Get E-Mail Updates

Thou Shalt Not Abuse the Ten Commandments

ABC's Nightline has been running a series on the Ten Commandments in which they explore the issues and dimensions of each commandment in contemporary society.

The series is interesting and, in many ways, inclusive. After all, the Ten Commandments form the ethical basis of the world's three great monotheistic religions. Jews, Christians, and Muslims draw inspiration from them and, throughout history, developed the insights of the commandments in theological, moral, social, and legal arenas. They are very important spiritually, morally, intellectually, and culturally.

But for all their inclusiveness, their interpretation is often the source of division. It is one thing to say, "Thou shalt not...." and it is often a completely different thing to figure out how the "shalt nots" relate to human experience. For, despite the moral idealism of the commandments, everyone knows that human beings actually do the "shalt nots."

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a good example of the problem with the commandments. Martial fidelity is a practical way of honoring and respecting one's partner. To be faithful -- even when one might not "feel" like it -- is a fundamental way of respecting another human being by taking into their feelings, emotions, and commitments before simply acting on one's personal inclinations. To stop and think about the effects of one's actions on a larger community (in the case of adultery, thinking about a spouse and children) often inhibits bad choices. That's a big part of morality -- to reflect on one's actions in advance and to consider the communal consequences of behavior. Moral frameworks -- like the Ten Commandments -- provide guidelines for such reflection. And, as such, they form a vision for what constitutes the good society -- a society that honors God and neighbor.

The problem comes with the obvious fact that human beings, even reflective and caring ones, don't always act in a way that honors God and neighbor. We both flaunt and break the commandments on a regular basis. So what does society do with the violators?

Throughout history, religious groups have tried to enforce the Ten Commandments through legal means. We might all agree that theft and murder are wrong and that thieves and murderers should go to prison. But what about the "lesser" commandments -- like adultery? In Jesus' day, women caught in adultery could be stoned -- and that is still the case in many countries around the world. In early American history, adulterers could be whipped, jailed, divorced with their permission, or forced (as in The Scarlet Letter) to wear a public mark of shame.

To point up the problem with adultery is only the beginning. What of those who swear, lie, or worship other gods? Should society make swearing a crime? Idolatry? Being angry at your parents? Where does this end? In some sort of Taliban-style legalism where the religion police enforce a literal interpretation of each of these Ten Commandments? Do we rank the commandments in order of importance? The bad ones get the most punishment? The minor ones get overlooked? The Ten Commandments, for all their moral grandeur, quickly descend into an ethical quagmire of angels dancing on the head of pins.

The answer is obvious: Very few people take the Ten Commandments literally. We contextualize them, trying to discern the origin, intent, and purpose of these commandments in order to create a way of life that demonstrates the deeper wisdom of these teachings. And we recognize the human disposition toward breaking them -- and to a greater or lesser degree, we offer forgiveness, understanding, and reconciliation toward one another in regard to the Ten Commandments. And religious communities argue about how much forgiveness, understanding, and reconciliation is appropriate in any given denomination or tradition.

Taking the Commandments out of context is spiritually and politically dangerous. To hold up these Ten Commandments (in Hebrew they aren't even called "commandments;" rather, the Hebrew word is "terms") to hold up these ten terms of the moral law without reference to the larger intent of the words leads to legalism, violence, and repression. God intended for the Law to be joyful, a pathway for a way of life of devotion and respect for one other, a blessing and not a curse. Indeed, Jesus, a rabbi himself, made this point. When asked what was the most important of the commandments, he replied: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."

That is the summary -- the intended wisdom -- of the Ten Commandments. The ten terms of the law should bring us to the basis for a good life: love. Is it loving to murder, steal, curse, violate our vows, lie, envy or demean another? That should be the first question of morality -- and it is what the Ten Commandments teach.

Diana Butler BassDiana Butler Bass is pretty much a postmodern progressive. In addition to blogging here, she also blogs at Progressive Revival and is the author of the new book, A People's History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 9:22am

One last reply, and then I have done.

Your assumption that since I cite BBW I must be anti-RC is prejudicial in
the extreme. As a mattter of fact I attend an Anglo-Catholic parish of the
EC-USA. This would prolly make many of my brethren in the cloth from
earlier days blanch. But mnyeh!

I did not cite BBW because I wanted you to hear his arguments in favor of a
theological proposition about scripture. I cited him because, as I recall,
he cites evidence in support of the historical proposition I put forward.
As does Packer. Schaeffer's lectures on the Bible's View of Itself is a
massive topical study of just that. It's intended to support the first
premise in a longer argument against neo-orthodox theology or neo-liberal
theology. The lectures date from the 1960s. But they are worth wading
through, believe me.

If you can tell me what the difference is between 'inerrant' and 'without
error' you're a better man than I at this game.

The extra verbage about "plenary verbal inspiration in the original
autographs", to refresh our ailing memories, is due to liberal attacks which
argued that we couldn't trust our Bibles because of centuries of MS
transmission, translation, etc. had introduced errors. That phrase makes
such charges (erroneous though they be) irrelevant.

Your statement of the RC position is what I (and BBW?) would have called the
"Church doctrine of the scriptures."

Your mention of Augustine is interesting to me, as I was thinking about him
last night. Of course, no Reformer criticized Augustine's view of Genesis,
as his interpretation was well within the orthodox PoV. What is
interessting abouit him is this. You may know that St. Augustine was a
Manichaean before he converted to Christianity. Now it was an element of
Manichaean faith that the pronouncements of its prophet, Mani, were all
inerrant. Augustine, having studied some astronomy, discovered a
mathematical error in his prophecies. That did it for Augustine. If Mani
can't tell the truth about the moon and stars, why listen to him about
anything else?!

Exactly. Inspiration carries with it as an essential concomitant,
inerrancy. Augustine knew this, or make God the creator of all things to be
more ignorant than those who would, examining his creation, think his
thoughts after him.

One other point: I'm not sure what you mean by 'literal' but no orthodox
theologian has ever imagined that believing the Bible literally meant trees
have hands they can clap!

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 9:03am

Not worthy of a response. You win!

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 11:32pm

Paul's office as an apostle implicitly carries the notion of divine;y delegated authority. In 1 Corinthians 14:37 he says "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." Peter also refers to Paul's writings as "scripture" - 2 Peter 3:15-16. Actually, the doctrine of inspiration is taught throughout the whole of scripture. See B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, and Francis A. Schaeffer, "The Bible's Evaluation of Itself" a series of lectures available on CD from www.soundword.com.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-02-2009 @ 12:48am

Maybe, something to do with your words.

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2009 @ 11:13pm

I wasn't changing the subject; it was an aside. That's why I put it in parenthesis. I put it there because, since I had mentioned the RC Church, you might claim, a la Warfield, that they aren't really Christians, in order to dismiss their understanding of biblical authority and inspiration.

I haven't read Packer or Schaeffer, but I would guess that they would basically be echoing Warfield. Do they make new and different arguments?

The RC Church believes that God inspired the human authors to write and that they contain all that is necessary for us to come to salvation. They believe that the Scriptures faithfully and without error teach the truth. But they do not encumber their understanding of Biblical authority with words like "inerrancy" and "plenary verbal inspiration." And they add this caveat: (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1:1:2:3:135: "Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the 'Word' of God, a word which is 'not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living'. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, 'open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.'"

