Should a Baptist University President be an Orthodox Christian?

[Dr. Bob]

Thank you, Hardsheller, for 20-point indictment from the lips of the man himself.

With only 2 or 3, I would say that they might have been wrested from context and that no Baptist would teach or hold such erroneous positions.

But 20? My oh my.

Aren't there some positions open in Lutheran seminaries?

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:

Aren't there some positions open in Lutheran seminaries?

Well, not MO-Synod or Wisconsin Synod...

I'd say a Buddhist lamasary (spelling?) might be more in line....

 

[Speedpass]

Sounds like typical mod-lib rhetoric, that only the what Jesus actually said in the Bible should be our final, absolute guide for living the Christian life.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Part 1 of 5

Since we are playing court, let me introduce an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief concerning the so-called evidence that has been presented. Unfortunately it is easier to tell fabricate stories than tell truth, so I’ve had to break this information into 5 sections to make it more manageable for readers and the BaptistBoard software.

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
The following facts come straight from the book of Kirby Godsey. I did not copy them from some web site or from some state paper. I underlined all of them as I read his book in 1997.

These 20 quotes point out the problem that I and many other Baptists have with Dr. Godsey's theology.

The Facts – Not Hearsay, from the Book “When We Talk About God – Let’s Be Honest” by Kirby Godsey

Actually, these are not “facts”, but merely quotes from his writing. Furthermore, they are lifted from their contexts in order to make Godsey look like a heretic. While you and I might not agree with him at every point and detail, what has been done here is the standard Southern Baptist hack job against Godsey.

1. There are no right theologies. Page 16

In context, this quote simply expresses the truth that all theologies are in some sense incomplete and all theologies have some blind spots. Didn’t Paul affirm that we see “through a glass darkly” during this age (1 Corinthians 13)? Why do people get so upset about this quote?

2. Doctrinal Soundness is arrogant theological nonsense. Page 17

Put this one in context too:

“All our doctrines and creeds will not bring hope. We should not be tempted to depend upon the stability of our own fragile statements. We should not rely unconditionally upon out limited theological truths. Whenever we try to build doctrinal empires that admit or reject people on the basis of agreement and consent, we are simply wrong. Believing [in Christ] should never be equated with doctrinal soundness. Doctrinal soundness is arrogant theological nonsense. We are substituting our doctrinal constructions for God’s reality. God’s truth gives hope. Our propositions of belief inevitably fade. All our theologies and statements of faith are crafted by frail people. They should never be trusted for their finality. Theology itself is not the source of human hope. Our hope rests only in God.”

3. In the world of religious faith, we will have to learn that no one has final answers. P 47

In context, this quote is much like the first one listed here. Godsey simply warns against asserting that our perceptions are final.

In context:

“In the world of religious faith, we will have to learn that no one has final answers. When we set forth our belief as the only right belief, we are wrong. No finite person has absolute answers.”

4. The simple identification of the Word of God with the Bible is a grave mistake. P 50

In context, Godsey is talking about the place of the Bible in the Christian life. He is making the distinction between the “Word of God” (Christ) and the Bible. If someone doesn’t know the difference between the living Lord Jesus and the Bible, they have no right to make theological judgments of another.

[ June 07, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[Baptist Believer]

Part 2 of 5

5. Believing the bible is not the goal of faith, and it certainly should not be made a test of faith. P 50

As it is often said here, the devil believes the Bible. Is he a Christian? That’s the point Godsey makes in this context (although he does not use the example of the devil to do it). This statement is clear even ripped out of it’s context.

6. To ascribe infallibility to the written words of the Bible is wrong. P 51

Unfortunately this quote is yanked out of context and completely distorts the more interesting and provocative points being made about the nature of revelation and inspiration. Because the passage is lengthy and closely reasoned, I will not reproduce it here, but it seems that this quote was pulled from context (not even the primary context of the passage) simply to collect damning quotes. While many may have issues with his view of revelation (the Bible is fully revelation and inspired by God, but revelation is not restricted to the historical pages of scripture but continues today through the leadership of the God in the believer), this quote makes perfect sense in light of the rest of the passage.

