Wow, for better or worse I am stunned by how much your thinking and epistolmology ressembles my own best thoughts! You are a rare bird, and in my mind get down to the nub of things. I am currently working on an apologetic paper that takes your approach. I will say that the resurrection does seem particularly pivotal to me, but maybe I’m inclined to believe some kind of actual demonstration of God’s victorious goodness happened, because despite it being such an exception to the usual ‘laws’ of death and corruption, it seems that the love Jesus lived was a uniquely fitting place for a presumably existing good God of love to make an exception and encourage our hearts that evil does not in fact ultimately triumph over love.
Hey Bob,
I know you came from a conservative evangelical background and went to Fuller - what brought you to the point where you no longer believed in the inerrancy (sp?) of scripture? Was it a slow process? Sudden? What happened?
Fuller changed their statement to “infallible” emphasizing doctrine and practice more than inerrrancy in historical or scientific detail, which was convincing and tended to inform my mindset. Yet I think what has gradually influenced a significant rejection of inerrancy has been my love of Bible study, and the sense of encountering so many examples that seem to show that it is not that kind of book. My old NT prof, Dr. Everett Harrison, out of Dallas Seminary, said what inspiration means for the nature of the Bible’s precision, etc, must be decided by looking at what God actually produced. Its various vantage points, eras, and approachs does not even strike me as a book well designed to formulate a detailed and systematic formulations of doctrinal belief.
I think especially as I owned how morally conflicted I was about some traditional interpretations, and weighed George MacDonald’s view that we shouldn’t just ignore deep convictions of our conscience, I increasingly have felt that the conservative view of authority often functioned to keep people from further study of Scripture, gets used to reinforce troubling conclusions that others wanted their followers to uphold, and to prevent consideration of the Bible’s overarching narrative and message that has a powerful ring of truth. Hope that give you some idea of my pilgrimage.
Thanks Bob, that does help. How do you decide when dealing with something like the flood, or God’s command to wipe out an entire city (herem), for example, if you are dealing with historical narrative or something else entirely? I know that’s not an easy question to answer, obviously. Do you think that the Old Testament delivers a history of Israel (albeit limited) with any degree of accuracy?
On O.T. accuracy, in a recent class at Hebrew University with their leading archeologist, the consensus was that the evidence shows some accounts are very reliable (esp. later ones like David’s reign onward written close to events), but that support for others like patriarchal details written much later is more problematical. I’m sympathetic to that sense.
I don’t “know” how to decide the nature of accounts for sure. E.g. Is Jonah a history, or possibly a parable? Who led David to take a census (2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1)? Did a flood on the “whole world” mean global, or like the sun going “down,” just the phenomological ‘world’ the author knew and saw. Are the geneologies, or the numbers in the wilderness historically literal, or could they be selective or have symbolic meaning? What allows you to be sure of your decision? (My corner’s ‘Bible’s Storyline,’ under ‘A view of Show no Mercy,’ reflects debatably on ‘herem.’)
With Allan, I think what really makes a difference is whether I trust the theological meaning that I see in the narrative (which could be derived from ‘history’ or say a parable that has that meaning). Some do feel the point of a story can’t be true unless it is exactly literal. I don’t see why. And if knowing the events are accurate is essential, I’m not sure the facts can be settled by just saying, our book says… I’ve often been told, “We know the Quran or the Bk. of Mormon is true, so whatever IT says ends all discussion.” But I don’t see how one ‘knows’ such accounts are the last word.
But you are sharp and will rightly persist in the profound question, so How then do you choose what you will trust? On the human level it seems like it’s influenced by some combination of historical evidence and logic, what makes sense to me, and my inner sense of the Spirit’s witness about what is true (and maybe there’s a God thing here that can’t be formalized; doesn’t faith ultimately need to be more in God, than in certitude about the past?). In practice, such things combine to produce differing degrees of assurance about various claims. Have you found that there is an alternative to such an approach that instead secures certainty?
I have to say that I share Chris’s reservations.
I wonder how much of what we choose to believe is just ‘wishful thinking’ (ie rejecting the unpalatable bits of the bible) and when I read of what I perceive to be a lack of any rigor in how we decide what is and isn’t myth it makes me wonder how many of us have believed in UR just because we like the idea rather than any sound biblical and intellectual basis.
I can see no valid reason to view the account of Noah as entirely allegorical and I see motive as an attempt to recreate reality/God into the image we have already formed or would like to form.
