“The reason Jesus gave for a man marrying a woman is the historical account of Adam and Eve…Was Jesus wrong? Is there a Biblical historical basis for a man marrying a woman? I lean toward believing the scholars who believe that Genesis was historical and really happened.”

This statement was made in one of the comments the other day here.  There were a few other statements made about literal interpretations of Genesis.  As far as creation is concerned, there are at least four different views about its historicity and probably more.  Some view the creation account in Genesis as informing us about God’s literal six-twenty four hour day’s creation, a real Garden of Eden and a man and a woman named Adam and Eve.  Another group of people see it as literal in the sense of the garden and Adam and Eve but that the days are not literal twenty four hour days and instead might be representing ages or eras.  Another group does not believe much of any of this is literal at all and just points to God as creator and how He intended the relationship with His creation to be and that somewhere we failed.  And finally, some view Genesis as well as a lot of the bible as myth and really has no bearing on anything much.

Which of these, or some other view, do you believe?

Are you tolerant of any of the other views?

What do you think might be the consequences of holding to any of the other views?

Would any of you care to answer the questions in the quote at the beginning of this article?

ADDITIONAL ADDED QUESTION…Does any of this matter as far as our mission goes?

I invite all to participate and hope we can discuss this irenically.  Please stay on topic because I will be asking some more about Genesis in future posts.

Love you all

Tags: adam and eve, Beginning, Believe, Bible, Creation, creation account, garden of eden, genesis, Interpretation, literal interpretations, town hall, Tuesday

A couple of days ago I asked some questions about alcohol and whether the bible condemns all consumption of it as sin.  On the face of this it seems pretty certain that it is not.  Any casual reader of the stories of Jesus would recognize the fact that His first recorded miracle was turning water into wine.  And there are other direct references of His very own consumption of it.  Yet I have read and heard many arguments about it being sin.

There are those that will use all kind of pretty far out excuses to say that this is not really saying what we think.  The scripture is not saying what it seems to say.  Grape juice?  Really?  Are we to believe that God is just trying His best to confuse us?

There are those that, in the past and probably still today, say that it is even wrong for a Christian to serve or sell alcohol.  Again, I point to Christ’s first miracle.  If I should not serve or sell it then why in the world would Jesus turn water into it?  We seem to still have tremendous problems with self-righteousness.

These thoughts and questions are not really the reason I raised this question though.  For some very thoughtful, adult insights about the consumption argument in general, please read Tuesdays post and comments.  Everyone who responded made points I not only believe to be correct but I hold to them myself.  And I especially think that when you vow or commit to something as Heath and Jason did as ministers, then you should adhere to those commitments like they pointed out that they did.

If the organization you join says you have to stand on one foot for 30 seconds and face east at 8:00 am every third Tuesday and you agree, then you must do it whether it makes sense or not, if you are a person of integrity.  The health and danger issues are also valid reasons why not drinking makes sense, and the witness in a culture that definitely glorifies alcohol as the means to get drunk is not one the Kingdom really needs.  I don’t drink myself for some of these reasons.

As I stated though, I brought it all up for the same reason I have brought up other things recently.  If we spent as much time as some do on defending these obviously unbiblical beliefs such as drinking being sin, with as much zeal and commitment, in reaching out to those outside the Kingdom, we could really glorify God. Instead we waste tremendous amounts of time on our own legalistic views and arguments.

Alcohol is only one small part of a whole host of things that some Christians seem to want to focus on in spite of the fact that they have a mission to do.  Appearances are important as some believe when talking about drinking, but what about the appearance of condemnation we portray that is not even biblically justified.  When the lost of this world see us bickering and fighting and even bringing the charge of heresy against a minister that obviously is not heretical, what do they think?  I will tell you what they think because it was not that long ago that I thought it.  They think that there is no God.  And if there is He is not that big, not that great, and not that powerful because His whole family is so hypocritical and unloving of even each other.

We must reach out in love to a lost and dying world and to do that we have got to stop adding our own lists of sins to Gods.  That is what Jesus condemned about the Pharisees and the bible even warns us about adding to His word, but we just don’t seem to get it.  This world of lost souls is not concerned about our petty arguments and disagreements about alcohol, about divorce, about creation, about (dare I say it) initial evidence.  What this worlds lost souls are concerned about, whether they even know it or not, is the eternal destination of their very being.  And even if they are not concerned, we must be.

As I said on my post about creation recently, let’s stop all the arguing about pet doctrines and interpretations in front of the kids, so to speak, and wait until we get behind closed doors.

Love you all

Tags: alcohol, Appearance, Belief, Bible, consumption, Creation, Culture, God, Interpretation, Kingdom, Love, Righteousness, Self, Sin, witness

We were on our way to church last evening and the last few minutes of daylight were passing away.  At one point I became entranced by the size of the full moon that was fully visible despite the daylight.  This vision got me to thinking about the reality of things and the ways we interpret the bible.  Figure that one out.  The paths our thoughts sometimes make are amazing.

What I thought about was how most of us interpret the first ten chapters of Genesis.  I, like most of you, look at these passages as literal as I can, especially the creation account and the fall.  I tend to think of Adam and Eve as real people and of the Fall as a real event.  But there are some that do not.

There are theologians that look at these first verses of scripture as allegory, or an attempt to metaphorically represent certain spiritual truths.  This view is nothing new as most things theological are not new.  There has been a division over this view of interpretation from the beginnings of Judaism.  This approach can be consistent with an inerrant view of the bible but not from a fundamentalist style of literalism.

