Been thinking about the concept of progressive theology throughout humanities existence. The idea that concepts in the bible are getting closer and closer to a solid truth with each generation. Im not talking about general changes in peoples thoughts regarding morality, but whether the bible changes views as we move further into humanities existence.
Looking at the OT, things such as concubines and seeing women as property were quite commonplace for a long time - and the bible sort of just accepts its existence and gives rules and regulations as for how to handle these things. If you consider Oral Torah, Jews basically are adding on and trying to fully explain concepts in the Torah - but it is a very progressive action as it describes things not noted in the bible. They would consider Oral Torah to be just as infallible as the Torah itself (or so I think).
So should we consider the bible to be a progressive document?
How do we even know if we are going on the right path anyway? People were 100% okay with using concubines back then and would have seen it as fairly normal (I would assume). What if there are things we do today from the bible that would be morally reprehensible 1000 years from now. Are we supposed to just âgo with the flowâ as it were and follow the attempts made by religions to find Truth?
Hum! Come to think about itâŚMy theory that Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)âŚis the most probable, end-times tribulation scenarioâŚmight be âprogressive theology.â
Thanks for the info fellas - thought those were both helpful.
Dandy Randy - The thing on collective salvation is an interesting one. There was one theory I came across that stated the Jews are small representatives of the whole of humanity. If they do well in obeying Godâs commands then humanity benefits from this. Not sure though.
mcarans - The point of saying that âfulfilling the lawâ meant to âinterpret it correctlyâ is a conclusion that I came to, so that was reassuring for me. To add on though, I donât think we should read the bible like Jesus did in some ways. Jesus couldnât read the NT as it was sort of in the works at that time - so all he was referring to was the Tanak.
Side note: There are a lot of times (I think 51 in the NT) where the term âscriptureâ is used. Since its scattered around the NT it could not possibly be referring to the NT itself as it wasnât created yet. So all people would have considered scripture to be the Tanak. This would lead me to believe that the NT is a type of Oral Torah as it were and not specifically âscriptureâ as is commonly believed today. Or so I theorise.
The way I see it is that Moses and the OT prophets had a limited understanding of the nature of Godâindeed a misunderstanding when they depicted Him as One who instructed the Israelites to kill their enemies including women and children (though in some cases, they could let the women live in order to be mates for the Hebrews).
But JESUS revealed God as He truly is. Jesus is Another exactly like Godâthe exact expression of Godâs essence (Hebrews 1:3). And Jesus never killed anyone or instructed His disciples to kill anyone
Jesus described God as One who is kind to unthankful people and evil people. (Luke 6:35)
Thereâs nothing âprogressiveâ about that. That which Jesus revealed was simply the reality concerning the nature of Godâa reality that was not understood by the ancient Hebrews.
You simply do not know that⌠that is simply your own unproven assertion. You likewise have no more evidence that the records of the NT are any more kosher than those of OT, apart from your own faith, i.e., what YOU choose to believe.
When it comes to theological âtruths,â or any religionâs claims for the validity of their writings,
does anyoneâs view escape involving their own faith and what they choose to believe?
How can one avoid choosing what literature and which beliefs he finds believable?
What does it mean to imply that only some of us âknowâ our beliefs are true or kosher?
But thatâs my exact point Bob⌠once you start inventing and introducing rationales for discounting, dismissing, denying and destroying texts, as is well evidenced, demonstrated and practiced on this board by some, how is it NOT reasonable to then hold other apparently more favourable texts to the same self-scrutiny the proponent of these excuses makes? It is totally honest to ask for consistency.
That seems reasonable. But just as you imply that you have a consistent ârationaleâ that allows you to âknowâ that all texts in the Bibleâs collection are equally true and valid, Iâd assume that those unconvinced of your reasons for knowing that assume that they too are consistent in applying the rationales to all texts that appear reasonable to them.
With most religions excepted, very few arenas of thought assume that everything written on it within a particular collection need be equally valid and not subject to other external (and even internal) criterion of evaluation. So given the diversity of viewpoints collected in the Bible, those who suggest that they reasonably âknowâ that this assumption should be embraced, would seem to need to meet a high bar.
I donât so much disagree with either of you⌠BUT thatâs NOT what Iâm alluding to⌠I think you, Bob, know exactly what Iâm talking about (I can go and find plenty of quotes though I shouldnât need to).
Plenty of times on this forum a biblical text has been put forward to show a given reality only for someone to debunk said text as invalid or irrelevant based purely on the basis that said text does not agree with some presupposition they hold as more important, i.e., their presupposition is correct, the text however becomes wrong, mistaken and or mistranslated etc, etc⌠followed then by their own litany of lax interpretation.
Example: a text will say something to the affect⌠âGod said⌠yada yadaâ the authenticity of which will then be called into serious question and all manner of excuses given as to why NOT to believe what is actually there in black and white IN THE TEXT.
So Iâm not talking about arguments around interpretation etc, surely we all understand that? Iâm referring to plain evidence of the text where the text clearly saysthus and so but someone will contend and claim no it doesnât â even though itâs right there in the TEXT.
I find arguing about what a text says, and doubting that what it says is true, to be are two different things. I too dislike someone arguing that their view reflects the Bible, but then dismissing contrary texts, unless they admit up front that they donât believe the whole Bible is binding upon their beliefs (as e.g. Paidion or LLC has). For I love taking texts seriously and debating what they really mean, even though Iâm not an inerrantist.