7. That we are born of God provides the foundation for affirming that people are essentially good. P 83

8. At the wellspring of their life, people are good even when they do evil. P 83

Put these in context:

“The notion that ‘God created’ also gives us a new assessment of human character. That we are born of God provides the foundation for affirming that people are essentially good. The affirmation that people are good can be viewed as a starry-eyed, naïve way of looking at other people. Certainly a mere objective review of the human scene will give us no clear and definitive answer as to whether people are good or evil. We see pervasive and telling examples of both good and evil in the annals of human history. It is hard to tell from history alone. It takes a clue from Genesis to be able to see.

That is the point of Genesis. History alone does not give us definitive insight. Genesis enables us to see what history alone will not reveal to us. Our creation by God means that the essence of our being is good. People’s lives are grounded in God. At the wellspring of their life, people are good even when they do evil. When people’s actions are evil, they are acting against their essential nature and their deepest purpose for being here. They are not only hurting others, they are destroying themselves. Genesis tells us that persons were created by God and for God. The Genesis story also tells us that humankind turns away from its origins. History shows people tragically seeking to shape their histories without reference to God. Even so, revelation teaches us that we never elude the reality that our lives have their origins in God.”

While I have some disagreement with Godsey regarding the way he phrased this section (there is more along these lines that I did not include), he is clearly being unfairly and irresponsibly “quoted”.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Part 3 of 5

9. God does not abolish evil and suffering because God cannot abolish evil and suffering. P99

This is one of the more honest quotes given here, but still is incomplete because it does not provide the broader context. I disagree strongly with Godsey in his section on Evil and Suffering from the chapter “Coping with Chaos”, but Godsey is simply trying to get his arms around reconciling his understanding of a loving God and the reality of his son-in-law’s brain tumor. He concludes that God is suffering with them and that there is a purpose behind it all.

A much better treatment of the subject can be found in Phillip Yancey’s books, “Where is God When it Hurts?” and “Disappointment with God”.

10. Our faith does not claim that Jesus has either said something or done something that you and I must accept or reject. P 119

You have the wrong page number, the quote is the third sentence of page 117.

Let’s put it into context and see what Godsey is really saying:

“The heart of our confessions of faith is that this person called Jesus is God’s light for our lives. Confusion frequently reigns when it comes to thinking about Jesus. Our faith does not claim that Jesus has either said something or done something that you and I must accept or reject. Meeting Jesus is not an emotional or intellectual transaction. Through the disciples we can see the essence of the matter. Following [Jesus] is the heart of the transaction.”

The prevailing invitation that Jesus gave in the gospels was for people to follow Him – not pray a prayer, accept a theological model or have an emotional experience.

11. It’s status (the virgin birth) as an actual historical fact is unimportant. P120

Godsey is making a distinction between believing in the virgin birth and the importance of the virgin birth.

In context:

“Focusing of the Virgin Birth instead of Jesus is like focusing upon the trumpet blast rather than the grand event that it heralds. The Virgin Birth is used by Luke and Matthew to signal the radical character of Jesus’ presence.”

While I would affirm the teaching of the virgin birth more strongly than Godsey did in this context, I think he is correct. The divine paternity of Jesus is much more important than the fact that Mary was a virgin.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Part 4 of 5

12. The crucifixion is not the saving act of God. P124

In context:

“The cross is the most universally-accepted and recognized symbol of Christianity. The problem [of distorting our understanding of Christ] only arises when we take the step of regarding the crucifixion as the essence of Jesus’ life. The crucifixion is not the saving act of God… [W]hen we confess the centrality of Jesus to our faith, we are speaking of the whole person, Jesus of Nazareth. We are not speaking only of the cross or only of the resurrection. God’s presence in Jesus cannot be adequately understood if the life and ministry of Jesus is viewed in fragments. Jesus, the whole person, is the revelation of God. Attempts to reduce the meaning of Jesus’ life to a single event or to a certain body of teachings are foolish.”

