Just to Clarify

"The only standard that has remained unchanged throughout history is the standard of God's Word. Though man in his sinful thinking may shape for himself a god that fits his personal standards, this does not change the only standard against which all of God's children are judged." -- Henry Blackaby

 

I agree with Blackeby but sadly some here don't believe the Word of God to be true.
Murph

 

But as I pointed out, "Christian" in Scripture and theology has a completely different meaning than that which Joshua is using. And the "church" that is forming will be no more Christian than much of the scholarship that Joshua cites. I will join with the word of God in standing against "Christian" scholarship in the terms that Joshua refers to.

 

If the law was a solution for the hardness of the Hebrew hearts, what about our Western hearts?
Am I the only one who doesn't think it would be such a bad idea to stone evil kids?

 

Am I the only one who doesn't think it would be such a bad idea to stone evil kids?
Hummm. The wages of sin is death. The 5th Commandment: "Honor thy Father and Mother". Would it be sin to dishonor father and Mother? Find a biblical definition of sin, and you've got it! Seems maybe God is consistent after all!
Jim

 

If you really believe that, you are living in a fantasy world. Care to give us the names of a few of these "mainstream" scholars?

In the Father,

Russ <><

 

Joshua, I enjoy a lot of your posts - they are insightful and inspiring at certain times.

A lot of the animosity pointed at you is not well thought out, but I know where it comes from - your views, well posted on this board about sexual issues, especially homosexuality. I must disagree with your position and stance in that area. On that point I side with your detractors, but I don't feel compelled to debate it; it's all been said on this board. Nevertheless, you have some insight on other general issues like interpretation and progressive revelation.

 

Baptist Vine, that is largely Joshua'a problem, progressive revelation.
Murph

 

"Truth For A New Generation" Conference

http://www.faithinfocus.org/

Great lineup of Apologetics "giants!" Hey Joshua, are you going? Let me know as I am going with a group from my church. Seriously, I'd like to meet you. I promise not to throw any punches!

 

It seems the word "scholar" is used rather loosely these days. Brueggemann is a liberal theologian of the worst kind. His "Borgian" theology is humanistic to it's very core. His arguments are merely the usual and customary sanctified mush that orthodox christians have become so accustomed to. He and his cohorts give absolutely no creedence to the historic apostolic teachings and biblical interpretations of the church, and they are well within their rights to not do so. But whatever they are they certainly are not "mainstream" by any stretch of the imagination.

What it all boils down to Joshua is your burning desire to see the sin of homosexuality once and for all accepted by the church as normative behavior. The only way you and others like you can do this is to cast doubt on the inspiration and authority of the written word of God utilizing any favorable source you can find.

Like the old saying goes, the Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. It is going to wear yours and Brueggemann's out too.

Russ <><

 

Russ, Amen!

 

Sorry Joshua, but the plain reading of the text compares a consenual affair with a rape, with vastly different rulings as to how the offenders should be judged. If they were both rapes, what would be the point in comparing them and why the different judgments? The first case distinctly does not mention "force," nor did she scream out, which would certainly have brought help. Joshua, if they were both rape, why the contrast between populated and unpopulated place, and no mention of force contrasted with the distinct word "force" being used in the second case? You seem to reason what you want to make something out to be rather than simple objective reasoning, which in this case clearly contrasts consensual sex and rape.

If we go with your theory, here's what we learn of the Law (in your eyes): If a woman gets raped in a city, both parties get the death penalty. But if the rape occurs in the country side, only the man gets the death penalty! So the moral of the example is, avoid doing your dirty deeds in cities! Come on Joshua, I know you can reason more clearly than this!

