Can a story = truth?

[rmwilliamsll]

Ah, but this issue is the degree to which you hold to it, and how willing you would be to change that position if there were sufficient bases, both factual and theological, to do so. Holding on to something out of stubborness and "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" is a very human reaction. I am not saying at all that is what you are doing, but I think that there are varying degrees of certitude about issues. The more important an issue is to the essential doctrines of the Church, the more strongly we should cling to it. And the corollary would be true as well.

1. varying degrees of certitude about issues.
2. more important an issue is to the essential doctrines

what is interesting is that these two ideas are not related.

for instance, the Trinity is key yet is often seen as a weakly supported doctrine.

plus there is no direct correlation between the two 'numbers'-probability of truth, and essentialness to system. we often cling to ideas past their justification/evidence, simply because of their centralness to our thinking.

it would be nice if there were direct correlations between the two pieces. so that as essentialness to system increased then we were also assured that the evidence for the truthfulness of the proposition likewise increased, maybe even proportionally. but as you point out truth=/= need.

it is a fruitful direction for thought, thanks for bringing it up.

 

[4H1m]

Ah, but this issue is the degree to which you hold to it, and how willing you would be to change that position if there were sufficient bases, both factual and theological, to do so.

Pardon me if I am wrong, but this reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church teachings. They teach that the Bible cannot stand on its own, that is has no Authority in of itself. They believe that one must add in holy tradition and the Pope's authority for the Bible to be able to carry its weight.
The protestant movement came about which said God's Word is the Authority in of itself and needs no one or thing to help it stand. From your symbol, I take it you are protestant, yet here in your words I wonder.

Are you suggesting that doctrinal issues need both theology and fact in order to be true. And if so, who decides what a fact is? You? Science? The guy down the street? The church? By this account - if this is what you were saying - anyone can assert any fact. I believe this is what theistic evolutionists have done with evolution.

To answer the original post, can a story be true, yes it can. The civil war is often told as a story and it did happen. The American Revolution is also told as a story and it did happen. The Declaration of Independance is told as a story and it actually happened even though some schools are now not allowed to discuss the Declaration because it includes the name God.

When God is speaking, we should be listening. God speaks each time an inquisitive reader reads His Word. Psalms 119:130 speaks that even the simple can understand God's Word. God's Word was not intended to confuse or hinder one for understanding. Asserting evolution and other concepts (such as Christ not being conceived by the Holy Spirit, a flood that didn't happen that destroyed the inhabitants on the earth all but Noah and seven others, etc) that just aren't Biblical, to be the work of God is false teaching. The Bible becomes difficult when it divides the soul and spirit and judges the hearts and attitudes of men(Hebrews 4:12). The Bible becomes difficult when you actually try to follow what is written therein.

In short a story can hold much truth. If you disagree then read all of the storys Christ told while He was here on earth.

 

[versastyle]

4H1m,

Who determines scriptural integrity, what it means and how it should be read?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Welcome to our newest literalist! And an anti-Catholic one, too. Where do we begin?

Pardon me if I am wrong, but this reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church teachings. They teach that the Bible cannot stand on its own, that is has no Authority in of itself. They believe that one must add in holy tradition and the Pope's authority for the Bible to be able to carry its weight.
The protestant movement came about which said God's Word is the Authority in of itself and needs no one or thing to help it stand. From your symbol, I take it you are protestant, yet here in your words I wonder.

Exalting the Bible as many Protestants have done has, at best, set up a paper pope, and at worst, set it up as a graven image. Just because it is seen as reflecting the image of our God doesn't make idolatry any better - we are required only to worship the real Thing. There is one Authority, and the Bible is a witness to that Authority. It is a true and holy testimony to our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. But does no one else see sola scriptura as edging out Deus a bit?

Are you suggesting that doctrinal issues need both theology and fact in order to be true. And if so, who decides what a fact is? You? Science? The guy down the street? The church? By this account - if this is what you were saying - anyone can assert any fact. I believe this is what theistic evolutionists have done with evolution.

In fact we're arguing the opposite. Delivering the "facts," if you mean historical events, is irrelevant and not required for formulation of a lot of doctrine. This is fortunate for us because the Old Testament doesn't do much history.

To answer the original post, can a story be true, yes it can. The civil war is often told as a story and it did happen. The American Revolution is also told as a story and it did happen. The Declaration of Independance is told as a story and it actually happened even though some schools are now not allowed to discuss the Declaration because it includes the name God.

What we mean by "true" does not equal "historical." It refers to theological truths. And so Jesus' parables are true, even though not historical.

Psalms 119:130 speaks that even the simple can understand God's Word. God's Word was not intended to confuse or hinder one for understanding.