You might want to take a look at Augustine's Literal Meaning of Genesis to see that he viewed the opening chapters of the Bible in a distinctly non-literal way.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 11:38pm

BuckeyeDon, m'boy:

Check out my other posts in this thread. The view of inspiration and authority of scripture which I defend is not "mine" in any pejorative sense. It is what B. B. Warfield called the "Church's view of inspiration." It is the view held universally in the Church of Christ until philosophical naturalism infiltrated German theological seminaries and what I've called "liberal critical theology" was born. This is not the place to discuss the so-called higher critical theories of the Bible, save to say they are founded upon an intellectually bankrupt view of reality, a world view which ends in epistemological nihilism.

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 10:59pm

I should have thought that my capitulation established that I'm not trying to win any argument.

You win. You win.

What was it about "you win" that you didn't understand?

by: kansasmennonite

10-01-2009 @ 10:59pm

My cousin who likes the Simpson's says that sometimes on the show Homer talks about the "shiftless" Mennonites.

Do you know what an amish woman wants?

Two Mennonite.

(Sorry).

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 11:46pm

Sorry Buckeye (you wouldn't be from Ohio, would you? I attended UofM in Ann Arbor way back when...)

It struck me that your taking offense at my "Gotcha" indicated a thin skin.

I don't know how intelligent you are. That you are/were unaware you had committed an elementary logical fallacy was apparent to me. This would show, perhaps, some ignorance on your part - maybe never having taken an Intro to Logic course. You're probably in excellent company on that regard, though. I dare say the vast majority of humankind are with you in that lack of background, and wouldn't know a fallacious from a valid argument to save their lives.

So, having said that - I confess I suffer fools not gladly... folks who put themselves forward as arguing logically and then step into fallacies a Freshman logic student would recognize immediately.

Probably my attitude has shown through in some of what I've written here - in the tone, not the content.

If so, I do beg your pardon.

Still, that said, I stand by all that I've written (absent sinful tones and stuff).

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 10:47pm

In this paragraph you change the subject:

"(Warfield, of course, denied that Roman Catholics are authentic Christians. His anti-Catholic treatise is as notorious for its influence--again, mostly among conservatives and fundamentalists within the broader Reformed tradition--as it is for its straw man inaccuracies and misrepresentations of Catholic belief and teaching. Yes, I do know a few things about logical fallacies.)"

You claim Warfield's view is a minority view. I claim that it has been until the 19th century the only orthodox view. I've cited Warfield, Packer, Schaeffer, and others in support of my view, challenging you to read them (or reread them). What evidence do you bring forward that BBW's view has always (?) been a minority view?

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 11:48pm

Don:

Well, I know they aren't believers in the inspiration and authority of the Bible. They freely acknowledge that fact and indeed are proud of it! As to their status before God so far as salvation is concerned, I would not dare to hazard a guess.

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2009 @ 10:39pm

And you don't think you are trying to "win" the argument; only I would stoop that low?

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2009 @ 10:32pm

Where am I changing the subject? Earlier, you claimed that Warfield's views were those of the entire Church. Here are your words (emphasis mine):

"The view of inspiration and authority of scripture which I defend is not 'mine' in any pejorative sense. It is what B. B. Warfield called the 'Church's view of inspiration.' It is the view held universally in the Church of Christ until philosophical naturalism infiltrated German theological seminaries and what I've called 'liberal critical theology' was born."

I'm countering that claim. Warfield's views are actually those of only a rather small segment of the Church. And further, the terms "plenary verbal inspiration" and "inerrancy" were never used to define Biblical authority before Warfield's time (to counter what you call "higher critical theology"), so it's hard to see that they were the historical views of the Church either.

I have read Inspiration and Authority, though it was rather a while ago and I don't recall all the arguments.

Where have I been mistaken?

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 10:12pm

You write "You basically are telling us that those who don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures are wrong because they don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures."

No, Don. I am not arguing as you assert. But note. This paragraph does not commit any fallacy! People who don't think 2+2=4 are wrong because they don't believe 2+2=4. What's wrong with that?

I think what you wanted to charge me with was some form of the old saw "The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God." But I haven't propounded any such view. I challenge you to trot out what I've written in support of your charge.

What I've been concerned in these exchanges to put forward is the historical claim that the view of scripture's inspiration and authority set out by Warfield, Packer, Schaeffer, and others is just the view held by the church of Christ in all its branches at all times of history up until the 19th century.

I further want to point out that those who I've called "Liberal Critical Theologians" are unanimous in their rejection of that older view of scripture. I take it you are not arguing with me about that, are you?

I would further say that this departure from the church view of scripture has brought in its train the theological declensions in all major denominations we see today.

I'd go further, but I doubt anything I'd say at this point will fall on hearing ears, Don - and I do mean your ears. For your responses to my patient replies to sound to me almost perverse in their determination to misconstrue anything and everything I say - and all because you felt insulted by my "Gotcha!" Really, Don. I would have expected more from a Professor of English! [;-)]

I confess. I have a hard time responding civilly to you Don. Help me out here! Try a little harder to see what it is I have said, and quit attributing to me things I haven't said!

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 9:54pm

Yes I have read both, and Bultmann and Tillich as well.

My reasoning is not circular as far as I can see. Why don't you elicit from my discussion thus far the argument you think I'm presenting - in premises and conclusion form.

So far, I feel like I'm writing to someone who is determined not to understand - indeed, not even to try to understand what I'm saying. From the start you've sought (thorugh affirming the consequent) to attribute to me the ridiculous view that Luther was LCT, that I think Warfield speaks for the whole church, and on, and on. This is all ridiculous. You've sought to change the subject and cast aspersion on Warfield's view of scripture based on (a) his reformed perspective and (b) his anti-Roman Catholic views. Both these moves, btw, are examples of the informal fallacy of ad hominem. You may know something about fallacies, Don - but not as you ought to know since you seem fairly regularly to stumble into them! [;-)]

Search your heart, Don - what's your purpose in responding as you've done? Isn't it to win this stupid argument?

I'll tell you what. I'll give that to you if that's what you must have. You win. No. Really. You win. In spite of the fallacies, the false attributions, the non sequiturs and all. You win.

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 9:44pm

Please don't change the subject in mid discussion!

I am not concerned to defend Warfield.

I cited Warfield's book as providing some information in support of my historical claim. If you haven't read his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible volume, please do so before continuing this discussion with me. I tire of fending off your mistaken assumptions about what it is I am saying.

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 9:40pm

My point was their views of scripture were conditioned by a philosophical naturalism with its evolutionary world view that ruled the "church doctrine of inspiration" impossible.

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2009 @ 8:38pm

One more thing--two, actually. Firstly, have you actually read Barth, Schleiermacher, et al.?

Second, I'm not sure you realize how circular your reasoning is. You basically are telling us that those who don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures are wrong because they don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures.

Hmmmm, I think that's another logical fallacy. Isn't it called begging the question?

Peace,
Don

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2009 @ 8:26pm

I well know who Warfield was. I have read some of his material. But that doesn't help me concur with you, because Warfield speaks primarily to a Reformed audience in general, and to a conservative Reformed audience in particular. I'm sure you realize that the Church is much bigger than the Reformed tradition alone. And views of inspiration and authority vary among those traditions. What about the Roman Catholic traditions? What about the Eastern Orthodox? How about the Lutheran, beyond Luther himself? What are their views of inspiration and authority? I'm sure they all wouldn't claim that Warfield speaks for them!

(Warfield, of course, denied that Roman Catholics are authentic Christians. His anti-Catholic treatise is as notorious for its influence--again, mostly among conservatives and fundamentalists within the broader Reformed tradition--as it is for its straw man inaccuracies and misrepresentations of Catholic belief and teaching. Yes, I do know a few things about logical fallacies.)

