Is God Above His own Law?

[HammerStone]

All I can say is, not everyone subscribes to the "you have to take every letter of the Bible as 100% literally true, or else throw it away as useless" mindset. To some of us, that seems unnecessarily all-or-none. Oh, and I'd be careful throwing around claims about "what most Christians believe". It's not as black/white as you make it seem.

Always jumping to those straw men!

It's funny that if you maintain general authority in Scripture, then you're always for a 100% literal interpretation. That's the straw boogeyman!

Instead, the actual question I am proposing is that if you're willing to throw out every supernatural event, then what is there to really stand upon? I've spent some time reading your posts, and while you're obviously a bright individual who studied/studies well in the field of science, you seem to have certain pet issues. I've really never seen you come up with positive statements in support of things like the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, and the eventual return of Jesus in some form. These are all issues that are pretty well defined in an orthodox strand of Christianity, across the world.

I'm not questioning your Christianity, but I am legitimately questioning where you stand to further understand your own position. I've seen a number of statements such as those about creatio ex nihilo where you seem to exist in the reasonable realm of Christianity by denying a doctrine not absolutely required by any stretch. However, some of those statements have been a bit left open to where God seems to be more of a Deistic conception rather than a Christian God in control. Thus, I seek clarification on the aforementioned topics in this post.

 

[Wormwood]

Hammerstone & Wormwood (sounds like an English detective team ),

All I can say is, not everyone subscribes to the "you have to take every letter of the Bible as 100% literally true, or else throw it away as useless" mindset. To some of us, that seems unnecessarily all-or-none. Oh, and I'd be careful throwing around claims about "what most Christians believe". It's not as black/white as you make it seem.

Haha, we would make a dynamic, problem-solving duo I am sure!

My comment about "what most Christians believe" was in reference to a closed canon. Yes. I think it is safe to say most Christians believe this...as the Scriptures as we know them have been pretty much the same throughout Christian history. We don't have new books continually being added to the Bible...because most understand the canon to be closed. Those who believe in modern-day prophets will likely all say (except for some cult-groups) that all prophecy must be tested by the Scriptures. Thus, I don't think we are in danger of someone claiming a new revelation from God that encourages Christians to commit genocide.

Obviously the doctrines of inerrancy/infallibility are another issue altogether. Yes, there are many (perhaps even a majority) Christian groups that believe the Bible has errors. My point is simply that such views have lead to much of what we see today in that all kinds of Christian groups are now turning from orthodox positions that the Church has held historically for 2,000 years. Homosexuality has never been embraced by the church for 2,000 years. However, I find it quite striking that the issue is now starting to be accepted by many who profess Christianity, and most of these groups would also question the accuracy of the Scriptures on multiple levels.

I think it is a much wiser approach to say, "We, as Christians, are no longer a theocratic nation as Israel was. Our battle is not against flesh and blood any longer, but principalities and powers in heavenly places. The wars we see in the OT are almost always clearly focused in eliminating oppression for the fatherless and the widow and bringing people to know the truth in a world that despises truth and loves injustice. As for the places where we see overwhelming judgment...such as the elimination of a people group or the deluge of the entire world, I can only defer to unlimited knowledge and goodness of God. He is sovereign over his creation."

Otherwise, we will be in danger of being Biblical editors that proof-read the texts according to our own desires...whether that be anti-supernaturalism, feminism, racism, homosexualism, communism, or any other agenda we may have. There are far more reasonable answers to be had without throwing the reliability of Bible under the bus.

 

[River Jordan]

Always jumping to those straw men!

It's funny that if you maintain general authority in Scripture, then you're always for a 100% literal interpretation. That's the straw boogeyman!

Instead, the actual question I am proposing is that if you're willing to throw out every supernatural event, then what is there to really stand upon?

Then I guess we're both guilty of arguing via straw man, since I've never said I was willing to throw out every supernatural event.

I've spent some time reading your posts, and while you're obviously a bright individual who studied/studies well in the field of science, you seem to have certain pet issues. I've really never seen you come up with positive statements in support of things like the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, and the eventual return of Jesus in some form. These are all issues that are pretty well defined in an orthodox strand of Christianity, across the world.

What would you like to know? If you're wondering if I believe in them, it's pretty simple....I do.

I'm not questioning your Christianity, but I am legitimately questioning where you stand to further understand your own position. I've seen a number of statements such as those about creatio ex nihilo where you seem to exist in the reasonable realm of Christianity by denying a doctrine not absolutely required by any stretch. However, some of those statements have been a bit left open to where God seems to be more of a Deistic conception rather than a Christian God in control. Thus, I seek clarification on the aforementioned topics in this post.

I hope the above helps.

My comment about "what most Christians believe" was in reference to a closed canon. Yes. I think it is safe to say most Christians believe this...as the Scriptures as we know them have been pretty much the same throughout Christian history. We don't have new books continually being added to the Bible...because most understand the canon to be closed.

Actually, if you look through the history of Christianity, there have been different versions of the Bible with different sets of books, since there has been something called "the Bible". Even today the two main categories of Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism, have two different Bibles with different sets of books in them.

Those who believe in modern-day prophets will likely all say (except for some cult-groups) that all prophecy must be tested by the Scriptures. Thus, I don't think we are in danger of someone claiming a new revelation from God that encourages Christians to commit genocide.

I don't understand. What exactly prevents someone from claiming a revelation from God to commit genocide?