Gen 1:16  And God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.

If we take the moon itself as the lesser light, and we certainly do not have too, then we can see this as metaphorical and we know it cannot be literal.  And there are other arguments that can be raised also.

I am not really concerned with the debate between theologians over this issue.  What I am concerned with is the questions that are asked by non-believers over some of these same issues and our inability to give in on some things to reach out to them.  There are so many people out there that won’t give Jesus a chance over some of our unbending views of creation, the flood, etc. and etc.  Shouldn’t the love of Christ and Him giving Himself for us be the focus and isn’t that enough.

I am not against those ministries that put all their resources into some of these views about the bible but when they think that an argument concerning a young or old earth is going to bring lost souls into the kingdom, I have to wonder about that and them.  These types of arguments should, in my opinion, be reserved for those that are mature in Christ, and not the lost.

As far as whether the first chapters of Genesis are literal or allegorical, I will not commit.  It seems to me that both have their merit.  But I do know that Jesus, who I know is God, primarily used parables to teach His truths.

Love you all

Tags: adam and eve, allegory, Beginning, Bible, Church, Creation, creation account, Ending, full moon, Interpretation, Kingdom, literalism, Love, Sin, Theological

Some people will find everything I said in my last post repulsive and heretical.  The very idea that I would try to limit God is intolerable and immediately calls into question my trust in the Bible.  I want to assure all that the Bible is first and foremost where I go to find wisdom and understanding. 

What I do not find particularly trustworthy is the traditions of man.  We all seem almost incapable of leaving our preconceived beliefs out of our discussions and interpretations.  That includes me.  But some will say, who are you to question the conclusions of the great theologians of the past such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc.  Even the most prestigious contemporary scholars such as Sproul, Piper, and McArthur hold to the view of absolute exhaustive foreknowledge.  Although that is not the terms they would use.  So who am I?

These theologians have concluded that God is so far above us and different from us that the views I am bringing to the discussions here are seen as simply trying to bring Him down to my level.  But ask yourself this. 

When God said let us create man in our own image, did we or did we not inherit emotions or states of mind such as wonder, surprise, excitement, awe, hope, optimism, and other positive human qualities? These good qualities had to come from God; we did not develop them ourselves. Therefore, what is so illogical about a God who also gives himself the luxury of experiencing awe, wonder, surprise and hope? Or is our God a being that has always been devoid of surprise, wonder, and exploration?  As naturally He would if He already saw everything.

In a view that holds to God having to react to our choices we see a God that loves and enters into a relationship with us.  In a view that holds to God being outside of time and far away and already knowing everything before it happens we actually place limits on God that the Bible just does not show us.

Taking the idea of absolute exhaustive foreknowledge at face value, let’s go farther back in time, even before any being in any world, or even in heaven, existed. Only God exists. God sees everything happening.

Can God do anything different than what God foresees happening?

Foreseeing everything that will happen, how can God choose to not create the angels and especially Lucifer?

So what is in control, time or God?  Prescience or God?

Do you see how a known future seems to force even God under its determining flow?

At this strong, absolutely knowable future level, then even God doesn’t have a choice in creating what He has foreseen. Does it really make sense for God to create all the pain? When you really think about it, in this scenario, how can we not argue over foreknowledge while the rest of the world wonders why we bother?  It must have been foreseen. 

Here, some of you may say, “that is just the mystery of salvation,” but when one confronts the true horror of unnecessary human suffering repeated billions of times through earth history, a God who knew it all along, even before Lucifer, becomes either despotic or controlled by time itself.

Do you see how in the theodicy problem, responsibility has to be placed on God if He knew exactly what was to happen?

Do you see how making God know the future absolutely makes God a slave to the stream of time as well?

All of this comes from the Greek deification of time itself, as Chronos, and making the gods and themselves dependent on Fate.  This is fatalism.  It is very similar to Calvinism, although you will never hear one admit it.  Richard Rice said the following in a book called The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God…

“If at creation God knew with absolute certainty that man would fall, He was not risking the moral harmony of the universe in making man: He was simply sacrificing it.” 

And that sacrifice is not the one shown to us in the Word of God.  Instead we see a different sacrifice because of the fall, the sacrifice of Himself. 

If God does truly, absolutely, foreknow all that is ever to happen, I simply cannot see that true free will is possible.  And the thought of having no free will would make me kiss Christianity good-bye.

In the classic science fiction series, Dune, the complete story is about a family who gain the power to predict the future, but discover that they are in fact creating the future.  Their prescience actually created and they are then trapped in their creations. The first in the line is Paul Atreides.  He seeks the power of prescience but, when he obtains it and has it long enough to realize the nature of it, he just wants to die.  But he can’t until it is the right time to die.  Which will be when he foresaw it. 

The last “god emperor” of Dune decides to breed people whose actions cannot be predicted so no one will ever gain this power again. The thing he ultimately craves is someone who will surprise him.

How else can God truly delight in us if not in our ability to “surprise” Him with our right choices?

Pro 12:22  …but those who act faithfully are his delight.

Jos 24:15  …choose this day whom you will serve, …

It seems Joshua believed, as I do, that we have a choice. 

Love you all

Tags: Aquinas, Augustine, Belief, Calvin, Calvinism, Creation, Discussion, Dune, Faith, foreknowledge, Free will, God, Interpretation, Knowledge, limits on god, Lucifer, McArthur, Paul Atreides, piper, Richard Rice, sproul, traditions