Child like faith?!

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Somewhat linked to the NP and "creation" threads is the idea of child like faith.

I remember being shocked the first time I delved into some academic theology to hear the assertion that Genesis was not written until the time of the Babylonian exile and the records of creation and flood have been adapted from the Babylonian culture, they are not distinctively "Hebrew" histories.

I also hear the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" blessed Jacob's line but Abraham had several other lines (Genesis 25). Why is Jacob's line special?

Also the assertion that the book of "Jonah" is written in a "fictional" style.

There is much to gained from the study of scripture but there is much to be gained from faith. I am left pondering the saying: "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it". Those using this phrase have been painted as "arch-fundamentalists" and variously "simplistic" or "dangerous". At times I envy their faith and am not sure what is to gained from "much study [which] wearies the body" Eccles 12.

Now all has been heard;
       here is the conclusion of the matter:
       Fear God and keep his commandments,
       for this is the whole duty of man.

P.S. I do not know enough to know whether any of the first three assertions have any validity

[Jereth]

Phil Weickhardt (Phool) wrote:

Somewhat linked to the NP and "creation" threads is the idea of child like faith.

I remember being shocked the first time I delved into some academic theology to hear the assertion that Genesis was not written until the time of the Babylonian exile and the records of creation and flood have been adapted from the Babylonian culture, they are not distinctively "Hebrew" histories.

...

There is much to gained from the study of scripture but there is much to be gained from faith. I am left pondering the saying: "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it". Those using this phrase have been painted as "arch-fundamentalists" and variously "simplistic" or "dangerous". At times I envy their faith and am not sure what is to gained from "much study [which] wearies the body" Eccles 12.

Yeah mate, it's disturbing what you find when you leave the safety of church-on-sunday and venture into Bible dictionaries, textbooks, and theological college libraries. Here's some more:

- the books of Moses were actually written by 4 authors ("JEDP") who lived much later and fabricated most of the stuff in there
- the tabernacle never existed, it was an invented fiction based on the temple
- Deuteronomy was written fraudulently by Josiah in order to make his reforms look authorised by God
- the Exodus & conquest of Canaan never happened, the Jews made it all up to legitimise their race and religion
- Israel didn't really pass through the Red Sea. It was actually a knee-deep lake called the "sea of reeds"
- Esther is a total made up fiction, a piece of nationalistic propoganda
- Isaiah 40-66 was written by someone much later pretending to be Isaiah, making fradulent "prophecies" about the future
- ditto: Daniel was written by someone much later pretending to be Daniel
- Jesus seminar (nuff said)
- Paul only wrote ROmans, Galatians, Phillippians, 1 Thessalonians and Corinthians. The others were written by a fraud pretending to be Paul. 2 Peter is likewise a fraud.

Even if you pick up a conservative commentary, half of its pages are wasted arguing against all this stuff, meaning a 50% reduction in value for your book, and 400% increase in effort to learn edifying things.

My wife tells an anecdote of an old friend of ours who went to study at Ridley College in the late 90s, and subsequently came back and told her with bemusement: "when you go to Bible college, they teach you that the BIble wasn't written by the people it says it was written by". It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry (or pray) when you hear this! Fortunately Ridley is very different, much much improved, these days -- but it still annoys the hell out of me that whenever I wrote essays for Bible subjects half the stuff I would read in commentaries would be this kind of liberal crap. The fatigue of it all really discouraged me from learning the real valuable stuff. Methinks Satan is a genius -- wearying out the brains of all the future ministers as they train at college (not to mention sowing nagging seeds of doubt* that may one day bloom into a wonderful liberal ministry).

O that we might believe God at his word!

* - this is real. Even a "simplistic, dangerous arch-fundamentalist" like me has real trouble reading this academic stuff and not feel the constant pull of doubt. [the fact that I could recite the above list off the top of my head is proof of this] What if... just what if... I think it's only the Holy Spirit who keeps me on track. By contrast, to my great envy, my darling wife's brain is always able to instantly write it all off for the crapola that it is. Why didn't God wire me up like her?!? :-)

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Hi Jereth,

I think I hit a nerve for you! Sorry about that. Just a reminder about public forums!