Obviously the doctrines of inerrancy/infallibility are another issue altogether. Yes, there are many (perhaps even a majority) Christian groups that believe the Bible has errors. My point is simply that such views have lead to much of what we see today in that all kinds of Christian groups are now turning from orthodox positions that the Church has held historically for 2,000 years. Homosexuality has never been embraced by the church for 2,000 years. However, I find it quite striking that the issue is now starting to be accepted by many who profess Christianity, and most of these groups would also question the accuracy of the Scriptures on multiple levels.

Funny....the Rushdoony dude in Suhar's geocentrism levels the same basic charge at you. According to him, by rejecting the clear authority of scripture on the nature of the earth and the universe, you are opening the door in the way you describe above.

Ironic, isn't it?

I think it is a much wiser approach to say, "We, as Christians, are no longer a theocratic nation as Israel was. Our battle is not against flesh and blood any longer, but principalities and powers in heavenly places. The wars we see in the OT are almost always clearly focused in eliminating oppression for the fatherless and the widow and bringing people to know the truth in a world that despises truth and loves injustice. As for the places where we see overwhelming judgment...such as the elimination of a people group or the deluge of the entire world, I can only defer to unlimited knowledge and goodness of God. He is sovereign over his creation."

Do you understand how that isn't at all reassuring? You basically say that was a different time and place, but at the end you leave the door open to deferring to God's judgement, which means if God told you to commit genocide, you would do it.

Otherwise, we will be in danger of being Biblical editors that proof-read the texts according to our own desires...whether that be anti-supernaturalism, feminism, racism, homosexualism, communism, or any other agenda we may have. There are far more reasonable answers to be had without throwing the reliability of Bible under the bus.

Since you've been accused of the same thing, I guess I should welcome you to the "Throwing the Reliability of the Bible Under the Bus Club". We meet on Wednesday night.

 

[Wormwood]

Actually, if you look through the history of Christianity, there have been different versions of the Bible with different sets of books, since there has been something called "the Bible". Even today the two main categories of Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism, have two different Bibles with different sets of books in them.

I have looked through Christian history. The 66 books of the Protestant Bible were the books officially canonized since around the 4th century (but accepted long before that). The Apocrypha was embraced as inspired texts after the Protestant Reformation during the Council of Trent (1545). This has more to do with the Catholic reaction to Protestantism and the Protestant rejection of many Catholic views and traditions. Either way, my point is that no one is currently writing books of the Bible that are being added..such that there is an ongoing revelation that would lead people to genocide, etc. There has been debate about which historical books to accept, but the church has pretty much agreed on it and even the additional books of the Apocrypha by the Catholics was not an addition of new books, but old books that were highly respected among Christians for over two thousand years. Some of these Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint which is why they were even considered authoritative in the first place. This is not an example of ongoing revelation or an open canon.

Funny....the Rushdoony dude in Suhar's geocentrism levels the same basic charge at you. According to him, by rejecting the clear authority of scripture on the nature of the earth and the universe, you are opening the door in the way you describe above.

Ironic, isn't it?

The difference is that the historical-grammatical interpretation that most evangelically-based groups embrace has been a valid method of interpretation since the very outset of the Christian church. Christians have always understood that there was an original intent to the text and that the meaning of the text was to be understood according to its literary genre. What modern critics are suggesting is not different methods of interpreting an authoritative text, but questioning whether or not the text is authoritative in many areas. So, this is not the same thing at all in my mind. Never before has the Church embraced a view that the Bible was likely in error in many of its teachings related to moral issues, supernatural events, or the legitimacy of historical narratives.

Do you understand how that isn't at all reassuring? You basically say that was a different time and place, but at the end you leave the door open to deferring to God's judgement, which means if God told you to commit genocide, you would do it.

If you want a God that is your puppet and does whatever you want him to do, then I am sure that is very reassuring. It was a different time and a different place. It was a different covenant and a different situation entirely...so yes, I think it is foolish to suppose we know all the details of that situation and can then declare that those books or major sections of those books are invalid...based on our own standards of acceptability. As I said, our battle is not against flesh and blood...so if someone told me that God said to commit genocide, I would say that it doesn't match what God has already spoken in the New Covenant....so NO, I wouldn't. However, I do believe in floods, (and the Genesis flood) natural disasters, wars, disabilities, and disease. These do not only impact the evil and sinister. These events and tragedies impact the young and old and all of it is part of the curse as a result of sin. Why was my baby son born with a mal-formed heart and why has he had to suffer two incredibly difficult and nearly tragic open-heart surgeries (with more to come)? Because our world is fallen and broken which results in pain, suffering and tragedy...and yes, God brought the curse and allows it to continue on a world that has rebelled against him. Yet I trust in God's goodness in spite of the curse and subsequent suffering as well as God's desire to make all the wrong right. I do not suppose to understand all the suffering, consequences of sin and unapproachable holiness of God such as to presume upon his revelation that I, a mere mist, can determine what should stay and what should go of the things men and women have suffered and died to preserve and protect for thousands of years. Like Job, in the face of such suffering and circumstances, all we can do is trust when we do not fully understand. that is part of what faith means. Its not just throwing God's directions and revelation aside as errant when I don't like it. Unless there is manuscript evidence that gives great credence for not accepting a passage as historically accurate, who am I (or you) to edit the Scriptures?

 

[River Jordan]

I have looked through Christian history. The 66 books of the Protestant Bible were the books officially canonized since around the 4th century (but accepted long before that). The Apocrypha was embraced as inspired texts after the Protestant Reformation during the Council of Trent (1545). This has more to do with the Catholic reaction to Protestantism and the Protestant rejection of many Catholic views and traditions.

And some Orthodox Bibles don't have the book of Revelations. The point is, there is no consensus within Christianity on what "the cannon" is.