I'm not going to limit my understanding of the Church and of biblical authority only to include those views that fall within a rather narrow Christian tradition. You are free to do otherwise, of course. But please don't claim that theologians such as Warfield speak--our ought to speak--for all of us.

by: carlcopas

10-01-2009 @ 7:23pm

BIG differences between Bultmann and Barth and Tillich. Just because they were all German and lived at a particular time doesn't make all three philosophical naturalists, at least as you seem to be using the term (though perhaps I'm misunderstanding).

The Barth of post-1930 esp. difficult to reduce to simple philosophical naturalism.

by: carlcopas

10-01-2009 @ 7:08pm

Warren,
I agree. Really enjoyed DBB's People's History and wish she was on GP more often.

by: WitnessforPeace

10-01-2009 @ 3:01pm

Thank you for your thoughts about the "terms"
(I too am curious as to what you think of PBS and their secular slant.)
But mostly, I'd like to comment on a Christian and his/her relation to the Law. They are indeed the "Terms" of another covenant, which does not bind us. We are bound under the Covenant of Grace. But the Ten Commandments are still a perfect statement of God's views. God hasn't, won't, and doesn't need to change his mind. A God any less perfect would be unworthy of our worship. Jesus not only reaffirmed God's commands, but made a few of them much more difficult to follow (adultery and murder). Interestingly, it seems Sabbath keeping was made a tad easier by "it was made for humans, you know"which says to me that it's perfectly OK to think about what they mean-not as critics, but as those who seek to understand.
In Psalm 19, David said "the law of the LORD is perfect"
I am heartened to see that "LetJusticeRollDown" longs to follow in the footsteps of David, the one "after God's own heart."
Blessings, for Shalom, the loving reign of God's good laws,
Witness4Peace

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 12:23pm

LOL

by: letjusticerolldown

10-02-2009 @ 12:20pm

OK. I believe you asked a question. I was just making a direct reply. I don't know if my answer was right. It was for your consideration.

No win was sought. But I'll gladly receive any I can get. I remember winning a football game in Junior High.

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 11:36am

You write: "I haven't read Packer or Schaeffer, but I would guess that they would basically be echoing Warfield. Do they make new and different arguments?"

First, you really ought to read a man's book before assuming you know what he has to say.

Second, it has been aeons since I read Packer's little book. I don't recall his being a slavish follower of BBW. They did hold the same view of scripture, of course. But that, to repeat for the nauseatingly last time, WAS NOT MY POINT!!!

Third, Schaeffer's lectures are a study of the Bible's view of itself. I think I've given the link where they may be ordered ... www.soundword.com CD85A-CD85F.

by: WitnessforPeace

10-01-2009 @ 3:01pm

Thank you for your thoughts about the "terms"
(I too am curious as to what you think of PBS and their secular slant.)
But mostly, I'd like to comment on a Christian and his/her relation to the Law. They are indeed the "Terms" of another covenant, which does not bind us. We are bound under the Covenant of Grace. But the Ten Commandments are still a perfect statement of God's views. God hasn't, won't, and doesn't need to change his mind. A God any less perfect would be unworthy of our worship. Jesus not only reaffirmed God's commands, but made a few of them much more difficult to follow (adultery and murder). Interestingly, it seems Sabbath keeping was made a tad easier by "it was made for humans, you know"which says to me that it's perfectly OK to think about what they mean-not as critics, but as those who seek to understand.
In Psalm 19, David said "the law of the LORD is perfect"
I am heartened to see that "LetJusticeRollDown" longs to follow in the footsteps of David, the one "after God's own heart."
Blessings, for Shalom, the loving reign of God's good laws,
Witness4Peace

by: BuckeyeDon

10-02-2009 @ 11:35am

Well, in fact I wasn't trying to "win" any argument; rather, I was trying to point out what I view as flaws in your arguments.

When someone comes to this forum demonstrating--in both words and tone--a chip on his shoulder and asserting intellectual superiority over the others her, which you have clearly done and not just in your replies to me, I do tend to react, if only to protect the intellectual integrity of the rest of us.

Now for some of the specifics. Believing and teaching that the Scriptures teach they are divinely inspired is not the same thing as believing and teaching in the specific doctrines of plenary verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy. Those latter doctrines were theological inventions that arose out of the modernist/fundamentalist controversy, in which Dr. Warfield was active on the fundamentalist side. To assert, as you do, that the church has always accepted those doctrines is simply not true; throughout most of Church history, nobody had ever heard of these doctrines. In my quotes from the Catholic catechism above, it's clear that they don't use that language. They never have, and neither have others. Yes, they clearly indicate that the scriptures are inspired by God, are without error, and that they lead us into the truth. But the "inerrancy" that they teach is not the belief that the ur-manuscripts were verbally and orthographically without error of any kind; rather, it's that the truth they teach us is without error. And what is that truth? Essentially, it's the truth that Jesus Christ is the true, eternal Word of God and that he has opened the door for eternal life in fellowship with the Father through his obedience, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension and intercession on our behalf. In other words, it's the truth that we do not worship a book; we worship a Person.

Luther famously said essentially the same thing when he wrote that the Scriptures are the "cradle" that holds the Christ.

Secondly, I do not cast aspersions on Warfield or on Reformed theology. I simply note that Warfield's reputation extends primarily within the broader Reformed tradition. I'm sure you realize that Reformed theology is a minority belief system among Christians worldwide. Aren't 2/3 of professing Christians worldwide Roman Catholic? And the Eastern Orthodox churches collectively have more communicants than any single Protestant communion, Reformed or otherwise. Anglicans and Lutherans come next, probably in that order, and then, I suppose, Reformed follows. So Warfield's influence is relatively limited. That's simply a fact; it's not an aspersion. In how many non-Reformed seminaries is Warfield read and discussed? I don't know, but my guess is not many.

I already indicated why I included the aside about Warfield's views of Catholicism. Again, I wasn't casting aspersions (yes, I take issue with his anti-Catholic arguments and find them faulty) so much as I was anticipating that you might indicate your agreement with him on that point. I'm glad you have not done so.

You are correct that Bultmann et al. explicitly deny the doctrines of biblical inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration, but that does not mean they deny biblical authority. Denial of made-up doctrines that were never taught in Christianity before the early 20th century does not indicate that they don't hold to an earlier view (e.g., like Luther's) of biblical authority. Why don't you give me quotes from one of them that demonstrates their total denial of any notion of biblical authority and inspiration, if you believe they have done so? It really gets back to one of my earlier points: it's not that they deny these ideas, it's just that they deny your understanding of them.

This is the last thing I will write to you on this topic, so I'll leave you with the final word, if you think you must have it.

Peace,
Don

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 11:22am

One last reply, and then I have done.

Your assumption that since I cite BBW I must be anti-RC is prejudicial in
the extreme. As a mattter of fact I attend an Anglo-Catholic parish of the
EC-USA. This would prolly make many of my brethren in the cloth from
earlier days blanch. But mnyeh!

I did not cite BBW because I wanted you to hear his arguments in favor of a
theological proposition about scripture. I cited him because, as I recall,
he cites evidence in support of the historical proposition I put forward.
As does Packer. Schaeffer's lectures on the Bible's View of Itself is a
massive topical study of just that. It's intended to support the first
premise in a longer argument against neo-orthodox theology or neo-liberal
theology. The lectures date from the 1960s. But they are worth wading
through, believe me.

If you can tell me what the difference is between 'inerrant' and 'without
error' you're a better man than I at this game.

The extra verbage about "plenary verbal inspiration in the original
autographs", to refresh our ailing memories, is due to liberal attacks which
argued that we couldn't trust our Bibles because of centuries of MS
transmission, translation, etc. had introduced errors. That phrase makes
such charges (erroneous though they be) irrelevant.

