I'm not sure I belong...

[Space Cadet]

Sorry, I really don't know if this thread belongs here, or whether I belong at all.

I have been in the reformed faith since 1993—an ordained deacon, active in my church in various ministries for many years. I honestly have hit a point in my life where I am questioning everything and don't buy the whole package any more. This goes deeper than just reformed doctrine, it is about matters such as literal interpretation of bible passages, creation, homosexuality.

Now for years I accepted the Westminster Standards and deferred to the teachings and interpretations given. Now, maybe because I have been handed some difficult life circumstances I may be rebelling against God. Or I may just have had a chance to look at things again and say "this doesn't really make sense".

Obviously, these things are difficult to share with those in my family and church family. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[Space Cadet]

No takers? I would have thought some well-meaning saint would have come by to minister to me. I guess you all are too busy debating high-theological nuance.

 

[mlqurgw]

I would be more than glad to do what I can to help you but I don't have a clue where to start. What particular thing are you struggling with the most? Perhaps we can take one thing at a time and deal with each separately as they are of importance to you or bothering you the most. I will not point you to any confession but to the Scriptures.

 

[Space Cadet]

I guess I'll start with literal interpretation of events such as the flood, creation etc.

From there I guess it's a slippery slope to the whole infallibility of God's word.

 

[mlqurgw]

I guess I'll start with literal interpretation of events such as the flood, creation etc.

From there I guess it's a slippery slope to the whole infallibility of God's word.

I can only offer a few thoughts as I am no expert on creation and really am not interested in the debate. But that being said I must give you what I do know. First I will try to speak to how we approach the Bible. Now if we are to know anything true about God He must reveal it to us in some manner. That is a given of course. So then how has He revealed what He would have us to know? By His Word. I will only give you one reference though I suspect you already know of many: 2Pet. 1:16-21. Peter is speaking of the fact that we haven't followed cunningly devised fables but that he and others were eyes witnesses to the majesty of Christ the Lord. He speaks of the experience that he and two other Apostles had when they were on the mount of Transfiguration with Christ, Matt. 17:1-8, Mk. 9:2-8, Lk. 28-36. They saw and experienced some wonderful and amazing things even hearing the voice of God from Heaven. But Peter tells us in verse 19 that there is something even more sure and to be believed than what they saw and heard with their eyes and ears. It is the Scriptures. They are to be believed before anything we experience. Now if that is true, and I am trusting my everlasting soul on the fact that it is, there can be no gray area concerning the Scriptures. You either believe all of them or you don't believe any of them. As far as the Scriptures containing the Word of God it simply can't be. Either they are all the Word of God or no part of them are. If the Word of God is only contained in them but they are not all the Word then who decides which parts are and which parts aren't? As far as a literal interpretation of creation I must bow to the Scriptures. I may not completely understand how they all fit or how it might have happened other than what God has told us. Therefore I don't concern my self with all the debate but simply believe what God has said. The whole debate is nothing but a device of Satan to take the focus off of what is truly important and that is the Preaching of Christ and Him crucified. Now can we believe that such things actually happened as the creation or the flood as God has told us it did? Yes we can. That is all we really need. Either God can be trusted to tell us the truth or He can't. If He can't be trusted then we are of all men most miserable. For we have based our whole soul on a lie.

 

[heymikey80]

I guess I'll start with literal interpretation of events such as the flood, creation etc.

From there I guess it's a slippery slope to the whole infallibility of God's word.

I think you have to be really careful to distinguish between what prior and present believers hold to as far as the facts of such events, and what the Scripture actually says. There are literal views of creation for instance that don't demand specifically wooden views of it. I entered college as a cosmologist, and so my view of long-term creation is fairly well separated from a 24-hour-day creationist. It's largely why I hold to a Klinean view of Genesis. And there're other views of the creation text.

My view of Christianity as a religion is heavily informed by backgrounds in philosophy. But to say that's a cop-out is not the case. I do hold to the verbal inerrancy of Scripture. I also listen carefully to people without ad-hominem rejecting them whole-cloth because of their viewpoints on such matters. But the popular views of such texts, I just don't hold to them.