Either way, my point is that no one is currently writing books of the Bible that are being added..such that there is an ongoing revelation that would lead people to genocide, etc. There has been debate about which historical books to accept, but the church has pretty much agreed on it and even the additional books of the Apocrypha by the Catholics was not an addition of new books, but old books that were highly respected among Christians for over two thousand years. Some of these Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint which is why they were even considered authoritative in the first place. This is not an example of ongoing revelation or an open canon.

First, there's no need for new scriptural justification of genocide; it's already in the OT. Second, are you taking the position that God finished interacting with us long ago? IOW, are you saying God has stopped revealing things to us and giving commands? Finally, to reiterate, the point about the different Bibles with different books is that the notion "most Christians accept" what the Biblical cannon is, is wrong.

The difference is that the historical-grammatical interpretation that most evangelically-based groups embrace has been a valid method of interpretation since the very outset of the Christian church. Christians have always understood that there was an original intent to the text and that the meaning of the text was to be understood according to its literary genre. What modern critics are suggesting is not different methods of interpreting an authoritative text, but questioning whether or not the text is authoritative in many areas.

And again, that's exactly what Suhar, Rushdoony, and the other geocentrists are accusing you of. According to them, you are questioning the authority of scripture by rejecting its clear depiction of a geocentric universe. They point to the fact that John Calvin and Martin Luther, two of the most important Christians in history, read scriptures as depicting geocentrism. It's only because of the fallible science of men like Copernicus that you have rejected the authority of scripture.

Kind of annoying, isn't it?

Never before has the Church embraced a view that the Bible was likely in error in many of its teachings related to moral issues, supernatural events, or the legitimacy of historical narratives.

Really? What church are you referring to when you say "the Church"?

If you want a God that is your puppet and does whatever you want him to do, then I am sure that is very reassuring.

To me, that is an expression of the attitude "Yep, God commands His followers to slaughter babies. If you don't like it, tough." How would you react if a Muslim said that?

It was a different time and a different place. It was a different covenant and a different situation entirely...so yes, I think it is foolish to suppose we know all the details of that situation and can then declare that those books or major sections of those books are invalid...based on our own standards of acceptability.

That's certainly part of it, but I also take into account archaeology, the common practice of exaggerating battle accounts at the time, and other factors.

As I said, our battle is not against flesh and blood...so if someone told me that God said to commit genocide, I would say that it doesn't match what God has already spoken in the New Covenant....so NO, I wouldn't.

What specifically in the New Covenant would you point to that says "God will no longer command genocide"?

However, I do believe in floods, (and the Genesis flood) natural disasters, wars, disabilities, and disease. These do not only impact the evil and sinister. These events and tragedies impact the young and old and all of it is part of the curse as a result of sin. Why was my baby son born with a mal-formed heart and why has he had to suffer two incredibly difficult and nearly tragic open-heart surgeries (with more to come)? Because our world is fallen and broken which results in pain, suffering and tragedy...and yes, God brought the curse and allows it to continue on a world that has rebelled against him. Yet I trust in God's goodness in spite of the curse and subsequent suffering as well as God's desire to make all the wrong right. I do not suppose to understand all the suffering, consequences of sin and unapproachable holiness of God such as to presume upon his revelation that I, a mere mist, can determine what should stay and what should go of the things men and women have suffered and died to preserve and protect for thousands of years. Like Job, in the face of such suffering and circumstances, all we can do is trust when we do not fully understand. that is part of what faith means.

But we're not talking about natural disasters and birth defects. We're talking about genocide...the absolute worst crime against humanity there is...and people who believe God actually commanded His followers to slice open the bellies of 6 month old babies. Those are not at all the same thing.

Its not just throwing God's directions and revelation aside as errant when I don't like it. Unless there is manuscript evidence that gives great credence for not accepting a passage as historically accurate, who am I (or you) to edit the Scriptures?

So basically you feel you have no choice in the matter. You either accept the OT genocide accounts as 100% accurate, or you have to throw out all scripture?

 

[Wormwood]

And some Orthodox Bibles don't have the book of Revelations. The point is, there is no consensus within Christianity on what "the cannon" is.

No Bible has the book of "Revelations." And no, that is not what my point was regarding the canon.

First, there's no need for new scriptural justification of genocide; it's already in the OT. Second, are you taking the position that God finished interacting with us long ago? IOW, are you saying God has stopped revealing things to us and giving commands? Finally, to reiterate, the point about the different Bibles with different books is that the notion "most Christians accept" what the Biblical cannon is, is wrong.

No, that is not accurate. That was a specific situation that was brought about by a direct revelatory command from God. It is not an underlying principle in Scripture that approves genocide under the right circumstances. In fact, the underlying principles in Scripture, specifically in the NT, would never lead someone to believe the Bible approves genocide. God also destroyed humanity with a flood...but its not a principle of Scripture. The principle of Scripture is that God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

No, God has not finished interacting with us. However, the NT is very clear that the fullness of God's plans have been revealed in Christ. There is no indication in the Bible that there is information yet to be revealed from God that was omitted through the ministry and teaching of Jesus. God is still interacting with us, but the fullness of his purposes are revealed in Christ.

Most Christians do accept a closed canon. You don't seem to be able to grasp the meaning of this phrase. I never said "all Christians agree on the canon." I said most accept a closed cannon. Orthodox Christians are not adding books to their Bibles, neither are Catholics and neither are Protestants. The point is, no bishop or cardinal is standing up saying, "I have a new word from God...and it says we should go wipe out all the Canadians." Such a notion is silly and that was your point. The reason Muslims justify genocide and jihad is because their Scriptures clearly indicate that it is a justifiable means of converting people. The Bible has no such principles and those who use the Bible to promote murder, perversion or other such abominable acts do so by distorting or omitting its clear teachings. I think your views are more likely to lead people to an "ends justifies the means" type of religious crusade than an authoritative view of the Bible's actual teachings.

