Robert Rogland wrote, in part:
"It's time to quit lurking and help Terry Gray (I hope I'm helping) do =
the heavy lifting."
Welcome to the active users list, Robert.
Robert wrote: "I am in complete agreement with Terry's recent posts ... As
members of the ASA we all subscribe to a Statement of =
Faith. It is quite minimal.... Nevertheless, the ASA Statement =of Faith
does make affirmations that exclude some who profess the =Christian faith.
One must be as orthodox as the Apostles' and Nicene =creeds. And, of
significance for the recent exchange of postings on =Scripture, one must
"accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and =authority of the Bible
in matters of faith and conduct." ... we have had participants on this
list deny that the Scriptures are =inherently inspired, maintaining that
inspiration is the work of the =Holy Spirit in speaking through the
Scriptures to me. One recent =posting states, "I'd say that the scripture
is reporting faithfully what =the writer PERCEIVED to be the voice of
God-and that he was wrong." =Another contributer terms inerrancy a
"horribly slippery word." ... views of the =Scripture are expressed which
are not consistent with the Statement of =Faith to which we all subscribed
when we joined the ASA.... ."
Well, I'm the one "guilty" of the first examplle and while I did not say the
second, I'd probably agree with it.
A view if scripture as "inspired by God," a view which I hold, does not mean
that all parts of scripture are of equal value, or are to be taken as
normative. Slavery was normative in scriptural times; the scriptures which
refer to it (many) are, while part of the inspired text, written there by
persons as fallible as any of us, and we must use our minds to decide how
they are to be interpreted for our day. Or, to take a more prosaic example
-- the apostles threw lots (dice) to make an important (to them) decision
about who was to take the place of Judas. That does not mean that practice
is therefore enjoined upon us for our decision making. Nor does it even mean
that the decision to choose a replacement was in God's mind!
Given the obvious fact that some parts of scripture are, through copying and
recopying, surely in error, when I find OT texts that do not, in any
conceivable way, square with the God Jesus talked about and called "father,"
I must conclude one of three things:
1. The OT texts are in error, at least at this point.
2. The god they describe and the God of the NT are the same, and I'm too
slow of mind to understand this.
3. The texts are not in error, but they describe the PERCEIVED commands of
God by the persons writing.
I submit that any of the above three positions is consistent with a view
that scripture is "God-breathed." I also submit that all three positions are
worthy of respect and study, and that any person holding one of the three is
"OK."
My own position, BTW, is almost always that of an academic on issues like
this; I have a personal view (#3) but see merit in #1 also and even a small
probability that #2 could be correct.
What I have seen are rather good arguments for #3, fair arguments for #1 and
almost nothing but arm-waving (or silence) for #2. Checking a number of
"conservative" commentaries, I was amazed to read that none spent any
appreciable space discussing the problems. Position #2 was simply taken for
granted. I am unwilling to go there.
Robert asks: "Is it coherent to affirm the "divine inspiration,
trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible in =
matters of faith" and also pick and choose which parts of the Bible to =
accept on the basis of some other criterion (e.g., one's perception of =
what a good and loving God would say or do)?"
I'd answer, of course, "yes." I'd also point out that every Christian I know
does this. WE all "pick and choose," it is our God-given nature to do this;
else we do not use our intellects. How many of us eat pork? How many of us
wear clothing made of two kinds of substance? How many of us would allow our
neighbors to murder our child because said child says bad words? Any hands
out there? We have "picked and chosen" these parts of scripture to disobey.
Robert also askes: Can one coherently affirm =the inspiration of the Bible
and deny inerrancy? If words have any =objective meaning, the answer is
no."
I obviously disagree here. So do most Christians. The only responsible
position to take, for someone who holds this position, is that, since the
scriptures are demonstrably errant, they must therefore not be inspired.
"Inerrancy in the original autographs" is a laughable copout. Even if one
agrees, for argument's sake, that such is true, it is an assertion without
usefulness. It also implies God was too inept to preserve His word.
Robt continues: "some of =the heretical comments have been posted by ASA
members. Does not intellectual =integrity require one to give up one's
membership in an organization =when one no longer is in accord with its
basic principles?"
I previously agreed that I (along with all humans, past and present) are
"heretics" in the usual meaning of the word. And I cheerfully say "yes" to
the question posed. I re-read from time to time the ASA statements of
principle. I see no place I am not in agreement with them. If I did, I would
resign my 31 year membership. I make the tacit assumption that my fellow ASA
members would do likewise.
Robert concludes by writing: " I offer =these observations to stimulate
personal reflection by all concerned. "
I appreciate (really) the challenges you offered. These are serious issues,
and like many such, are too often swept under the rug so as not to embarrass
people. I have no reluctance to discuss them openly. And once again, I
repeat my question, originally made to Terry -- tell me, in reasoned and
possible academically respectable terms, the message God is telling you in
the Psalm of infant head-bashing, in the direct commands of "god" to commit
genocide, in the direct advice to Israelite soldiers telling them how to
rape a captive girl-child after murdering her parents. There are other
texts; try those three. I will give you some advice though -- don't look for
help in the conservative commentaries.
Regards
Burgy (one heretic among many)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 14:40:15 EDT