[jereth]

Hi Phil,

why, did I offend anyone?

JEreth

[Ken]

Jereth,

you offended me with this simplistic attack.
Understanding the history of the scriptures doesn't negate their legitimacy or importance, nor does it make me afraid or doubtful in faith.
The genius of the scriptures and presence of the Spirit in the scriptures is surely that its composition is so varied, by so many authors, with so many contradictions, and yet it so wonderfully and vividly portrays history and faith and struggle and joy and provides us with so many lessons to be learnt.

The 'crappola' liberal theology which is confronting to you is richly rewarding and faith strengthening for me.

I wish you well in your struggle in faith!

Ken

[Jereth]

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your response and your well wishes.

When I read the Scriptures, with eyes which were once blind yet now opened by Jesus, I do not see contradictions, but words of truth and life.

My prayer is that you may come to know with me that "The sum of your Word is truth"; "your Word is truth" (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17).

Regards,
Jereth

[Ken]

Jereth,

Jesus Christ is the Logos.

The Logos is the truth.

Perhaps, in John, as is normative with John, Jesus is talking about himself, the Logos, the Word, as opposed to the word, Holy Scripture.

We wouldn't want to confuse Jesus Christ as Logos witht the Holy Scriptures as being synonomous now would we? That would be idolatry!
 
Ken

[Luke Isham]

Hi Ken,

It's disingenuous to imply the "word of God" is equated in Scripture only with Jesus.  The word of God can refer both to the person of Christ and the words from God, recorded alongside words about God, to form what we now know as the Word of God.  Until Jesus returns or we go home, it's highly unlikely we'll 'see' the word of God as the person of Christ.

It grab one example at random: In Luke 11:28 "But he [Jesus] said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

[Ken]

Hi Luke,

What concerns me is when one presents the bible as 'Word', and Christ separately, in a way like dual articles of faith. It is the one Christ himself who is the one Word accessible to all.

Jereth wrote: "O that we might believe God at his word! "

God's Word is Jesus Christ.

If we divinize the scriptures, we risk falling into idolatry.

That's all I wanted to say. :-)


Ken

[Stephen Brown]

Hi Ken,

It is interesting to me that Liberal minded Christians seem to create a wedge between Jesus the Word Incarnate and the Words of God found in Scripture.  Could you explain this to me as I have always understood that the Word that became flesh was also the one who spoke in order to give his chosen people 'divine' Scripture (Holy Scripture, Holy Bible, ect).  

I'll give you two verses to ponder, and I'd like your thoughts on them.  One is from Hebrews and the other from a Gospel.

"In the past God SPOKE to our forefathers through the prophets at many and various times and in many and various ways, but in these last days he has SPOKEN to us by his Son...through whom he made the universe."  Hebrews 1:1-2

I'd conclude that if it is the same God who spoke long ago through the Prophets (Old Testament) as spoke through his Son, then there should be no contradiction.  Your thoughts?

And then this from Jesus as he walked along with two disciples after his Resurrection;

"How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have SPOKEN!  Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory."  Luke 24:25-26

Jesus certainly doesn't entertain the notion of contradiction in the Prophets, in fact he infers the exact opposite, that they accurately declared his coming, his suffering and his glorious ascension and reign. All that they declare is to be believed or else we are fools & hard of heart.  But if we didn't get it at that point (being fools and hard hearted as we are) he repeats and expands on the theme in the very same chapter, this time before all his disciples.

"This is what I told you while I was still with you: EVERYTHING must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."  That's the entire Old Testament!  But he continues...

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He tole them, "This is what is written..."   Luke 24:44-46

Written words of the Old Testament giving True and Correct evidence about the Word made flesh - again no Contradiction there Jesus says.  Too me (and Jesus I think), the Old Testament is a source of the highest authority for declaring the TRUTH about the Son of God.  

Of course it is, after all, the one who gave and inspired these words for men to write down for His people throughout the ages is the same person who then refers back to them as clear evidence of who He is - The Word made flesh who spoke through the Law, Prophets, and Psalms.  No wedge and no contradiction in sight.  The onus of proving contradiction in the Holy Scripture lies squarely with the Liberal, can you show us where please?!