To me, that is an expression of the attitude "Yep, God commands His followers to slaughter babies. If you don't like it, tough." How would you react if a Muslim said that?

Everyone serves a god...and only the God of the Bible reveals himself to be loving and just. 1.2 million babies are slaughtered every year by the god of selfishness and convenience. Why aren't you on a rampage about that kind of injustice rather than imagining some ridiculous idea of genocide by the hands of Bible-believing Christians. The slaughter of the innocent is all around you and the moral authority of the Scriptures is the only thing holding back the floodgates of such evil. You are fighting the wrong battle here River.

 

[River Jordan]

No, that is not accurate. That was a specific situation that was brought about by a direct revelatory command from God. It is not an underlying principle in Scripture that approves genocide under the right circumstances. In fact, the underlying principles in Scripture, specifically in the NT, would never lead someone to believe the Bible approves genocide. God also destroyed humanity with a flood...but its not a principle of Scripture. The principle of Scripture is that God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

This is what is so interesting. You're perfectly willing to accept that in the past God directly commanded His followers to commit the worst possible crime against humanity...genocide. You defend it, justify it, and treat it like it's not really that big of a deal. But then when it's suggested that maybe God might do the same thing again today, suddenly you snap into reality and because you realize how horrible genocide is, you say there's no way God would do such a thing.

Basically you're saying "Genocide over here is just fine, but anywhere else it's a horrible, terrible thing". IOW, to you genocide is not absolutely immoral.

Also, do you believe Malachi 3:6, where God says He does not change?

No, God has not finished interacting with us. However, the NT is very clear that the fullness of God's plans have been revealed in Christ. There is no indication in the Bible that there is information yet to be revealed from God that was omitted through the ministry and teaching of Jesus. God is still interacting with us, but the fullness of his purposes are revealed in Christ.

So if God ordered genocide before, God does not change, and God is still speaking with us, then how can you say God may have ordered genocide in the past, but He would never do so today?

Most Christians do accept a closed canon. You don't seem to be able to grasp the meaning of this phrase. I never said "all Christians agree on the canon." I said most accept a closed cannon. Orthodox Christians are not adding books to their Bibles, neither are Catholics and neither are Protestants. The point is, no bishop or cardinal is standing up saying, "I have a new word from God...and it says we should go wipe out all the Canadians." Such a notion is silly and that was your point.

Sure, most Christians accept a closed cannon, even though they don't agree on what that cannon is.

The reason Muslims justify genocide and jihad is because their Scriptures clearly indicate that it is a justifiable means of converting people.

And if you accept the OT accounts as 100% accurate, then you have to concede that our scriptures clearly indicate that genocide is a justifiable means of taking land.

The Bible has no such principles and those who use the Bible to promote murder, perversion or other such abominable acts do so by distorting or omitting its clear teachings. I think your views are more likely to lead people to an "ends justifies the means" type of religious crusade than an authoritative view of the Bible's actual teachings.

?????? You're the one defending and justifying genocide here, not me.

Everyone serves a god...and only the God of the Bible reveals himself to be loving and just. 1.2 million babies are slaughtered every year by the god of selfishness and convenience. Why aren't you on a rampage about that kind of injustice rather than imagining some ridiculous idea of genocide by the hands of Bible-believing Christians. The slaughter of the innocent is all around you and the moral authority of the Scriptures is the only thing holding back the floodgates of such evil. You are fighting the wrong battle here River.

Nice try, but obviously debating the OT accounts and opposing abortion are not mutually exclusive. My point remains...you're here basically stating "Yep, God commands His followers to slaughter babies. If you don't like it, tough." And for some reason, you can't figure out why that's a horrible thing to say.

 

[Wormwood]

River, I would say that you are basically suggesting something that was proposed by the heretic Marcion early in church history. Essentially he taught that the OT was morally inferior to the NT and therefore much of it should be abandoned. His views were completely rejected by early Christians, and rightly so.

I do not plan on going into detail on the various covenants and God's interactions with humanity. Clearly God's character is always consistent, but his interactions with human beings are not. He does not always appear in fiery bushes, nor does he deluge the world in a flood every year. If you cannot see the significance of the new covenant in Christ and its impact on our relationship with God and others, then I don't have the time to do a lengthy presentation on the matter for you. Suffice it to say that God has acted in various ways throughout human history but his character has never changed.

The point of this discussion has been: Does accepting the destruction of the women and children in a particular battle against the Canaanites as a God commanded action have the potential to justify modern-day Christians committing genocide. And, does accepting this account as historical and true impugn the character of God? My simple answer is "No" to both assertions. Personally, I find the Genesis flood to be a far greater act of Judgment than what we are discussing with Canaan. As the Creator, I believe God holds the exclusive right to both give life and to take it away. I do not think the latter undermines his character or goodness.

A significant issue that I think we need to reflect upon is this, "Which is more likely to lead people to undervaluing and even destroying human life: An authoritative view that sees all the Scripture as accurate in its narrative accounts, or a more filtered view that permits particular narratives, commands and moral concepts to be rejected?" I would say the latter has been shown to be far more likely to lead people to all kinds of egregious acts such as abortion, sexual perversion, and an overall lack of concern about purity and holiness. You want to raise a fuss about a single command in Scripture that led to the death of maybe a few hundred or thousand women and children about forty five hundred years ago who were living in a barbaric, abusive and exceedingly violent culture that God judged. Yet there are 1.2 million children ripped from their mothers wombs which then have a spike rammed into their brains every year in America alone. And this is a separate issue?

