Painting an overly flowery view of God

[Nathan]

I know this is an evangelical site, a label I associate with. However, I do find it interesting that a doctrine of strict inerrancy or verbal plenary inspiration is never allowed to be questioned.

Ironically Im not sure if there is much reason for reading the bible in that fashion, other than the fact that is what was taught to us (especially us americans since the 19th century) Granted, being willing to challenge that paradigm means that lots of work must be done to understand the bible and the Holy Spirit’s speaking thru it.

But the jews did just that in the form of the talmud and mishnah and different rabbinic schools and yokes. Im not one hundred percent opposed to strict inerrancy, but scriptures like this one being discussed either lead to a reworking of our biblical interpretation, or a reworking of our understanding of the word love. I think it is unavoidable. Those are just my thoughts though.

For me, that’s a yes and a no. I do agree that having all the literal understanding, the cultural knowledge of the day and the greatest understanding of the original text is still not enough to base truth on without the Holy Spirit breathing life and understanding into is as, again for me, it’s all to be taken spiritually rather than literally.

Which leads into the “no” part of casting it aside all together . . .there are just too many relevant applications all through it that warrant our attention. The things written carry multiple levels of understanding, truth and application to them so for anyone to take any of it casually for me would be a great tragedy. It’s not the Scripture that can turn man’s interest away, it’s men trying to enforce their interpretation of it that pushes people away. The spirit draws us “into” it, whereas the mentality of men does just the opposite.

What I tell people about reading Scripture is . . .“know” the literal stories and passages . . .“apply” TO YOU (not to others) the moral value each story contains . . .but most importantly, “pursue” the spiritual truth that each and every passage has lying beneath the surface of what’s been said. But to see any of it, ya gotta read it at some point. No, it’s not my salvation and no I won’t go to hell if I don’t, but if it truly was inspired by the Holy Spirit like it says that it is, and that same spirit is what is living in me, then that means, the “author” is in me yes? And if the author is in me, wouldn’t there then be both an interest on my part, and a drawing on the Spirit’s part to inspire me to read what the spirit has written?

Not to “build” a doctrine from it’s pages, I believe that’s the problem with all the divisions we have in the religious world as it is. So many people have built a belief from what their heads have interpreted Scripture to be saying rather than from God building his church from the inside of us, out. So reading it just to base or build a belief, I’d say we’re off the track already. But to read it one, because you’re led, two, because you’re heart is open, as you do, it then becomes what I believe it was originally intended to be come . . .a witness of what God is already speaking “in” us. It testifies what God has already planted in our heart, it affirms what my spirit has flashed through my mind. Reading it from an elevated . . ascended place gives it a completely different demeanor, it’s not about death to those that fail and life to those that succeed . . .it’s about life to all who live and breathe, inspite of their strengths and weaknesses.

[andrew1]

Good words Nathan.

Im not trying to play devils advocate, but I will be up front and honest in saying that at this specific point in my faith journey, I along with perhaps Paidion, would say that I cannot believe the God that is in Jesus killed all of those people. Though I definitely used to. So as I see it, the Holy Spirit who was with these people as well, and who speaks through the scriptures, is leading me to seek out the truth from these stories, and what I find is a people whose hearts are far from God but who are clinging to their God in a war-strewn world. They are at risk, perhaps, of being exterminated and so they exterminate and thank their God that He gained them that victory (many scholars of all stripes believe that the ancient jews and their neighbors believed that their gods were literally dueling in the skies above their battles.) So when they win, they truly believe it is God, and God works with them in their understanding…blah blah blah.

My point is that I believe the spirit has led me to see the truth in this scripture and others like it in light of Christ’s teachings and revelation of God’s character, and therefore, I heartily recommend these scriptures, fully believing that they bear witness to the truth of God. I guess different people are being led to believe different things, or there are many “holy spirits” leading different God-lovers into different understandings and we risk falling into a pit of absolute uncertainty.

My thoughts ramble, but it should be obvious that this issue (perhaps along with Universalism) will define the church in the coming decades.

[Paidion]

I don’t have the exact quote at my finger tips, but I recall reading George MacDonald as saying something like the following:

“Understand God’s character. Believe in the goodness of God and that God is LOVE. Believe it even if you find something in the Bible that indicates something quite different about God’s character.”

[Elliot_Swatto]

I take a figurative view, but do not believe that this need in any way diminish the authority of the passage (just as Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan not being intended as literally true does not remove from its message), similar to the idea that I consider Genesis to be largely figurative, but not taking away from its authority. A non-literal view, in my opinion, doesn’t prevent the *underlying message *that is being portrayed, as by parable, from being inerrant, and so a person can hold to both inerrancy and a non-literal view.

Presently, I lean towards a molinist view of Biblical inspiration, whereby God knows what a given free creature would choose in a given circumstance, and thus directs specific circumstances for specific people, thereby making them write the text for the Bible that He desires to see; in this, it seems to me that the writers of a passage do not necessarily need to know the meaning of what they were writing. Any difficulties in interpretation that may arise because of this, it seems to me, will be resolved in the ultimate reconciliation of everything (and have an ultimate good purpose), so that God’s choice of genre for the Bible is utterly faultless in the end, despite our short-term uncertainty.

The following is like what I posted on Tentmaker (slightly altered):

I have a (possible) idea about how we could interpret the Old Testament, which avoids all purported difficulties. We can base it on the principles that: a) God is love, and love alone, b) God does not change in nature, c) the Bible is a mixture of historical, poetic and figurative genres, with, overall the message that counts and d) the Bible is wholly harmonious. As an aside, it is meant to be a book of meaning, not primarily a history or science textbook, and so there need not be any conflict with scientific thought. It is possible that from time to time even the actual authors did not absolutely anticipate the true meaning of the text that they were writing, and that, for some passages, the message is portrayed in such a manner that it will become more understandable (and possibly was originally intended) in the context of eternal life. In this way, we can overcome moderately simply a) problems with God performing certain actions and b) problems with difficulty in understanding.

Consider the following quotes:

“God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.” (1 John 4:16b,c)

“God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5b)

"4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails."

(1 Corinthians 13:4-8a)

Especially: (Matthew 22:34-40)

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Loving God, who is love and light, is not in conflict with loving one’s neighbour. Hence, it seems to me that the Old Testament could have this **“principle of agape love” **applied to it. Since a given passage could be either referring to an event, or demonstrating a principle by figurative language, this “principle of agape” could be applied to it. If it apparently seems to be difficult to reconcile with God’s loving character in Jesus and expressed in Paul’s letters, then, it seems to me, reasonable to conclude that such a passage is figurative in meaning; this helps fulfil a), b), c) and d), and prevents possibly harmful misapplication.

This would be able to help many struggling with problems such as these, and prevent people needlessly being turned away because of misconceptions about God. I am very sad at the stigma that William Lane Craig, whose explanation of these issues are certainly good-intentioned (although I disagree with his view), is receiving as a result of his apologetics on this, which is putting people off the rest of his very good work on a variety of issues . The view that I have given allows Biblical inspiration, and the inerrancy of the message portrayed by the text, to be held without much problem. However, this is only an idea.

[This part is extra] Regardless of it all, we can still take the fallback approach of trusting wholly that “God is love”, and love alone, and so, whatever the truth here, we can trust that it it good.

Blessings of Jesus Christ to all!