The Scriptures: What do you accept, what do you reject, and why?

KWCrazy said:

I've often wondered this of those who believe things contrary to the Scriptures. How do you decide what to believe or no to believe? Do you reject an ax head floating on water? How about the son of God walking on the water. Is He not heavier than an ax head? Did God create the world? If so, would He lie to us about how He did it? Is He capable of creating the universe but only in the way YOU think he did it?

There are 333 miracles in the Bible. By definition, miracles are things which are not possible in the natural world. How does a person who classifies himself as a Christian accept certain miracles and reject others when they are all equally impossible? With what criteria do we weigh the word of God and decided for ourselves what is true and what is fiction? If the Bible is not the word of God, then what it is and why should we give it any attention whatever?

Nobody seems willing to take on this topic when I've asked them, so let's see what happens when the the thread centers on this one very important question; What do you accept, what do you reject and why?

Click to expand...

I think most Christians would say that they hold an interpretation of Scripture that is contrary to your interpretation rather than say that they believe things that are contrary to Scripture.

I don't have a problem with "miracles" as such. I've had enough spiritual experiences to know that God is there, that He knows what I am doing, thinking, and saying, and that He can do miraculous things if He wants to.

I don't "reject" Scripture, but there are things in it that I don't like much. For example when Ezra sent the foreign wives away, and their children, that to me was cruel and ruthless excess.

Ezra 10:1-4 "While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself to the ground before the temple of God, a very large crowd of Israelites—men, women, and children alike—gathered around him. The people wept loudly. 2 Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, from the descendants of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the local peoples. Nonetheless, there is still hope for Israel in this regard. 3 Therefore let us enact a covenant with our God to send away all these women and their offspring, in keeping with the counsel of my lord and of those who have regard for the commandments of our God. And let it be done according to the law. 4 Get up, for this matter concerns you. We are with you, so be strong and act decisively”

Click to expand...

There was no social security in those days. Those women and their children probably went either into slavery or prostitution, or just starved to death. As far as I'm concerned, that was fanatical religious fundamentalism at work.

So even if Ezra is held up as a zealous Jew for the Law, I don't admire that particular action, even if it is in Scripture. So in that sense I don't agree with everything in Scripture.

Or if you like, I reserve the right to think for myself. God's given me a brain and He expects me to use it. In fact, He expects all of us to use our brains. It is our intelligence above all that sets us apart from the animals.

As a Catholic for example, I don't agree with the ruling on the contraceptive pill, and I'm not a particular admirer of the doctrine of "papal infallibility" (even though in well over a century it's only been officially invoked twice on two dogmatic statements - it only applies when the Pope speaks ex-Cathedra on a matter of faith and morals that affects the whole church).

I don't have the option to reject Scripture. I think most/all Christians would agree?

Whether one considers miraculous things to be only allegorical, or believes they happened literally exactly as written, etc. - yes, that used to concern me. But it dawned on me ... if God can become incarnate (through a virgin), if He can destroy death, if He can resurrect a human body - what can't He do? It is often easier given all this to simply believe in the miraculous interpretation than to try to explain it away, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't matter to me (in most cases) exactly what someone believes about it. Some "miracles" are more dangerous spiritually to discount than others ...

For example, does it really matter if the earth stood still or not? Does our faith collapse if it did, or if it did not? I don't concern myself in that case. But did Christ really resurrect? If He did not, then Christianity has nothing. Failing to believe that one - is a problem.

And yes, there are things in Scripture I might not like. I can't think of any right now (I probably could if I'd sit here for a few minutes, but I have to go). But just because I don't like it doesn't give me the right to reject it. We don't get to pick and choose.

But I do think you are making assumptions with your interpretation - why do I feel there is another shoe to drop here? Forgive me if that is not the case, but if you ask directly, you could receive more focused answers.

KWCrazy said:

What part of the following needs interpretation? "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

When God carved the Fourth Commandment into the stone tablet, was he just kidding? How you explain this?

Click to expand...