Your statement of the RC position is what I (and BBW?) would have called the
"Church doctrine of the scriptures."

Your mention of Augustine is interesting to me, as I was thinking about him
last night. Of course, no Reformer criticized Augustine's view of Genesis,
as his interpretation was well within the orthodox PoV. What is
interessting abouit him is this. You may know that St. Augustine was a
Manichaean before he converted to Christianity. Now it was an element of
Manichaean faith that the pronouncements of its prophet, Mani, were all
inerrant. Augustine, having studied some astronomy, discovered a
mathematical error in his prophecies. That did it for Augustine. If Mani
can't tell the truth about the moon and stars, why listen to him about
anything else?!

Exactly. Inspiration carries with it as an essential concomitant,
inerrancy. Augustine knew this, or make God the creator of all things to be
more ignorant than those who would, examining his creation, think his
thoughts after him.

One other point: I'm not sure what you mean by 'literal' but no orthodox
theologian has ever imagined that believing the Bible literally meant trees
have hands they can clap!

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 11:03am

Not worthy of a response. You win!

by: letjusticerolldown

09-29-2009 @ 12:42pm

I have not seen the Nightline series. It seems your comments stem from how they are framing the issues in contemporary terms--apart from a fuller Biblical vision. I may be missing it. Could you write one or two more paragraphs just clarifying what you are responding to?

I do long for a beloved community that walks out the 'terms' in loving relationship--coming to the wisdom and joy of a truly good news. And maybe someday I will understand the joy and celebration expressed in Psalms 119 towards the law.

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 10:23am

LOL

by: letjusticerolldown

10-02-2009 @ 10:20am

OK. I believe you asked a question. I was just making a direct reply. I don't know if my answer was right. It was for your consideration.

No win was sought. But I'll gladly receive any I can get. I remember winning a football game in Junior High.

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 9:36am

You write: "I haven't read Packer or Schaeffer, but I would guess that they would basically be echoing Warfield. Do they make new and different arguments?"

First, you really ought to read a man's book before assuming you know what he has to say.

Second, it has been aeons since I read Packer's little book. I don't recall his being a slavish follower of BBW. They did hold the same view of scripture, of course. But that, to repeat for the nauseatingly last time, WAS NOT MY POINT!!!

Third, Schaeffer's lectures are a study of the Bible's view of itself. I think I've given the link where they may be ordered ... www.soundword.com CD85A-CD85F.

by: BuckeyeDon

10-02-2009 @ 9:35am

Well, in fact I wasn't trying to "win" any argument; rather, I was trying to point out what I view as flaws in your arguments.

When someone comes to this forum demonstrating--in both words and tone--a chip on his shoulder and asserting intellectual superiority over the others her, which you have clearly done and not just in your replies to me, I do tend to react, if only to protect the intellectual integrity of the rest of us.

Now for some of the specifics. Believing and teaching that the Scriptures teach they are divinely inspired is not the same thing as believing and teaching in the specific doctrines of plenary verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy. Those latter doctrines were theological inventions that arose out of the modernist/fundamentalist controversy, in which Dr. Warfield was active on the fundamentalist side. To assert, as you do, that the church has always accepted those doctrines is simply not true; throughout most of Church history, nobody had ever heard of these doctrines. In my quotes from the Catholic catechism above, it's clear that they don't use that language. They never have, and neither have others. Yes, they clearly indicate that the scriptures are inspired by God, are without error, and that they lead us into the truth. But the "inerrancy" that they teach is not the belief that the ur-manuscripts were verbally and orthographically without error of any kind; rather, it's that the truth they teach us is without error. And what is that truth? Essentially, it's the truth that Jesus Christ is the true, eternal Word of God and that he has opened the door for eternal life in fellowship with the Father through his obedience, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension and intercession on our behalf. In other words, it's the truth that we do not worship a book; we worship a Person.

Luther famously said essentially the same thing when he wrote that the Scriptures are the "cradle" that holds the Christ.

Secondly, I do not cast aspersions on Warfield or on Reformed theology. I simply note that Warfield's reputation extends primarily within the broader Reformed tradition. I'm sure you realize that Reformed theology is a minority belief system among Christians worldwide. Aren't 2/3 of professing Christians worldwide Roman Catholic? And the Eastern Orthodox churches collectively have more communicants than any single Protestant communion, Reformed or otherwise. Anglicans and Lutherans come next, probably in that order, and then, I suppose, Reformed follows. So Warfield's influence is relatively limited. That's simply a fact; it's not an aspersion. In how many non-Reformed seminaries is Warfield read and discussed? I don't know, but my guess is not many.

I already indicated why I included the aside about Warfield's views of Catholicism. Again, I wasn't casting aspersions (yes, I take issue with his anti-Catholic arguments and find them faulty) so much as I was anticipating that you might indicate your agreement with him on that point. I'm glad you have not done so.

You are correct that Bultmann et al. explicitly deny the doctrines of biblical inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration, but that does not mean they deny biblical authority. Denial of made-up doctrines that were never taught in Christianity before the early 20th century does not indicate that they don't hold to an earlier view (e.g., like Luther's) of biblical authority. Why don't you give me quotes from one of them that demonstrates their total denial of any notion of biblical authority and inspiration, if you believe they have done so? It really gets back to one of my earlier points: it's not that they deny these ideas, it's just that they deny your understanding of them.

This is the last thing I will write to you on this topic, so I'll leave you with the final word, if you think you must have it.

Peace,
Don

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 9:22am

One last reply, and then I have done.

Your assumption that since I cite BBW I must be anti-RC is prejudicial in
the extreme. As a mattter of fact I attend an Anglo-Catholic parish of the
EC-USA. This would prolly make many of my brethren in the cloth from
earlier days blanch. But mnyeh!

I did not cite BBW because I wanted you to hear his arguments in favor of a
theological proposition about scripture. I cited him because, as I recall,
he cites evidence in support of the historical proposition I put forward.
As does Packer. Schaeffer's lectures on the Bible's View of Itself is a
massive topical study of just that. It's intended to support the first
premise in a longer argument against neo-orthodox theology or neo-liberal
theology. The lectures date from the 1960s. But they are worth wading
through, believe me.

If you can tell me what the difference is between 'inerrant' and 'without
error' you're a better man than I at this game.

The extra verbage about "plenary verbal inspiration in the original
autographs", to refresh our ailing memories, is due to liberal attacks which
argued that we couldn't trust our Bibles because of centuries of MS
transmission, translation, etc. had introduced errors. That phrase makes
such charges (erroneous though they be) irrelevant.

Your statement of the RC position is what I (and BBW?) would have called the
"Church doctrine of the scriptures."

Your mention of Augustine is interesting to me, as I was thinking about him
last night. Of course, no Reformer criticized Augustine's view of Genesis,
as his interpretation was well within the orthodox PoV. What is
interessting abouit him is this. You may know that St. Augustine was a
Manichaean before he converted to Christianity. Now it was an element of
Manichaean faith that the pronouncements of its prophet, Mani, were all
inerrant. Augustine, having studied some astronomy, discovered a
mathematical error in his prophecies. That did it for Augustine. If Mani
can't tell the truth about the moon and stars, why listen to him about
anything else?!

Exactly. Inspiration carries with it as an essential concomitant,
inerrancy. Augustine knew this, or make God the creator of all things to be
more ignorant than those who would, examining his creation, think his
thoughts after him.