I think my point here is simple. This has little to do with a hunger for justice. It is much more about justifying a particular stance of rejecting parts of the Bible. There is a holocaust taking place every year on unborn children. Last I checked, it was not the Bible-believing Christians who were in support of such barbarism.

I think you have an over-exalted view of your own perceptions on matters River. That would be my assessment. Is it horrible to say that God will cast unbelievers into a pit of fire to be tormented day and night? Is it horrible to say that God drowned the entire world with a flood? Is it horrible to say that God struck down Ananias and Saphira for lying about a gift? I believe in a God who is holy beyond imagination which leads to great judgment but also great love. I would not cast someone into a lake of fire, but I am also not a holy God who lives in unapproachable light. So, I "will not judge" as God commanded, but that does not mean I will not allow God to judge (or critique his judgment). I think it is foolish to try to pretend an absolute perspective and then rewrite the Bible according to such delusions.

If the Bible is only useful after River's proof-reading and editing, then it is really of no value in my estimation. If we are uncomfortable with a God of judgment as revealed in the Bible, then I suppose we can always resort back to Darwinian carnage where butchering the weak and helpless is "good" due to its strengthening of the entire species. After all, the Bible will only lead us to questionable ethics. I find it odd for someone who vehemently defends Darwinism to have a difficult time seeing God bring destruction on a sinful and barbaric community (be it via Israel on Canaan, fire falling on Sodom or the Genesis flood). When exactly did this strong ethical system of yours come into play? Was it when we quit dragging our knuckles on the ground?

 

[aspen]

God's law was not for God but for his creatures. Is God "bound" by his Law? No, God is bound by no law. He is God. God is only bound by those things which would limit or minimize his goodness or greatness. The Law is for humanity and the Law reflects God's character...and we all agree that the Law is "good." It was given to human beings so they could understand righteousness and to amplify their own sin so they would seek God's righteous salvation.

Oh no.....no.......this is not the Christianity I know.

First things first, however......I believe you have contradicted yourself "God is bound by no law" and then, two sentences later you reverse your opinion "God is only bound by those things which would limit or minimize His goodness or greatness". For one, being bound is to be restricted by a law. Secondly, God did not create us to Fall and then give us an unattainable law to show us up or bring us to our knees for His glorification - this is a twisted idea. God is love, not grandiosity that relies on His weak creation to put him on a pedestal. The sum of the law is love. We are the ones that complicated it by operationalizing it and making it completely unattainable. The law was a preview of what Christ was going to write on our hearts. We kept His law externalized - He provide a way for us to internalize it. If we did not Fall in the Garden, Jesus would have come for us anyway - and He would have given us what we needed most - unfortunately, what we needed most in our Fallen state was for Him to lay down His life for us.

So for those who would look at a text in the Bible and accuse God's actions as evil are basing that on a law structured by God's own character. This seems nonsensical to me. God gives life and God can take life away. All have sinned and the wages of that sin is death. God owes no person life. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Suggesting that God is evil by snuffing out a life for his own divine purposes are essentially telling the potter that he is wrong in what he does with HIS OWN lump of clay. Essentially, such an argument supposes that human life is of greater value than God's sovereignty.

Actually, looking for consistency in God's character is an attempt to know Him and therefore trust Him and ultimately love and adore Him. If God asks more of His people than He asks of Himself, He has a weak character and is ultimately unknowable; let alone lovable. I am not placing a greater value on human life than God's sovereignty; I am placing more value on His character than His sovereignty. If God can wipe out humanity like a SIM game, He is untrustworthy and unknowable because He is unpredictable and allows His actions and behavior to rely on imperfect human behavior - this is nonsensical to me. In fact, it ultimately lowers His sovereignty to the level of a world leader who is reliant on the opinions of the people - in this scenario, it is not a poll that limits Him, but people's flawed capacity to please Him.

Moreover, it is fraught with presumptions. First, it presumes that we know much more than we do about the situation in the Scripture and the purposes of God in such acts. Second, it presumes that we understand eternity and the fate of infants and other human beings. These are things we simply cannot comprehend and those who would wag their finger and accuse God of evil are doing so on the very measure he has given them in dealing with one another. Its is simply nonsensical. God could flood the whole world (as he did in the days of Noah) and be totally justified in doing so. However, I cannot do so because I am man, and not the Judge of all things. To put God on man's level is sheer blasphemy.

Not at all, it is reliant on God's description of His character. If God is love, and tells us that we need not worry because He cares enough about sparrows and wild flowers to watch over them, and is willing to die for us, it is absurd to think about Him wiping out humanity in a flood or telling people to massacre civilizations down to the lowest animal. The OT is humanities view and interpretation of the law and God's will - they blew it. They decided to take whatever they wanted and justify it by framing God. Calvinists came along thousands of years later and started justifying atrocities in the same manner. This thread is not about trying to limit God, btw - it is pointing out the limitations of the OT writers in interpreting and applying God's law.

 

[Axehead]

Does God define His own morality through His actions or is He limited by His character and morality?

God is Who He is and God does what He does because He is God. You cannot equate your understanding of morality to God. And the Bible is not a book of morals. Morality is an earthly life lived far below the walk of the Spirit.

"Morality is part of the condition of the fall. Now endowed with the power to define good and evil, to elaborate it, to know it and to pretend to obey it, man can no longer renounce this power which he has purchased so dearly. He must exercise it. He (fallen man) cannot live without morality." (Jacques Ellul - To Will and To Do.)