Whenever you read a sentence in English, you are interpreting what those letters and words mean. Certain words can have a large variety of meanings and often times multiple people can read the same sentence and understand it differently. Sometimes people use hyperbole, idioms, sarcasm, or figurative language. There is also the issue of something that is originally written in Hebrew that is interpreted and translated into Greek, which is then interpreted and translated into English, and is separated by a different culture and 2000 years, which can easily lead someone to understand a sentence in a way that is different from what the original author was intending to communicate. Was the author intending to say that something was an actual historical event or were they creating a story to teach something? There are all sorts of ways to misinterpret something, but I'm am in agreement with you that we should keep the Sabbath.

I'll speak for mainline Protestants. Most participants in Traditional Theology are from catholic traditions, and may have somewhat different approaches.

Critical scholarship doesn’t generally break the Scriptures into parts that we accept and parts that we reject. We look at all of it understanding that the authors were from ancient cultures, and that at times their understanding of events is different from what ours would be. They were more likely to see miracles that we wouldn't. Of course you can't remove the supernatural completely. After all, God is by definition supernatural, and Christianity only exists because of the Resurrection, which is miraculous.

We also understand that they had different concepts of the way God acts. Some portions of the OT, for example, see God as a war god, who wants Israel to wipe out the infidels. That’s not a view that we think is consistent with Jesus’ teachings. Even within the NT there are differences. E.g. Paul thinks it’s OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and the author of the Rev doesn’t.

So we accept all of Scripture, but we interpret each section according to our best understanding of its historical and cultural context, giving Jesus’ teachings priority.

KWCrazy said:

I've often wondered this of those who believe things contrary to the Scriptures. How do you decide what to believe or no to believe? Do you reject an ax head floating on water? How about the son of God walking on the water. Is He not heavier than an ax head? Did God create the world? If so, would He lie to us about how He did it? Is He capable of creating the universe but only in the way YOU think he did it?

There are 333 miracles in the Bible. By definition, miracles are things which are not possible in the natural world. How does a person who classifies himself as a Christian accept certain miracles and reject others when they are all equally impossible? With what criteria do we weigh the word of God and decided for ourselves what is true and what is fiction? If the Bible is not the word of God, then what it is and why should we give it any attention whatever?

Nobody seems willing to take on this topic when I've asked them, so let's see what happens when the the thread centers on this one very important question; What do you accept, what do you reject and why?

Click to expand...

"Believing things contrary to Scripture" is a pretty subjective measure. Most of the time what it amounts to, in inter-Christian discussions, is something like "different than what I was taught or think it means."

As for miracles - I think it is a mistake to assume that a miracle is only ever one kind of thing, that it is always accomplished in the same way, or that it has the same purpose. A miracle is something that operates as a miracle for the people it concerns.

Something I would say however is that miracles of God are never against nature. Nature is one of God's miracles, and God does not act against himself. Almost inevitably, when we look at the miracles described in Scripture, I would say that they involve a healing, or fulfillment, or re-ordering of nature, not a reversal. I think that is useful to keep in mind when considering whether we consider something to be a miracle or not.

MKJ said:

"Believing things contrary to Scripture" is a pretty subjective measure. Most of the time what it amounts to, in inter-Christian discussions, is something like "different than what I was taught or think it means."

As for miracles - I think it is a mistake to assume that a miracle is only ever one kind of thing, that it is always accomplished in the same way, or that it has the same purpose. A miracle is something that operates as a miracle for the people it concerns.

Something I would say however is that miracles of God are never against nature. Nature is one of God's miracles, and God does not act against himself. Almost inevitably, when we look at the miracles described in Scripture, I would say that they involve a healing, or fulfillment, or re-ordering of nature, not a reversal. I think that is useful to keep in mind when considering whether we consider something to be a miracle or not.

Click to expand...

Could you possibly clarify what you mean by "never against nature", MKJ?

The way my mind wants to automatically interpret that is probably not at all what you meant.

Meaning - conception by a Virgin, the dead coming back to life, food feeding more people than it ought, instant healing,and so on - someone might take these to be "against nature"?

Thank you.

~Anastasia~ said:

Could you possibly clarify what you mean by "never against nature", MKJ?

The way my mind wants to automatically interpret that is probably not at all what you meant.

Meaning - conception by a Virgin, the dead coming back to life, food feeding more people than it ought, instant healing,and so on - someone might take these to be "against nature"?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Well, a healing is the restoration of a living things' nature, as is coming back to life. Conception, the beginning of life, is also proper to nature - it is a principle of nature found in its most complete form in the divine life.