One other point: I'm not sure what you mean by 'literal' but no orthodox
theologian has ever imagined that believing the Bible literally meant trees
have hands they can clap!

by: mackharrell

10-02-2009 @ 9:03am

Not worthy of a response. You win!

by: letjusticerolldown

10-02-2009 @ 12:48am

Maybe, something to do with your words.

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2009 @ 11:13pm

I wasn't changing the subject; it was an aside. That's why I put it in parenthesis. I put it there because, since I had mentioned the RC Church, you might claim, a la Warfield, that they aren't really Christians, in order to dismiss their understanding of biblical authority and inspiration.

I haven't read Packer or Schaeffer, but I would guess that they would basically be echoing Warfield. Do they make new and different arguments?

The RC Church believes that God inspired the human authors to write and that they contain all that is necessary for us to come to salvation. They believe that the Scriptures faithfully and without error teach the truth. But they do not encumber their understanding of Biblical authority with words like "inerrancy" and "plenary verbal inspiration." And they add this caveat: (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1:1:2:3:135: "Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the 'Word' of God, a word which is 'not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living'. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, 'open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.'"

You might want to take a look at Augustine's Literal Meaning of Genesis to see that he viewed the opening chapters of the Bible in a distinctly non-literal way.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-29-2009 @ 12:42pm

I have not seen the Nightline series. It seems your comments stem from how they are framing the issues in contemporary terms--apart from a fuller Biblical vision. I may be missing it. Could you write one or two more paragraphs just clarifying what you are responding to?

I do long for a beloved community that walks out the 'terms' in loving relationship--coming to the wisdom and joy of a truly good news. And maybe someday I will understand the joy and celebration expressed in Psalms 119 towards the law.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-29-2009 @ 3:58pm

If you are a Believer in Christ Jesus, you are not under the LAW, of which the "Ten Commandments" are a part.

Moses did NOT receive just 10 Commandments from Yahweh Elohim up on Mt. Sinai; he received more than 600 of them and the two tablets of stone were identical copies of them.

We are NOT under the LAW which was given to the Israelites only.

It is interesting that many people claiming to be "Christian" try to live by some of the Jewish commandments while ignoring the others.

While it is important to know what is in the Old Testament, salvation in, by, and through Christ Jesus is found in the pages of the New Testament.

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 10:59pm

I should have thought that my capitulation established that I'm not trying to win any argument.

You win. You win.

What was it about "you win" that you didn't understand?

by: kansasmennonite

10-01-2009 @ 10:59pm

My cousin who likes the Simpson's says that sometimes on the show Homer talks about the "shiftless" Mennonites.

Do you know what an amish woman wants?

Two Mennonite.

(Sorry).

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-29-2009 @ 4:02pm

Not taking Yahweh's name in vain is not the same thing as cussing and using the word "God." It is making an oath promise (swearing an oath) and using LORD God as your witness.

If you do not do what you promised to do, you took the LORD's name in vain.

In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), Jesus said in the 5th chapter not to swear by anything; just let your "yes" be a "yes" and your "no" be a "no."

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 10:47pm

In this paragraph you change the subject:

"(Warfield, of course, denied that Roman Catholics are authentic Christians. His anti-Catholic treatise is as notorious for its influence--again, mostly among conservatives and fundamentalists within the broader Reformed tradition--as it is for its straw man inaccuracies and misrepresentations of Catholic belief and teaching. Yes, I do know a few things about logical fallacies.)"

You claim Warfield's view is a minority view. I claim that it has been until the 19th century the only orthodox view. I've cited Warfield, Packer, Schaeffer, and others in support of my view, challenging you to read them (or reread them). What evidence do you bring forward that BBW's view has always (?) been a minority view?

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2009 @ 10:39pm

And you don't think you are trying to "win" the argument; only I would stoop that low?

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2009 @ 10:32pm

Where am I changing the subject? Earlier, you claimed that Warfield's views were those of the entire Church. Here are your words (emphasis mine):

"The view of inspiration and authority of scripture which I defend is not 'mine' in any pejorative sense. It is what B. B. Warfield called the 'Church's view of inspiration.' It is the view held universally in the Church of Christ until philosophical naturalism infiltrated German theological seminaries and what I've called 'liberal critical theology' was born."

I'm countering that claim. Warfield's views are actually those of only a rather small segment of the Church. And further, the terms "plenary verbal inspiration" and "inerrancy" were never used to define Biblical authority before Warfield's time (to counter what you call "higher critical theology"), so it's hard to see that they were the historical views of the Church either.

I have read Inspiration and Authority, though it was rather a while ago and I don't recall all the arguments.

Where have I been mistaken?

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 10:12pm

You write "You basically are telling us that those who don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures are wrong because they don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures."

No, Don. I am not arguing as you assert. But note. This paragraph does not commit any fallacy! People who don't think 2+2=4 are wrong because they don't believe 2+2=4. What's wrong with that?

I think what you wanted to charge me with was some form of the old saw "The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God." But I haven't propounded any such view. I challenge you to trot out what I've written in support of your charge.

What I've been concerned in these exchanges to put forward is the historical claim that the view of scripture's inspiration and authority set out by Warfield, Packer, Schaeffer, and others is just the view held by the church of Christ in all its branches at all times of history up until the 19th century.

I further want to point out that those who I've called "Liberal Critical Theologians" are unanimous in their rejection of that older view of scripture. I take it you are not arguing with me about that, are you?

I would further say that this departure from the church view of scripture has brought in its train the theological declensions in all major denominations we see today.

I'd go further, but I doubt anything I'd say at this point will fall on hearing ears, Don - and I do mean your ears. For your responses to my patient replies to sound to me almost perverse in their determination to misconstrue anything and everything I say - and all because you felt insulted by my "Gotcha!" Really, Don. I would have expected more from a Professor of English! [;-)]

I confess. I have a hard time responding civilly to you Don. Help me out here! Try a little harder to see what it is I have said, and quit attributing to me things I haven't said!

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 9:54pm

Yes I have read both, and Bultmann and Tillich as well.

My reasoning is not circular as far as I can see. Why don't you elicit from my discussion thus far the argument you think I'm presenting - in premises and conclusion form.

So far, I feel like I'm writing to someone who is determined not to understand - indeed, not even to try to understand what I'm saying. From the start you've sought (thorugh affirming the consequent) to attribute to me the ridiculous view that Luther was LCT, that I think Warfield speaks for the whole church, and on, and on. This is all ridiculous. You've sought to change the subject and cast aspersion on Warfield's view of scripture based on (a) his reformed perspective and (b) his anti-Roman Catholic views. Both these moves, btw, are examples of the informal fallacy of ad hominem. You may know something about fallacies, Don - but not as you ought to know since you seem fairly regularly to stumble into them! [;-)]

Search your heart, Don - what's your purpose in responding as you've done? Isn't it to win this stupid argument?

I'll tell you what. I'll give that to you if that's what you must have. You win. No. Really. You win. In spite of the fallacies, the false attributions, the non sequiturs and all. You win.

by: mackharrell

10-01-2009 @ 9:44pm

Please don't change the subject in mid discussion!

I am not concerned to defend Warfield.

I cited Warfield's book as providing some information in support of my historical claim. If you haven't read his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible volume, please do so before continuing this discussion with me. I tire of fending off your mistaken assumptions about what it is I am saying.

by: Stein

09-29-2009 @ 5:23pm

I understand that the commandments are worded in the original text in the future tense, rather than as imperatives. It is almost as if they are promises rather than orders

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-29-2009 @ 12:42pm

I have not seen the Nightline series. It seems your comments stem from how they are framing the issues in contemporary terms--apart from a fuller Biblical vision. I may be missing it. Could you write one or two more paragraphs just clarifying what you are responding to?