I have no disagreement about the simple being able to understand what God says. God speaking through the Creation account conveys the necessary truths both to those who believe it's a historical account and those who see it as non-historical literature: God is Creator, man is God's vessel, man is separated from God because of sin. Unfortunately, some try to read more into what is written than God intended. When we refuse to process the Bible as literature, preferring to prize it as a wholly otherworldly document not subject to any reading but a plain one, we begin to see all kinds of things: creation in 6 days, a global flood, God as a bird with wings ("He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge" Psalm 91:4), etc.

 

[Vance]

1. varying degrees of certitude about issues.
2. more important an issue is to the essential doctrines

what is interesting is that these two ideas are not related.

for instance, the Trinity is key yet is often seen as a weakly supported doctrine.

plus there is no direct correlation between the two 'numbers'-probability of truth, and essentialness to system. we often cling to ideas past their justification/evidence, simply because of their centralness to our thinking.

it would be nice if there were direct correlations between the two pieces. so that as essentialness to system increased then we were also assured that the evidence for the truthfulness of the proposition likewise increased, maybe even proportionally. but as you point out truth=/= need.

it is a fruitful direction for thought, thanks for bringing it up.

I was not clear about this. What I meant was not the degree of supportable evidence, but the degree of personal certitude about an issue My certitude about the resurrection is absolute. My certitude about whether Abraham actually (historically) pretended his wife was his sister is not quite as absolute.

 

[4H1m]

Welcome to our newest literalist! And an anti-Catholic one, too. Where do we begin?

What a warm welcome, thank you. I don't believe I have said I am anti-Catholic, but rather that was an assumption on your part. I believe there to be errors among the Roman Catholics, but this doesn't mean I am against them or dislike them. I have friends who are Catholic and who also hold similiar beliefs as I. There are many beliefs in the Protestant Churches I find to also be unscriptural. That doesn't mean I am against them or anti them also.

You will have to pardon me though, I am a very adament about reproving oneself and teachings against Scripture.

Exalting the Bible as many Protestants have done has, at best, set up a paper pope, and at worst, set it up as a graven image. Just because it is seen as reflecting the image of our God doesn't make idolatry any better - we are required only to worship the real Thing. There is one Authority, and the Bible is a witness to that Authority. It is a true and holy testimony to our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. But does no one else see sola scriptura as edging out Deus a bit?

If you are trying to state I am exalting the Bible above God, then just state it. There is no need to hide behind words that run in circles. I do have to admire your roundabout ways of judging me as a Bible Idolatry. And in this paragraph you seem to try and accuse me of worshipping the Bible. Why would you do that?

If I may, I think I can answer why. Because I hold the Bible to be God's very own Words recorded by man, you find fault in me. Because I choose to follow God's very own Words, you find fault in me. Because I speak that God's very own Words should be followed, you find fault in me. And I believe you find fault in me because I have stated the Bible needs no one to approve it, hence Sola Scriptura.

No matter who wrote the Bible, I know who told the authors what to say. I am very well aware of its origins. Because I am aware of its origins - from God Himself - I will follow what is written inside the Bible. I am faithful that God has not lead me astray. I am faithful that in God's Word is everything needed for this life. I am faithful that when Jesus said My Word will always remain, it will be so. Jesus' Word doesn't begin or stop in the Gospel. Jesus is God, and God's Word is everywhere in the Bible.

In fact we're arguing the opposite. Delivering the "facts," if you mean historical events, is irrelevant and not required for formulation of a lot of doctrine. This is fortunate for us because the Old Testament doesn't do much history.

Well, contrary to your belief, which you are intitled to, archaeology has found many things that prove the Old Testament to be actual history. It is your right to turn a blind eye to these facts.

What we mean by "true" does not equal "historical." It refers to theological truths. And so Jesus' parables are true, even though not historical.

Then I take it your idea of true is limited in scope, thus inferring that Jesus, who is in the very nature God, is limited in His truth.

I have no disagreement about the simple being able to understand what God says. God speaking through the Creation account conveys the necessary truths both to those who believe it's a historical account and those who see it as non-historical literature: God is Creator, man is God's vessel, man is separated from God because of sin. Unfortunately, some try to read more into what is written than God intended. When we refuse to process the Bible as literature, preferring to prize it as a wholly otherworldly document not subject to any reading but a plain one, we begin to see all kinds of things: creation in 6 days, a global flood, God as a bird with wings ("He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge" Psalm 91:4), etc.

Unfortunately, some try add or subtract from the Bible so that it incorporates popular beliefs. I take it by your statement here, 'otherwordly document' that you tend to believe the Bible is not from God but rather the authors made comments on a God they believed. Well the Bible says otherwise and I believe it because I am faithful in God, Christ Jesus, that He has not allowed His Word to lead me astray. You are in error, the Bible doesn't have its origins here in earth, the Bible is from the Creator Himself, who moved the authors to write what God wanted them to write.