Miracles like the loaves and fishes are about food becoming more nourishing, more life-giving, more of what it already is.

What would something that is truly against nature look like? The destruction of what is, I think, something becoming nothing. Death, infertility, disease, wasting away.

MKJ said:

Well, a healing is the restoration of a living things' nature, as is coming back to life. Conception, the beginning of life, is also proper to nature - it is a principle of nature found in its most complete form in the divine life.

Miracles like the loaves and fishes are about food becoming more nourishing, more life-giving, more of what it already is.

What would something that is truly against nature look like? The destruction of what is, I think, something becoming nothing. Death, infertility, disease, wasting away.

Click to expand...

Ah, thank you for explaining. I thought that surely I misunderstood your point, and I did.

I see that in re-reading your first post on the matter, you actually did explain that. I just wasn't understanding you fully. Thank you.

KWCrazy said:

What part of the following needs interpretation? "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

When God carved the Fourth Commandment into the stone tablet, was he just kidding? How you explain this?

Click to expand...

You seem to be indicating that Scripture speaks for itself, and that each of its verses are easily understood.

To be clear, if we rely on individual interpretation for the Truth of the revelations in Scripture, we must end up in error. Why this is so seems obvious. Many very important passages (and hundreds of minor passages) are given different interpretations by different individuals. Verses in Scripture only have meaning in the context of all of Scripture, and in the context of the faith as a whole. Scripture was not given to individuals. Scripture was given to a faith community. It is only within community that Scripture makes sense.

KWCrazy said:

I've often wondered this of those who believe things contrary to the Scriptures. How do you decide what to believe or no to believe? Do you reject an ax head floating on water? How about the son of God walking on the water. Is He not heavier than an ax head? Did God create the world? If so, would He lie to us about how He did it? Is He capable of creating the universe but only in the way YOU think he did it?

There are 333 miracles in the Bible. By definition, miracles are things which are not possible in the natural world. How does a person who classifies himself as a Christian accept certain miracles and reject others when they are all equally impossible? With what criteria do we weigh the word of God and decided for ourselves what is true and what is fiction? If the Bible is not the word of God, then what it is and why should we give it any attention whatever?

Nobody seems willing to take on this topic when I've asked them, so let's see what happens when the the thread centers on this one very important question; What do you accept, what do you reject and why?

Click to expand...

This would be an interesting question to pose to a Unitarian, however, in general, traditional Christians accept the entire Bible, often including several books rejected by others as apocryphal.

This does not mean we adhere to an Antiochene or Fundamentalist literal interpretation of all passages, however.

Wgw said:

This would be an interesting question to pose to a Unitarian, however, in general, traditional Christians accept the entire Bible, often including several books rejected by others as apocryphal.

Click to expand...

In the context of this question I understand "accept the entire Bible" to mean accepting the literal historical accuracy of the entire Bible. Particularly all the miracles reported in the Bible.

I don't think this is true. The Catholic Church has accepted critical scholarship since Vatican 2 at least, and I think it's now pretty common. That does not accept the literal accuracy of everything in the Bible. This is also true of the traditional Protestant denominations, such as Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist, at least the largest denomination in those families. I believe inerrancy is most characteristic of evangelical and other newer traditions, and conservative variants of the traditional families.

This may not be true in the East. Critical scholarship in the sense i mean it seems to be a result of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. I'd be interested in knowing how much impact it has had the East.

hedrick said:

In the context of this question I understand "accept the entire Bible" to mean accepting the literal historical accuracy of the entire Bible. Particularly all the miracles reported in the Bible.

I don't think this is true. The Catholic Church has accepted critical scholarship since Vatican 2 at least, and I think it's now pretty common. That does not accept the literal accuracy of everything in the Bible. This is also true of the traditional Protestant denominations, such as Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist, at least the largest denomination in those families. I believe inerrancy is most characteristic of evangelical and other newer traditions, and conservative variants of the traditional families.

This may not be true in the East. Critical scholarship in the sense i mean it seems to be a result of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. I'd be interested in knowing how much impact it has had the East.

Click to expand...

By "accept the entire Bible," I mean traditional Christians do not rule out various miracles on the basis of a rationalist argument in the manner of Thomas Jefferson or other disagreeable, amoral Unitarians. On the other hand, the Alexandrian school of thought is to allow an allegorical interpretation of, for example, much of the Old Testament.