I do long for a beloved community that walks out the 'terms' in loving relationship--coming to the wisdom and joy of a truly good news. And maybe someday I will understand the joy and celebration expressed in Psalms 119 towards the law.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-29-2009 @ 12:42pm

I have not seen the Nightline series. It seems your comments stem from how they are framing the issues in contemporary terms--apart from a fuller Biblical vision. I may be missing it. Could you write one or two more paragraphs just clarifying what you are responding to?

I do long for a beloved community that walks out the 'terms' in loving relationship--coming to the wisdom and joy of a truly good news. And maybe someday I will understand the joy and celebration expressed in Psalms 119 towards the law.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-29-2009 @ 3:58pm

If you are a Believer in Christ Jesus, you are not under the LAW, of which the "Ten Commandments" are a part.

Moses did NOT receive just 10 Commandments from Yahweh Elohim up on Mt. Sinai; he received more than 600 of them and the two tablets of stone were identical copies of them.

We are NOT under the LAW which was given to the Israelites only.

It is interesting that many people claiming to be "Christian" try to live by some of the Jewish commandments while ignoring the others.

While it is important to know what is in the Old Testament, salvation in, by, and through Christ Jesus is found in the pages of the New Testament.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-29-2009 @ 3:58pm

If you are a Believer in Christ Jesus, you are not under the LAW, of which the "Ten Commandments" are a part.

Moses did NOT receive just 10 Commandments from Yahweh Elohim up on Mt. Sinai; he received more than 600 of them and the two tablets of stone were identical copies of them.

We are NOT under the LAW which was given to the Israelites only.

It is interesting that many people claiming to be "Christian" try to live by some of the Jewish commandments while ignoring the others.

While it is important to know what is in the Old Testament, salvation in, by, and through Christ Jesus is found in the pages of the New Testament.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-29-2009 @ 4:02pm

Not taking Yahweh's name in vain is not the same thing as cussing and using the word "God." It is making an oath promise (swearing an oath) and using LORD God as your witness.

If you do not do what you promised to do, you took the LORD's name in vain.

In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), Jesus said in the 5th chapter not to swear by anything; just let your "yes" be a "yes" and your "no" be a "no."

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-29-2009 @ 4:02pm

Not taking Yahweh's name in vain is not the same thing as cussing and using the word "God." It is making an oath promise (swearing an oath) and using LORD God as your witness.

If you do not do what you promised to do, you took the LORD's name in vain.

In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), Jesus said in the 5th chapter not to swear by anything; just let your "yes" be a "yes" and your "no" be a "no."

by: Stein

09-29-2009 @ 5:23pm

I understand that the commandments are worded in the original text in the future tense, rather than as imperatives. It is almost as if they are promises rather than orders

by: Stein

09-29-2009 @ 5:23pm

I understand that the commandments are worded in the original text in the future tense, rather than as imperatives. It is almost as if they are promises rather than orders

by: canucklehead

09-29-2009 @ 10:17pm

"Martial fidelity is a practical way of honoring and respecting one's partner." DBB

See, Diana, now you theological weasels at Sojo are endorsing attacking one's partner = domestic abuse - I told you liberalism is a slippery slope but, oh no, you wouldn't listen

by: canucklehead

09-29-2009 @ 10:17pm

"Martial fidelity is a practical way of honoring and respecting one's partner." DBB

See, Diana, now you theological weasels at Sojo are endorsing attacking one's partner = domestic abuse - I told you liberalism is a slippery slope but, oh no, you wouldn't listen

by: chadbowen

09-29-2009 @ 11:43pm

I agree with much of your post however, I'm troubled by your statement:

"While it is important to know what is in the Old Testament, salvation in, by, and through Christ Jesus is found in the pages of the New Testament."

What you assert here is true, Christ's redemptive work in history is certainly reported solely in the New Testament. However, your statement robs the Old Testament of its value in two (if not more) particular ways. First, the implication is that the Old Testament has no theological value in itself, which is simply not true. God reveals himself in the scriptures of the Old Testament through very real and unique means in the Hebrew Bible. Second, the question of *why* it is important to know the Old Testament is important, and you fail to answer that as you subordinate it to the New Testament. The Old Testament allows us to understand Christ's work in the New for what it truly was-- the fulfillment and completion of God's covenants throughout redemptive history. In other words, Christ's work is incomprehensible to us without the context of Old Testament history, covenants, prophecy, and wisdom.

by: chadbowen

09-29-2009 @ 11:43pm

I agree with much of your post however, I'm troubled by your statement:

"While it is important to know what is in the Old Testament, salvation in, by, and through Christ Jesus is found in the pages of the New Testament."

What you assert here is true, Christ's redemptive work in history is certainly reported solely in the New Testament. However, your statement robs the Old Testament of its value in two (if not more) particular ways. First, the implication is that the Old Testament has no theological value in itself, which is simply not true. God reveals himself in the scriptures of the Old Testament through very real and unique means in the Hebrew Bible. Second, the question of *why* it is important to know the Old Testament is important, and you fail to answer that as you subordinate it to the New Testament. The Old Testament allows us to understand Christ's work in the New for what it truly was-- the fulfillment and completion of God's covenants throughout redemptive history. In other words, Christ's work is incomprehensible to us without the context of Old Testament history, covenants, prophecy, and wisdom.

by: kansasmennonite

09-30-2009 @ 10:04am

That's why (yes be yes and no be no) mennonites don't take an oath on the Bible. Our words should always be truthful and taking an oath would mean that ones doesn't always tell the truth. We affirm but don't swear. Small point perhaps.

by: kansasmennonite

09-30-2009 @ 10:04am

That's why (yes be yes and no be no) mennonites don't take an oath on the Bible. Our words should always be truthful and taking an oath would mean that ones doesn't always tell the truth. We affirm but don't swear. Small point perhaps.

by: kansasmennonite

09-30-2009 @ 10:08am

Perhaps she just meant that the OT is to not be held up as highly as the NT? I know a lot of theological differences develop between people who believe in a "flat" Bible vs one that reads the OT in relation to the NT. They think we are under the law (capital punishment as an example) yet don't follow "ALL" of the laws of the OT. Just pick and choose.

by: kansasmennonite

09-30-2009 @ 10:08am

Perhaps she just meant that the OT is to not be held up as highly as the NT? I know a lot of theological differences develop between people who believe in a "flat" Bible vs one that reads the OT in relation to the NT. They think we are under the law (capital punishment as an example) yet don't follow "ALL" of the laws of the OT. Just pick and choose.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:08pm

In the original Hebrew the imperative mood (command) is expressed by the imperfect tense. So Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 do not list ten "promises." They are commandments meant to be obeyed.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:08pm

In the original Hebrew the imperative mood (command) is expressed by the imperfect tense. So Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 do not list ten "promises." They are commandments meant to be obeyed.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:16pm

I believe it is impossible to understand the "Ten Commandments" without their preface, "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery..." (Ex. 20:1, ESV. Cf. Dt. 5:6). The following ten words are given to a redeemed people, not to all human beings! The commandments constitute the life code for the redeemed people. Ignorance of this connection between redemption and the commandments has been, in the history of the church, a seed bed where monumental Christ-denying and gospel-perverting errors thrive.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:16pm

I believe it is impossible to understand the "Ten Commandments" without their preface, "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery..." (Ex. 20:1, ESV. Cf. Dt. 5:6). The following ten words are given to a redeemed people, not to all human beings! The commandments constitute the life code for the redeemed people. Ignorance of this connection between redemption and the commandments has been, in the history of the church, a seed bed where monumental Christ-denying and gospel-perverting errors thrive.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:21pm