Again we see another quote that seems to be yanked out of context for the purpose of condemnation.

13. Jesus is not God. Jesus is the Word of God. P128

This is from a closely reasoned and carefully worded section of some length. It is not possible for me to provide the full context without violating the copyright and taking my entire afternoon, but here is the heart of the passage that includes this quote:

“In a world where people characteristically seek to chart their own paths and create their own destinies, God continues to speak. The history of history can be read as the history of God speaking. People often listen with only one ear. The other ear attends to all the other sounds that consume them. The children of Israel wandering in the wilderness wanted more than words. They wanted a god they could see and touch. They longed for a golden calf that they could cherish. That way they could keep their eye on their god.

We are like the wandering Israelites. Jesus is our word. Like Israel, our first impression is to make Jesus into an icon of devotion. We want to see God, touch God, clutch God, and make sure that God belongs to us. So, we make Jesus into an object of worship. Let us not make Jesus into a magic fetish. Jesus is God’s speaking to us. Jesus is not God. Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is the speaking of God. Every other reference to the Word of God, such as referring to the Bible as the Word of God, should remain secondary to Jesus himself.”

Later in this passage (on pages 131 and 132) Godsey clearly and plainly affirms that Jesus is divine and is God incarnate. Those of you who understand the Trinitarian affirmations of the Christian faith know that to say that Jesus (the second Person of the Godhead) is “not God”, that is, the fullness of the Godhead, is the orthodox affirmation. Jesus is not the Father and is not the Spirit. The Father is not God, Jesus is not God and the Spirit is not God, but they are all God, and are one in essence and purpose.

14. Each of us is God incarnate. P 131

In context:

“[Speaking of the Incarnation] Above all else, the Incarnation resolutely affirms the centrality of humankind within creation. The Incarnation is God’s ultimate affirmation of Adam. It conveys powerfully that we are all of God. Each of us is God incarnate. Each of use bear’s God’s presence. We are God’s words in the world.”

Please notice the difference between the Incarnation (the unique coming of God in flesh, capitalized) with the incarnation of believers (the reality of “Christ in us”, not capitalized).

There is nothing heretical here.

15. Is Jesus God’s only Word? The simple answer is “of course not.” P 133

In another tightly reasoned argument, much too long to repeat here (more than half a chapter), Godsey starts with this provocative statement to jolt the reader into rethinking the way he categorizes his faith.

But as anyone can see from these other quotes entered into “evidence”, this quote is certainly not the essence of the theological position taken by Godsey.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Part 5 of 5

16. Atonement is something God does within us. P 142

This quote is found in the middle of a critique of the way Christians often focus on the substitutionary atonement theory as the only meaning of the work of Jesus.

In context:

“The presence of Jesus is not an event that reconciles God to people. God does not sulk, waiting to be coaxed into loving people again. It is not God who needs to be reconciled. Reconciliation is born of God coming to us. Atonement is not something God has done for us in the sense that God has made Jesus take our place so that the books would be balanced. Atonement is something God does within us. The ‘substitution’ is not an abstract act of making sure all the debts are paid. The ‘substitution,’ if we are to use that word, must be done in our own lives. We must ‘drink of his cup’ and be ‘baptized with his baptism.’ Jesus does not come to pay off the heavy penalties for our sin. Jesus’ word is that God loves us in spite of our sin. God’s grace is unfettered.”