If you don't believe in a 6 day creation and a global flood, then you will have to add and subtract from the Bible, things the Bible says not to do. Since you seem to not give much credibility to the Old Testament, maybe Paul can instruct you. "Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Corinthians 4:6) Insisting that Genesis 2:7 is incorrect, and Genesis 7:19 are incorrect, you are in error and furthermore challenging God's Authority.

God is a Spirit, thus the Bible says He is. This means that God is not bound by a physical form, thus He can be just a Spirit, or He can be a human as He did when He came to this earth as Christ, or God can be anything He chooses. Who can limit God and His power? If God wants to be a bird and shield His flock with His wings, then who are you or I to say He cannot? Are we more powerful then God? I know I am not.

Might I suggest that you don't sit on the throne of God and judge Him on what form He can or cannot take. This would be very unwise. Job once wanted God to answer to him and when God came, Job was silent for God questioned Him. For there is none above God who can question Him and His Authority. His Authority is clearly seen in the Bible. His teachings are prevelant in the Scriptures. He didn't move the authors to write them just so we can dispute them but rather so that we can share an eternal life with Him. For the path of eternal life is told in God's Word.

Jesus said that if a kingdom is divided it cannot stand. If you choose to try and discredit the Bible or call it in error, then you are trying to divide the kingdom. You serve yourself no support in your actions to diminish the Bibles Authority. But mind you no man can reduce or lessen God's Authority, it can only happen in the mans own head. Perception is a very unique thing, you can perceive anything you like, but that doesn't make you right. I can perceive anything I like, but it doesn't make me right. One thing I don't have to worry about though, is God's Word is true and correct. Even so the simple can understand, hence the message is not hidden in secret language that only the intelligent can understand.

 

[versastyle]

4H1m,

Thank you for admitting that your perception of the bible could be flawed.


(And btw, the bible takes years of schooling to read, so it takes more intelligence than you'd like to believe)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

4H1m - it seems that you confuse the Christian belief in inspiration of Scripture with the Muslim idea of dictation.

Had God dictated Scripture word for word, I imagine He would have been clearer over whether it was God or Satan who persuaded David to take his census, for one thing.

 

[Didaskomenos]

What a warm welcome, thank you. I don't believe I have said I am anti-Catholic, but rather that was an assumption on your part. I believe there to be errors among the Roman Catholics, but this doesn't mean I am against them or dislike them. I have friends who are Catholic and who also hold similiar beliefs as I. There are many beliefs in the Protestant Churches I find to also be unscriptural. That doesn't mean I am against them or anti them also.

I assumed you are anti-Catholic because your argument against Vance's position stood not on its own but on the fact that Catholics teach this, as though that alone should disqualify it. If I have overstepped my extrapolation, please forgive me. I have seen it too often, and it really gives me the jiggers.

If you are trying to state I am exalting the Bible above God, then just state it. There is no need to hide behind words that run in circles. I do have to admire your roundabout ways of judging me as a Bible Idolatry. And in this paragraph you seem to try and accuse me of worshipping the Bible. Why would you do that?
If I may, I think I can answer why. Because I hold the Bible to be God's very own Words recorded by man, you find fault in me. Because I choose to follow God's very own Words, you find fault in me. Because I speak that God's very own Words should be followed, you find fault in me. And I believe you find fault in me because I have stated the Bible needs no one to approve it, hence Sola Scriptura.

Actually, I do not know if you worship the Bible. I said either you worship it, or you set it up as a paper pope. To many Protestants, this is one and the same. It is not the same to me.

No matter who wrote the Bible, I know who told the authors what to say. I am very well aware of its origins. Because I am aware of its origins - from God Himself - I will follow what is written inside the Bible. I am faithful that God has not lead me astray. I am faithful that in God's Word is everything needed for this life. I am faithful that when Jesus said My Word will always remain, it will be so. Jesus' Word doesn't begin or stop in the Gospel. Jesus is God, and God's Word is everywhere in the Bible.

Jesus is the Word, not the Bible. The Bible contains the doctrine of God, a "word" in the Greek logos sense, but it is not the spoken utterance of God. It is the written utterance of holy men, who testify faithfully to both the Word of God (Jesus) and the word of God (theological truth).

Well, contrary to your belief, which you are intitled to, archaeology has found many things that prove the Old Testament to be actual history. It is your right to turn a blind eye to these facts.

My apologies for not making myself clear: when I say the OT doesn't do history, I am referring to the literary writing style of history, not to whether it references historical events. It definitely does. Abraham and Moses were real people, etc. I am simply insisting that we don't expect everything the Hebrews wrote to be impeccable empirical scientific history, because they were not aware of those ideals.