"Christianity has nothing commensurate with any morality. It is the essence itself of revelation that rules out all ethical systematizing and all similarity with a morality. The Christian life is not a life conformed to a morality, but one conformed to a word revealed, present, and living." (Jacques Ellul - To Will and To Do.)

"Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of those things, except perhaps as a joke. Every one there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light. But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes." (C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity. Macmillan Publishing. 1978. pgs. 130,131)

 

[aspen]

We are not endowed with knowing the difference between good and evil at all. we have no idea apart from God. the tree taught us nothing but how to act selfishly

 

[KingJ]

We are not endowed with knowing the difference between good and evil at all. we have no idea apart from God. the tree taught us nothing but how to act selfishly

I disagree bud. The only thing we need is between our ears .

Doing the will of God / what is good however is the real issue. As Paul says Rom 7:15 I don't really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do what I hate. That is the difference between humans and angels. That is why hating sin > committing sin. Because hating sin = desire to repent.

 

[Wormwood]

Thanks for your reply Aspen,

First things first, however......I believe you have contradicted yourself "God is bound by no law" and then, two sentences later you reverse your opinion "God is only bound by those things which would limit or minimize His goodness or greatness". For one, being bound is to be restricted by a law.

Aspen, a law is a system of rules that regulate ones actions, often due to penalties or a phenomenon that always occurs if particular conditions are present. I do not think God is bound by external rules or forced to any particular action by outside circumstances. God is sovereign. His laws regulate our behavior, nothing, but his own character and sovereign will regulates His. This is what I mean by "God is only bound by those things which would limit or minimize his goodness or greatness." Some will say, "Can God create a rock so big that not even he can lift it?" They make up such a question to limit God (either God is too limited to create a rock that size, or God is incapable of lifting a particular size of rock). Either answer to this question limits God's greatness and impugns his character. My point is that such a question is faulty because it demands a situation where God's omnipotence or omniscience is limited. There is no limit to God and thus the only thing that "limits" God would be scenarios that would minimize him (i.e. God cannot lie). These are not external laws that govern God's behavior. They are characteristics of his greatness and goodness that know no limit. God is not regulated by external demands, rather his internal greatness and glory are the basis for his actions. See the difference?

Secondly, God did not create us to Fall and then give us an unattainable law to show us up or bring us to our knees for His glorification - this is a twisted idea. God is love, not grandiosity that relies on His weak creation to put him on a pedestal. The sum of the law is love. We are the ones that complicated it by operationalizing it and making it completely unattainable.

Yes, the law is unattainable. I think Scripture is quite clear on this that "no one keeps the law" and "there is none who are righteous, no not one." Even Paul said, “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:20–21, ESV) Why was the law added? Paul is very clear here..."to increase the trespass." Yet Paul is also clear that God's grace increased as well. This is displayed both in his forgiveness toward those who called on him in the OT as well as the cross of Christ in the NT. It seems to me that what you are arguing for is a form of Pelagianism, which I feel to be both unbiblical and something the Church has condemned historically.

If we did not Fall in the Garden, Jesus would have come for us anyway - and He would have given us what we needed most - unfortunately, what we needed most in our Fallen state was for Him to lay down His life for us.

I think God walked with Adam in the garden. Since I believe Jesus to be God, I do not understand what you are getting at with this comment.

Actually, looking for consistency in God's character is an attempt to know Him and therefore trust Him and ultimately love and adore Him. If God asks more of His people than He asks of Himself, He has a weak character and is ultimately unknowable; let alone lovable. I am not placing a greater value on human life than God's sovereignty; I am placing more value on His character than His sovereignty. If God can wipe out humanity like a SIM game, He is untrustworthy and unknowable because He is unpredictable and allows His actions and behavior to rely on imperfect human behavior - this is nonsensical to me. In fact, it ultimately lowers His sovereignty to the level of a world leader who is reliant on the opinions of the people - in this scenario, it is not a poll that limits Him, but people's flawed capacity to please Him.

Aspen, I would encourage you to reread the OT. God's character is consistent. He is holy and demands justice and righteousness. Yet he is also compassionate and longsuffering, filled with grace and mercy. The problem is that some want to either make God all loving and ignore his righteous demand for justice while others want to make God all holy demanding justice while ignoring his grace and mercy. Neither extreme will do. The Bible teaches over and over again that, while God is longsuffering and forgiving, judgment is not pushed back forever. "The Day of the Lord" is often referred to in the OT as a day in which God visits people with righteous justice (and often immense suffering) because of their refusal to turn from evil. Whether this comes through the locust plague Joel prophesied, the coming of the Assyrian armies, the coming of the Babylonian armies, or one day, the coming of the wrath of the Lamb. The destruction of the people living in Canaan was the result of God's judgment coming upon them for their sin. The Bible is very clear on this:

“And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”” (Genesis 15:16, ESV)

“There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.” (Deuteronomy 18:10–12, ESV)

This was not a case of racial "genocide." God's justice is not color blind and he is no respecter of persons. He inflicted the same punishment on his own people as a result of their sin. He drove them out of the land also. This was a case of God's judgment, which is a common theme in the Scriptures. Apart from God's holiness and judgment, his forgiveness and mercy cannot be fully realized. So, I would say his character is VERY consistent throughout Scripture. I think is it most aptly displayed on the cross where both the punishment of sin and the mercy of God are held in perfect harmony.

If God is love, and tells us that we need not worry because He cares enough about sparrows and wild flowers to watch over them, and is willing to die for us, it is absurd to think about Him wiping out humanity in a flood or telling people to massacre civilizations down to the lowest animal.