Pressing on, the simple question involves one thing: did a guy 2000 years ago die, and get up out of the tomb a few days later? If He did, that reality must be accounted. If He didn't, then the rest is just hassling over comparative falsity. Accounting that reality the way the Apostles did is very reasonable, and very well-reasoned. It's better than I can do.

And that's really all the inerrancy I can deal with. If the answers from Scripture are better than mine, then there's a serious disconnect were I to talk about my doubts in comparison with the veracity of what these guys said.

 

[Space Cadet]

Thank you both for your answers. Yes, I have been well-trained on these matters. I guess I'm just questioning the rationality of it all. It just seems that "the bible says so" is so often the answer.

 

[heymikey80]

Thank you both for your answers. Yes, I have been well-trained on these matters. I guess I'm just questioning the rationality of it all. It just seems that "the bible says so" is so often the answer.

I believe that's the additional depth you're reaching. As you grow, that answer has to expand into just how the Bible says what it says, and how what it says limits our options. It takes more thought and reconsideration what the Bible says.

It's a conventional answer to respond, "the Bible says so", because that's a "Grand Central Station" of common ground among Christians. It's a good crossroads to meet at, where we can deal with initial principles.

What the Bible means specifically by what it says, that's something we all have trouble grappling with. It doesn't mean the Bible is fallible, either. It's more likely, for instance, that I'm fallible than something that's withstood a couple thousand years of human experience with such a concept as infallibility accepted, intact. To me the real point is to be careful with what the Bible does say -- first, so that I'm not fooling myself into reflecting my own ideas mirror-like as God's. But also, to recognize that prior generations haven't dealt with certain discoveries modern ages have dealt with (again, important to realize prior generations have confronted differing accounts of Creation, the Flood, the age of the earth and the universe, etc. -- so there's still something to research). In the minor nuances that confront us today, there's a historical background to check into, how Christians confronted prior nuances. And there's an assessment to be made, about how well this did justice to the Bible's assertions; how well it dealt with the problems of the time; and how well those dealings might extend to the problems of today.

As far as I can tell, few of the issues of today are really brand new. Some of the nuances are interesting and unusual, and sound cool (I've always had a special affection for Hubble and Cepheid variable stars, for instance). But interesting and unusual discoveries, Christianity has had 2000 years of them. I go back and consider how Christianity dealt with them in the past. It's happened a lot -- and the populist view of historical Christians as ignorant bumpkins is known to be silly. So it's worth looking at.

One of the classic writers is Justin Martyr. But there're others.

Didja know Hubble's successor, Alan Sandage, became =gasp= a Christian during his work on estimating an age for the universe? There're a lot of crosscurrents in scientific thought.

 

[Space Cadet]

I believe that's the additional depth you're reaching. As you grow, that answer has to expand into just how the Bible says what it says, and how what it says limits our options. It takes more thought and reconsideration what the Bible says.

It's a conventional answer to respond, "the Bible says so", because that's a "Grand Central Station" of common ground among Christians. It's a good crossroads to meet at, where we can deal with initial principles.

What the Bible means specifically by what it says, that's something we all have trouble grappling with. It doesn't mean the Bible is fallible, either. It's more likely, for instance, that I'm fallible than something that's withstood a couple thousand years of human experience with such a concept as infallibility accepted, intact. To me the real point is to be careful with what the Bible does say -- first, so that I'm not fooling myself into reflecting my own ideas mirror-like as God's. But also, to recognize that prior generations haven't dealt with certain discoveries modern ages have dealt with (again, important to realize prior generations have confronted differing accounts of Creation, the Flood, the age of the earth and the universe, etc. -- so there's still something to research). In the minor nuances that confront us today, there's a historical background to check into, how Christians confronted prior nuances. And there's an assessment to be made, about how well this did justice to the Bible's assertions; how well it dealt with the problems of the time; and how well those dealings might extend to the problems of today.

As far as I can tell, few of the issues of today are really brand new. Some of the nuances are interesting and unusual, and sound cool (I've always had a special affection for Hubble and Cepheid variable stars, for instance). But interesting and unusual discoveries, Christianity has had 2000 years of them. I go back and consider how Christianity dealt with them in the past. It's happened a lot -- and the populist view of historical Christians as ignorant bumpkins is known to be silly. So it's worth looking at.