It's a typical ploy of liberal critical theologians to try to mark out a "canon within the canon". Success in this venture leaves one free to reject those portions of scripture which do not accord with current sensibilities while still maintaining one's front as a faithful follower of Jesus. But none of these attempts have succeeded except in the minds of their unbelieving authors. My Bible says (and I doubt not yours too), "ALL scripture is God breathed..." 2 Tim 3:16.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:21pm

It's a typical ploy of liberal critical theologians to try to mark out a "canon within the canon". Success in this venture leaves one free to reject those portions of scripture which do not accord with current sensibilities while still maintaining one's front as a faithful follower of Jesus. But none of these attempts have succeeded except in the minds of their unbelieving authors. My Bible says (and I doubt not yours too), "ALL scripture is God breathed..." 2 Tim 3:16.

by: Stein

09-30-2009 @ 12:28pm

Well, I don't know Hebrew, so I won't argue directly with you. I've now
heard opinions on both sides -- I'll reserve judgment on which to
believe.

by: Stein

09-30-2009 @ 12:28pm

Well, I don't know Hebrew, so I won't argue directly with you. I've now
heard opinions on both sides -- I'll reserve judgment on which to
believe.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:34pm

I gave you a bit of what little Hebrew I know. So, what's to argue?!

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:34pm

I gave you a bit of what little Hebrew I know. So, what's to argue?!

by: Stein

09-30-2009 @ 12:36pm

I am not arguing. I simply reserve judgment since different "experts"
are telling me different things.

by: Stein

09-30-2009 @ 12:36pm

I am not arguing. I simply reserve judgment since different "experts"
are telling me different things.

by: BuckeyeDon

09-30-2009 @ 12:44pm

"It's a typical ploy of liberal critical theologians..."

You've already prejudiced your argument with your choice of words here, haven't you? What if I prefaced an argument with, "It's a typical ploy of fundamentalist thelogians..."? How would you feel about that?

Then you reinforce your prejudice by referring to these authors as 'unbelievers.' I beg your pardon, mackharrell. Has God given you his mind to determine who are believers and who are not?

More to the point, it's not just so-called "liberal" theologians who have found a "canon within the canon." Among the Reformers, Martin Luther is famous for having done that--in fact, the fact that he seemed to elevate certain writings of Paul--Romans and Galatians in particular--was the source of one of the major disagreements between the Reformation churches and the Roman Catholic church. Luther also had little good to say about Revelation, and he wasn't sure that the letter of James really belonged in the New Testament. One could hardly call Luther a liberal, could one?

Be careful whom you aim your theological barbs at. They have a tendency to boomerang.

Peace,
Don

by: BuckeyeDon

09-30-2009 @ 12:44pm

"It's a typical ploy of liberal critical theologians..."

You've already prejudiced your argument with your choice of words here, haven't you? What if I prefaced an argument with, "It's a typical ploy of fundamentalist thelogians..."? How would you feel about that?

Then you reinforce your prejudice by referring to these authors as 'unbelievers.' I beg your pardon, mackharrell. Has God given you his mind to determine who are believers and who are not?

More to the point, it's not just so-called "liberal" theologians who have found a "canon within the canon." Among the Reformers, Martin Luther is famous for having done that--in fact, the fact that he seemed to elevate certain writings of Paul--Romans and Galatians in particular--was the source of one of the major disagreements between the Reformation churches and the Roman Catholic church. Luther also had little good to say about Revelation, and he wasn't sure that the letter of James really belonged in the New Testament. One could hardly call Luther a liberal, could one?

Be careful whom you aim your theological barbs at. They have a tendency to boomerang.

Peace,
Don

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:49pm

Ms. Bass:

Not that the distinctiion is all that important, but ...

'Terms' is a possible translation... but it's a stretch. In Exodus 34:28b, we read (in the ESV): "And [Moses] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

'Words of the covenant' translates the Hebrew "Dibre HaBerith" the first word of which is formed from the Hebrew stem DBR, a very common word in the OT usually translated (in its noun form) as "word".

'Ten Commandments' uses a plural form of the same stem. The ESV has a footnote which reads, "Hebrew the ten words.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:49pm

Ms. Bass:

Not that the distinctiion is all that important, but ...

'Terms' is a possible translation... but it's a stretch. In Exodus 34:28b, we read (in the ESV): "And [Moses] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

'Words of the covenant' translates the Hebrew "Dibre HaBerith" the first word of which is formed from the Hebrew stem DBR, a very common word in the OT usually translated (in its noun form) as "word".

'Ten Commandments' uses a plural form of the same stem. The ESV has a footnote which reads, "Hebrew the ten words.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:55pm

I'd hardly class myself among the "experts". You know what an expert is, don't you?

"'X' is the unknown quantity, and 'spurt' is a bit of water under pressure!"

Anyway, I can give you some bibliography on the point if you'd like - it's fairly straightforward and covered in all elementary Biblical Hebrew texts.

OTOH, who are these other "bits of water under pressure" who maintain that the verbs translated "you shall not..." are all promises?

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 12:55pm

I'd hardly class myself among the "experts". You know what an expert is, don't you?

"'X' is the unknown quantity, and 'spurt' is a bit of water under pressure!"

Anyway, I can give you some bibliography on the point if you'd like - it's fairly straightforward and covered in all elementary Biblical Hebrew texts.

OTOH, who are these other "bits of water under pressure" who maintain that the verbs translated "you shall not..." are all promises?

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 1:01pm

I'm not sure finding some reformers among those who hankered after a canon within the canon in any way proves my opening "salvo" incorrect. In point of fact, it is a favorite ploy of liberal critical theologians ... etc."

As to the term 'unbelievers', I intended that to apply to those specific beliefs, whatever they might be, that
happen to fall under their critical scalpels.

Your quip, "One could hardly call Luther a liberal, could one?" contains, of course, a logical error. From the claim "All As are Bs" it does not at all follow that if you find a B, it's got to be an A!

Gotcha!

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 1:01pm

I'm not sure finding some reformers among those who hankered after a canon within the canon in any way proves my opening "salvo" incorrect. In point of fact, it is a favorite ploy of liberal critical theologians ... etc."

As to the term 'unbelievers', I intended that to apply to those specific beliefs, whatever they might be, that
happen to fall under their critical scalpels.

Your quip, "One could hardly call Luther a liberal, could one?" contains, of course, a logical error. From the claim "All As are Bs" it does not at all follow that if you find a B, it's got to be an A!

Gotcha!