 

Joshua, two predictions:
1) there will never be a satisfactory, logical response to the above, and
2) you'll nonetheless continue to be ridiculed for saying it.
Keep posting anyway.
D </font>[/QUOTE]I consider myself a fundementalist with a very consistent hermeneutic. The Bible is God's word, down to the last letter. A sculptor may use a number of different tools and a forensic scientist may examine it and discover that indeed different tools were used on different parts to created the overall effect, but, yet it is still the work of one artist. The Bible is my standard for right and wrong, not me, you, scholars, or theologians. If I read a portion of scripture and it goes against what I have believed to be wrong it is my responsibility to change ME, not change the Bible. If I go out to measure a piece of lumber and I choose one that looks to be eight feet long (eyeballing it) and I measure it and find that it is 7'-10", I don't throw away my tape measure because it is obviously wrong, I readjust my "eyeballing" skill. I DO really mean that I believe that the Bible is literally the words of God. I don't care that it offers the disticnt personalities of different authors anymore than I care that that sculpture has distinctive markings of different chisels. God chose the tools He wanted to get across the message He wanted to get across. That is logical and that is consistent. As far as being satisfactory, that is completely up to you. As far as commands being given to be followed one time and not followed another, that is also not a problem. That sculptor may use a chisel to shave off thin slices today and tomorrow use a different chisel to go deeper for whatever effect he needs. There are difficult passages that requre study, but, they are relatively few and far between. I may not understand why the sculptor chose to make that particular cut when I would have done it differently. My goal, however, is not to make the sculptor fit my preconceived notions but to discover what His intentions were.

Can't really argue with prediction No. 2, except, that I hope it is done with "meekness and fear"

 

Pastor Larry,

First, you said you would not be exaustive about revelation, truly. You miss the deeper questions that concepts of revelation require. When we speak of revelation it cannot be simply propositions about God, but revelation must be the revelation of God Himself. How can you or I be presented with blanket propositions without seriously limiting our own individuality and personalities. Record of revelation and actual revelation are much more than a distinction without a difference. Either a set of words are revelation or Jesus is the revelation only witnessed to in words. No matter how highly we place scripture as a source of our theological reflection, it cannot replace God as the source and content of revelation itself.

Secondly, if truth is defined as Christ himself, then truth does require exhaustivity when we speak of God--because He, unlike 2+2, contains all truth because He is Truth. Additionally, if the bible is proposed as the only source of truth, while at the same time being proposed as "incomplete" revelation "about" God, then the door is open for other forms of revelation. Maybe Muhammad was right?

Be careful here. The father of the development of doctrine "phenomenon" concept was John Henry Newman--if you would like to espouse it in its absolute sense maybe you should recant your statements in another thread and convert. The development of doctrine as it is conceived and used in contemporary historical theology is not the same as Newman's concept was--his concept reflects your idea of what this means. Instead, contemporary scholarship proposes that the mindset needed to produce a doctrine of inerrancy was not possible before the enlightenment. The pre-enlightenment sea of theological ideas were much more fluid. If you will read what I actually said above, your position has only been given for 200 years, then I think I have been very accurate and well informed on the issue.

Thirdly, you were looking for someone to point our your inconsistant hermenutic; well here goes. If you espouse concepts from a modern American mindset (demons don't sour your milk, people actually have psychological disorders caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, water is not evil) or use Greek, medieval, and modern philosophical concepts to explain your theology and read it back into the bible (Christ has two natures and one person, 3 persons one essence, the bible is the revelation of God) or force scripture to espouse these and any other presuppositions you bring to it, then you are not relying on an inerrant scripture, but upon your inerrant interpretation of that scripture--or errant whichever the case may be. What frustrates your quest to find yourself and your notions about what the bible is in the bible is that the bible is product of an ancient time and an alien culture. If it is not allowed to be what it was, has always been, and will always be, then you no longer have the bible (the record of revelation), but Pastor Larry's philosophy of the bible and its contents.

My proposition would be that there is no hermenuticly principle without bias, thus we need the church and her tradition to always keep us in dialogue. Without the dialogue to show us our biases, or us to show the biases of others both past and present, then we have nothing other than a personal philosophy about a dead document.

The fact that we are here in this forum discussing the bible can only produced good fruits. We are showing each other the biases we perceive. I don't know about you, but I enjoy this conversation. You make me look deeper about what I think and make me struggle with my own biases. If I would guess, at the end of this exchange we will neither one be converted to the others opinion, but I do hope that we have caused each other to think critically and at the same time still be Brothers, for we do have the same purposes here--knowing the most we can about the God we worship and love so that we can be better servants for Him.

Grace and Peace, Danny