Then I take it your idea of true is limited in scope, thus inferring that Jesus, who is in the very nature God, is limited in His truth.

Who is limiting truth's scope? I thought this was a point of agreement between us. The parables are true even though they do not reference historical events. The same goes for the Creation Myth.

Unfortunately, some try add or subtract from the Bible so that it incorporates popular beliefs. I take it by your statement here, 'otherwordly document' that you tend to believe the Bible is not from God but rather the authors made comments on a God they believed. Well the Bible says otherwise and I believe it because I am faithful in God, Christ Jesus, that He has not allowed His Word to lead me astray. You are in error, the Bible doesn't have its origins here in earth, the Bible is from the Creator Himself, who moved the authors to write what God wanted them to write.

I am not arguing against inspiration. I am, as Karl said, differentiating inspiration and dictation. I do believe that holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write, but as C.S. Lewis held, "The total result is not ‘the Word of God’ in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history."

If you don't believe in a 6 day creation and a global flood, then you will have to add and subtract from the Bible, things the Bible says not to do. Since you seem to not give much credibility to the Old Testament, maybe Paul can instruct you. "Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Corinthians 4:6) Insisting that Genesis 2:7 is incorrect, and Genesis 7:19 are incorrect, you are in error and furthermore challenging God's Authority.

If I don't believe in a 6 day creation and a global flood, then I am merely choosing a different interpretive method than you are. I am taking nothing away any more than you are when you say that the parables aren't literal history.

God is a Spirit, thus the Bible says He is. This means that God is not bound by a physical form, thus He can be just a Spirit, or He can be a human as He did when He came to this earth as Christ, or God can be anything He chooses. Who can limit God and His power? If God wants to be a bird and shield His flock with His wings, then who are you or I to say He cannot? Are we more powerful then God? I know I am not.

Ok. This is the first time I've encountered this level of literalism. I'm speechless.

Might I suggest that you don't sit on the throne of God and judge Him on what form He can or cannot take. This would be very unwise. Job once wanted God to answer to him and when God came, Job was silent for God questioned Him. For there is none above God who can question Him and His Authority. His Authority is clearly seen in the Bible. His teachings are prevelant in the Scriptures. He didn't move the authors to write them just so we can dispute them but rather so that we can share an eternal life with Him. For the path of eternal life is told in God's Word.

Do you think I disagree with any of that? If so, you misunderstand my position.

Jesus said that if a kingdom is divided it cannot stand. If you choose to try and discredit the Bible or call it in error, then you are trying to divide the kingdom. You serve yourself no support in your actions to diminish the Bibles Authority. But mind you no man can reduce or lessen God's Authority, it can only happen in the mans own head. Perception is a very unique thing, you can perceive anything you like, but that doesn't make you right. I can perceive anything I like, but it doesn't make me right. One thing I don't have to worry about though, is God's Word is true and correct. Even so the simple can understand, hence the message is not hidden in secret language that only the intelligent can understand.

I see that you insist on equating God's authority with the Bible. I believe God has all authority and power. And didn't I already clear up where I agree with you about "the simple" understanding the intended meaning of the text? I hope you don't go so far as to remove the Bible from all exegetical analysis, or from interpretation by the preacher. I mean, who needs a pastor's sermons if the meaning of the Scriptures is only what leaps out to "the simple"?

 

[California Tim]

Now I understand that you may not interpret Genesis as saying Adam was a person, or at least not a specific person, but I do. If when we get to heaven I'm wrong and there is no first man, feel free to say nana nana boo boo and stick out your tongue at me.

I am with you Twin. Fortunately we do not need to reamain in the dark on every debatable issue until the day we enter Heaven - and this issue is one of them. Adam is a literal person or the following verses are meaningless:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:17-19)
​

So if by identifying Adam as the ONE man by whom all sin entered the world, and grace was returned by another ONE man Jesus Christ are we to assume that Christ was a figurative reference and not a historical person too?

If Adam becomes a real (Literal) man in the creation account, a lot of dancing begins when trying to reconcile the idea that the creation account was figurative, while the product of the "figurative" process was a "literal" man.

 

[versastyle]

If Adam becomes a real (Literal) man in the creation account, a lot of dancing begins when trying to reconcile the idea that the creation account was figurative, while the product of the "figurative" process was a "literal" man.

I beg to differ. Whether literal or figurative, there was a first man who sinned. Case closed.

 

[California Tim]

I beg to differ. Whether literal or figurative, there was a first man who sinned. Case closed.

Right...and his name was Adam. Literally!

 

[versastyle]

Right...and his name was Adam. Literally!

 

[1denomination]

HEHE Dont you just love these boards.