The saddest thing is that it doesn’t work unless we also reject scores of other ‘unpleasant’ OT accounts which (IMO) are very clearly supposed to be historical accounts.
When I began to believe UR (based on biblical evidence) my view of the nature of God changed not one jot but my heart leapt for joy because of the consequence for all mankind.
When I read a thread like this, I ask myself, what on earth have I got myself into!
PS
I have two questions for those who would regard the Noah account as entirely allegorical:
Do you find anything objectionable in a God who would commit genocide and if so precisely what?
What were the early Christians asking for when they said ‘Maranatha’?
Your nom-de-plume communicates the Truth of the matter: we are all pilgrims, we are all on a journey. What we have received, what we have seen and heard, and what God has revealed to us, we are responsible for all these things. But long before there were scriptures Abram trusted God. I don’t “trust the scriptures”, I trust God. I pray always while reading that my eyes will be opened. I believe that the bible has historical veracity, but is my faith dependent on the account of Job being strictly accurate, or allegorical? No.
“How then shall we live?”. This is my guide. If we have disputes that don’t impact how we should live, then I don’t believe the dispute is very meaningful. My revelation of God as TrueFather: loving, stern, tender, uncompromising and ultimately effective in “raising” all his children (prodigal and otherwise) has been transformative to how I live and treat others.
If eating meat is a stumbling block, don’t eat meat. I believe in the miracle of the resurrection, partly because I know how God has resurrected me. Once you accept the “beam” of the resurrection, other miracles are “motes”, so they are not a stumbling block to me. But if a believer thinks the crossing of the Red Sea is allegory, it doesn’t devalue their “pilgrimage” to me. I trust God to reveal himself to others as he sees fit. The truth is, we see through a glass darkly. That is clearly the nature of our current circumstance. God has his purpose for this, and I trust Him. I don’t evangelize for the “inerrancy of scripture”, I evangelize for The Living God.
I trust God also and I don’t make an idol out of the scriptures. You say you don’t trust them. I don’t go that far. For me they are extremely valuable in my walk with God.
My faith is dependent on the Rock of Christ. Nothing and no-one else. But that does not give me license to treat scriptures casually or disrespect them.
I don’t understand that statement. “How shall I live?” Is an important question and my guide is the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I’m not keen on your word ‘dispute’. I believe that sensible debate is something from which we all can learn and there is little debate that does not reflect on my thoughts, my life, my relationship with others. If I believed, like you, that this topic is of no import, then I would allow those who think it might be important to carry on without interruption whilst I find a more ‘important’ thread where I might make a valuable contribution or question.
Thank you for informing me.
I’ll consider your instruction.
I believe the first is literal and I assume the second is metaphorical. Is that difference important? The difference might not seem important to you (and you may be right) but I happen to believe that it is immensely important. Do you allow me that belief?
[size=85](my bold)[/size]
You seem to be considering yourself quite a lot.
And what if the smaller miracles are steps along the way for someone who is journeying towards the greater miracle of the resurrection?
And it doesn’t to me. Why do you think it should? However, if someone promotes an allegorical approach to some scriptures then some poor soul may adopt that approach to the ressurection on the same basis. You mention stumbling blocks TO YOU, but you must consider what might make others fall. There could be a domino effect if we misinterpret some texts. Today the red sea, tomorrow the resurrection.
But you don’t trust Him to guide this thread without your intervention?
Thank you for informing me.
Indeed.
True.
I’m pleased for you. Does that mean we should not ‘study to show ourselves approved unto God’?
neither do I. Once again, thank you for the information.
I was responding to your statement “when I see a thread like this I wonder what I’ve gotten myself into”. I wasn’t trying to be flip - I’m from a very conservative evangelical background, and I understand the “slippery slope” you describe - if we start pulling away the veracity of Scripture, where do we stop??? And if we deny the resurrection, then as Paul himself says, our hope is in vain.
My life has been changed by Christ. I simply tell people that without Gods love, I was lost, without hope, without will, free or otherwise, without any charity for myself let alone others. When I humbled myself before God, he raised me up. And I believe if others will humbly seek his face, he will not withhold the revelation and resurrection they need. Whether that means He will convict them that the Red Sea actually parted, I don’t know. But I’m 100% sure I’m not 100% right, and that’s a good place to let humility take root.
