that is why homosexuality and all the others are sins They go against the natural Law of God which is unselfish aka unconditional Love or giving to others.

have to agree myself with the comment that the isrealites wouldn't have gotten that "command" to do the cannanites in,if they had went with the first command in trust that God would do as He said.

One could claim that moses just said god said so but since God was right there in the Cloud each day, God probably did say it, duh.

helps if you say you take all the scripture together then actually do it.Looks to me as though you haven't a few times.

I agree that the emphasis was changed with the new covenant.

As for us changing over the years ,this is true we have become more blind so the Father has had to reveal more of Who God is over the years, i don't believe God will stop revealing Themselves more and more as the end of this world gets closer and Jesus has to come save literally those who are left and finally those who are asleep also.

Holy Spirit bless your searching

Christopher

[BobRyan]

Similarly, good points well made but I'll have to disagree with your conclusions. And that's OK.

It's not only the massacres, though... as John317 has noted elsewhere, I also have issues with the Bible texts on homosexuality,...

It's not that I don't *understand* the historical-grammatical approach, it's that I don't *accept* it. I understand the choice I'm making.

If your goal is to objectively toss your own bias out the window and seek to know "what does the text say" then the H-G model is the best.

If the objective is to bend the bible to fit each person's preferences - then the H-G model is the worst one to use.

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

It's not that I don't *understand* the historical-grammatical approach, it's that I don't *accept* it. I understand the choice I'm making.

If your goal is to objectively toss your own bias out the window and seek to know "what does the text say" then the H-G model is the best.

If the objective is to bend the bible to fit each person's preferences - then the H-G model is the worst one to use.

The historical-grammatical approach is trying to make the Bible fit a different set of biases. It is not free from bias. The bias it's trying to fix is the bias that the Bible is the word of god.

I have not seen any rational justification for many of the actions by god in the Old Testament. It's not about trying to make the Bible fit each person's model, but simply finding a god worthy of respect.

And if god is going to hold us accountable for the messages contained in the Bible, how come it's so cryptic and contradictory? This is easily demonstrated by the 40,000 different versions of Christianity each claiming to have a better understanding than the other.

No compassionate intelligent being can accept the actions of the god of the Old Testament as being good.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

It's not that I don't *understand* the historical-grammatical approach, it's that I don't *accept* it. I understand the choice I'm making.

If your goal is to objectively toss your own bias out the window and seek to know "what does the text say" then the H-G model is the best.

If the objective is to bend the bible to fit each person's preferences - then the H-G model is the worst one to use.

[BobRyan]

I have not seen any rational justification for many of the actions by god in the Old Testament. It's not about trying to make the Bible fit each person's model, but simply finding a god worthy of respect.

And if god is going to hold us accountable for the messages contained in the Bible, how come it's so cryptic and contradictory? This is easily demonstrated by the 40,000 different versions of Christianity each claiming to have a better understanding than the other.

No compassionate intelligent being can accept the actions of the god of the Old Testament as being good.

Your argument is primarily against what the Bible says and against the God of the Bible assuming that you agree with the New Testament statement in 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1:21 that the Old Testament is authored by God. (recall that in the New Testament God says He will resurrect every single wicked person killed in the Old Testatment and kill them again in Rev 20 - lake of fire -- so it is indeed the SAME God in both the Old and New Testament).

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I have not seen any rational justification for many of the actions by god in the Old Testament. It's not about trying to make the Bible fit each person's model, but simply finding a god worthy of respect.

And if god is going to hold us accountable for the messages contained in the Bible, how come it's so cryptic and contradictory? This is easily demonstrated by the 40,000 different versions of Christianity each claiming to have a better understanding than the other.

No compassionate intelligent being can accept the actions of the god of the Old Testament as being good.

Your argument is primarily against what the Bible says and against the God of the Bible assuming that you agree with the New Testament statement in 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1:21 that the Old Testament is authored by God. (recall that in the New Testament God says He will resurrect every single wicked person killed in the Old Testatment and kill them again in Rev 20 - lake of fire -- so it is indeed the SAME God in both the Old and New Testament).

[Overaged]

It's not that I don't *understand* the historical-grammatical approach, it's that I don't *accept* it. I understand the choice I'm making.

The historical-grammatical approach is excellent; it has it's place. However, it gets a little out of joint when one gets too hung up on a system; at the expense of other sound exegesis. I use several systems/approaches in studying the Bible, but none of these help as much as the following *principles* as opposed to being stuck on a system, at the expense of same:

1/ If we would study the Bible diligently and prayerfully every day, we should every day see some beautiful truth in a new, clear, and forcible light. {CG 511.2}

2/ (1870) 2T 692

299. There are in the Scriptures some things which are hard to be understood, and which, according to the language of Peter, the unlearned and unstable wrest unto their own destruction. We may not, in this life, be able to explain the meaning of every passage of Scripture; but there are no vital points to practical truth that will be clouded in mystery. {CD 187.1}

3/ We should come to the investigation of God's word with a contrite heart, a teachable and prayerful spirit. We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, that certain individuals are the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the Fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said. {GW92 125.1}