God is love. God is also a "consuming fire." You seem to be picking and choosing the characteristics you want in God rather than embracing the full revelation of the Scriptures. If you are going to pick and choose verses, then you are determining God's character rather than allowing that to be revealed to you through the teaching of the Bible. Moreover, you are taking the "sparrows" verse out of context. Jesus is speaking to his disciples who were believeing and following. He told them repeatedly in the same context not to be like the "pagans" who do not trust God. Thus, he is speaking to disciples, not humanity in general. Not all know God as their "heavenly Father."

“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”” (John 8:44–47, ESV)

God sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. However, his promises of blessing, life, forgiveness and future hope are restricted toward those who trust in him. I think this too is a consistent teaching in Scripture.

 

[KingJ]

Hi Hammerstone,

I think the issue for me in this discussion, is the idea that Christian/Jewish genocide/war/colonization/murder is often justified or explained away - Suhar's posts demonstrate this; while Muslim violence is condemned and considered a foundational principle in Islam. I believe it is a double standard and an example of eye/plank/sand. In my opinion, people are violent for many reasons and they use religion as a moral justification for carrying out atrocities - oppressed people and people with a persecution complex do so more often.

It seems to me that maligning religion and the majority of nonviolent followers of any religious system is inaccurate and counterproductive. All it does is alienate people and provide a false sense of security and self righteousness for the opposition. Admittedly, this seems obvious to me and I find it difficult to get past the fact that others cannot see it as hypocrisy. Perhaps I just need to agree to disagree?

But Aspen the point you are missing and many others too....is that all the atrocities in the OT CAN be explained and accepted by a sane person. Muhammad's teachings cannot be accepted if you are an infidel.

Sodom destroyed because of their evil reaching a level that God could not tolerate. We see this confirmed with Him not destroying the Amorites and wanting to spare Nineveh Gen 15:16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.


Forgive the bold, but there are a few here who need to see this statement.

As FoR IsLaM...........no sin reaching full measure....no threat to their homeland....nope....it is all .....DIE INFIDELS :lol: :lol: B) B) h34r: h34r: h34r: h34r: h34r:

There is an open invitiation in another thread for anyone to defend Muhammad's teachings against infidels and nine year old girls...WITH Muhammad's teaching. Until someone takes that challenge seriously....certain members here just continue to show all their laziness in actually studying.....childish eagerness to make their opinions and assumptions heard.

 

[River Jordan]

River, I would say that you are basically suggesting something that was proposed by the heretic Marcion early in church history. Essentially he taught that the OT was morally inferior to the NT and therefore much of it should be abandoned. His views were completely rejected by early Christians, and rightly so.

No, I'm not making that argument at all.

The point of this discussion has been: Does accepting the destruction of the women and children in a particular battle against the Canaanites as a God commanded action have the potential to justify modern-day Christians committing genocide. And, does accepting this account as historical and true impugn the character of God? My simple answer is "No" to both assertions. Personally, I find the Genesis flood to be a far greater act of Judgment than what we are discussing with Canaan. As the Creator, I believe God holds the exclusive right to both give life and to take it away. I do not think the latter undermines his character or goodness.

I understand that's what you believe. As we've been over, I disagree (for various reasons).

A significant issue that I think we need to reflect upon is this, "Which is more likely to lead people to undervaluing and even destroying human life: An authoritative view that sees all the Scripture as accurate in its narrative accounts, or a more filtered view that permits particular narratives, commands and moral concepts to be rejected?" I would say the latter has been shown to be far more likely to lead people to all kinds of egregious acts such as abortion, sexual perversion, and an overall lack of concern about purity and holiness.

Seriously? You want to turn this into a "your interpretation has led to more evil than mine" contest?

How about this....certain people throughout history are just evil, and have justified their actions with whatever they could at the time. Just as the fact that some people have justified their evil acts via the Bible is no reflection on the Bible as a whole, the fact that some acts of evil have been justified by fundamentalist or liberal interpretations is no reflection on those interpretative frameworks.

Can we agree to that?

You want to raise a fuss about a single command in Scripture that led to the death of maybe a few hundred or thousand women and children about forty five hundred years ago who were living in a barbaric, abusive and exceedingly violent culture that God judged. Yet there are 1.2 million children ripped from their mothers wombs which then have a spike rammed into their brains every year in America alone. And this is a separate issue?

Of course it's a separate issue. The main reason being that no one here is attempting to justify and defend abortion, whereas you are trying to justify and defend genocide.

I think you have an over-exalted view of your own perceptions on matters River.

Yeah....thanks for your input.

 

[Wormwood]

Seriously? You want to turn this into a "your interpretation has led to more evil than mine" contest?

How about this....certain people throughout history are just evil, and have justified their actions with whatever they could at the time. Just as the fact that some people have justified their evil acts via the Bible is no reflection on the Bible as a whole, the fact that some acts of evil have been justified by fundamentalist or liberal interpretations is no reflection on those interpretative frameworks.

Can we agree to that?

Certainly. But I will not agree that accepting the narratives of the OT about the conquest of the land or other issues will lead believers to justify genocide. It seemed to me that this is what you were proposing.

The main reason being that no one here is attempting to justify and defend abortion, whereas you are trying to justify and defend genocide

No, I am defending the idea that when the Bible says that God declared something, then the Bible is accurate in its assertion. If the Bible says God destroyed almost all of humanity with a flood, then I believe it to be accurate. And I do not think such acts impugn the character of God. That has been my point. Furthermore, my point is that the murder of millions takes place every year in America. Such an undervaluing of human life is not the result of holding a biblical worldview. Quite the contrary. I feel your concerns that believing the Bible is inspired with regards to the conquest of Canaan will lead to the undervaluing of human life is entirely unjustified People undervalue human life currently, and it generally stems from rejecting a biblical-worldview. Does this make sense?