One of the classic writers is Justin Martyr. But there're others.

Didja know Hubble's successor, Alan Sandage, became =gasp= a Christian during his work on estimating an age for the universe? There're a lot of crosscurrents in scientific thought.

Thank you. This post was encouraging and somewhat comforting.

 

[WOMSteve]

It sounds as if your questioning is just a matter of faith. Faith, as taught by Paul, is a gift. Now, we must have some matter of faith to begin with, but, if God is truly sovereign, and his call or convicting by the Holy Spirit is irresistable, (as taught by Calvin), then the faith to believe all things even those we will never understand until we meet our Creator is given to us by Him. I believe it is okay and necessary for us who claim to be believers to examine ourselves from time to time. After all we are commanded by Paul to do just that.

I hope and pray you will find peace with this problem you're having. The Word of God is so amazing and we must adhere to its teachings if we're to be obedient. God Bless you and I pray you will get things sorted out very soon.

 

[heymikey80]

Well, generally speaking that'd be a good way to answer theologically. In Reformed thinking though, our justification can't be separated from our sanctification and communion with one another in actual fact. Though they're different concepts, one brings about the continuation of the others.

So I'd agree, there's no reason to expect that your faith, if real, will self-destruct. But there's the inexorable push of the Holy Spirit to run with spiritual concepts along with the Spirit of God, as well as communing and becoming accountable with other believers.

That push, I think is important. It does generate broadly varying reactions and responses to items of note in science. I can't say for certain that one direction of that push is unmistakably toward God, and the rest are problematic: I would tend to think all the directions have different problems, granted that "We are all wrong" (the First Point of Calvinism). But still, communion and sanctification are important, so it's actually good that someone shows both aspects of this -- a concern about his faith as it is, and a wish to ask for more information from other believers to progress his faith.

 

[hedrick]

Sorry, I've just run into this thread 6 months later. I'm curious what the outcome was for Space Cadet, if he's still looking at the thread. I ran into a similar thread in another forum, also months after the fact, and found that the poster had since become an agnostic. I hope that isn't the case here.

As I'm sure you know, there are a range of Reformed approaches. Unfortunately some folks seem to think that there's nothing between holding the line on Young Earth Creationism and becoming a Satanist, or at least a member of the PCUSA (which some people seem to think is about as bad). While for the last few decades conservative religions seem to be dominating the world, there are still a fair number of us that think you can follow Christ while taking a slightly more relaxed stand on Biblical inspiration. In short, I really believe that God revealed himself to mankind, but I think he trusted us to record and respond to that revelation. Hence in Scripture you have documents from people who didn't understand modern science, but who did understand the Holy Spirit. If you can no longer believe in a literalist version of Christianity, I certainly hope it doesn't mean you doubt that Christ is your savior.

 

[Atlantians]

Sorry, I've just run into this thread 6 months later. I'm curious what the outcome was for Space Cadet, if he's still looking at the thread. I ran into a similar thread in another forum, also months after the fact, and found that the poster had since become an agnostic. I hope that isn't the case here.

As I'm sure you know, there are a range of Reformed approaches. Unfortunately some folks seem to think that there's nothing between holding the line on Young Earth Creationism and becoming a Satanist, or at least a member of the PCUSA (which some people seem to think is about as bad). While for the last few decades conservative religions seem to be dominating the world, there are still a fair number of us that think you can follow Christ while taking a slightly more relaxed stand on Biblical inspiration. In short, I really believe that God revealed himself to mankind, but I think he trusted us to record and respond to that revelation. Hence in Scripture you have documents from people who didn't understand modern science, but who did understand the Holy Spirit. If you can no longer believe in a literalist version of Christianity, I certainly hope it doesn't mean you doubt that Christ is your savior.

But it is just God interacting with humanity. All that sin stuff was a relic of their cultural understanding of God.
Christ was opposing the religious dominions of the day!
STICK IT TO THE CAESAR MAN BRO!