[Ken]

Hi Stephen,

Stephen wrote: "Could you explain this to me as I have always understood that the Word that became flesh was also the one who spoke in order to give his chosen people 'divine' Scripture (Holy Scripture, Holy Bible, ect)."

Do you think that the Word that became Flesh spoke IN ORDER TO GIVE DIVINE SCRIPTURE?

One could argue that Jesus came to preach the good news of the Kingdom. Or to lead humanity into a fuller communion with God the Trinity. Or to save us from sin.
I don't recall reading in the NT that Jesus dictated his words to a scribe with the direct intention that they become Divine Scripture.
And the term 'divine' scripture is problematic. To divinize scripture is to say it is the fourth person of God.
Is not the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit the only divinity we worship as Christians?
Therefore, I reiterate my concern that to divinize scripture is Idolatry, to worship the words rather than the Word.
I am in no way attempting to reduce the importance of Holy Scripture in the life of the faith and the church.

In terms of contradictions, I am suggesting the two accounts of the flood, two accounts of creation etc...
Although contradictions, I am not suggesting they are false or wrong. Simply that they are things we have to wrestle with in faith. If you are comfortable not wrestling with those things, I am more than pleased for you. but for those of us who like to delve a little deeper in trying to understand the scripture and tradition that has been handed down to us,
Labels such as 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'orthodox' are unhelpful.
Brother in Christ will do me just fine.

Ken

[Stephen Brown]

Ken, Brother in Christ,

Many people claim to follow Jesus and yet don't believe his words.  Ken you didn't engage with the Scripture passages (Jesus' words) I presented to you.  What do you think Jesus meant by them?  Maybe we should take a step back; Do you believe that they are Jesus words (the Luke passages at least)?

I'm not advocating for the Worship of the Bible, indeed you are right, that would be idolatry.  But that doesn't automatically dismiss the inerrancy, sufficiency, authority, and 'divine' inspiration of the Scriptures.  1 Timothy 3:16 clearly declares, "All Scripture is God breathed..."  That could also be interpreted as "inspired".  Either way, do you believe the Bible to be the word of God, inspired/breathed out by Him?  Or do you think it was written by men without the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit?  The mere opinion of fallible men?

Here is a key question for all Christians: Do we believe God has spoken through the Prophets, the Law, the Psalms (Old Testament), and his Son Jesus Christ (New Testament - as he sent the Spirit that inspired his Disciples to write) with words that we are able to comprehend and now read in Holy Scripture?  That's what the Bible texts I presented to you seem to advocate.  That's what Jesus seems to say.

You are right when you say, Jesus indeed came to preach the good news, lead humanity closer to God the Trinity, and save us from our sins!  BUT Ken, how do you know that's what God the Son came to do?  Is it not WRITTEN and DECLARED to you in Holy Scripture?  Where else do you find that message and hope?  How do you know that message and hope are assured guarantees from God if the words that declared them are not authoritative words from God himself?  These are critical questions for us all.  Surely, there is no assurance of your salvation if you can't trust that the words that speak of your salvation haven't come from one who wrought your salvation himself.  Clunky, but follow the logic.

Contradictions in Creation and Flood narratives, could you be a little more precise?  No contradiction as far as I recall.  Two similar accounts about the one event (for each).  No contradiction in that is there?  It's like two video clips from different angles of the same footy game, both are authoritative and complementary presentations of the same event.  By the way, how can two contradiction both be right?  That's just nonsense and double talk.  Blue is the new Red this season!  What the...?

Sorry about the tag.  But if we are going to represent views in the church, then identification can help.  We all claim to be Christian, but in the end that may not be the case.  I am saying that those who don't believe that God has spoken through the Prophets, Law, Psalms, Jesus Christ and his Church by divine inspiration are not Christians.  They have a different creed than the Historical Church and Holy Scripture teach, even including the Anglican Church.

Jesus said this as he prayed to God the Father in the Garden, "I have given them your word and the world has hated them...Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."  John 17:14,17.  

Praise God that he has spoken to us all through Jesus and that his word was given to us through faithful inspired Christian men.