4/ In your study of the word, lay at the door of investigation your preconceived opinions and your hereditary and cultivated ideas. You will never reach the truth if you study the Scriptures to vindicate your own ideas. Leave these at the door, and with a contrite heart go in to hear what the Lord has to say to you. As the humble seeker for truth sits at Christ's feet, and learns of Him, the word gives him understanding. To those who are too wise in their own conceit to study the Bible, Christ says, You must become meek and lowly in heart if you desire to become wise unto salvation. {MYP 260.1}

Do not read the word in the light of former opinions; but, with a mind free from prejudice, search it carefully and prayerfully. If, as you read, conviction comes, and you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the word, do not try to make the word fit these opinions. Make your opinions fit the word. Do not allow what you have believed or practiced in the past to control your understanding. Open the eyes of your mind to behold wondrous things out of the law. Find out what is written, and then plant your feet on the eternal Rock. {MYP 260.2}

Anytime I have *difficulty* understanding/accepting something in the Bible; I always go back to these four base points in dealing with some scripture *difficulty.*

[Christopher]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

It's not that I don't *understand* the historical-grammatical approach, it's that I don't *accept* it. I understand the choice I'm making.

The historical-grammatical approach is excellent; it has it's place. However, it gets a little out of joint when one gets too hung up on a system; at the expense of other sound exegesis. I use several systems/approaches in studying the Bible, but none of these help as much as the following *principles* as opposed to being stuck on a system, at the expense of same:

1/ If we would study the Bible diligently and prayerfully every day, we should every day see some beautiful truth in a new, clear, and forcible light. {CG 511.2}

2/ (1870) 2T 692

299. There are in the Scriptures some things which are hard to be understood, and which, according to the language of Peter, the unlearned and unstable wrest unto their own destruction. We may not, in this life, be able to explain the meaning of every passage of Scripture; but there are no vital points to practical truth that will be clouded in mystery. {CD 187.1}

3/ We should come to the investigation of God's word with a contrite heart, a teachable and prayerful spirit. We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, that certain individuals are the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the Fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said. {GW92 125.1}

4/ In your study of the word, lay at the door of investigation your preconceived opinions and your hereditary and cultivated ideas. You will never reach the truth if you study the Scriptures to vindicate your own ideas. Leave these at the door, and with a contrite heart go in to hear what the Lord has to say to you. As the humble seeker for truth sits at Christ's feet, and learns of Him, the word gives him understanding. To those who are too wise in their own conceit to study the Bible, Christ says, You must become meek and lowly in heart if you desire to become wise unto salvation. {MYP 260.1}

Do not read the word in the light of former opinions; but, with a mind free from prejudice, search it carefully and prayerfully. If, as you read, conviction comes, and you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the word, do not try to make the word fit these opinions. Make your opinions fit the word. Do not allow what you have believed or practiced in the past to control your understanding. Open the eyes of your mind to behold wondrous things out of the law. Find out what is written, and then plant your feet on the eternal Rock. {MYP 260.2}

Anytime I have *difficulty* understanding/accepting something in the Bible; I always go back to these four base points in dealing with some scripture *difficulty.*

Amen

Ask the Holy Spirit to teach you the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. and remember the four principles above

[Bravus]

This, in fact, is what I have done. And what the Holy Spirit has taught me is that some parts of the Bible are not literal.

If you want to dispute that, take it up with Him.

[Gary K]

We should avoid having this thread head off into a discussion of homosexuality. That's all been done to death before, while the question of how we understand the Bible is fresher and more interesting.

Having said that, your fundamental assumption in the comments above is that homosexuality is sin. But that's what I object to. Not 'harsh' treatment of sin, but calling something sin that isn't.

Right, back on topic. The Bible's revelation of God is progressive. Jesus expands on the Old Testament and clarifies and applies it, in Matthew 5 for example. He doesn't overturn it, but does change the emphasis and focus. There's the old covenant and the new covenant. But God is eternal and unchanging. So what changed? Humanity.

The changes in us didn't stop 1700 or so years ago when the Bible finished being written, so God's revelation of himself to us now will have moved on even further. Not that God has changed, but that we have.

[Gary K]

We should avoid having this thread head off into a discussion of homosexuality. That's all been done to death before, while the question of how we understand the Bible is fresher and more interesting.

Having said that, your fundamental assumption in the comments above is that homosexuality is sin. But that's what I object to. Not 'harsh' treatment of sin, but calling something sin that isn't.

Right, back on topic. The Bible's revelation of God is progressive. Jesus expands on the Old Testament and clarifies and applies it, in Matthew 5 for example. He doesn't overturn it, but does change the emphasis and focus. There's the old covenant and the new covenant. But God is eternal and unchanging. So what changed? Humanity.

The changes in us didn't stop 1700 or so years ago when the Bible finished being written, so God's revelation of himself to us now will have moved on even further. Not that God has changed, but that we have.

The bolded part is where we really disagree. What you are doing is placing yourself at the level of God and becoming your own arbiter of what is sin, and what isn't sin. I find absolutely no Biblical support for such an idea. If there was, we could discount anything the Bible says is sin and thus justify any behavior we so desired. I could justify being a thief if I discounted what the Bible says about dishonesty. Is that a good idea?

[Bravus]

Jesus said "They used to say 'an eye for an eye', but I say 'turn th other cheek'". The latter is not implicit in the former, it is the opposite, or at least a development in a radically different direction. And so on.