But I question that those here who typically consider a given text not binding on their view think their only basis is that it doesnât agree with their own preferred belief. As I suggested, they have ârationalesâ (external and internal concerning the narrative) that cause them to think that it is justified to give a particular text supremacy as more valid than another. The retort to their view must engage their rationales, not simply complaining that they are not giving equal authority to every text.
My own impression is that a more conservative view of the Bible as universally binding causes one to be invested in having every text agree with oneâs paradigms and views, while those who admit that they donât find all views in the Bible to be correct, should be more objective and able to admit when it says things that conflict with their own beliefs.
But qaz, the debate I see there is not whether the text says that God ordered such genocides. I think it obviously does, even while I question whether it is true or moral.
Regarding "Godâs" instructions to exterminate the Amalekites, we read,
1 Samuel 15:1,3 Samuel said to Saul, âI am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. ⌠Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.â â
Agreed! The text clearly saysâthat Samuel saysâthat God saysâto kill babies. Yet nevertheless, here we are, broaching the question of whether or notâthe human author of the text wrongly attributed the genocide to God.â But alas, maybe we are all guilty (with the exception of Davo) of doing something we shouldnât dare to do?
I try to be consistent: I always challenge any biblical text which indicates that God is not the loving Father I knowâthat God would âkill, steal, and destroyâ people. I do this by striving to properly distinguish between God and Satan (as spelled out by Jesus in John 10:10), and by recognizing that, like many believers today, the prophets, in their ignorance, sometimes failed to make this distinction in their writingsâmisattributing evil to God.
I would further argue that all of us subjectively apply filters, perhaps even in the face of explicit Bible verses that appear contrary to our viewpoint. (And after all, donât we regularly play âBible verse ping pongâ with each other here?)
For example, my suggested âairtightâ John 10:10 hermeneutic tool is nonsense to Davo, because ultimately, he doesnât believe, as I do, that the devil even exists, and that he is âthe god of this ageâ (2 Cor. 4:4), an evil person for whom the whole cosmos lies in his power (1 John 5:19).
To use his words, I would argue that Davo dismisses the âplain evidence of the text where the text clearly saysthus and soâŚand claim[s] no it doesnât.â Further, that he himself sometimes âintroduc[es] rationales for discounting, dismissing, denying and destroying texts, as is well evidenced, demonstrated and practiced on this board by some.â
As one example, Davo refutes (what to me is) the plain meaning of texts about the very existence of the devilâtexts which to me seem uncontroversial, like the following:
Matthew 4:8-11 (NIV. Cf. Luke 4:5-8)
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
9 âAll this I will give you,â he said, âif you will bow down and worship me.â
10 Jesus said to him, âAway from me, Satan! For it is written: âWorship the Lord your God, and serve him only.ââ
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
I donât question the potâs right, for example, to dismiss the devil, but it shouldnât so blithely call the kettle black.
OK. There are some, who âallegedlyâ âŚhave the gift of hearing, the voice of God. One is a Roman Catholic priest, I have spent many years withâŚhe âallegedlyâ has the gifts of healing and hearing the voice of God. And I attended many, of his healing masses - and fell down from his touch. So if he (or the prophets / apostles) âŚhears God speakingâŚhow âexactlyâ is he - or they - applying âfiltersââŚso to speak?
HFPZ, by âfiltersâ I guess I mean presuppositions or paradigms, whether true or false.
Regarding the supernatural, for example,
one filter may be that only God can do supernatural things, like speak to people, or heal people
another filter is that there is nothing supernatural, only natural
another filter is that God does supernatural things, but that there is also a devil who can do miraculous things, and we truly need help from the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all truth (John 16:13), in order to successfully distinguish between God and the satanic when something supernatural occurs
This is usually pretty easy. Take the âallegedâ miraculous healing and sacred places, of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. Well, if these things increase oneâs faith in Christ, the church, etcâŚIf itâs the devil, then he is doing âa terrible jobââŚUsually it boils down, to WHOM one gives the credit to. If one points the finger, to God as the doerâŚand they donât advertise, charge admission or sell ticketsâŚagain, the devil is doing a poor jobâŚof keeping folks, from turning to God. The Devilâs job, is to get people to abandon Christianity⌠or for non-Christian settings, getting them to abandon faith in God, living an ethical life, etc.
So lets say weâve correctly interpreted the bible through finding all errors in translation and bias etc - does the bible still progress in increasing the knowledge of Truth?
Yes, do our interpretations of the rules of the NT change and do we need to go outside of the bible to help complete those ideas. Hope I clarified that a bitâŚ
What are YOU trying to prove by your assertions??? I have never argued that the NT writings are âmore kosherâ that those of the OT. My argument is that JESUS revealed the Father as He truly isâboth by word and by living example as the Son of God, the exact expression of Godâs essence.
.
Since I am a Christian, I believe what the Anointed Jesus, my Lord taught. Since He taught the character of God to be quite different from the ways in which Moses and some of the prophets depicted Him, I hold to Jesusâ description of Godâs character.
Yes, my âevidenceâ concerning Godâs character is what I choose to believe, for I choose to believe my Lord and Saviour, the anointed Jesus.