[Tim Patrick]

Stephen Brown wrote:

I am saying that those who don't believe that God has spoken through the Prophets, Law, Psalms, Jesus Christ and his Church by divine inspiration are not Christians.

Hey Steve, this is a big call. (And it would seem to answer a question I had in another thread.)

But it leads me to ask, What is the situation of someone who decides to puts their trust in Jesus and call him Lord (say, because they were convicted that this was the way to salvation from a sermon they'd heard), but who still maintains some genuine doubts about the nature of Scripture? Are they a Christian?

Tim

[Ken]

Its great that you, Stephen, can decide who are Christians and who are not.
If you read my words, I never commented on whether Jesus spoke through the prophets, law, old testament or psalms.
I questioned the idolatrous behaviour of those who seek to worship Scripture as Divine, in its own right.
That would be a different creed than the historical church teaches.
I am afraid that like many people I know, I will return to occasionally reading these pages rather than commenting, due to the arrogant, judgemental, fearful, and aggressive nature of responses to posts made by us 'liberal' Christians.

For those whose words I highly enjoyed and respected, especially Matthew, Keep up the good work.
Dialogue within the church between 'liberals' and 'for want of a better word conservatives' in the future is possible with minds and hearts like yours Matthew.

Ken

[Jereth]

G'day Ken,

Ken wrote:

What concerns me is when one presents the bible as 'Word', and Christ separately, in a way like dual articles of faith. It is the one Christ himself who is the one Word accessible to all.

Jereth wrote: "O that we might believe God at his word! "

God's Word is Jesus Christ.

If we divinize the scriptures, we risk falling into idolatry.

Just to clarify my own position for you...
I do agree with you that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. I also believe that Scripture is the Word of God. I understand the two to be inseparably intertwined. The Incarnate Word testifies to the written Word (eg. Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 12:24) and the written Word testifies to the Incarnate Word (eg. John 5:46; Luke 24:25-27). I do not believe we can have one without the other; if one falls, both fall.

I do not "divinize" the Scriptures, in the sense of worshipping the Bible as if it is God. But I do believe that every word contained therein has proceeded from him and is therefore absolutely true and trustworthy.

I am not so arrogant to pretend that I find no difficult or confusing things in Scripture. Sometimes the frail, human mind such as my own notices things that appear like contradictions -- eg. how did Judas really die? However, I simply trust that such contradictions are illusory because of my own limitations, and that in reality there is but one Truth in Scripture.

I recognise that my first post in this thread was highly polemic, and could easily offend. It was my deliberate intention to provoke, because I believe these are serious issues, and that there are serious, soul-endangering errors floating around out there in biblical "academia". It was not my intention to take a personal shot at your faith or those who think similarly to you.

God bless
Jereth

[Andrew Stagg]

Hi Ken,

I kinda get the impression that you and Steve might have misunderstood each other. I understand that you feel that "worship Scripture as Divine" is idolatrous - but no one here is doing that - no one here is arguing that position. In point of fact I'm not aware of ANY mainstream evangelicals anywhere it the world that are doing this.

What Steve is saying if you reread his post is that he would like to challenge you about taking the words of scripture seriously. Meaning that we think seriously about how we apply these words and action in our lives the things they are saying. I'm sure in many ways you are already doing this, so please don't feel anyone is having a go at you.

In doing so Steve has thrown down an interesting question for you to think about.  You may not agree with his question, and you are welcome to challenge it if you disagree. Since Steve's question is based on scripture, the best way to challenge Steve's question if you really think that he is wrong, would be to use scripture. I agree with Steve in what he said, but yes it's a tough statement to swallow - many of the things in scripture are like that.

Ken wrote:

I am afraid that like many people I know, I will return to occasionally reading these pages rather than commenting, due to the arrogant, judgemental, fearful, and aggressive nature of responses to posts made by us 'liberal' Christians.

Finally Ken when I read stuff like this again and again from the Liberal camp it cements an image in my mind of what Liberalism is all about. It may not be a true image, but it's not a pleasant one, and every time I read this sort of stuff it gets reinforced. If you objectively engage with the ideas on this forum - and desist from attacking the people on this forum with subjective rants all of us will get a whole lot more out of our interactions together.

Cheers
ANDREW