So, if you are concerned about justice and the protection of the innocent...I don't think the way to go about it is questioning the authority of various texts of the Bible. Clearly, the injustice in our day is not being perpetuated by proof-texting the invasion of Canaan.

 

[River Jordan]

Certainly.

Great.

But I will not agree that accepting the narratives of the OT about the conquest of the land or other issues will lead believers to justify genocide.

Then what is causing you to justify and defend genocide in this thread?

No, I am defending the idea that when the Bible says that God declared something, then the Bible is accurate in its assertion.

I guess then I don't understand what you've been doing. When you say things like "God gives life and God can take life away. All have sinned and the wages of that sin is death. God owes no person life. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away.", is that not an attempt to rationalize/justify the genocides described in the OT?

If the Bible says God destroyed almost all of humanity with a flood, then I believe it to be accurate. And I do not think such acts impugn the character of God. That has been my point.

And that's why I'm so baffled by your claim above that you're not justifying or defending genocide. Because from what I've seen, in making the above argument you have also been justifying and rationalizing genocide by basically arguing that it's morally acceptable if God does it or commands it. Doesn't that mean if someone asks you "Is genocide wrong", your answer would be "It depends..."?

Furthermore, my point is that the murder of millions takes place every year in America. Such an undervaluing of human life is not the result of holding a biblical worldview. Quite the contrary. I feel your concerns that believing the Bible is inspired with regards to the conquest of Canaan will lead to the undervaluing of human life is entirely unjustified People undervalue human life currently, and it generally stems from rejecting a biblical-worldview. Does this make sense?

No, it doesn't. The issue at hand boils down to the following..

1) Do the events described in the OT qualify as genocide? If the answer is "yes" (and I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise), then the next question is...

2) Did the genocidal events occur exactly as described in the OT?

If one's answer is "No", then that person is forced to defend not reading the accounts as 100% accurate history.

If one's answer is "Yes", then that person is forced to defend and justify the genocides in the OT.

Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with either of those outcomes.

So, if you are concerned about justice and the protection of the innocent...I don't think the way to go about it is questioning the authority of various texts of the Bible.

I'm sorry, but that is such a lame answer. Are you saying you're not concerned about protecting the innocent?

Clearly, the injustice in our day is not being perpetuated by proof-texting the invasion of Canaan.

And no one has said it is, so you probably should drop this seeming desperate line of defense.

 

[Wormwood]

Then what is causing you to justify and defend genocide in this thread?

I believe what we read regarding the conquest of Canaan had to do with God's judgment on sin. God alone reserves the right to exact such judgment and we see it dozens of times in Scripture in relation to cities and nations. I do not see it as inconsistent with his nature nor do I see any need to edit these passages out of the scriptures.

When you say things like "God gives life and God can take life away. All have sinned and the wages of that sin is death. God owes no person life. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away.", is that not an attempt to rationalize/justify the genocides described in the OT?

Certainly it is justification. That has been my point all along. God is just and his judgments are just. I do not have the right to take life, but God does. To suggest that God does not or that he is evil to judge or destroy life is nonsensical to me. God is not under the Law because the Law has to do with fallible, finite beings interacting with one another. God is not such a being, and he alone holds an absolute stance by which he can rightly judge, punish and kill.

Doesn't that mean if someone asks you "Is genocide wrong", your answer would be "It depends..."?

I believe God reserves the right to act unilaterally in judgment as he sees fit. I trust his judgments are good. We are discussing God's character in his commands, which is much different from a government leaders striving to wipe out a population or race for their own agenda.

 

[River Jordan]

And that's what I've been saying all along...your interpretive choices have forced you into a position where you have to defend and justify genocide. Obviously you're ok with that, so I'll just leave it there.

 

[justaname]

And that's what I've been saying all along...your interpretive choices have forced you into a position where you have to defend and justify genocide. Obviously you're ok with that, so I'll just leave it there.

And your interpretative choice places you somewhere different? God is the same both at the beginning and the end, He is unchanging. Obviously you serve a different god than the God of the Bible because we know His judgments coincide with His holy writ.

I suppose the questions beg...are you judging God for His judgment upon the world with the flood? Does this make God immoral?
How about when God sent the plagues to Egypt all while hardening pharaoh's heart? Is God mean?
What about Sodom and Gomorrah and His dealings with Abraham? Can or should God judge against a city and bring about justice?

Lets go with a little different more natural judgment...how about when God sent the Babylonians into Jerusalem? Is this wrong of God?

What about Jesus' judgment...

John 3:19
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

Should evil be punished or should it just run amok? Man punishes evil why not God? Does the potter have right over the clay? Should God dismiss all justice in favor for mercy? If God does can He still be just?

Wait a minute perhaps you could do a better job than God, perhaps you have a greater moral than God? He who gave you the ability to make moral decisions must bow to you in your righteous, objective judgments?

Are we in favor of genocide? I think not. Are we saying God can cause genocide? We are saying God is the Creator and we are His creation. As God has deemed necessary in judgment so should we also see His moral judgments as true. How can we who are imperfect look to the perfect and judge, and by what standard are we to measure when God is the standard?

If God calls all Christians to commit genocide against atheists or unbelievers...I do not believe He ever will or has need to.
Yet we do have...

Revelation 19:19-21
19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Have you decided which army you will be in?