17. Jesus did not come to tell us how to be saved. Jesus came to tell us that we are saved. P 144

Context:

“Jesus embodies God’s word. The meaning of salvation beings and ends with the wonder of grace. Sing it again: ‘Amazing Grace.’ The simplicity of grace is disconcerting. So, we make up these elaborate schemes to enable God to accept us. They turn out to be empty, clanging buckets of nonsense. Grace makes all our religious theories unnecessary and undermines our neat and complex human plans for salvation. Grace is a resounding ‘no’ to all religions and moral systems as providers of human hope.

Jesus did not come to tell us how to be saved. Jesus came to tell us that we are saved. Jesus came to tell us that we live in the arms of God’s grace. The message of Jesus is not a new religion to be adopted. Jesus lives before our very eyes the astonishing truth of God’s unconditional love and acceptance. ‘Grace and truth came through Jesus,’ the gospel writer John said. The Christian faith is solely about the power, presence, and reality of grace. The Christian religion never saved anyone nor gave anyone life. The Christian religion should not be confused as the hope of the world. Our faith centers on grace. It was grace and truth that came through Jesus.”

18. No local church in history can claim to be the true “called ones of God.” P 181

Notice the words, “local church”?

In context:

“The local church embodies the universal church in a given place and time. The larger church lives beyond the local church. For this reason, churches will do well to listen and to be attentive to one another. Our separateness is more history and sociology than theology. Common worship breaks down the historical barriers among churches. The more we listen for God, the more common will be our life of faith. No local church in history can claim to be the true ‘called ones of God.’ Through the broader community of faith, we can overcome the narrowness and self-exile that threaten the charter and spiritual strength of churches. Christians of all persuasions should call out hope and encouragement to one another. Whenever we behave as exclusive religious groups, our sin is showing. Listening dismantles the barriers between us. Together we become the people of God – called out to recenter our lives in the light of Jesus.”

19. Speaking plainly, heaven and hell are not places in space. P199

This is another difficult quote to put into proper context without reproducing a section of the book, but Godsey speaking of the problems of our materialistic spatial perceptions.

From the very top of page 200:

“But the question of ‘where is heaven’ is a wrong question for which there is no right answer. The best we can say is that heaven is ‘where’ God is.

‘Whereness’ does not apply to God or to eternity or to heaven. We will not search the galaxies and, at their edge, find heaven. Heaven is not a place in outer space. Space will never contain the realities of God and heaven. God is everywhere and God is nowhere. We cannot define God in terms of location. We are spatial beings. God is not.”

20. Universalism has a very high view of God…..God will never closer the door… Universalism contends that God never give up on creation. P202

Godsey does not necessarily endorse universalism as far as I can find. But most people who reject universalism (and I also reject it), do recognize that universalism has a very high view of God – God will somehow eliminate sin and rebellion for all eternity by an act of His will or the recognition and receiving of his grace by all who were once in rebellion. Correctly stating a doctrine does not make one a universalist just as writing a factually-correct book about Mormonism make one a Mormon.

When you consider the facts from his book. Dr. Godsey is clearly outside the boundaries of traditional and historical Southern Baptist Doctrine.

When I consider the way “conservative” and “Bible-believing” Southern Baptists have taken Godsey’s words out of context, I am concerned about their commitment to truth-telling and their lack of reading comprehension.

When we talk about Godsey’s book, let’s be honest…

 

[NarrowWay]

Ever read the book of James "Dr." Bob?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Thank you, Hardsheller, for 20-point indictment from the lips of the man himself.

Actually, the 20 quotes are from his book, not his lips. Fortunately it is something that is easy to check to see if his accusers are truly upholding truth or are participating in a lynching for political reasons.

With only 2 or 3, I would say that they might have been wrested from context and that no Baptist would teach or hold such erroneous positions.

Dr. Bob, it’s clear that you are not in Southern Baptist life. If you are not in lock-step with the so-called “conservative resurgence” they will go the extra mile to try to destroy you with false allegations. They say they believe the Bible, but they don’t seem to worry with the parts concerning telling the truth, loving their enemies and doing justice.