Anyway, seriously: If you toss out in-errancy, you toss it all out.
No basis remains for doctrine.

 

[hedrick]

Huh? Human beings deal with uncertain evidence all the time. Science, our legal system, our relationships with our family and friends. None of these requires inerrant evidence. God spoke to the prophets. He came to us in the form of Jesus. Godly people wrote down accounts of the various events and teachings. I don't see how inerrancy adds anything to that. It moves us from the situation where we have normal human witnesses, which we have a lifetime of experience evaluating, to claimed inerrant witnesses, a claim that they don't make for themselves, I would have no idea how to establish, and is contradicted by the nature of the evidence.

I sometimes think inerrancy is a way to escape evaluating the evidence made by people who are afraid that it won't survive scrutiny. I think if we assess the Bible as we would other evidence, it comes out fine. I admit that for a while it looked like scholarship was going to dismiss everything. But my understanding is that it's now pretty clear that the "minimalists" don't have it right: David really existed, and I assume the stuff in Kings is pretty accurate. Similarly, of current NT scholarship I find N T Wright and Bauckman a lot more credible than the speculative work done earlier. I think the Bible will come out just fine if we assess it historically, as long as we don't try to make it answer questions it wasn't intended to answer.

The major issues that people associate with inerrancy aren't really about whether the Biblical authors made mistakes anyway. The term "inerrancy" is really used to cover more than errors. In practice, it includes the claim that you can read the Bible without making allowances for what the authors intended it to convey or differences in our situations.

I very much doubt that the folks who put together Genesis intended the early stories to be taken as history. I know you won't believe it, but it's pretty clear that Gen 1 and 2 are different creation stories, in different styles, with events in different order. This strongly suggests that the editor(s) knew that there were two different traditions, and decided to give us both, because each had an important point to make. If so, then they weren't thinking of them as history or science. So it's not really an issue of error. But I'm willing to use "inerrancy" to cover this, because people who believe it use the term that way. But "no errors" has been extended to mean "you can read the accounts without having to worry about what the authors intended to convey by them."

We know when the Jewish people started. There were no Jews around during the time of Adam and Eve or Noah. So it can't have been historical accounts from the Jewish people. Furthermore, they're giving us accounts that seem related to the traditions of the rest of the near east. I'm not averse to the possibility of direct revelation. I do believe that God spoke to the prophets. He certainly could have spoken to the authors of Genesis. That just seems really unlikely in this case. We know that the Jewish people tended to use stories to teach. Jesus did. The Talmud did. Earlier, the apocalyptic literature also used stories. Why is it so hard to believe that the people who put together the OT thought that for periods before they had historical records it made sense to include stories that were critical to their people's understanding of themselves and their relationship with God? That doesn't violate any understanding of how God works, and avoids requiring us to deny what we know from science.

I'm still willing to use the creation stories as a basis of doctrine, as long as you don't include in doctrine assertions that are more about the stories' literal meaning that doctrine (e.g. if your doctrine insists that there was a literal Adam and Eve). I'm Reformed, after all. I believe in Original Sin.

 

[hedrick]

Let me suggest a thought-experiment to you. Suppose that the author/editor of Genesis had received a vision from God, and knew all about the Big Bang and evolution. Would they have used that instead of the stories that they used? I don't think so. (Of course if their culture as a whole had accepted evolution, they might have taken that into account in some way.) But the purpose of the Bible isn't to teach science. The scientific accounts don't do what the traditional stories do.

I teach 7th and 8th grade Sunday School. I teach the Genesis stories, even though both the kids and I accept the usual scientific accounts.

 

[Atlantians]

Let me suggest a thought-experiment to you. Suppose that the author/editor of Genesis had received a vision from God, and knew all about the Big Bang and evolution. Would they have used that instead of the stories that they used? I don't think so. (Of course if their culture as a whole had accepted evolution, they might have taken that into account in some way.)

Why?
If God told you the truth, and you wrote some strange myth instead, you are a liar. Why should I trust anything you say about God?

But the purpose of the Bible isn't to teach science. The scientific accounts don't do what the traditional stories do.

The accounts are written as history.
That is the genre of literature.
Historical family biographies.