I guess I’m trying to say that I know the MacLarens of the world can give us who take a more literal approach the “heebie-jeebies”. But EU has in some ways lessened my anxiety and increased my trust that God has broader/wider/deeper purposes for someone whose “belief infrastructure” is very different from mine. To his own master he stands or falls, and he shall stand, for God is able to make him stand, I guess.
Thanks for your insightful comments. I come from a conservative background as well, and since the revelation of UR, I have started to migrate toward a less literal interpretation of scripture also. It has worried me for the same reasons as some of the concerns expressed here, so it was good for me to hear some “balancing” comments. You’re right; in many cases, it is the point of the narrative that is more important than whether the details are literally historical as presented.
It reminds me of one of Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees; they searched the scriptures thinking that in them life was found, while they were ignoring the Truth those scriptures were pointing to standing right in front of them!
Nottirbd, you are twice the pilgrim I’ll ever be. I’m sure my posts come across as harsh and too impassioned. I too have developed my view on scripture. For one thing, I now see no justification for calling our protestant canon ‘God’s Word’ and it is true that the spiritual implications of the narrative are the crucial message.
I do, however, wonder why people feel concerned and why they feel the need to challenge the idea of a loving God who allows/causes a great flood that kills countless thousands and saves a very few. This story seems common to many people groups. What is it that my fellow travellers above find objectionable? It is a genuine question. Wasn’t ‘Maranatha’ actually invoking a very similar thing? Don’t we all have to die once in this world? So the charge against God is that He shortened the time on this world for some people? What’s the problem?
God just did bless me, p-nice! And you were the instrument.
Wow, you come straight at it. The OT is a “stumbling block” for some, but it is meat, not milk for sure! Some random thoughts:
I tell my (agnostic at best) Jewish friends “You know the best evidence these texts are true? WHO WOULD MAKE THIS UP? Your patriarchs are portrayed as massively flawed - Abram pimps out his wife when he thinks he’s in danger, Moses is a divorced murderer, David is an adulterer who has Uriah, the husband of the married woman he’s seduced, killed in battle. And these are the GOOD guys! There’s no historical document like this - any “friendly” biographer or historian would expunge an redact half this stuff. Jeannine Garofolo says the bible is “children’s stories”. I defy her to find an OT book that’s not NC-17.”
Now let’s get to God! Israel means “wrestles with God”, and boy, you need headgear and a singlet with this God. (some as we know prefer the “white-out” of allegory so they don’t have to wrestle with Him.) Letting Satan afflict Job on a bet? Ordering Israel to kill all the Jericho women and children, and punishing them when they don’t? This is a Loving God??
Others can weigh in, but my own “epiphany” regarding God’s Loving Justice portrayed in the OT comes at the lips of Job. He’s confronted and berated with the wisdom of his age by his friends “GOD is just, as we know, and you’re clearly being punished, so repent your sins. The righteous are uplifted, the wicked brought low.”. Job has the courage to wrestle with God like no-one else will - he effectively says “That’s cr-p! The wicked sleep peacefully in their tents, their children dance and feast! The righteous die every day in the dust, unwept and unloved! I won’t CLOSE MY EYES to the apparent injustice that surrounds me in order to justify God.”. But then he apprehends something deeper - Job KNOWS Gods character, knows his justice, and so intuits the afterlife when everyone else is trying to balance the scales in the here and now. Handel uses his words in “The Messiah”, and they still make my hair stand on end: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see GOD!”. Satan thinks he will break this man, but Job’s suffering gives him unprecedented prophetic insight into Gods ultimate loving plan.
Just briefly, I would reflect upon our motive in rejecting a “miracle claim” because it sounds outlandish and impossible. For instance, it doesn’t seem consistent to accept the resurrection of Our Lord and then claim that some OT miracle is impossible. As they say “HELLO”!
bob
Evangelicals would say, “believe all this” (meaning flood, parting of the red sea, Resurrection, etc.) but talk circles around “every knee will bow and and every tongue confess.” They would say about such inclusive scriptures, “you are taking it out of context” or “that’s not really what Paul is saying”, etc.
Coming from an evangelical, conservative background myself, I was liberated when I decided to just believe it all, and to assume that the apparent inconsistencies (that I cannot otherwise resolve) are a result of my human finite understanding and the mystery which surround God’s ways and His plan in Christ.
I am trusting the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth (1 John 2:27). I choose to read and study *every *aspect of Scripture with the same reverence and respect for Its authority as God’s Word, His revealed Truth. It’s a beautiful thing.