This Godsey book is one of the standard attacks. Since Godsey intentionally writes in non-theological terms using very short sentences and provocative language in order to get people to re-examine their presuppositions about the Christian faith, he is an easy target for the “resurgence” attack dogs.

Seeing the same old tired accusations one more time finally pushed me over the edge and made me spend my Saturday afternoon responding to this ungodly nonsense.

 

[Hardsheller]

Baptist Believer,

First of all let me address your comment that I published "the same old tired accusations" and "ungodly nonsense."

In 1997 I purchased this book and read it because I didn't believe everything I was reading in the Baptist Press about it and wanted to see for myself what Godsey had written.

I underlined every passage with which I had a question or disagreed with and even underlined those passages that I AGREED WITH.

When I finished the book, here is what I wrote in the back of the book.

"10/29/97 - Today I finished reading this book. I have never felt compelled before to write a reaction to any book I have read, at least in the book itself.

If everything Dr. Godsey believes is true, then much of what I believe is false.

I was particularily disturbed by his comments about the Bible, about doctrines, and about universal redemption.

He is a smart man, of that there is no doubt. He says some profound things. He reinforces my belief that liberals are smart, loving, and generally more caring than conservatives. They are also more misguided.

Having said I disagree with much of what he writes, I thank him for making me think."

James W. Shaver
Great Falls, MT

My second remark to you is in response to your attack of Dr. Bob where you say, "If you are not in lock-step with the so-called “conservative resurgence” they will go the extra mile to try to destroy you with false allegations. They say they believe the Bible, but they don’t seem to worry with the parts concerning telling the truth, loving their enemies and doing justice."

Who is this "they" that you are talking about?

There are plenty of us out here and we are still thinkers and we are still doers and we are not in lock step with any power brokers on either side of the SBC divide. And we say what we want to when we want to regardless of what any "they" thinks or says.

Thirdly, I would ask you point blank - Do you think the Book - "When we Talk about God, Let's Be Honest" represents the mainstream beliefs of Southern Baptist Church Members throughout the SBC? In your church?

Fourth and final comment - you used this little symbol -
Glad I could pull your chain. Now aren't you sorry you wasted your whole afternoon on this?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
First of all let me address your comment that I published "the same old tired accusations" and "ungodly nonsense."

In 1997 I purchased this book and read it because I didn't believe everything I was reading in the Baptist Press about it and wanted to see for myself what Godsey had written.

Very good. That’s why I purchased the book myself. I think Baptist Press made his book a bestseller with their attacks.

I underlined every passage with which I had a question or disagreed with and even underlined those passages that I AGREED WITH.

When I finished the book, here is what I wrote in the back of the book.

"10/29/97 - Today I finished reading this book. I have never felt compelled before to write a reaction to any book I have read, at least in the book itself.

If everything Dr. Godsey believes is true, then much of what I believe is false.

I was particularily disturbed by his comments about the Bible, about doctrines, and about universal redemption.

He is a smart man, of that there is no doubt. He says some profound things. He reinforces my belief that liberals are smart, loving, and generally more caring than conservatives. They are also more misguided.

Having said I disagree with much of what he writes, I thank him for making me think."

Glad he made you think. I believe that was the point of his book.

My second remark to you is in response to your attack of Dr. Bob where you say, "If you are not in lock-step with the so-called “conservative resurgence” they will go the extra mile to try to destroy you with false allegations. They say they believe the Bible, but they don’t seem to worry with the parts concerning telling the truth, loving their enemies and doing justice."

Who is this "they" that you are talking about?

I’m talking about all the hack jobs I’ve seen on this book which choose nearly the exact same sentences you do (out of context as well) and try to paint him as a heretic. You may have written yours yourself, but it seems that everyone else seems to have hit upon the same sentences. For instance, I keep a copy of the old Southern Baptist Plumbline (now Southern Baptist Texan) from May 1997 inside the front cover of my copy of the book. On page 5 of that issue, they repeat about nine or ten of those quotes and blatantly misrepresent their meaning.