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 1:09pm

I misspoke myself. Of course, Hebrew does have an imperative form of the verb, just as English. That form is used in Exodus 20:8, "Remember the Sabbath Day..." But then in 20:9, Moses reverts to the imperfect of 'labor'. Now this imperfect must, I would hold, be read with imperatival force precisely because of the imperative on 20:8.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 1:09pm

I misspoke myself. Of course, Hebrew does have an imperative form of the verb, just as English. That form is used in Exodus 20:8, "Remember the Sabbath Day..." But then in 20:9, Moses reverts to the imperfect of 'labor'. Now this imperfect must, I would hold, be read with imperatival force precisely because of the imperative on 20:8.

by: TedVothJr

09-30-2009 @ 1:11pm

Dear Kansas Mennonite;

Good discussion here, don't you think? Glad it was pointed out that the 10 Commandments are part of the Law of Moses and that the holy and just and good Law was only for the Jews

by: TedVothJr

09-30-2009 @ 1:11pm

Dear Kansas Mennonite;

Good discussion here, don't you think? Glad it was pointed out that the 10 Commandments are part of the Law of Moses and that the holy and just and good Law was only for the Jews

by: Stein

09-30-2009 @ 1:27pm

The main idea is to point to God. I have low interest in pursuing a
discussion on the interpretation of the ten commandments and nuances of
how to read the text. Instead, I point back to what Jesus identified as
the two greatest commandments. All the rest follow. The only point I
was originally suggesting is that obeying the ten commandments is a
natural consequence of following the greatest two. We avoid legalism
and focus on Christ and on love.

by: Stein

09-30-2009 @ 1:27pm

The main idea is to point to God. I have low interest in pursuing a
discussion on the interpretation of the ten commandments and nuances of
how to read the text. Instead, I point back to what Jesus identified as
the two greatest commandments. All the rest follow. The only point I
was originally suggesting is that obeying the ten commandments is a
natural consequence of following the greatest two. We avoid legalism
and focus on Christ and on love.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 1:38pm

With which I have no disagreement. But a question: if that's really all you wanted to say, why couch the point as if you were suggesting a way of reading the Hebrew text? Your suggestion that the imperfect verb forms in Exodus 20 could appropriately be understood as promises is what set me off. That suggestion, IMO, is demonstrably mistaken.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 1:38pm

With which I have no disagreement. But a question: if that's really all you wanted to say, why couch the point as if you were suggesting a way of reading the Hebrew text? Your suggestion that the imperfect verb forms in Exodus 20 could appropriately be understood as promises is what set me off. That suggestion, IMO, is demonstrably mistaken.

by: warren_wade

09-30-2009 @ 5:21pm

What? Are you being sarcastic? You can't actually think that, right?

by: warren_wade

09-30-2009 @ 5:21pm

What? Are you being sarcastic? You can't actually think that, right?

by: BuckeyeDon

09-30-2009 @ 5:45pm

1. I'm not following your explanation of your use of "unbelievers." When one calls someone unbelievers, what else does it mean?

2. Are you saying Luther was a "liberal" theologian by your standards? I don't believe I've committed any kind of logical error. And your little comment at the end was a bit smart-alecky, don't you think? (Refer back to the posting guidelines, especially the first one.)

3. All of us, to some degree or another, weigh some parts of the Bible as more important than others. All Christians, for example, interpret the Hebrew scriptures through the lens of hte New Testament. So what's your concern?

by: BuckeyeDon

09-30-2009 @ 5:45pm

1. I'm not following your explanation of your use of "unbelievers." When one calls someone unbelievers, what else does it mean?

2. Are you saying Luther was a "liberal" theologian by your standards? I don't believe I've committed any kind of logical error. And your little comment at the end was a bit smart-alecky, don't you think? (Refer back to the posting guidelines, especially the first one.)

3. All of us, to some degree or another, weigh some parts of the Bible as more important than others. All Christians, for example, interpret the Hebrew scriptures through the lens of hte New Testament. So what's your concern?

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 7:44pm

All right old Buckeye.... I'll try to make this so clear that even you will get the point.

1. 'Unbeliever' just means a person who doesn't believe something. Without further specifying exactly what the "unbeliever" doesn't believe, the context should determine the extent of unbelief. Since the context of my comment concerned people who do not acknowledge the full authority of the Scriptures, that's what I meant.

2. Sorry you can't take a bit of ribbing. "Gotcha!" ... oh, do I really have to spell out tongue in cheek?! Perhaps the standards of joust and rejoinder here ought to include Calvin's statement to the effect that if no offense was intended and none committed, then if someone takes offense, it's that person's problem. You might do well to examine yourself, then, and see if your skin is a bit thin at this point!

The logical error was that of "affirming the consequent". I wrote, "It's a typical ploy of liberal critical theologians to try to mark out a canon within the canon. I would not go so far to say that every liberal critical theologian does so, but for the purpose of this reply, suppose I had said that. Now 'All Liberal Critical Theologians ("LCT") believe in a canon within the canon ("CC")' has the logical form of 'All As are Bs'. You pointed out, rightly, that Luther was less sanguine about the authority of certain parts of scripture than others. He thought, for instance, that the Epistle of James was a "right strawy epistle," not at all to his taste. Was I saying that Martin Luther was LCT?!!

Now my reply, while a bit cheeky, was perfectly correct. I had said, in effect, "All LCTs are CC." You had found a particular CC in Luther. Was I (perish the horrifying thought!) saying that Martin Luther was LCT?! Of course not!!

To imagine that is what I implied is just to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is to assume that if all As are Bs, and you discover a B, that it must be an A. This is a logical error. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_cons....

3. To interpret the Hebrew scriptures "through the lens of the New Testament" means to me, for instance, that I understand the events described in the gospels as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. But this is not at all to "weigh some parts of the Bible as more important than others" in my understanding. 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Paul did not go on to speculate that some parts of scripture were "more inspired" than others, or "more profitable for instruction in righteousness."

Indeed, absent Old Testament prophecy, the events recorded in the gospels would be meaningless dumb show, and would provide no reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. So what if once upon a time a wonder worker got himself crucified?! What is that to me? Big deal! But if we understand these events in their context in a narrative that reaches all the way back to Genesis 3,... well, then, that is another matter entirely.

by: mackharrell

09-30-2009 @ 7:44pm

All right old Buckeye.... I'll try to make this so clear that even you will get the point.

1. 'Unbeliever' just means a person who doesn't believe something. Without further specifying exactly what the "unbeliever" doesn't believe, the context should determine the extent of unbelief. Since the context of my comment concerned people who do not acknowledge the full authority of the Scriptures, that's what I meant.

2. Sorry you can't take a bit of ribbing. "Gotcha!" ... oh, do I really have to spell out tongue in cheek?! Perhaps the standards of joust and rejoinder here ought to include Calvin's statement to the effect that if no offense was intended and none committed, then if someone takes offense, it's that person's problem. You might do well to examine yourself, then, and see if your skin is a bit thin at this point!

The logical error was that of "affirming the consequent". I wrote, "It's a typical ploy of liberal critical theologians to try to mark out a canon within the canon. I would not go so far to say that every liberal critical theologian does so, but for the purpose of this reply, suppose I had said that. Now 'All Liberal Critical Theologians ("LCT") believe in a canon within the canon ("CC")' has the logical form of 'All As are Bs'. You pointed out, rightly, that Luther was less sanguine about the authority of certain parts of scripture than others. He thought, for instance, that the Epistle of James was a "right strawy epistle," not at all to his taste. Was I saying that Martin Luther was LCT?!!

Now my reply, while a bit cheeky, was perfectly correct. I had said, in effect, "All LCTs are CC." You had found a particular CC in Luther. Was I (perish the horrifying thought!) saying that Martin Luther was LCT?! Of course not!!

To imagine that is what I implied is just to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is to assume that if all As are Bs, and you discover a B, that it must be an A. This is a logical error. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_cons....

3. To interpret the Hebrew scriptures "through the lens of the New Testament" means to me, for instance, that I understand the events described in the gospels as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. But this is not at all to "weigh some parts of the Bible as more important than others" in my understanding. 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Paul did not go on to speculate that some parts of scripture were "more inspired" than others, or "more profitable for instruction in righteousness."

Indeed, absent Old Testament prophecy, the events recorded in the gospels would be meaningless dumb show, and would provide no reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. So what if once upon a time a wonder worker got himself crucified?! What is that to me? Big deal! But if we understand these events in their context in a narrative that reaches all the way back to Genesis 3,... well, then, that is another matter entirely.