The Eastern churches have some very eminent scholars, but we would never, for example, alter the liturgy becsuse textual criticism proposed a verse quoted in it is inauthentic.

Wgw said:

By "accept the entire Bible," I mean traditional Christians do not rule out various miracles on the basis of a rationalist argument in the manner of Thomas Jefferson or other disagreeable, amoral Unitarians. On the other hand, the Alexandrian school of thought is to allow an allegorical interpretation of, for example, much of the Old Testament.

The Eastern churches have some very eminent scholars, but we would never, for example, alter the liturgy becsuse textual criticism proposed a verse quoted in it is inauthentic.

Click to expand...

I don’t think most of us rule out miracles as a matter of principle. After all, the Resurrection is a miracle. For me the problem isn’t that they violate physical law, but that we know that stories about miracles aren’t always reliable. Even today. And the 1st Cent was even more inclined to accept them. I assume that Jesus actually did miracles, but I’d also bet that not all of the NT stories about them would be regarded as accurate by today’s standards. I don't have a list of which is which, though scholars sometimes have specific reasons to doubt particular passages.

That depends upon what you considered liturgical. We use the traditional form of the Lord’s Prayer in worship, even though it’s virtually certain that the last clause isn’t original. But when we do Scripture readings (typically, from the lectionary) they are from a critical edition, so things that are excluded from the NRSV won’t be there.
The lectionary includes the Pastorals even though we are virtually certain that Paul didn’t write them.

hedrick said:

I don’t think most of us rule out miracles as a matter of principle. After all, the Resurrection is a miracle. For me the problem isn’t that they violate physical law, but that we know that stories about miracles aren’t always reliable. Even today. And the 1st Cent was even more inclined to accept them. I assume that Jesus actually did miracles, but I’d also bet that not all of the NT stories about them would be regarded as accurate by today’s standards.

Click to expand...

Piety requires credulity, especially where our Lord is concerned.

I don't have a list of which is which, though scholars sometimes have specific reasons to doubt particular passages.

Click to expand...

I cannot bring myself to doubt that which was accepted by the early Church. I would also note this is Traditional Theology. amd herein I feel we are bound by the legislative force of tradition.

That depends upon what you considered liturgical.

Click to expand...

What I consider liturgical are those texts either wuoted in the ordinary form of the liturgy (in the Euchologion or Missal, or Horologion or Breviary, or the Coptic Agpeya or Syriac Shima), or in the hymns (the Triodion, Pentecostarion, Menaion, Irmologion, Octoechos, Coptic Psalmody, RC Graduale), or in the Lectionary.

One thing which Calvinism did which I remain very much opposed to is the attempt to redefine liturgy, which was already Biblical, on the basis of the so-called "regulative principle." Setting aside that much of what Calvinists rejected is actually Biblically justifiable, this opens the door for people to radically alter the dogma and praxis of the Christian faith on the basis of contemporary scholarly opinions about the authenticity of texts.

When we set aside tradition and lex orandi, lex credendi, Christian faith is reduced to what amounts to an intellectual opinion about the contents of the Bible. The Gospel os no longer lived but dissected.

We use the traditional form of the Lord’s Prayer in worship, even though it’s virtually certain that the last clause isn’t original. But when we do Scripture readings (typically, from the lectionary) they are from a critical edition, so things that are excluded from the NRSV won’t be there.

Click to expand...

The lectionary includes the Pastorals even though we are virtually certain that Paul didn’t write them.

Click to expand...

Case in point: on the basis of modern scholarship, which often disagrees with the consensus of people who were epistemologically in a much better position to know the facts of the matter than we are, the authenticity and this the relevance of various verses, pericopes and entire books is questioned.

I recently recall reading of a Baptist preacher aggressively condeming both the authenticity and kerygmatic import of the Adultery Pericope owing to the view of lower criticism that it might be an interpolation. Perhaps it is an interpolation, but it hardly matters; the arrogation required on his part to reject this vital text describing divine mercy is astonishing.

Dan M said:

Why can't the answer be a simple, yes I believe and practice that particular scripture, or no I do not believe and practice that particular scripture without giving it some sort of spin, or reference to other scriptures?

Click to expand...

Probably because it isn't that simple? (shrug)