I’ve seen the same hack job in numerous other places since then.

There are plenty of us out here and we are still thinkers and we are still doers and we are not in lock step with any power brokers on either side of the SBC divide. And we say what we want to when we want to regardless of what any "they" thinks or says.

Glad to hear it.

Thirdly, I would ask you point blank - Do you think the Book - "When we Talk about God, Let's Be Honest" represents the mainstream beliefs of Southern Baptist Church Members throughout the SBC?

Most Southern Baptists in the pew don’t have much of a theology. That being said, I think much of what Godsey said would go over fairly well in many SBC churches. But I don’t have the impression that Godsey was writing for a religious crowd. He seems to have focused this book toward a more post-modern audience – a secular audience who is turned off by the modernism of liberals and fundamentalists.

In your church?

Much of it would go over well in my church. We have a number of seminary professors in the congregation who are well-versed in these issues. Furthermore, our congregation is also fairly theologically astute and does not mind hearing other points of view from the pulpit – even if they don’t happen to hold the same opinions. Our congregation does not demand absolute theological conformity as a condition for love and fellowship.

Fourth and final comment - you used this little symbol -
Glad I could pull your chain. Now aren't you sorry you wasted your whole afternoon on this?

Not really. I finally, after about 5 years, took the time to respond to the false accusations.

 

[Hardsheller]

Baptist Believer,

You obviously prefer a Baptist world with fewer theological boundaries than I prefer.

Your opinion that my views are false accusations fall inside your theological boundaries but outside of mine.

The fact remains that Dr. Godsey's theology is lightyears away from the theology of the founders of the University he is president of.

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:

The fact remains that Dr. Godsey's theology is lightyears away from the theology of the founders of the University he is president of.

More like a hundred years or so more advanced (just like the ideas of Mercer's science and medicine faculty have not remained stuck in 1833. You do know do that that would be a bad thing, right?)
Having graduated from Mercer and knowing too many faculty members and graduates to list, I am quite
certain that if the founders of Mercer University had lived to see Kirby Godsey's administration, they would have approved. Don't believe me?
When I attended Mercer I lived with a retired professor who was in his 80's. Some of his OLDER friends were Mercer grads. All supported Godsey.
I have not met anyone who graduated from Mercer who was opposed to Godsey.
You make strong assertations about Mercer. Have you ever been there?

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by Major B:
1. John wrote this epistle.

2. ALL the Bible is authoritative. With the caveat that we must determine what covenant is in force at what time, all the Bible is equally authoritative. The words inspired by Jesus through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 16:12-15, Heb 2:1-4, 1 Cor 14:37), are just as authoritative as the recorded words of Jesus recalled by the power of the Holy Spirit and written down (in John's case) by the same human pen inspired by the same Holy Spirit. If you don't believe that the Word is authoritative and equally authoritative, how can you have a basis for discussion with those who believe in the Bible's authority? The answer is, there is not much room for discussion. It is like trying to discuss physics with someone who does not believe in quantum mechanics!

Be honest with yourself. Everybody picks and chooses which verses to follow and which to ignore, or at the very least, which to emphasize over the other.
As a Christian, I prefer to emphasize Jesus's words and commands over anyone else's. That includes John, or anyone writing under his name. That also includes Paul. I am pretty sure that both Paul and John would have me side with Jesus to the extent that their emphasis contradicts Jesus's.
The view that everything in the bible is as authoritative as everything else ignores sound biblical scholarship. It also amounts to placing a book on even footing with Jesus. Its also dishonest.
Have you ever looked at a synopsis of the gospels? (for the uninitiated, that is a book that sets our all four gospels side by side so that you can compare each gospel's narrative with the others).
I am thinking you have not. In some places, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are startlingly contradictory. You understand that two different accounts of the same event cannot be true, right?
Yet, the gospels were written very short in time after the events depicted when compared to the whole of the old testament. In other words, they were less likely to be shaped by hearsay, cultural differences, editor's changes, historical misunderstanding, etc.
So how then can they be on equal footing with the gospels (none of which can be inerrant b/c they contradict the others. I suppose we could pick one and let it be the official perfect one).
The bottom line is that everybody chooses what to keep and what to discard. Call yourself a conservative, an inerrantist, a fundamentalist, or a "bible believer". You and everyone else who reads the bible picks and chooses the parts you like best.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:

The fact remains that Dr. Godsey's theology is lightyears away from the theology of the founders of the University he is president of.

More like a hundred years or so more advanced (just like the ideas of Mercer's science and medicine faculty have not remained stuck in 1833. You do know do that that would be a bad thing, right?)
Having graduated from Mercer and knowing too many faculty members and graduates to list, I am quite
certain that if the founders of Mercer University had lived to see Kirby Godsey's administration, they would have approved. Don't believe me?
When I attended Mercer I lived with a retired professor who was in his 80's. Some of his OLDER friends were Mercer grads. All supported Godsey.
I have not met anyone who graduated from Mercer who was opposed to Godsey.
You make strong assertations about Mercer. Have you ever been there? </font>[/QUOTE]David,

Think carefully about what you are saying.

Of course science and medicine has changed. But does Biblical Truth? Or does our perception of Biblical Truth change?

I for one do not believe modern theologians are more insightful or more correct than theologians say two hundred years ago. Sure they have better tools with which to study.

Jesse Mercer and J.L. Dagg would not have been happy with Godsey's book. You should really do some research on their theology.

My connections with Mercer - None
Do I know any graduates? A few. One is a Judge in Georgia.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Be honest with yourself. Everybody picks and chooses which verses to follow and which to ignore, or at the very least, which to emphasize over the other.
As a Christian, I prefer to emphasize Jesus's words and commands over anyone else's. That includes John, or anyone writing under his name. That also includes Paul. I am pretty sure that both Paul and John would have me side with Jesus to the extent that their emphasis contradicts Jesus's.
The view that everything in the bible is as authoritative as everything else ignores sound biblical scholarship. It also amounts to placing a book on even footing with Jesus. Its also dishonest.
Have you ever looked at a synopsis of the gospels? (for the uninitiated, that is a book that sets our all four gospels side by side so that you can compare each gospel's narrative with the others).
I am thinking you have not. In some places, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are startlingly contradictory. You understand that two different accounts of the same event cannot be true, right?
Yet, the gospels were written very short in time after the events depicted when compared to the whole of the old testament. In other words, they were less likely to be shaped by hearsay, cultural differences, editor's changes, historical misunderstanding, etc.
So how then can they be on equal footing with the gospels (none of which can be inerrant b/c they contradict the others. I suppose we could pick one and let it be the official perfect one).
The bottom line is that everybody chooses what to keep and what to discard. Call yourself a conservative, an inerrantist, a fundamentalist, or a "bible believer". You and everyone else who reads the bible picks and chooses the parts you like best. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I am not sure which is more amusing, the condescending attitude of unbelieving theologians or their blindness. I've studied the Bible in detail for 27 years, and the school where I got my M.A.R. (after 23 years of studying on my own) doesn't give them away for boxtops. Yes, I've read and studied Gospel harmonies, and I find no "contradictions" which cannot be easily explained.

If you don't believe the Bible is all true, how do you know the "words of Jesus" you supposedly follow are true? You can't. You invent your own faith as you go along.

When there are "two different accounts of the same event" there are two possibilities: (1) They are not the same event! In my professional life in the military, industry, and teaching, there were many events which were similar--we had a saying in the USAF, "same stuff, different day." I am sure that there were many days in the life of Jesus where similar things happened on different days. Given the brevity of many accounts in the Bible, I have no problem understanding that "different accounts" are about different days!

(2) The second possibility is that "different accounts of the same event," are complementary accounts of the same event. Fit the two together and you get the whole story. As a crash investigator for the Air Force (oh, be careful what schools you volunteer for!), we learned to piece witness accounts together based on what side of the accident a person was located, what the witness' expertise was, and so on. In this case, the witnesses were inspired by the Holy Spirit to remember (John 14:26--words of Jesus, you know), so I would be loathe to dismiss their words as culturally colored or poor recollection. Again, if that is the case, "the words of Jesus" don't mean anything either.

As for picking the stuff I like and not picking the stuff I don't like, you have no basis for that assertion, since you have not sat in my classes or under my preaching and teaching. I am in the Puritan or "Lloyd-Jones" mode (as is my pastor). I address every single statement of the book we are covering, and on a passage with various views, will deal with the major differing views. My pastor, for instance, took well over three years to preach through Matthew. We deal with the totality of what the Word says, and we believe it all. The parts that are hard to understand we submit to even more prayer.

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by Major B:

If you don't believe the Bible is all true, how do you know the "words of Jesus" you supposedly follow are true? You can't.

You are right. When portions of the bible are contradictory, one cannot know which part is the truth.
The sad thing is, you can't simply "believe the bible", because it contradicts itself.

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by Major B:
I am not sure which is more amusing, the condescending attitude of unbelieving theologians or their blindness. I've studied the Bible in detail for 27 years, and the school where I got my M.A.R. (after 23 years of studying on my own) doesn't give them away for boxtops. Yes, I've read and studied Gospel harmonies, and I find no "contradictions" which cannot be easily explained.

I did not mean to condescend. I simply thought you had never read a synopsis or "harmony", b/c they bring sharply into focus the contradictions of the gospels, and you seem to think they don't.

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Originally posted by Major B:
When there are "two different accounts of the same event" there are two possibilities: (1) They are not the same event! In my professional life in the military, industry, and teaching, there were many events which were similar--we had a saying in the USAF, "same stuff, different day." I am sure that there were many days in the life of Jesus where similar things happened on different days. Given the brevity of many accounts in the Bible, I have no problem understanding that "different accounts" are about different days!

(2) The second possibility is that "different accounts of the same event," are complementary accounts of the same event. Fit the two together and you get the whole story. As a crash investigator for the Air Force (oh, be careful what schools you volunteer for!), we learned to piece witness accounts together based on what side of the accident a person was located, what the witness' expertise was, and so on. In this case, the witnesses were inspired by the Holy Spirit to remember (John 14:26--words of Jesus, you know), so I would be loathe to dismiss their words as culturally colored or poor recollection. Again, if that is the case, "the words of Jesus" don't mean anything either.

As for picking the stuff I like and not picking the stuff I don't like, you have no basis for that assertion, since you have not sat in my classes or under my preaching and teaching. I am in the Puritan or "Lloyd-Jones" mode (as is my pastor). I address every single statement of the book we are covering, and on a passage with various views, will deal with the major differing views. My pastor, for instance, took well over three years to preach through Matthew. We deal with the totality of what the Word says, and we believe it all. The parts that are hard to understand we submit to even more prayer.

I don't think you can reconcile different accounts of the same event so easily. You seem to be saying that where there are two or more accounts, they fill in the gaps of the other. That could be true except what if they directly contradict each other? Are you saying Jesus gave two or more Lord's prayers? Or are you saying that one person remembers some of the words, one person remembers the others, and together we have the Lord's prayer?
The Gospels contradict each other on the day of the Last supper. Were there really two? (the last, and the next to last?).
Was Jesus annointed with oil by the sinful woman four different times?
How did Judas die? Only one way can be true. Which one is it? Are you saying he died twice?
And what did Jesus come to do with respect to the law? Do you believe Matthew or Mark?
How do you answer these questions?